/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4208802

trololo

0/10

1) Is the OP a fag?
Precondition to question 1: The answer is yes.

>1) How did computers came into existence?

>>4208802

>implying binary isn't a natural phenomenon

The first computer was made out of wood and didn't use electricity at all. You can't explain that.

>>4208802

>You cannot use human influence to explain computers

A direct contradiction to something we know is true.

no scientific theory has ever explained the origin of life through natural causes, you cannot explain computer through natural causes. Both need an external force.
Computers - man
Life - God

>>4208892
>no scientific theory has ever explained the origin of life through natural causes

>We don't know how it happened, so a wizard did it.

Awesome logic bro.

>>4208892
What in the fucking fuck am I reading?

IF WE CAME FROM MONKEYS HOW COME THERS STILL MOKEYS

>>4208802

Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.

>this thread

>>4208898
>>4208915
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scie
ntists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This ENTIRE thread...

>>4208968
"Miller–Urey experiment"..... that's where I stopped reading.
but nice try though.

>>4208802

Well let's see

Computer came from Mars. You see when a computer is born he is immediately stranded on the middle of fucking nowhere.
When they first thought about building a building in order to you know stop inhabiting the mortal region of the west and then that's how we got monkey. Monkey descend from man. Man come from monkey. Tree is where from monkey come/ Nigger is a monkey. Therefore A computer is nigger

>>4208993
that makes more sense than the evolution theory.
Thanks for your input!

>>4208985

>implying that experiment didn't produce over twenty amino acids from inorganic compounds

>implying that futhur experiments by Sydney Fox didn't create protobionts, DNA-less replicating protienoids, which could be proto-cells

>implying it wasn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created life anyways.

>implying implications.

>>4208998

I hope someday everyone will recognize God's design

>>4208999
>implying that experiment didn't produce over twenty amino acids from inorganic compounds
1) The amino acids created where manufactured in an environment which proved to be hazardous and poisonous to any kind of life. So the experiment disproves itself.

2) The amino acids created where not the building blocks necessary for life, but random ones.

>implying that futhur experiments by Sydney Fox didn't create protobionts, DNA-less replicating protienoids, which could be proto-cells
Could be, should be, would be...no prove or anything.

rest of your arguments is a straw man, no need to go into it.

>>4209013

"God Created life by breathing into mud and talking. I know this because a book told me, and it doesn't seem ridiculous because I was brought up with it"

"But that's silly, I could just as easily say that the world was created by a giant ball of ambulatory spaghetti, beginning with a tree, a mountain, and a midget, and it would be exactly as bizarre and out there as your 'God' explanation, but you would also agree that it is crazy because you haven't acclimatized to it. It's an Argumentum ad Absurdum."

"That's a Strawman!"

"..."

"I'm going to go eat lunch."

>>4209080
The bible is more than the creation week.
And the creation week is not bizarre, it becomes bizarre when you talk about a frog turning into a prince if you throw in millions and millions of years (evolution).

Evolution theory is all about speculation, wishing, hoping, theorizing, everlastingly argueing, groping in the dark etc.

While the Creation is crystal clear and to the point without the need of random chance and pure luck theories.

Attacking one's argument means nothing except that you don't have a point of your own.

Debate is for faggots.

captcha: some cultswe

>>4209108
Evolution: Proven fact and seen thousands of times over
Evolutionary Theory of Natural Selection: A logical theory that brings gives our history and natural found phenomena sense.

The Bible: Stories written by farmers around 2,000 years ago, with the 12 apostles stories not adding together properly making little to no sense overall.
It's called Faith because there is no evidence to rely on.

1) Humans built computers. Your argument is invalid.
2) We don't know if there is a god, so you cannot use anything unproven in a statement that you want a true answer from.

>>4209131
If you don't rely on God, then where do you get your sense of good and bad from?

Communists didn't rely on God and started to act kinda crazy and killing 60 million people. They created their own good and bad based on human values instead of Gods values.

>>4209145

Because God's "kill all the heathens" values were so much more morally superior during the Crusades. Especially that one where they sent Children. That was fun.

At any rate, you can create a set of morals without using God as the end-all be all morals just because relative and arguable. And different between cultures.

Almost as if we aren't all clones and are actually unique individuals with differing opinions.

Fancy that.

I find your lack of faith disturbing....

>>4209145

"Communists" were following the lovely example set by Catholic crusaders, Christian nazis, Muslim pillagers and countless "pagan" sacrifice rituals.

To say Stalin would have been any different if he was leading a religious "communist" country is strictly ignorant.

Moreover, all of the arguments in this thread (theist, atheist, communist, capitalism, pastafarian, etc.) are logically incomplete.

Maintain your dignity and speak with a little bit of skepticism when you know you don't (and can't) have an arguement with an acceptable measure or rigour.

I feel like this should be a prepositional calculus thread, but I also fear my hijacking will go unnoticed.

>>4209192

Why solve things with math when we can fight wars over them instead?

AW SHIT NIGGA I JUST WENT TO MOUNT SINAI AND DID THIS FUCKING WICKED ACACIA DMT!

SHIT WAS FUCKING OFF THE WALLS NIGGA, I SAW LIGHTING AND YAHWEH WAS PASSING OVER ME IN A CLOUD THERE WAS LIGHT EVERYWHERE OH FUCK MAN SHIT AND THERE WAS A BUSH BURNING OH FUCK MAN SHIT I WAS FUCKING MEETING GOD MAN HOLY FUCK!

>God in a plant
>The Bible is just a bunch of jews tripping their balls off
>Enjoy hating drugs and hippies, while reading a thousand page trip report that's 5000-2000 years old

>>4209145
>Implying morals don't have a genetic basis or a cultural basis.
>Implying religion isn't for those who cannot create their own morals
>Implying highly intelligent people don't get caught in the same trap as the non-religious normals in regards to morals.

>>4209192
you can't have a religious nazism/communism because these 2 ideologies oppose the idea of a God. These 2 ideologies are by definition godless. (read the communist manifesto, there is no room for God).

And human values and morals are subject to change over time and can be corrupted and replaced by new regimes in the future.
While Gods laws are eternal and can't be changed by human desires for power and rule over others.

>>4209307

Really, God's laws have changed a lot since people with a rash were declared unclean and exiled until a cleric proclaimed them whole again...

Believe me, son, I've it, and more about any of these topics than your response suggests you have.

Just because you brought it up, communism doesn't prescribe atrocity (loosely defined) it just so happened that Stalin was paranoid and delusional (thus, anybody professing his ideology acted out the same "atrocity" as he did). Nazism on the other hand, requires a "purification" of the state. Hitler (and the nazis) professed a faith in the Catholic God, on the the other hand, you did correctly state that communists were atheist. However, there exist groups of religious communists who believe that the ideology Jesus preached is closest to communism, if Stalin belonged to that group, it is unlikely it would have changed history much.

Moreover, you continue to draw conclusions based on incomplete, incorrect and often irrelevant information.

I would like to, again, request that you keep this in the spirit of a science and math board by stating an arguement only after you (and therefore those reading) have identified exactly what you are using as evidence and how it supports your claim (reading the wikipedia page on locigcal fallacies woudl be a good place to start).

Lastly, I would like to make it clear that I don't give a rat's ass whether you believe in some irrefutable but unprovable fairy tale; it would, however, satisfy me to no end if you aknowledged that you're arguing about question to which there is not an answer.

Reported for trolling

>>4209368
>Really, God's laws have changed a lot...

The 10 commandments haven't changed a word since they were created by God. (funny thing to know is that God originally created only 4 commandments for adam and eve. But when they disobeyed God's law, God gave them another 6, thus in total 10 commandments for them and all mankind.).

>Believe me, son, I've it, and more about any of these topics than your response suggests you have.
ok

>Just because you...

Any system that puts man at the center of existence instead of God is self destructive in the end. We have seen systems arise and destroyed, yet the word of God still remains unchanged.

>>4209307
>While Gods laws are eternal

You mean nobody ever called Moses on his shit when he was on mount Sinai tripping his balls off.

>YO MOSES! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT, AND YOU'RE A FUCKING SCHIZO FREAK WITH HPPD!
>FUCK YOU I BRING THE WORD OF GOD!

Word of God my ass.

>>4209431

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (not exactly explicit monotheism there)
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (nobody follows this one)
3. Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy (a holy day, really?)
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Do not murder
7. Do not commit adultery
8. Do not steal (what about when it's right to steal?)
9. Do not lie
10. Do not covet(this is impossible, thought crime)

>>4209108
>Evolution theory
>speculation, wishing, hoping
wat. So you think the mathematics, biology, and physics behind it is all guess work. You probably think we came from monkeys.

>theorizing
yes. That is exactly how you start a theory

>Creation
>crystal clear
Why the fuck are there two creation stories in Genesis?

Why does every creationist fuck not understand how probability works? Just because something has a small probability of occurring, doesn't make it less likely than other events of equally small probability. For example: Null events occur all the time, consider a game of darts. A dart lands on point a,b on the board. The probability of any given dart landing exactly at a,b is 0, yet it happened.

Don't you just love how the Christfag avoids replying to all posts that discredit the divinity of Biblical texts?

>>4209431
>word of God remains unchanged.
same with the words of Aristotle. Your point?

and people get their morals from the emotion called empathy. Those who have no empathy and suffer from Anti-Social Personality Disorder don't have any morals.

God of the gaps, God of the gaps everywhere. At the limit of knowledge we are somehow pushed to appeal a divine intellect

>>4209513
Getting your morals form an emotion? that's not very scientific isn't it? So atheists have to rely and put faith on an emotion for their moral guidance?

I choose God instead for my moral guidance, thank you very much.

>>4209529
I prefer the term magical thinking.

The difference between an Aboriginal still living in the stone age and a Christian aren't big.

They both believe in magical thinking.

>>4209547
Emotions are realer than God.

Because you know, you can actually FEEL emotions.

>>4209555
See >>4209528

>>4209547
In a broad sense relying on an emotional response to choose your position on moral issues is as good a system as any, so long as you remain objective and collect information before allowing yourself to choose a position.

Morality lends itself poorly to scientific method, with many points that are hard to quantify and difficult to test. A simple and common moral question, like abortion, can't be treated as a scientific hyposis.

>>4209555
Hitler and Stalin felt emotions too, and were partially guided by their emotions. Didn't work out too well for them..

>>4209570
OTOH, the guys who did 911 or the crusades were guided by their religion, t'was an easier choice and much more moral.

>>4209570
So?

What do I care?

>>4209555
but it is a personal feeling, a subjective feeling, not objective or scientific, I can't put it in a formula.

But you choose that and loose God.

>>4208802
Humans ARE a 'pure natural cause', therefore your precondition 1 makes no sense.

We are what hydrogen atoms do after 13.5 billions years.

>>4209570

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Thanks for playing.

>>4209588

Is God really that loose? I know some of those Babylonian Goddesses were, and don't get me started about Isis. Aphrodite was a bit of a slut too.

>>4209547
How is that not scientific? Emotions are just a type of thought. It's not a big fucking surprise that how you make decisions is based on how you feel, which in turn is based on the neuron-neuron connections and chemicals in your brain. Yes, athiests and thiests alike use empathy to drive their moral compass. Some people just are too stupid to realize it. Read up on ASPD.

>>4209570
Everyone is guided by their emotions. And I don't mean just the ones like love, hate, fear, etc. I mean people are guided by how they feel about things. I'm stating the obvious, I don't see why you're flipping a shit over this.

>>4209593

0/10
Your trolling skills suck.

>>4209570
From Stalin's personal perspective he led a successful life. Few people could ask for more.

Morality is subjective, and if you don't make a serious effort to collect as much information as possible before you form a position on an issue it is quite easy to come to seriously flawed consluisons and a position that can be very harmful.

If Hitler had made an objective and detailed study of the Jewish population of Vienna when he had been attempting to go to art school he likely would have found them to be little different then anyone else, rather then a dehumanized scapegoat for all the problems in his life and in Germany.

>>4209608
>Morality is subjective

Yes ,if you put God outside the equation and man at the center, then everything becomes relative (abortion is ok, stealing is ok, killing in certain circumstances is ok etc.).

But that is not the case when we look upon God as a guiding hand and listening to his word. His laws do keep us from derailing from a just life to a wicked one.

>>4209602

I know stating the truth can be seen as trolling sometimes, but I'm not seeing it in this case.

Hydrogen fused into heavier elements in the hearts of earlier stars, which exploded and threw their contents out into the universe. From those contents, new planets and stars coalesced. Our bodies are made of elements on Earth which came from exploding stars, forged in cosmic furnaces. We can trace a direct line from ourselves to the stars in the night sky.

We are, all of us, stardust.

And that is the real wonder.

>>4209638
But God is nothing but the imagination of tripping shamans.

>>4209637
>completely missing the point

Read OP again. He didn't reject that matter is made of atoms.

>>4209638

>(Abortion is ok, stealing is ok, killing in certain circumstances is ok)

Funny story, Abortion is ok, at least in certain circumstances. Stealing is ok, at least in certain circumstances. Killing is ok, at least in certain circumstances.

These are decisions we have made as a culture and made into law,a s well as popular opinion.

Stealing when you are otherwise going to starve is fine. That is nearly universal.

Abortion when the mother would otherwise die, killing both mother and child is fine. That is nearly universal.

Killing in self defence or in defence of a third party is fine. That is nearly universal.

This is the problem with declaring things to be absolutely 1 or 0. It's always situational.

>>4209642

His argument inherently rejects that Man is a natural phenomenon, which implies he was created supernaturally.

So, yeah, he is rejecting that we're made of stars. This isn't even going into his later posts. The question itself is biased, and I don't accept his axioms.

>>4209637

>Our bodies are made of elements on Earth which >came from exploding stars, forged in cosmic furnaces.

The accidental/godless theory:
big bang - stars - planets - life - ....human beings.

I rely on Gods word and see purpose and meaning in his creation, and don't see myself or others as an accident.

>>4209652
So you're saying that computers do not consist of atoms, because they were "created" by men?

>>4209654
Gods word was written by a few jews fucked up on psychoactive substances.

Written by hippies and frat boys.

>>4209431

Uh-huh.

How's that translation-of-a-translation-of-a-translation-of-a-Wycliffe's-interpration-and-translation-of-a-tran
slation working out for you?

>>4209431
>the word of God still remains unchanged

>>4209666
Don't forget the Church fathers somehow "forgetting" to put the actual teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

How fucked up is that?

>>4209656

If I was telling you that computers were created Ex Nihilo? Then yeah, I would be.

As I'm not, it's a false comparison. This is just a new version of Paley's Watchmaker argument with a computer instead of a watch. It's arguing complexity as proof of god.

>>4209646

majority of abortions are not to save the mother, but because the child is not wanted and because of the law the fetus is not considered a human.

Majority of stealing is not to save yourself from starving, but to make money quickly.

Majority of killing is not self defence, but deliberately planned (wars, murders etc).

People misuse the laws and forget God in the process.

>>4209675

Clearly they wanted to write it in, but the text was too large for the margin.

>>4209638
>equation
what equation?
Morality is subjective. Nothing you can say will change that. Your argument is non-sequitur, the efficacy of God's laws have nothing to do with the subjective nature of morality. Also relative doesn't imply subjective or vice versa.

And now that you mention it, it's better to have a moral system that decides tuples of actions and circumstances, than to have one that is based solely on actions. And that's simply because the result of an action is based on the circumstances as well. The first system is strictly greater, as a moral system that decides 2-tuples can simulate one that decides only 1-tuples.

>>4209678
>If I was telling you that computers were created Ex Nihilo? Then yeah, I would be.

No, you wouldn't.
Anything being created supernaturally doesn't necessarily imply that all its building blocks came to existence in the moment of "creation". They can have existed long before.

>complexity as proof of god.
OP didn't mention coplexity. You made this up now.

>>4209691

OP didn't have to mention complexity, it's implied.

By mentioning computers needing to be created by humans, the implication is that it is too complex and focused on a specific task to have arisen naturally.

Then he connects that directly to humans coming into existence. The implication is that they are equivalent situations. It's false equivalence, the same argument Paley makes.

You can't possibly not see that? It's not particularly subtle.

>>4209708
Don't mind GL, he is kind of stupid.