• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,570

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
-Danyan- said:
Foolproof evidence?

If the Earth was the 4.4 billion years old, then since the magnetic field of the Earth has been decreasing at a decreasing rate, then using the most conservative calculations, assuming a linear decreasing rate, the magnetic field of the Earth would have been around the strength of that of a magnetic star.

Proof, evidence, wouldn't that magnetic field have completely ripped apart the
Earth
Uh, what the frak? What creationist bullshit is this?

The Earth is closer to 5 billion years old (the age of our sun; they were formed close together), and its magnetic field has not been "decreasing at a decreasing rate".


Also, wtf is a magnetic star?
 

gibbo153

buff member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,370
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
nikolas said:
It's crap, using the same principle, if the something needs to be designed, if it is deemed complex, then this would imply the designer would needed to be designed as well.

That + argument of poor design.
thats not really the same principle. the argument implies that complexity implies a designer. the implication of the designer is effectively of an omnipotent/omniscient being, not something which itself needed designing

Kwayera said:
Why? It's also important to note that evolution is not necessarily random. Mutations are random, but the preservation of useful mutations that lead to complex structures certainly isn't.
even with that noted, i still can't credit evolution to have caused the complexities of the universe we see today.

(to non-thiests generally) what are your opinions on the laws of the universe and how they could have come into existence
 

-Danyan-

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
89
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Kwayera said:
So you haven't got time to learn and educate yourself.

See, this is why I not bothering.



Er, yes? How else would you explain how incorporation of another individual's DNA would begin? I don't see why this is a problem. It's a hypothesis, but a sound one.



Convenient, huh?
It's a sound hypothesis to believe that a cannibal started sex, aright, then how did that lead to sex cells, or a manner of having sex, and how is it possible that the DNA's mixed, I dont see my DNA being mixed with chicken's everytime I eat it. My DNA mixes with the DNA of everything I eat, great, my children shall be grain stalks; why didn't that happen before.

Oh and if you're going to say that the DNA mixed because they were the same species, sorry i didnt realise i have different digestive behaviour according to what i just ate
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
-Danyan- said:
Foolproof evidence?

If the Earth was the 4.4 billion years old, then since the magnetic field of the Earth has been decreasing at a decreasing rate, then using the most conservative calculations, assuming a linear decreasing rate, the magnetic field of the Earth would have been around the strength of that of a magnetic star.

Proof, evidence, wouldn't that magnetic field have completely ripped apart the
Earth
Shakespeare has pretty much nailed your argument. :hammer:

But to give you a specific answer; every 55 thousand years or so the earths magnetosphere snaps, switches poles and basically resets. (think thats how it works anyways.)
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
gibbo153 said:
thats not really the same principle. the argument implies that complexity implies a designer. the implication of the designer is effectively of an omnipotent/omniscient being, not something which itself needed designing



even with that noted, i still can't credit evolution to have caused the complexities of the universe we see today.

(to non-thiests generally) what are your opinions on the laws of the universe and how they could have come into existence
Argument from personal incredulity
  • "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
gibbo153 said:
thats not really the same principle. the argument implies that complexity implies a designer. the implication of the designer is effectively of an omnipotent/omniscient being, not something which itself needed designing
Wouldn't that imply that the ultimate "complex being", God, would himself require a creator?

even with that noted, i still can't credit evolution to have caused the complexities of the universe we see today.
Well, obviously evolution doesn't have much to do with star formation :rolleyes:

(to non-thiests generally) what are your opinions on the laws of the universe and how they could have come into existence
You've got it the wrong way around. The universe came into existence the way it is because of those laws; the laws didn't come into existence because of the universe.
 

-Danyan-

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
89
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Will Shakespear said:
ah, the temperature in NSW has been decreasing steadily for the last 6 hours

using the most conservative calculations, assuming a lienar decreasing rate, we should freeze to death by tomorrow afternoon
ah yes, i think looking at evidence of the solidified iron based rocks they can tell the strength of the magentic field at the time, your own science hits you back on that count
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
gibbo153 said:
(to non-thiests generally) what are your opinions on the laws of the universe and how they could have come into existence
Mate, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled "God of the gaps" argument.
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
-Danyan- said:
It's a sound hypothesis to believe that a cannibal started sex, aright, then how did that lead to sex cells, or a manner of having sex, and how is it possible that the DNA's mixed, I dont see my DNA being mixed with chicken's everytime I eat it. My DNA mixes with the DNA of everything I eat, great, my children shall be grain stalks; why didn't that happen before.

Oh and if you're going to say that the DNA mixed because they were the same species, sorry i didnt realise i have different digestive behaviour according to what i just ate
YouTube - The Evolution of Sex

watch & learn
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
-Danyan- said:
It's a sound hypothesis to believe that a cannibal started sex, aright, then how did that lead to sex cells, or a manner of having sex, and how is it possible that the DNA's mixed, I dont see my DNA being mixed with chicken's everytime I eat it. My DNA mixes with the DNA of everything I eat, great, my children shall be grain stalks; why didn't that happen before.
You're a lot more complex than a unicellular organism.

Oh and if you're going to say that the DNA mixed because they were the same species, sorry i didnt realise i have different digestive behaviour according to what i just ate
Stop being deliberately obtuse; it doesn't help your case.
 

gibbo153

buff member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,370
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Will Shakespear said:
Argument from personal incredulity
  • "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
nah nah i wasn't using that as a proof for god, just my personal thought on her reply.

nikolas said:
Mate, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled "God of the gaps" argument.
why did you quote the part you did then tool.

Kwayera said:
Well, obviously evolution doesn't have much to do with star formation

You've got it the wrong way around. The universe came into existence the way it is because of those laws; the laws didn't come into existence because of the universe.
haha yeah i know, i didn't mean star formation, just a general blanket statement.

yeah i know, again what do you credit the existence of these laws to
 
Last edited:

-Danyan-

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
89
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
nikolas said:
Shakespeare has pretty much nailed your argument. :hammer:

But to give you a specific answer; every 55 thousand years or so the earths magnetosphere snaps, switches poles and basically resets. (think thats how it works anyways.)
Mate its been decreasing, so your saying that the magnetic field thats been losing strength suddenly recharges, im not saying it doesnt swap, but the strength does not reset
thats violating the law of conservation of energy
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
-Danyan- said:
ah yes, i think looking at evidence of the solidified iron based rocks they can tell the strength of the magentic field at the time, your own science hits you back on that count
Yeah, and if you'd actually looked at that data rather than relying on other people's interpretation/crap, you'd notice that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates, "stronger" and "weaker" and flipping poles and lots of interesting activity.
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
gibbo153 said:
yeah i know, again what do you credit the existence of these laws to
Why do they require initiation of existence? The nature of particles themselves (for example) dictates the laws governing them. A law is not a thing.
 

-Danyan-

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
89
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Kwayera said:
You're a lot more complex than a unicellular organism.



Stop being deliberately obtuse; it doesn't help your case.
Your not much more complex than a unicellular organism, I don't hear a scientific and evidence based reply, and go look up what a magnetic star is if you want to know so badly

and shakespeare, creationist bullshit, yp, were not the ones that believe cannibalism led to sex
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
-Danyan- said:
Your not much more complex than a unicellular organism, I don't hear a scientific and evidence based reply, and go look up what a magnetic star is if you want to know so badly

and shakespeare, creationist bullshit, yp, were not the ones that believe cannibalism led to sex
There is no such thing as a specific 'magnetic star'. All stars have multiple magnetic poles, and associated magnetic fields.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant a "neutron" star, in which case, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

chaldoking

Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
218
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Why can't people just be accepting of others beliefs?

If you choose to believe in no God - so be it.
If I choose to believe in a God - so be it.
 

-Danyan-

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
89
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
In either case its been a long day and I got my UAI today, so im off to relax a bit, we can argue again another day, look forward to it
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
-Danyan- said:
Your not much more complex than a unicellular organism, I don't hear a scientific and evidence based reply, and go look up what a magnetic star is if you want to know so badly

and shakespeare, creationist bullshit, yp, were not the ones that believe cannibalism led to sex
FMD

Argument from personal incredulity
  • "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
and watch the video, it's awesome
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top