Re: Worldview Survey

[rlrose328]

Most adapted and thus, a species that has differing characteristics.  The human species is the same.  Look at the shape of the eye and face.  I can expand later, after I finish working and such.  And the Darwin thing, too.

Continued from above...

People in different climates developed far differing facial features based on where their clan happened to live.  For example, when natives cross the Bering Strait into Asia, there was much more sand than they were used to... in time, their genes evolved to create narrower eyes to protect them from the sand.  The natives in the northern regions have flatter noses in order to keep the air they breathe warmer in their nostrils before entering the lungs.  This is evolution.

The interesting thing is... this doesn't preclude a creator at all.  Once the people were ON the earth, they moved around on the land and their genes had to adapt to protect them from the differing climates and conditions.  That's evolution.  And it has nothing to do with creation or HOW we got here, just what happened as time passed and people moved.  My mother, who graduated Magna Cum Laude from a major California university but is a very ardent Christian, believes this to be true.  God created it but she acknowledges there is far too much evidence for evolution to discount it as scientific hokum.

As for your supposed quote from Darwin ("Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...), I'm looking for that and can't find it.  Do you have a link to it so I can research it?  Thanks.

EDITED TO ADD:
If you're talking about transitional fossils... there are plenty to be found.  Please do unbiased research here:
Live Science - Fossils Reveal Truth about Darwin's Theory

There is plenty of information on this site to satisfy your curiosity.

[SSY]

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

Where did the creator come from? It would explain everything except where he came from, why he created anything, his attributes, his identity, his motivations etc etc etc

Let's assume god exists, what created him? Nothing?

That "god always existed " rubbish does not fly with me as its not an explanation, its a guess, and a lousy one at that.

Edit; Sigh, should have read Hitsumei's post first, redundant.

[Hitsumei]

2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Thank you... I know my understanding isn't complete.  I appreciate your pointing me to further info.  

(I did say that energy is not something physical... that's basically what I meant.  I could have worded it better though.)

Energy is not a thing at all, physical or otherwise. It is a description of the ability of physical things to do work, or cause change. It is true that something coming from nothing in physics is not outlandish, and definitely not considered impossible, but the reason for this is because there can be negative matter and energy, and it just so happens that if you add up the total amount of positive and negative matter and energy in the universe, you get zero.

It could be said that the universe is a whole lot of organized and chaotic nothing.

What you suggest about the universe having been created from nothing by converting energy into matter is faulty however, as the conservation of matter and energy means that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is static, and does not change over time. What is described in your quote is photonic energy being used by to destruction of particles to form new particles. This is however an example of material changing form, and not being fabricated from scratch, the material that is used were in existence at the time, and are merely being converted from one form to another, and not actually being created from nothing.

[SSY]

Disagree, energy is physical quantity. Things can have energy, a certain, measurable amount of it in fact. It is just as real as mass, or charge or angular momentum.

Definatley no negative energy, you can't make energy from nothing ( mass energy excluded of course ), you can get a kind of negative mass, but when converted into mass energy, it is really just the same thing, it behaves in the same way as normal mass except for anhilation reactions ( ie, same gravitational field, inertia etc ).

When you refer to things coming of nothing, you really are talking of virtual things, which are are a whole other kettle of fish.

That bit about adding up all the energy and matter and getting zero is completley foreign to me, source?

[Hitsumei]

Disagree, energy is physical quantity. Things can have energy, a certain, measurable amount of it in fact. It is just as real as mass, or charge or angular momentum.

Clearly you misread me, I never said that energy does not exist, or isn't quantifiable.

When you refer to things coming of nothing, you really are talking of virtual things, which are are a whole other kettle of fish.

No, I'm not.

That bit about adding up all the energy and matter and getting zero is completley foreign to me, source?

Don't read Krauss? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ysics-math

Who do you like?

[SSY]

That articles is not exactly correct in my estimations.

Calling energy negative and positive is the context of the universes expansions is just that, context. Kinetic and potential energy are the same thing, expressed different ways. They merely act on the universe in different ways. A more correct statement of the situation would be "The total amount of kinetic energy of the expanding componants of the universe is equal to the gravitational potential energy derived from these masses at infinte distance"

The article also assume a flat universe, where as the latest evidence seems instead to suggest an open one. It also disregards a cosmological constant, which is looking more and more likley.

I like who ever I am told to like by the person setting my exams.

Also, the only reactions I know of that produce something from nothing are virtual, which ones were you referring to?

[Hitsumei]

That articles is not exactly correct in my estimations.

Calling energy negative and positive is the context of the universes expansions is just that, context. Kinetic and potential energy are the same thing, expressed different ways. They merely act on the universe in different ways. A more correct statement of the situation would be "The total amount of kinetic energy of the expanding componants of the universe is equal to the gravitational potential energy derived from these masses at infinte distance"

The article also assume a flat universe, where as the latest evidence seems instead to suggest an open one. It also disregards a cosmological constant, which is looking more and more likley.

I like who ever I am told to like by the person setting my exams.

Also, the only reactions I know of that produce something from nothing are virtual, which ones were you referring to?

You miss the point. I did not say that this was the case, and if you see me address the question "where did the universe come from" directly on the thread "question for atheists" or whatever its name is you'll see that I did not give this as an answer, but said "no clue".

I said that it was not physically impossible for something to come from nothing as is often stated, and not disputed. Whether the theoretical construct turns out to be correct or not is not really important to the point.

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss physics really, and I'm not a physicist, and it sounds like you are one in training, so I am not exactly apt to discuss it with you anyway. I will just be regurgitating things I've read, and if you disagree with their sources, it would require that I have some training in the field to really judge whether you know what you're talking about or not. Physics is not an easy subject.

[rlrose328]

Hitsumei... thanks for all of the extra information.  My explanation is a very simplified version of what you're talking about, I think.  In layman's terms, if you will.  I'm not smart enough to get into that depth of science, quite frankly, and I should know better than to try to speak scientifically here because I'll almost always be wrong somehow.   :hmm:

Can someone break off this discussion into a new post, please... we've strayed very far from the original survey post.  Thanks!  

[Nulono]

I am a Christian and I go to a  Christian university and I am conducting some research for my Apologetics class examining various worldviews. I was hoping to hear the answers to these questions from as many non-theists as possible. I posted this about a month and a half ago but I would like more responses if possible. If you would be willing to answer them, I would greatly appreciate it. Your name or anything like that will never be used for anything. Thanks.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

1: Yes. A triangle has three sides. Rape is immoral. 9 > 2. I think, therefore I am.
2: Wrong? What do you mean "wrong"? Incorrect? Yes. Immoral? No, only actions, not beliefs, can be immoral.
3: No, because they can affect others.
4: You can't really say overall. Some parts get better, some get worse, some stay the same.
5: Who's life? Everyone makes their own purpose.
6: Typically, they go somewhere underground in a box. Or so I hear.

[Ihateyoumike]

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, not when you are correct and doing so from a non-hypocritical position.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12)