Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By beefpatty

Thread: I dont think non-existence is possible.

  1. #1 I dont think non-existence is possible. 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.

    Also.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place. If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic. I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.


    Thoughts?


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.

    Also.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place. If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic. I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.


    Thoughts?
    I think what you have shown here is scientific proof for creation. The mere fact that we exist is the proof. I have been using this as scientific evidence in "intelligent Design ???" thread for the past month. No one seems to get it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Because you are grasping at straws. Don't make this thread about you.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.

    Also.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place. If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic. I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.


    Thoughts?
    Thanks:::: I was begining to think I was the only person who thought this way.... I see the entire universe as being exactly this way, I used the term "grand design" though with nature "the nature of the universe" and time being the only two constants with atoms changing over time altering what we would see"meaning that the universe is in an everchanging state" Nature being the motion and the different collisions of particles creating the different things that we see or can detect....
    Man used to think that the earth was flat, and the reason for this was that he couldn't imagine any area's past his comfort zone.... I know people who are still like this even today in a sense.... And I still hold strong to the fact that the entire secret to the nature of the universe is present here on earth.... These other things which we see are due to different atomic makeups going through the different reactions which dazzles us truely.... But they follow a more basic pricipal as to how they come to exist.... I think that there are a few basic truths in the universe and the rest are just tangents which flow away from those....

    Loved reading your post !!!!
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.
    This is an assumption. You seem to think that existence can't end - on a personal level this is demonstrably false - there will be a time when you - your personality - no longer exists.
    Likewise there was a time when you didn't exist.
    Also there is at least one scientific hypothesis on how something can arise nothing, see work by Stenger for example.

    A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.
    So essentially you're engaging in argument from incredulity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.

    Also.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place. If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic. I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.


    Thoughts?
    What's unlikely about it?

    Seems a reasonable assumption to me that something might come into existence and then die away...

    Look at your own awareness for example. Without that awareness the thing you perceive as existence would not exist. And your awareness has come to exist and will cease.

    -edit-

    Dywyddyr, why do we keep saying the same thing as each other?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.

    Also.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place. If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic. I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.


    Thoughts?

    So what do reason for the cyclic endgame and rebirth of the universe , eventual total stagnation, or the big crunch?

    If it eventually stagnates then there will need to be a mechanism to put the fizz back in the bottle [so to speak].

    Paul.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I think what you have shown here is scientific proof for creation.
    Nonsense: it's a list of assumptions and conclusions drawn therefrom.

    The mere fact that we exist is the proof.
    Depending on what you mean by "creation", it's either stunningly obvious or completely incorrect. Given that you mention ID in the next sentence then I'll go for "completely incorrect".

    I have been using this as scientific evidence in "intelligent Design ???" thread for the past month. No one seems to get it.
    One, very simple, reason is that it's not "scientific evidence" for ID at all, any more than it's "scientific evidence" that the Magic Duck did it last Tuesday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist.
    Isn't this a variation of the anthropic principle? If there were a possibility then it means that it is not definite and thus not impossible for us to exist.

    But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.
    Not necessarily, if we exist then we cannot 'un-exist' and if there were a probability we could both exist and non-exist then it would perhaps be given how our universe DOES work, be a product of superposition, a kind of cosmic Schrodinger's cat.

    If the universe wasnt cyclic and eternal, it would never have come into existence in the first place.
    Wouldn't this statement mean that if there is eternity it would not have had a beginning? This statement contradicts the big bang, or what we know of it.


    If the events to trigger existence wasnt robust enough to be inevitable and eternal. A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.
    So the likeliness of a universe's existence is dependent on whether or not that universe becomes eternal? I'm not sure we can apply that philosophy to what we understand scientifically. Philosophically speaking as well if a universe can only come into existence if it becomes eternal then that would mean our universe would have to be eternal, it seemed to have a beginning so that is an inclination to your statement being incorrect. It seems you are twisting philosophic arguments to support the notion of eternity.

    As I see it, the universe has to be eternal - and cyclic.
    Aha, that confirms my deduction above.

    I say our existence is proof enough that existence is infinite.
    It is by your reasoning but your reasoning may be wrong, science suggests we had a beginning of the universe in some senses so it seems that some evidence suggests that eternity is not probable, but we will need more evidence to suggest the contrary. Some theories also offer this too.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist.
    This is an assumption. You seem to think that existence can't end - on a personal level this is demonstrably false - there will be a time when you - your personality - no longer exists.
    Likewise there was a time when you didn't exist.
    Also there is at least one scientific hypothesis on how something can arise nothing, see work by Stenger for example.

    A single universe comming into existence then ending is ridicolously unlikely imo.
    So essentially you're engaging in argument from incredulity.
    Technically going no further than matter, he has existed since the creation of the universe. Though if you are referring to him, as in his human entity, then yes he once did not exist. Every single basis of scientific advancements also came from assumptions, rendering your first point useless. Is Stenger's hypothesis not also an assumption?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Technically going no further than matter, he has existed since the creation of the universe. Though if you are referring to him, as in his human entity, then yes he once did not exist.
    You did note that I stated personality? Oh, maybe not...

    Every single basis of scientific advancements also came from assumptions
    Er no they didn't. They stemmed from observation - actually multiple observations, not unsupported assumption.

    Is Stenger's hypothesis not also an assumption?
    Apparently you don't know what hypothesis means. Stenger has the maths, and physics, behind him (which is not claim that all physicists agree) - what the OP has is hand-waving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Technically going no further than matter, he has existed since the creation of the universe. Though if you are referring to him, as in his human entity, then yes he once did not exist.
    You did note that I stated personality? Oh, maybe not...

    Every single basis of scientific advancements also came from assumptions
    Er no they didn't. They stemmed from observation - actually multiple observations, not unsupported assumption.

    Is Stenger's hypothesis not also an assumption?
    Apparently you don't know what hypothesis means. Stenger has the maths, and physics, behind him (which is not claim that all physicists agree) - what the OP has is hand-waving.
    The incredibly miniscule odds of the random formation of the universe and the evolution of life, makes the belief in a deity not fall into the category of unsupported assumption. Is not pondering these odds also an observation? If all physicists do not agree, that means there is no complete concrete evidence supporting Stenger's assumption, therefore it is simply another hypothesis. You did state personality, though I clearly wasn't referring to your reference of it. I rejected your proposition that he did not exist at one point, which you did not say you were exclusively mentioning the conscious manifestation he presently lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    The incredibly miniscule odds of the random formation of the universe and the evolution of life
    Incredibly minuscule? Depends on what you mean by minuscule, i.e. which particular calculations you're using.

    Is not pondering these odds also an observation?
    Huh? He didn't provide ANY odds nor calculations - simply made blanket statements. (Which, in the end, were admitted to be based on incredulity).

    If all physicists do not agree, that means there is no complete concrete evidence supporting Stenger's assumption, therefore it is simply another hypothesis.
    I did say hypothesis. Whether it's agreed on or not it has more than hand-waving and incredulity behind it.

    You did state personality, though I clearly wasn't referring to your reference of it. I rejected your proposition that he did not exist at one point, which you did not say you were exclusively mentioning the conscious manifestation he presently lives.
    Except that I did - by specifying personality: re-read it "there will be a time when you - your personality - no longer exists".
    Regardless, even if I had left it at simple matter does the fact that this matter would be spread all over the universe, or even relatively close together in a star, mean he existed? Considering the number of things that could happen , whether cosmological, biological, incidental he "existed" only in potentia - half a second here or there in the circumstances leading up to his birth, or in his life could have led to a completely different person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    The incredibly miniscule odds of the random formation of the universe and the evolution of life
    Incredibly minuscule? Depends on what you mean by minuscule, i.e. which particular calculations you're using.

    Is not pondering these odds also an observation?
    Huh? He didn't provide ANY odds nor calculations - simply made blanket statements. (Which, in the end, were admitted to be based on incredulity).

    If all physicists do not agree, that means there is no complete concrete evidence supporting Stenger's assumption, therefore it is simply another hypothesis.
    I did say hypothesis. Whether it's agreed on or not it has more than hand-waving and incredulity behind it.

    You did state personality, though I clearly wasn't referring to your reference of it. I rejected your proposition that he did not exist at one point, which you did not say you were exclusively mentioning the conscious manifestation he presently lives.
    Except that I did - by specifying personality: re-read it "there will be a time when you - your personality - no longer exists".
    Regardless, even if I had left it at simple matter does the fact that this matter would be spread all over the universe, or even relatively close together in a star, mean he existed? Considering the number of things that could happen , whether cosmological, biological, incidental he "existed" only in potentia - half a second here or there in the circumstances leading up to his birth, or in his life could have led to a completely different person.
    I say it again, I wasn't referencing your statement of him not existing in terms of his personality, but your statement that he never existed. Though he did not reference it, the Drake equation does provide the odds you mention, though it certainly is a bit of a subjective equation. Simply because he didn't provide calculations does not mean he has never considered them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I say it again, I wasn't referencing your statement of him not existing in terms of his personality
    Yet you stated "Though if you are referring to him, as in his human entity, then yes he once did not exist." Post #10. In other words you were agreeing with exactly what I stated.

    but your statement that he never existed.
    A statement which I didn't actually make, except with the (stated) qualifier of existence as a human, note the use of the word "likewise" in my sentence - a clear reference to the previous comment.

    Though he did not reference it, the Drake equation does provide the odds you mention
    Um no. The Drake equation was created to "estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."
    And any "odds" arrive from inputting assumptions.

    Simply because he didn't provide calculations does not mean he has never considered them.
    If you actually take a look at his "logic" it appears that no numbers or calculations were involved - the OP is based, entirely, on assumed non-numerical assumptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    The incredibly miniscule odds of the random formation of the universe
    How did you calculate the odds of this? How do you know it was random?

    and the evolution of life
    As this is quite obviously NOT a random process, where do "odds" come into it?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I say it again, I wasn't referencing your statement of him not existing in terms of his personality
    Yet you stated "Though if you are referring to him, as in his human entity, then yes he once did not exist." Post #10. In other words you were agreeing with exactly what I stated.

    but your statement that he never existed.
    A statement which I didn't actually make, except with the (stated) qualifier of existence as a human, note the use of the word "likewise" in my sentence - a clear reference to the previous comment.

    Though he did not reference it, the Drake equation does provide the odds you mention
    Um no. The Drake equation was created to "estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."
    And any "odds" arrive from inputting assumptions.

    Simply because he didn't provide calculations does not mean he has never considered them.
    If you actually take a look at his "logic" it appears that no numbers or calculations were involved - the OP is based, entirely, on assumed non-numerical assumptions.
    You stated there was a time that he didn't exist, by simply using the word "likewise" all you did was show that both sentences pertained to each other. Does not the number of sentient species concern the odds of sentient life forming on Earth? You're assuming that the OP was based entirely on non-numerical assumptions, though unless he has never been exposed to any numerical calculations concerning the universe, this is incorrect. I did agree with what you said about the conscious entity of himself not existing at some point in time, followed by my clearly shown disagreement with your statement that he didn't exist prior to his conscious life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    The incredibly miniscule odds of the random formation of the universe
    How did you calculate the odds of this? How do you know it was random?

    and the evolution of life
    As this is quite obviously NOT a random process, where do "odds" come into it?
    Random assuming no intelligence was involved in its creation. I didn't state evolution was random, however human beings are the only known species on Earth that are capable of grasping divine existence as it pertains to science, therefore, take the total number of species that ever existed on earth, and the odds of life evolving into human beings is one in that number.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    You stated there was a time that he didn't exist, by simply using the word "likewise" all you did was show that both sentences pertained to each other.
    "Likewise" - adverb1 in the same way, i.e. as a personality (in this case).

    Does not the number of sentient species concern the odds of sentient life forming on Earth?
    Vaguely, but like I said: any input to the Drake Equation is an assumption. And a single-figure-per-variable one at that.

    You're assuming that the OP was based entirely on non-numerical assumptions, though unless he has never been exposed to any numerical calculations concerning the universe, this is incorrect.
    Yet, given his actual argument, there is no room for for calculation. Take another look at his first senetence - "If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist."
    Where can fit any numbers in there? What room for "calculation" is there? (Except, maybe, whether or not the universe is cyclic). He's gone from the basic assumption to an unfounded conclusion. And, you should note, my arguments have been against his conclusions.

    followed by my clearly shown disagreement with your statement that he didn't exist prior to his conscious life.
    Except that you didn't (I realise now) understand what I'd actually written.
    And if he didn't have any consciousness or body how much can he said to "exist" anyway? Does any paticular atom constitute the existence of what it eventually gets incorporated into? Can I claim that, in my back garden, there are components for a faster-than-light starship drive because one day someone will mine that area and fabricate the extracted minerals into those components?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    You stated there was a time that he didn't exist, by simply using the word "likewise" all you did was show that both sentences pertained to each other.
    "Likewise" - adverb1 in the same way, i.e. as a personality (in this case).

    Does not the number of sentient species concern the odds of sentient life forming on Earth?
    Vaguely, but like I said: any input to the Drake Equation is an assumption. And a single-figure-per-variable one at that.

    You're assuming that the OP was based entirely on non-numerical assumptions, though unless he has never been exposed to any numerical calculations concerning the universe, this is incorrect.
    Yet, given his actual argument, there is no room for for calculation. Take another look at his first senetence - "If the universe is cyclic, that means that if the possible event of the universe reaching a state of non-existing - was possible, we wouldnt exist. But we exist, therefore no event can end it - because if it could - it wouldve happened before we came to exist."
    Where can fit any numbers in there? What room for "calculation" is there? (Except, maybe, whether or not the universe is cyclic). He's gone from the basic assumption to an unfounded conclusion. And, you should note, my arguments have been against his conclusions.

    followed by my clearly shown disagreement with your statement that he didn't exist prior to his conscious life.
    Except that you didn't (I realise now) understand what I'd actually written.
    And if he didn't have any consciousness or body how much can he said to "exist" anyway? Does any paticular atom constitute the existence of what it eventually gets incorporated into? Can I claim that, in my back garden, there are components for a faster-than-light starship drive because one day someone will mine that area and fabricate the extracted minerals into those components?
    My apologies for misconstruing your statements on conscious life, my knowledge of grammar is quite infinitesimal. I also strongly disagree with the OP, but also hold inconsequential disagreements to your posts about it. Depending on the perception, you may/ may not have the components for a future starship drive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    My apologies for misconstruing your statements on conscious life
    No apologies required. I didn't realise that you'd misunderstood until very late in the proceedings.

    Depending on the perception, you may/ may not have the components for a future starship drive.
    Yup, another one that comes down to nit-picking definitions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Random assuming no intelligence was involved in its creation.
    Evolution is not random and no intelligence was involved. As far as we know, no intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe. But, again, how did you calculate the odds of the formation of the universe? And on what basis do you say this is "miniscule" [sic]?

    I didn't state evolution was random, however human beings are the only known species on Earth that are capable of grasping divine existence as it pertains to science
    In what way does "divine existence" pertain to science? And how do you know that humans are the only species capable of grasping this?

    therefore, take the total number of species that ever existed on earth, and the odds of life evolving into human beings is one in that number.
    Hogwash.

    What point are you trying to make with these random baseless assertions?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    take the total number of species that ever existed on earth, and the odds of life evolving into human beings is one in that number.
    Hmm, conversely, the probability that one of the species of creature that ever existed will, at some point, turn into human beings is 100%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I think what you have shown here is scientific proof for creation.
    Nonsense: it's a list of assumptions and conclusions drawn therefrom.

    The mere fact that we exist is the proof.
    Depending on what you mean by "creation", it's either stunningly obvious or completely incorrect. Given that you mention ID in the next sentence then I'll go for "completely incorrect".

    I have been using this as scientific evidence in "intelligent Design ???" thread for the past month. No one seems to get it.
    One, very simple, reason is that it's not "scientific evidence" for ID at all, any more than it's "scientific evidence" that the Magic Duck did it last Tuesday.
    Dywyddyr, I have to admit, its been a while I've come back to the science forum and I apologize that I've missed a lot of the conversation but how do you draw scientific proof in your laboratory? I think what you are looking for here are magical answers with definitions for each word stated. Semantics play an important part of this discussion and it is obviously not going to get any easier trying to explain myself. Yes, the probability is that you are all correct including myself since the universe is infinite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I think what you have shown here is scientific proof for creation. The mere fact that we exist is the proof. I have been using this as scientific evidence in "intelligent Design ???" thread for the past month. No one seems to get it.
    This is not scientific proof; It is conjecture. The only scientific proof comes from experiments.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Dywyddyr, I have to admit, its been a while I've come back to the science forum and I apologize that I've missed a lot of the conversation but how do you draw scientific proof in your laboratory?
    We don't: "proof" isn't a scientific concept.

    I think what you are looking for here are magical answers with definitions for each word stated.
    Then I think that you've missed what was written.

    Yes, the probability is that you are all correct including myself since the universe is infinite.
    Huh?
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 27th, 2013 at 08:09 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. why we dont perceive depth like a 3d movie?
    By luxtpm in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 08:41 PM
  3. Dont miss this Documentary
    By mkafil in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2008, 09:40 AM
  4. Dont reply!
    By GhostofMaxwell in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 14th, 2007, 03:35 AM
  5. I dont understand something about .........
    By slippy88 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •