Forums | MacLife

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

How do hurricanes form? It would seem to be that the nice, neat, spiraly mass of air that is a hurricane is too complex to come about by natural processes, isn't it? By the laws of entropy, should that increase in order be impossible?

By the laws of entropy, they go away after landfall.

That doesn't explain their existence though.

How can the poles be rotating faster than the equator? Wouldn't the Earth rip apart?

I'm thinking angular velocity, relative to a person on Earth, things are the same speed though.

Anyway... i know about the Coriolis effect.

I was wondering though why hurricanes can violate entropy, by the same reasoning YECs use, but DNA can't...

Last edited by mo' ron (2005-09-29 1:22 am)

sewing wrote:

What an odd place to find such a thread.  How someone can look at all of creation and not see a Designer is beyond me.  Though life evolves there is so much that just screams of Intelligence.  We know that life evolves because every year there are new influensas for which we get vaccines.  We also know that the earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon protects the earth from asteroids, the earth  and sun are just the correct size for life to exist.  The odds of this happening by chance are probably more than the number of stars in the universe.

How about you get your head around the idea of LUCK. We were lucky that all of these things came together. A small mind is no argument. At least the other proponents of ID have been making an argument.

sewing wrote:

What an odd place to find such a thread.  How someone can look at all of creation and not see a Designer is beyond me.  Though life evolves there is so much that just screams of Intelligence.  We know that life evolves because every year there are new influensas for which we get vaccines.  We also know that the earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon protects the earth from asteroids, the earth  and sun are just the correct size for life to exist.  The odds of this happening by chance are probably more than the number of stars in the universe.

What are the chances that our heads would be just the right shape for our glasses to fit on them?

Had the solar system been a bit different, then life as we know it would not be possible--perhaps life compatible with those different conditions would have evolved, perhaps not. Don't switch cause (conditions for life as we know it/shapes of heads) with effect (life as we know it/glasses).

sewing wrote:

Ah... But an intelligent designer created the glasses for a created head.  We are not talking about what man has created but how the universe was created.  Steven Hawking passed the buck on this one as he couldn't find an answer to how something was created out of nothing.

Uhh... E=mc^2. Its been known for a while that energy and matter are interchangable. Hence why the mass of small particles (nuculeons and smaller) is often referered to in terms of energy (electron volts). Many theories have been brought up as to how this energy could have come into existance, but we probably will never really know. That does not make there have to be an intelligent designer.

sewing wrote:

What an odd place to find such a thread.  How someone can look at all of creation and not see a Designer is beyond me.  Though life evolves there is so much that just screams of Intelligence.  We know that life evolves because every year there are new influensas for which we get vaccines.  We also know that the earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon protects the earth from asteroids, the earth  and sun are just the correct size for life to exist.  The odds of this happening by chance are probably more than the number of stars in the universe.

You know there are over 200 billion billion (thats a googleplex or sumthin') stars in the universe.  And there's probably more planets than that. I'd say the chances of it not occurring are probably higher, especially considering recent biological findings that life is more resilient and adaptable than we thought. Consider the deep sea troughs who live completely shut off from the sun under water pressure that would kill even normal pelagic life instantly, or the undersea methane ecologic zones (creatures adapted to living in methane pockets).

I do agree with you, however, in that the very nature of the universes laws seemingly automatically producing conscious life bespeaks of some form of intelligence behind it all. I consider the innate quality of intelligence to the universe the greatest theological argument in existence.

Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time covers everything back to way less than a second after the Big Bang, at which point, it seems to me, any intelligence involved probably stopped mucking around with things.

Kind of wild that we can actually have a number that is greater than the number of objects in the know universe.

Seems like it oughta, like, make a black hole, or sumthin.....

jerwin wrote:

You know there are over 200 billion billion (thats a googleplex or sumthin') stars in the universe

200 billion billion is merely 200 quintillion, far short of a googol. Besides, it's an underestimate.

This page says [url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html]there might be an octillion[url](the digit one, followed by 27 zeros). Googol, as we all know by now, is "the digit one, followed by 100 zeros" and googolplex is merely "the digit one, followed by googol zeros".

However, the largest (finite) number that has been used in a serious mathematical proof is surely Graham's number.

This Page claims that the number of atoms in the visible universe is about 15  vigintiquadrillion, about 21 orders of magnitude short of a googol.

Shows what I know.

Nerd.

Sassy wrote:

StaticAge  wrote:

Things which are perfect do not have an implicit value that must be recognized by all, or if there is an objective value, there is nothing that a perfect free moral agent cannot reject, even the objective.

Sorry, I've been away evading a hurricane. Just got back.

If we wanna read some lameass crybaby smurf like that we'll go read the Citizen Journalist crap at MS-NBC. :b

Sassy wrote:

Would you agree that 'god' is perfect?

Look at the mess the world's in. What do you think?

Sassy wrote:

If so, anything perfect can only be so as judged by god's standards, not mankind's. Plato said that 'perfection' resides ONLY in heaven.

Well, Plato was a well-known homosexual, pretty much ruling out anything he had to say about God, perfection, or anything else for that matter.

Sassy wrote:

Was it the gospels that changed this view, or was it the roman institutionalizing of the bible in general that accomplished this?

You don't think the gospels were 'radical' thinking? They reversed the conventional 'character' of 'god,' from vindictive, dangerous, jealous, revengeful, petty, dictatorial, mean-spirited, hateful, etc. to loving, forgiving, gentle, compassionate, caring, etc. That's a radical change in character; and very appealing to any person who has been taught that s/he is born in sin and will continue to sin without help from god.

Huh. Well, if God is gonna be so all-encompassing and forgiving now, what do you say we just let the homosexuals marry each other and be done with it?

Sassy wrote:

As to the reference that the 'serpent' was Satan,

Don't be silly. The serpent is just the icon of the mother goddess. Isis. Asherah. Gaea. Ceres. Whatever you wanna call her.

Sassy wrote:

if so, why didn't Jesus just say identify him as such? Makes identification simple and matter of fact to those to whom he preached.

Because He knew better than that.

Sassy wrote:

Why speak in riddles or innuendoes?

'Cause even acknowledging the serpent in those days was a hangin' offense, Son.

Sassy wrote:

I don't know 'what' the 'serpent' was.

Well, now you do.

Sassy wrote:

It was an entity of some kind that 'knew' much of god's plans. Eve wasn't afraid of it, nor did she argue with it. One might think she had been told about it.

No!

Sassy wrote:

Maybe not. It's left to the reader to 'assume' too much. It isn't clear to the rational mind.

Well, them thar preachers ain't really lookin' for rational converts, anyway.

Sassy wrote:

As for Eve herself, I can't see that god needed her at all to help Adam 'fill the earth.' God created Adam and everything else. Why not just 'clone' Adam? Why invent 'sex' at all?

Because God can see everything we do? We're the ultimate porno show for Him.

Sassy wrote:

What happened is that Adam 'loved' Eve more than god.

Well, yeah. Eve had a hot little pussy to wrap around Adam's cock. What did God have to offer, by comparison?

Sassy wrote:

That was a temptation!

You ain't just a=whistlin' Dixie there, bub.

Sassy wrote:

Adam chose to believe Eve.

Who the hell wouldn't, once they felt her cum spasms shocking the smurf out of their rod?

Sassy wrote:

Thing is that they didn't die.

Imagine that. They went blind or something though, right?

Sassy wrote:

The serpent told them the truth, unless 'death' is something more than we are told it is.

Where's death come into it? The serpent told Eve that the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... well, blah, blah, blah, can't remember now

Sassy wrote:

That's the trouble with the Bible.

One of them, anyway.

Sassy wrote:

It speaks in riddles and it is left to the reader or the scholar, or the holy spirit to reveal its truth. So,  perhaps the 'truth' is individual to each believer. Or, maybe not.

Or maybe it's just a prehistoric smurfing comic book.

Sassy wrote:

That's my strong point: The Bible is inconsistent and by being so, it makes the character of god inconsistent, thus diluting god's divinity as well as all the attributes mankind assigns to him.

God is a big pussy.

Sassy wrote:

One can read Shakespeare and find as much to 'believe' as truth as in the Bible. Yet, Shakespeare is not attested as divine or written by god.

Shakespeare was gay.

Sassy wrote:

My opinion is that the Bible is a book of ancient stories that attempt to answer questions mankind has been asking since each individual's birth. Some stories may have been woven around historical events, but others certainly are fictional or allegorical. The antiquity alone is enough to challenge its divine validity.

That's pretty accurate, by my POV.

Sassy wrote:

Duke: You're a pitiful troll. You have to do better than that to get a rise out of me.

I like what duke had to say.

Hardly troll material.

Metacell wrote:

I don't think he was trolling. I think he was just high on acid.

Naw, just a couple beers.

Several beers, that is.