This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Mrlucky77 wrote on 2011-02-04 03:21
-
abc33kr wrote on 2011-02-04 03:23
Quote from Chillax;319585:
How do you know how much time has elapsed in the great scheme of things? How do you know the chance didn't occur, just like a family with six boys in a row?
The point is no one knows. That is why no one should have the right to determine if evolution is right or intelligent design is right. None have sufficient information as of now.
do notice that my last post was to elaborate a bit on sparta's post since he was basically being bashed on this thread. I could support the other side if someone else's opinion was being ignored due to bashing.
-
Crimmy wrote on 2011-02-04 03:25
Quote from Andy-Buddy;319584:
You could even say that cells lived because they had to. The ones that did not purposely attempt to live died, so the purpose of living became something that chance had forced.
Very much agreed. I can take it even one step further in that none of us here chose to exist. It was by mere chance that we were one of or
the one, against thousands of odds, to penetrate and develop successfully in our mother's womb. Saying that the mere existence of a cell is impossible because of chances is almost like denying your own conception, imo.
-
Chillax wrote on 2011-02-04 03:26
Quote from abc33kr;319592:
The point is no one knows. That is why no one should have the right to determine if evolution is right or intelligent design is right. None have sufficient information as of now.
do notice that my last post was to elaborate a bit on sparta's post since he was basically being bashed on this thread. I could support the other side if someone else's opinion was being ignored due to bashing.
Spartaaa obviously champions intelligent design, which, by your explanation, is just as wrong, and this thread is effectively pointless.
-
abc33kr wrote on 2011-02-04 03:29
Quote from Chillax;319601:
Spartaaa obviously champions intelligent design, which, by your explanation, is just as wrong, and this thread is effectively pointless.
All threads with discussions are not pointless. The whole point of a forum is to discuss not to determine an answer to the universe. That's what NASA/list an institution name here is getting paid for.
-
Chillax wrote on 2011-02-04 03:38
Quote from abc33kr;319607:
All threads with discussions are not pointless.
I said that when?
The whole point of a forum is not to determine an answer to the universe.
It sure seems like the way this thread is going.
-
abc33kr wrote on 2011-02-04 03:49
Quote from Chillax;319623:
It sure seems like the way this thread is going.
Then time to hijack this thread to a discussion. O:<
-
gentrone wrote on 2011-02-04 06:35
/steps in
The laws of the universe are the result of an equation. Gravity, etc. exist as a result of the way everything is.
*gasp*
If planets were made of 'erg' we would have different physical laws and Newton would have discovered a completely different 'constant'. They are constants because they are the same regardless of the context due to their inherit 'perfection' (the result of an equation is perfect because it satisfies the ALL possible values of 'x').
-
Mama wrote on 2011-02-04 08:10
Quote from Whyrainfalls;319419:
I don't think you two are really seeing the point. Sparta's asking why do amino acids bond together? Why did it just happen to be?
And the answer to those questions is the goal of science.
you cant expect existential questions to be explained neatly by science, because not everything is tangible and provable at an acceptably scientific level
the so called collapsing of probabilities, thats all it is
you can search for the origin of mother nature and you will never find the answer. Trying to answer with science is like calling the finger that points to the moon the moon
/cliche
wait did that metaphor make any sense? eh nevermind, you get the point.
edit: bah explain=/= expect
-
gentrone wrote on 2011-02-04 09:21
Quote from Mama;319860:
you cant explain existential questions to be explained neatly by science, because not everything is tangible and provable at an acceptably scientific level
the so called collapsing of probabilities, thats all it is
you can search for the origin of mother nature and you will never find the answer. Trying to answer with science is like calling the finger that points to the moon the moon
/cliche
wait did that metaphor make any sense? eh nevermind, you get the point.
Thus, he concluded that "Is" could not have "come into being" because "nothing comes from nothing". Existence is necessarily eternal. That which truly is [x], has always been [x], and was never becoming [x]; that which is becoming [x] was never nothing (Not-[x]), but will never actually be. Parmenides was not struggling to formulate the conservation of mass-energy; he was struggling with the metaphysics of change, which is still a relevant philosophical topic today.
"[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous... Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together, but all is full of what is. (B 8.5-6, 8.22-24)"
Parmenides of Elea. I would expand this post but I'm sleepy, although it explains better what I said earlier.
-
Magenera wrote on 2011-02-04 10:16
The concept of trying to under stand the origin of nature, is the same as trying to say god/goddes/ higher being has a gender and is a humanoid creature in a different plane of existents. No one knows. You make use what you have and go with it, till proven wrong. Hell nature it self had made it clear, no one will ever be able to understand it,because it still manages to throw a screw ball at yea.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2011-02-04 17:56
There is a scientific explanation for all things, but we don't have an explanation for how the science itself came to be.
I mean, you're right. Who made all the rules of the universe? We know the rules, we know how things were made, but we don't really know where the rules came from.
There could be a God figure responsible, but if that is the case, he's quite a douche bag. I don't like this world as it is.
If I was God I would rework existence from scratch, starting with revision of the laws of physics.
-
Magenera wrote on 2011-02-04 18:42
If was a higher being of existence that could create a universe. I would make it and then make another,and another, while letting it continue on it on rules, because that just to much work to do. To put it bluntly, we only know the rules in our own universe, and that just a slim understanding. Would we be able to understand all of the rules. Highly doubt it. We know only what we see, and some one can still come out and say you are wrong. The origin of nature is just the creation of the universe. That which is made from some unknown event, that started us. For all we know, we could just be part of a system that been happening forever. Think about it. A universe could be part of a larger construct that is also part of a larger construct and it goes on forever. It could be that this is just it.
Also the meaning of life for all things is exist and to die. Our universe as far as we know will die, such as the planet and all of life. That is the only meaning in a nut shell. Might as well enjoy the journey as we reach the end. Though this is nothing more than an oversimplification of life. Who knows what happen when we reach the finish line. One might say that the end is where the answer lies to the origin of nature. Again nothing more than an idiot observation.
-
Mama wrote on 2011-02-04 19:41
we don't even understand how our brains work most of the time. How could we possibly understand something like the origin?
if it were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.
-
Magenera wrote on 2011-02-04 20:57
Quote from Mama;320167:
we don't even understand how our brains work most of the time. How could we possibly understand something like the origin?
if it were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.
You speak the truth. We don't even know our own planet as much as we know space. Which is quite hilarious, when one thinks about it.