Bring it.

shslaxkid336
Theist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Bring it.

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:my answer

shslaxkid336 wrote:

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

 

Allah did it.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
My honest answer

I do not know, however if god did it, where did god come from? oh and you can't say he was always there because I can repeat that energy was always there and energy I can prove you cannot prove your god.

Plus if it was a supernatural cause it was, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yep, gawed is all indeed the

Yep, gawed is all indeed the answer, so please explain gawed .... you know, just the obvious stuff under our noses, like dirt, time, energy, matter, consciousness.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

It exists, we know it exists and since it can't be created we also know it must exist infinitely.  If you must answer the question "how is it that it exists" by inserting "God" as the answer, you've failed the logic puzzle. 

You should keep informed of the Hadron Collider experiments that will likely give us some perspective on your question over time, and then you wont have to make up a madlibs/fill in the blank answer like "God."

 

Quote:
Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

Unlike you, science isn't willing to bullshit you with an answer just so it has one.  Matter has most likely always existed, and you're God has no evidence, no data to back it, and most likely has never existed and never will.  That's just the science behind it. 

 

Quote:
my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

God created all things eh?  So, God created God?  How does a non existent entity create itself?  Or are you willing to answer that God has always existed?  If you are willing to answer "God has always existed" you should go back and answer your first question with the same logic... don't be a logic hypocrite... "matter has always existed."   Once you answer the question properly in regards to matter you will realize that your usage of God couldn't possibly be right.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

Since your in high school and have yet to deal with ridiculously large numbers and odds, let me help you on this one. There is roughly 1 in 10 billion chance of life in our part of the galaxy (10 billion solar systemd in our galaxy rounded down.), in the universe it is estimated to have 100 billion galaxies each having roughly (for the sake of this arguement) 10 billion solar systems. Now with what we know, we are 1 in 10 billion odds, yes it does seem very very small. However taking in consideration that information. the amount of solar systems in the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 billion multiplied by 10 billion) so if we take this in consideration there is 100 billion planets with life on it, or so you can compare it 100,000,000,000. Which considering the size of the universe it is small, since even the chances of us finding intelligent life, or life period is very small due to the massive size of the universe. Of course your mind, life needs water and carbon, but that's not necessarily true, as scientists are actually checking out other possiblities for the materials for life that may not be carbon based, after all it is a huge universe out there and who knows what type of life forms maybe out there.

But this is just showing you how incorrect your thinking is, oh and the big bang has nothing to do with life per se, yes without it happening we would not be here, but the big bang technically isn't responsible for life, all that did was release the vast amount of energy that was stored inside of the singualarity.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well...Since you've lumped

Well...

Since you've lumped the law of conservation of matter and energy under the laws of thermodynamics, you've already pwned yourself.

So, tell me, why should I bother?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:
hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

Oh man. Again?

Why does no one take the time to read through what's already there so they can avoid bringing the same old, tired, worn-out and utterly refuted argument to the table.

Do you really think your "argument" is even remotely new?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Oh this should be fun.  If

Oh this should be fun.  If Jesus is supposed to be morally perfect, and pride is a sign of moral imperfection then isn't Jesus' belief that he is perfect a sign that he is imperfect since he lacks humility?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Sapient, I forgot that

Yeah Sapient, I forgot that most important simple logic. Basically why presume a beginning or ending, which makes makes zero sense, as to say something can come from nothing or go to nothing. Religion and christians are silly nilly.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed,You have fun for me

D-cubed,

You have fun for me - I've got a rehearsal to go to.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:oh yeah

shslaxkid336 wrote:

oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

No mercy

 

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

Thats like asking why does A+3= Cake...

 

shslaxkid336 wrote:

even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

Lemme get this straight, you think that the big bang... blasted water and PROTIEN across the universe? -_- we have much work to do with you.

What Would Kharn Do?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm always doubtful when

I'm always doubtful when Christians claim to be former atheists, unless they are talking about when they were a baby (at 17 someone hardly had time to reject religion and then accept an especially irrational form of it [born-again Christianity. ] )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
  shslaxkid336 wrote:First

 

 

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

 

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Thats like asking why does A+3= Cake...

 

Kid, How can you be 17 already and still

believe you can have your A+3 and jesus too.

Sheesh.

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
geehala, eh?

latincanuck wrote:

I do not know, however if god did it, where did god come from? oh and you can't say he was always there because I can repeat that energy was always there and energy I can prove you cannot prove your god.

Plus if it was a supernatural cause it was, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

     Brahma, Vishnu  AND Shiva,  dang!!!! Y'all do come from Bramp-gladesh.  Nemaste!!!!

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
oh a correction must be done

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, or In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:latincanuck

Jeffrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

I do not know, however if god did it, where did god come from? oh and you can't say he was always there because I can repeat that energy was always there and energy I can prove you cannot prove your god.

Plus if it was a supernatural cause it was, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

     Brahma, Vishnu  AND Shiva,  dang!!!! Y'all do come from Bramp-gladesh.  Nemaste!!!!

Hey I just gotta represent Laughing out loud


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

Thats like asking why does A+3= Cake...

It's more like asking, "if 2+3=5, why do we fart?"

 

Leave it up to theist thinking to make nonsense sound good.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If under the laws of

Quote:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existence was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

 Firstly, you need to read this before continuing:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Read it? Good. Now we can move onto Cosmology. Your understanding of basic Cosmology, and its centerpiece (Big Bang) is flawed.

All the Big Bang describes is a transition event in which the mass-energy equivalence produced matter-antimatter pairs from energy, which annihilated, leaving a small excess of matter and the energy of annihilation. That is the universe. The Big Bang describes a transition event from a state of energy to one of matter. The interconversion of energy to matter produced annihilating pairs which left a small amount of matter and the energy from annihilation.

The universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from what we now believe to be a symmetrical state. Many theists misconstrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bangevents, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

To understand this, it is necessary to be familiar with the mass-energy equivalence: E=mc^2, which is more accurately stated: (Delta)E=c^2(delta)m

Now, with respect to the mass-energy equivalence, it is inaccurate to say that energy is conserved. Only mass-energy is conserved. Consider fusion. At the point where the internal gravity of a protostar is such that the kinetic energy of protons in the proton-proton cycle is enough to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons, the nuclei fuse. At this point, they lose kinetic energy, at which point they gain potential energy from the transfer, and a small amount of mass is interconverted into energy when the nuclei fuse, called the mass deficit. The opposite effect occurs when the binding energy is input into a nucleus to break it into its constituency. Part of the work is converted into mass, and at the point where the strong nuclear force is broken, the protons have zero potential energy (which means they had a negative potential after fusing. This is called a well in physics). This means the sum of the constituents per se of any nucleus will always have more mass than the nucleus, which leaves us with a more accurate restatement of Einstein's equations:

The energy required to break every bond in the nucleus=[(Mass of sum of constituents)-(Mass of nucleus)]x(c^2)

At the moment of transition, the interconversion of energy to mass spawned both matter and antimatter. As Einsten explained, there was an infintesmally larger amount of matter which, when the matter-antimatter pairs annihilated, was left, forming everything we see around us. The energy released by the annihilation is what is left today, and as explained, the sum entropy of the matter in the universe at the point where the annihilation released the energy in question would have been the lowest point in the history of the known universe.

You are hardly in a position to state that Big Bang theory is ridiculous, insofar as (a) you could not even provide a proper definition of it and (b) you are not sufficiently versed in Cosmology to be able to evaluate the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang (which we can discuss if you wish).

Now moving on to your next question. If you read the link I gave you, you should know how ordered systems can form in the universe even when entropy increases. You seem to think that planetary formation and the associated processes are random and chaotic merely because they are formed by non-intelligent processes. This is nonsense. We need to understand how stars form firstly, before planets. The following will clarify how planets and stars form, and how the processes are ordered.

A cloud of diffuse hydrogen undergoes gravitational instability, hence forming a gravity well, it begins to spin and acts like a gas jet, accumulating hydrogen. The gas cloud begins to take shape as it collapses under its own gravitational force. When the cloud has finally achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (unidirectional equivalent pressure), a protostar, the precursor of a star, forms in the centre of the cloud, and these newly born stars continually emit huge jets of gas from their core.

The main sequence of a star’s life cycle is the achievement of a high enough temperature that fusion may begin, whereby it begins to burn all of it’s hydrogen and fuse it to make helium. Our sun is currently halfway through this process. The star spends this time converting all the hydrogen to helium, and the length of time it spends doing this depends on how much hydrogen it has to burn, which depends on the Hertzsprung Russell class of the star. 

The next sequence of the star’s life is required for the generation of the elements necessary for biology, Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron. When the star has exhausted it’s ignition hydrogen it begins to expand into a Red giant, and tremendous heat and pressure is applied to the core area of the star, which allows the process of helium fusion to begin, to create heavier elements. Heavier elements still must be generated by the largest stars, which expand into Red hypergiants (Betelgeuse is a good example). The temperatures here are sufficient to fuse carbon, and continue the nucleosynthesis bridge up to iron. This is an obvious consideration. According tho this equation:

E=mc^2, there is a direct proportionality between the mass deficit of a nucleus versus its nucleon constituents at an infinite distance from each other. That is, the breaking of a nucleus releases a certain amount of energy which is interconverted to mass. The following argument will help make this clear. Consider this diagram:

Being that iron has the greatest binding energy per nucleon, the process of fission of nuclei less massive than Fe-56 will decrease the binding energy per nucleon of the products, and the fission of those much more massive than Fe-56 will increase the binding energy per nucleon.

It is the collapse of the star which generates the necessary temperature and pressure conditions necessary to distribute this material. The destroyed layers of the dying star are stripped off and recycled to make new stars and planets, while a glowing pulsar is left in its place. Think of when dying stars with iron cores undergo supernovae. The gravitational field strength (a Newtonian term which strictly does not make sense insofar as gravity is not really a "force", but is mathematically useful for communication) due to the density is sufficient to force the electrons of the core atoms into the nucleus. This makes the density so massive and releases so much energy that it easily outshines a galactic cluster.

the Goldilocks Zone henceforth referred to as GZ, can vary depending on the position of the star in question on the HR diagram. What we really want to know is, given a random sample of Solar systems, what is the probability that the system contains one planet within the GZ? This again, is a much more meaningful question to ask. It is also part of the Drake Equation. There is not enough data to answer this question meaningfully, since the only solar system about which we have assembled a complete picture is our own. On the other hand, terrestrial planets within the respective GZ have been discovered. Firstly, we should consider that in total there are approximately 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets or, 5x10^18 planets. However, given the information above about stars with the capacity, even a relatively tiny estimate would yield at least one quadrillion planets. This has also been considered within the Drake equation. The key thing to understand is that the pictures we are beginning to form of other solar systems indicates that ours is not remarkable. The HR indicates our star is of the most common type, and planetary formation is a common occurence (mostly among singular orbit stars). The formation of planets is under a process similar to that of stars. Stars, being the result of gas clouds which collapsed under a gravity well to produce a nuclear furnace. All stars begin as a diffuse cloud of hydrogen gas which starts to collapse as driven by gravity. As hydrogen accumulates, the gravity increases, and it starts to condenses faster and faster, acting like a gas jet, sucking in hydrogen, at which point it is called a protostar, a phase which lasts 100,000 years. The cloud starts to spin rapidly (this often results in binary star systems), before condensing into the core, and the star's dense core heats up so much due to the kinetic energy of stellar gas being forced into the star's core, it starts fusing hydrogen atoms together to make the next heaviest element, helium. The process of converting hydrogen to helium is called "ignition", because the star starts to burn it's hydrogen. Planets form in a very similar way, especially the gas giants. Smaller terrestrial planets will form from a different element set, since supernovae allow the completion of the nucleosynthesis chain beyond Fe-56. Terrestrial planets, being primarily made of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and iron, will condense "inside-out" from a distributed cloud of such materials, to form a protoplanet. These planets will not be randomly arranged either. Because of the stronger exertion of gravitational field strength inversely proportional to the distance from the stellar body in question, terrestrial planets will condense closer to the star in question, and the less dense gas giants will condense further away from it. The key thing to take away from this section, and as we shall see, the one below, is that the formation of solar systems is a process determined by physical laws, and there is nothing in particular remarkable about our Solar system, or our GZ. All stars have a GZ, although it is difficult to ascertain precisely what is the probability of a terrestrial planet forming within that band, although it is probably not too low given that we have discovered exoplanets within their respective GZs. As stellar spectroscopy improves, we will probably discover more terrestrial exoplanets within the GZ.

Additionally, you hinted at the improbability of life's origin. In this case, you should read this document I wrote:

 Chemical Evolution

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

Welcome to the boards..... unless you plan on just drive by evangalizing. BTW I like most here were christians. I am a former fundy southern baptist myself.

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

The new LHC in France/Switzerland will possibly help answer this question, but where, when and how was god created? This argument has been answered a million times.

shslaxkid336 wrote:

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

Which god?

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There is roughly 1 in

latincanuck wrote:

There is roughly 1 in 10 billion chance of life in our part of the galaxy

Don't make numbers up. There are not enough known parameters in the Drake equation to answer that question.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Also, I and others don't

Also, I and others don't assume the big bang, which I prefer to call the "little transition", is all the energy matter of the grander unmeasurable cosmos of possible infinite eternal bangs and transitions. Why assume? Think super duper big and small. NO, much much grander. More yet, just keep going and going and going and .....   Don't make shit up tho, and then call it truth ....  

Hey kid I'm your side, keep thinking, don't let seemingly nice fancy religious church bull mess your head up .... atheist jesus buddha warned against that .... Very often a great answer is, "I don't know, I don't pretend."

 


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

There is no god, jesus, angels, demons, satan, boogymen or any other made up character you can think of. Deal with it. It appears by the way you type, you are from the south, so, I imagine you were quite possibly strong armed or guilted into being 'born again'.

I highly suggest you do your research before spouting your bovine scatos about the laws of thermodynamics and not cherry pick certain parts of it.

I'm willing to bet you think that evolution is "just a theory", right?

17 and thinking like that....sad. At least every other word wasn't "like".


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sleestack wrote:17 and

Sleestack wrote:

17 and thinking like that....sad. At least every other word wasn't "like".

 

I still do that a lot. I'm almost 35 and talk like a 15 year old girl.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
eh rought estimation in our solar system

deludedgod wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

There is roughly 1 in 10 billion chance of life in our part of the galaxy

Don't make numbers up. There are not enough known parameters in the Drake equation to answer that question.

That's all I never said it was definitive. I said roughly, just to give an estimate of how large of a number, i mean breaking it down simply, if there is estimated to be 125 billion galaxies (as per my last check, from wikipedia to World Encyclopedia) and each galaxy contains anywhere from 10 million to 1 trillion stars, so i just made it easier for a 17 year old to understand HOW large the universe is and how much of a chance there is for similar earth like conditions. I didn't make up, i just rounded them to make it easier for him to calculate. Sheesh talk about being pissy about simplifying something for someone. Better they get a grasp than to competely lose them in the explanation.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Of course your mind,

Quote:

Of course your mind, life needs water and carbon, but that's not necessarily true, as scientists are actually checking out other possiblities for the materials for life that may not be carbon based, after all it is a huge universe out there and who knows what type of life forms maybe out there.

Careful. There is good reason to suppose that life in the universe is highly likely to be carbon based. Any biological structure with any meaningful ability to pass hereditary information from parent to progeny must be able to chemically store that information. That will necessary depend on catalytic properties of the molecules involved and will also require some form of template. There are no atoms with the same ability to form the backbones of polymers that carbon does. Human information systems use silicon, but that isn't nearly as good as carbon. It is highly likely that any life with the ability to store hereditary information will have carbon as the basis of whatever organic compounds forms them. There is no other element in the periodic table which has the necessary properties.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Completely agree with you

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Of course your mind, life needs water and carbon, but that's not necessarily true, as scientists are actually checking out other possiblities for the materials for life that may not be carbon based, after all it is a huge universe out there and who knows what type of life forms maybe out there.

Careful. There is good reason to suppose that life in the universe is highly likely to be carbon based. Any biological structure with any meaningful ability to pass hereditary information from parent to progeny must be able to chemically store that information. That will necessary depend on catalytic properties of the molecules involved and will also require some form of template. There are no atoms with the same ability to form the backbones of polymers that carbon does. Human information systems use silicon, but that isn't nearly as good as carbon. It is highly likely that any life with the ability to store hereditary information will have carbon as the basis of whatever organic compounds forms them. There is no other element in the periodic table which has the necessary properties.

On this, just taking notes from the news headlines and a few shows I have seen on discovery channel that scientists are looking at alternatives possiblities for life, that in exploring other planets, we would have to be able to discover life forms not carbon based, although even they stated that chances are slim that it won't be carbon based.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
So matter can't be created,

So matter can't be created, but god created everything ex nihlo. Anyone else spot the contradiction

Can't have it both ways kid.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist,

Really?

If you really were an atheist, I doubt that you'd change your mind to become a theist.

What do you think an atheist is?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:What do you think

aiia wrote:

What do you think an atheist is?

An amoral, satan loving, christian hating, sinner of course. What did you think it was?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


DeLgAdO
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2008-09-05
User is offlineOffline
I grew up with no religious

I grew up with no religious background.

 

our family is supposedly catholic, but if you lived with us, you wouldnt have been able to tell unless someone said something.

 

 

i am theist and i dont know how to put it under my name Laughing out loud


DeLgAdO
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2008-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:aiia wrote:What do

Loc wrote:

aiia wrote:

What do you think an atheist is?

An amoral, satan loving, christian hating, sinner of course. What did you think it was?

 

you have discerned correctly.

i am theist and i dont know how to put it under my name Laughing out loud


DeLgAdO
Theist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2008-09-05
User is offlineOffline
And if someone really were

 

aiia wrote:

shslaxkid336 wrote:

 

If you really were an atheist, I doubt that you'd change your mind to become a theist.

 

 

And if someone really were a true born again christian they wouldnt have fallen away.

i am theist and i dont know how to put it under my name Laughing out loud


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
DeLgAdO wrote:Loc wrote:aiia

DeLgAdO wrote:

Loc wrote:

aiia wrote:

What do you think an atheist is?

An amoral, satan loving, christian hating, sinner of course. What did you think it was?

 

you have discerned correctly.

You're a funny guy.

If you take your morals from the actions of the God of the Bible, you are in fact immoral. I prefer the morals of human society (you know - where morals actually came from).

Satan loving? Why? He's as mythical as God? Why love the nonexistent?

Sinner? You and I agree there is no sin but for different reasons. I don't have a God to offend and you can lump it under Paul's edict "You are under grace, not under law... And where there is no law, there is no transgression"

As for that "True Christian" crap in your other post, is a true Christian one who believes your way, damn the parts of the Bible and anything else you dislike?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Sleestack

MattShizzle wrote:

Sleestack wrote:

17 and thinking like that....sad. At least every other word wasn't "like".

 

I still do that a lot. I'm almost 35 and talk like a 15 year old girl.

Yes, but, you don't say y'all though do you? haha

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

 

Welcome. Eye-wink

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

Perhaps it always existed in one form or another. There are other alternatives.

shslaxkid336 wrote:

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

The odds of Earth having water, carbon, etc in sufficient supply to create life are greater than the odds that the Earth would NOT have these things. Beyond that, the big bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth. Why you mention them together in a single paragraph is beyond me.

shslaxkid336 wrote:
my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

What created your god? If all things needed to be created, then so did your god. So who created the god of your god of your god anyway?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:  where

shslaxkid336 wrote:

 

 where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

I say gremlins and time travel XD.
Now disprove this Laughing out loud HAHAHA Sticking out tongue .


PS: If  you understand why my model is wrong you will understand why your god is fictional.
 

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sleestack wrote:MattShizzle

Sleestack wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Sleestack wrote:

17 and thinking like that....sad. At least every other word wasn't "like".

 

I still do that a lot. I'm almost 35 and talk like a 15 year old girl.

Yes, but, you don't say y'all though do you? haha

 

No, around here the bad English plural of you is "youse" (pronounced like "use. " )

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:shslaxkid336

aiia wrote:

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist,

Really?

If you really were an atheist, I doubt that you'd change your mind to become a theist.

What do you think an atheist is?

The default lack of belief position that every human to ever live on the planet is born into.  Theists are what they become later when they choose to believe in invisible unprovable nonsense.

 

Ok, we BROUGHT IT.  Can the o.p. please respond to some of us now?  Bring it!

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:aiia

Sapient wrote:

aiia wrote:

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist,

Really?

If you really were an atheist, I doubt that you'd change your mind to become a theist.

What do you think an atheist is?

The default lack of belief position that every human to ever live on the planet is born into.  Theists are what they become later when they choose to believe in invisible unprovable nonsense.

 

Ok, we BROUGHT IT.  Can the o.p. please respond to some of us now?  Bring it!

 

Doesn't he have to know what to do with it before he brings it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

Without intending offense to you, you're only 17 you are too young to have once been an atheist in any substantial sense of the word, your previous position was most likely one of profound agnosticism; that is, you were too young to have a serious epistemology or ontology (and you kind of still are) and you're only now, it is most likely, taking any of this into serious consideration. And in that capacity, which must be still rather new to you, you have made your first step towards choosing biblical christianity.

For those reasons, I can't very well take your claim of former atheism too seriously, you are only beginning to exercise your philsophical autonomy at 17 so I will just take it that christianity is the first and only individualistic philsophical identity so far you've adopted in your life.

 

Quote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

Well first you should consider some of the details of the initial condition of the universe. The Big Bang theory describes a singularity of infinite density which is located a finite time distance from this point into the history of the universe as it's initial condition. It is the initial condition of the universe that you see around you, the few seconds following the transition event are the earliest point in time when we can with some certainty say the universe was in a state that is recognisable to the one it's in now, "prior" to that event the universe/matter iit would appear existed in a wholly different way.

Something that should aid your visualisation of how differently the universe has existed in its past is to consider that at the singularity all the universe was condensed into an effectively zero volume. It was not spread out in any way over the dimensions of space and time that we now take for granted, there was no space and time. If you were standing in space and time right in front of the big bang singularity and looking directly at it, you would see nothing at all because the singularity does not spread into those dimensions. The big bang theory describes just such a pool of potential transiting from that state into a state with space and time coordinates.

So to reasonably consider where the matter we are familiar with came from to exist you really must be first aware of what that same familiar matter can exist as. The big bang singularity is the natural and logical result of tracing the state of the universe we have observed back along the axis of time as far as it can possibly go. In doing so we have discovered that the existence of the material universe overruns the axes of time and space and continues to exist beyond their zero point. Careful observation of the universe itself has told us that matter can go where space and time cannot go, and there will be no answering to where the original matter came from without first understanding this.

Now, judging by your comments it appears your understanding of matter is quite possibly a corrupted by a naive conflation with mass. DG has pointed this out and I agree, I get the same sense of your understanding from your words. It would be good for you to understand now that mass requires volume and the big bang singularity has no volume at all, none in space and none in time. When you speak of the big bang singularity you are no longer speaking of mass, and the big bang theory basically covers the origin of mass (although it has not yet answered completely to the mechanism) which seems to be what you are looking for, without any necessary involvement from an omnipotent being.

 

Quote:

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

As I have tried to point out, this depends very much on the question. If you are questioning the origin of mass then I can point to the big bang theory transition of matter into an expanding mass. On the other hand if you are asking" where" the extreme matter at the big bang singularity came from then we'll need to consider the implications of its strange and unfamiliar nature first and foremost.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:latincanuck

Jeffrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

I do not know, however if god did it, where did god come from? oh and you can't say he was always there because I can repeat that energy was always there and energy I can prove you cannot prove your god.

Plus if it was a supernatural cause it was, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

     Brahma, Vishnu  AND Shiva,  dang!!!! Y'all do come from Bramp-gladesh.  Nemaste!!!!

well, the three are sorta necessary.  creator, maintainer, destroyer, respectively.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Doomed

Sapient wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

shslaxkid336 wrote:

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

Thats like asking why does A+3= Cake...

It's more like asking, "if 2+3=5, why do we fart?"

 

Leave it up to theist thinking to make nonsense sound good.  

that sounded good?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Also,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Also, I and others don't assume the big bang, which I prefer to call the "little transition", is all the energy matter of the grander unmeasurable cosmos of possible infinite eternal bangs and transitions. Why assume? Think super duper big and small. NO, much much grander. More yet, just keep going and going and going and .....   Don't make shit up tho, and then call it truth ....  

Hey kid I'm your side, keep thinking, don't let seemingly nice fancy religious church bull mess your head up .... atheist jesus buddha warned against that .... Very often a great answer is, "I don't know, I don't pretend."

 

a better one is "fuck off."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Without

Eloise wrote:

Without intending offense to you, you're only 17 you are too young to have once been an atheist in any substantial sense of the word, your previous position was most likely one of profound agnosticism; that is, you were too young to have a serious epistemology or ontology (and you kind of still are) and you're only now, it is most likely, taking any of this into serious consideration. And in that capacity, which must be still rather new to you, you have made your first step towards choosing biblical christianity.

For those reasons, I can't very well take your claim of former atheism too seriously, you are only beginning to exercise your philsophical autonomy at 17 so I will just take it that christianity is the first and only individualistic philsophical identity so far you've adopted in your life.

and my heart flutters...

are ALL the women who use words like "epistemology," "ontology," and "autonomy" down under?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

* Big Bang theory is a waste of time, big bang states that all matter in existance was compacted together and exploded into the still growing universe today. even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life, where did the original matter come from?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

Former atheist? Yea, we've run into those before.

My answer is that THOR created everything. Or is that Allah...no...it was Osirus.

You are an utter moron! You have allowed the mundane sentation of sense of AWE to be conflated to magic existing.

I am by no means a scientist, but I do know that when I did my science homework I never had experiments where I turned water into wine, nor was I asked to put a sample of godsperm under a microscope.

Did it ever occure to you that a WHAT, not a WHO is the ongoing process of the universe, an uncognative motion? NO, instead you do what most humans do and project human qualities onto objects.

Please tell me what master plan your god had in limiting his pets to one planet and how compassionate he is to basically put all these tribes of different religions who dont get along on one planet so they could fight over his affection?

Lets talk about odds. The odds of any given sperm impregnating an egg are millions to one. The odds of one egg being impregnated and comming to term are slim. Most attempts at life by nature FAIL!

I have no doubt that the material on this planet is abundant in the universe. Your illusion of uniquness is a result of your narrow minded utopian cheerleading for a father figure who doesn't exist.

If it stands to reason that other suns exist in the universe, billions in this galaxy alone, then the odds of other life supporting planents would as well. We just haven't found them.

The big bang does not adress magic or personal whims. It is scientificaly based data that gives us a picture of the history of the universe.

You can only empathise with humans so phycologicaly you have tricked yourself in believing that something capable of your own physical brain function must have a super brain itself.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I haven't heard the "second

I haven't heard the "second law" argument in a long time. But it certianly is amusing when I do.

Ok, lets take go by your model for a second.

"Matter cannot be created or distroyed"

Yea, true, BUT how you come to the conclusion that magic exists is absurd.

"Suprman exists because of the second law"

"Thor exists because of the second law"

"Ghostsperm exists because of the second law"

"Cyndi Crawford wants to fuck me because of the second law"

Are you sure that anything is possible because of the second law? Or are you merely letting your emotions trap you into unwittingly using that law for your own cheer leading club? You are not the first to present this bullshit, and you unfortunately wont be the last.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:even with

shslaxkid336 wrote:

even with the ridiculous odds that this singular planet ended up with water and enough carbon and protiens to begin life,

That would be ridiculous if there was only one planet in the universe. But there are most likely squillions and quadafidillions of planets, so the the odds are actually in favour of at least a few million of them having the requirements for life you described.

It's like the lottery. If only one person enters, there will most likely be no winners; in order to up the odds of someone getting the jackpot, you need more contestants.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
shslaxkid336 wrote:hey, im a

shslaxkid336 wrote:

hey, im a former atheist, now born-again chrisitian ready to debate anything ya'll throw at me.and oh yeah i'm 17 and still in high school, so don't be to tough on me.. ;] lol.

First Question to ya'll is:

If under the laws of thermodynamics matter cannot either be created or destroyed how is it that matter exists?

my answer is of course is God created all things. what's your answer?

Game, set, match?

And as for you, Laxkid, let me impart some wisdom from the former human, George Carlin.

"I don't care how rough it is or how likely you are to get hurt - if you're running around a field with a stick with a net attached to it, you are engaged in a faggoty college activity."

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
DeludedGod,Can you sum up

DeludedGod,

Can you sum up why there was more matter than antimatter in the big bang event? That's another question I never got a satisfactory answer to from my old Physics teacher... It seems terribly unbalanced.

Cheers, I look forward to your response.

 

Ian

 

regarding the OP, I'm disappointed you didn't "bring it"... it sounds like your arguments were well and truly refuted by the board members... so what's your reply / second question? I want a go...

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The answer is not fully

The answer is not fully understood. This is one of the questions that may be answered by the LHC. Wait a few months or years.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism