Answers to the Fermi paradox

[GhostWriter16]

I didn't mention the Big Bang.

That website clearly contains an error in the last paragraph, namely that logic is consistent, when it has been proven to not be the case.

EDIT: And I am a mathematician so why not mention higher mathematics?

I'll be honest, I don't have much understanding in mathematics, I find it unenjoyable, and... It's confusing.

If you need something that complicated to prove a senseless theory, well, I win...

Everything that exists must have been created. Of course, God is outside of time, and he is...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

How is a theory that revolutionised much of mathematics senseless?

Your last line isn't logically consistent either. Everything must include God, by definition.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How is a theory that revolutionised much of mathematics senseless?

Your last line isn't logically consistent either. Everything must include God, by definition.

Because it has never been proven. http://www.kent-hovind.com/lies/chromosome.htm

Yeah, we'll soon evolve into an Amoeba!!! Wait, what?

To the above, there is more too this, stating Kent Hovind's "Lie," but it actually makes no sense.

Spoiler :

What Kent Hovind is actually saying is God created the Earth

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-chromosomes-does-an-amoeba-have

It's there too.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I didn't mention the theory of evolution either.

Godel's incompleteness theorems have been proven though. Maybe someone should point that out to the site you linked to.

 

[Synobun]

Jesus didn't actually break Roman law first of all. Pilate said he was innocent, but he gave into mob rule.

And, Jesus didn't die on a chair so just give it up.

Actually, back then Roman law was strict. If you gained supporters for your own cause, that is a criminal offence. By lying to the senate, that is a criminal offence. So explain to me, what's so special, about a criminal?

The fact that in essence, he was a lunatic? There are plenty of people in the modern world that have weird thoughts and claim to be something they aren't. There are people in the modern world that gain the support of others because of their claims.

So just because a book told you something, a book that was made and modified since two thousand years ago, that automatically means it is 100% true? When really, the foundation of the bible was to act as a "guide" of some sort. The story of Adam and Eve - temptation. While yes, SOME stories are true in the bible, most are morality stories. They are in the form of stories to allow your mind to process it better. Just flat out saying "DON'T GIVE IN TO TEMPTATION", while strict and to the point, won't come across better than a story around it; hence the Nanabush stories.

To be fair, I'm not against religion. If properly executed, religion could make you into a better person. But religion was not made to tell everyone "Yeah... God did it. While we tell you, that you're being ignorant because you don't believe in our God, we're going to be ignorant as well by (quote from Cardgame here) covering your ears and denying other reasons."

The Earth is millions of years old. That is fact, proven for a few decades now by continuous scientific experiments and observations.

Evolution is fact, proven since man existed. There is absolutely no way that there's a guy in the sky directing everything that happens, because that sure as hell doesn't explain super-viruses and the like, unless... God wanted us to die?

Clearly not.

If God directed all our progress, super-viruses would never make it past their basic fundamentals.

Anyways, I dislike religious debates. This thread is for the paradox concerning intelligent life in the universe. I am of the opinion that because of the adaptive capabilities of life itself, I am certain there is more intelligent life. You're of the opinion that God is all and Humans are the only ones that exist.

 

[warpus]

The answer to the fermi paradox is def. not "The Earth is 6,000 years old"

 

[GhostWriter16]

Actually, back then Roman law was strict. If you gained supporters for your own cause, that is a criminal offence. By lying to the senate, that is a criminal offence. So explain to me, what's so special, about a criminal?

The fact that in essence, he was a lunatic? There are plenty of people in the modern world that have weird thoughts and claim to be something they aren't. There are people in the modern world that gain the support of others because of their claims.

So just because a book told you something, a book that was made and modified since two thousand years ago, that automatically means it is 100% true? When really, the foundation of the bible was to act as a "guide" of some sort. The story of Adam and Eve - temptation. While yes, SOME stories are true in the bible, most are morality stories. They are in the form of stories to allow your mind to process it better. Just flat out saying "DON'T GIVE IN TO TEMPTATION", while strict and to the point, won't come across better than a story around it; hence the Nanabush stories.

To be fair, I'm not against religion. If properly executed, religion could make you into a better person. But religion was not made to tell everyone "Yeah... God did it. While we tell you, that you're being ignorant because you don't believe in our God, we're going to be ignorant as well by (quote from Cardgame here) covering your ears and denying other reasons."

The Earth is millions of years old. That is fact, proven for a few decades now by continuous scientific experiments and observations.

Evolution is fact, proven since man existed. There is absolutely no way that there's a guy in the sky directing everything that happens, because that sure as hell doesn't explain super-viruses and the like, unless... God wanted us to die?

Clearly not.

If God directed all our progress, super-viruses would never make it past their basic fundamentals.

Anyways, I dislike religious debates. This thread is for the paradox concerning intelligent life in the universe. I am of the opinion that because of the adaptive capabilities of life itself, I am certain there is more intelligent life. You're of the opinion that God is all and Humans are the only ones that exist.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=165

http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field-young/

Debate over.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Suddenly, the world is silent. Care to explain why?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm too busy reading the many rebuttals to YEC arguments on this site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm too busy reading the many rebuttals to YEC arguments on this site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/

Do you realize how stupid this is?

Anyhow, if evolution put the world into being, how will the sun randomly change how quickly it is shrinking. Has a star been observed not shrinking?

Evolution is religion, end of story.

 

[cardgame]

Evolution is religion, end of story.

do you realize how stupid ******** that is?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So you didn't read it then.

The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. First, and by far the worst, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, as might be detected over a period of years, then it has always been shrinking!

That's a little like watching the tide go out and assuming that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been flooded mere weeks ago! However, careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, so the earth can't be older than a few weeks!

I know you're not keen on mathematics, but this picture could explain something to you.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you didn't read it then.

I read it. What makes it randomly change anyway?

Anyway, why do you evolutionists care about proving your points. I mean, its not like the almighty Big Bang is going to damn us all to hell for not believing in it.

The Big Bang, even if it happened, doesn't exist anymore and will not hold us accountable for our disbelief. So, why do you care if people agree with your views?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Presumably, an oscillation caused by equilibria between gravity (compression due to mass) and fusion (causing expansion).

EDIT: Scientists like to have evidence before they believe a scientific theory. Luckily, there is an enormous amount of evidence in favour of evolution.

Scientific theories have been debunked before though. No-one has come up with credible evidence against evolution yet. But by all means wait for an Einstein to come along and debunk it. Or some evidence which renders it false.

I'm an agnostic due to undecidability of proof for the existence of God.

 

[emzie]

I read it. What makes it randomly change anyway?

Anyway, why do you evolutionists care about proving your points. I mean, its not like the almighty Big Bang is going to damn us all to hell for not believing in it.

The Big Bang, even if it happened, doesn't exist anymore and will not hold us accountable for our disbelief. So, why do you care if people agree with your views?

I don't care if you agree with me or not. I rebut your errors not to change your mind (for yours is a hopeless case) but so that others who may read this don't fall victim to your inanity. You cite articles that I really don't think you understand, and they sound plausible to a layman passing through. Frankly, the thing about the sun seems superficially plausible to me since I'm not a physicist. Which is a rather important point.

It is impossible to understand everything. I don't understand advanced physics and I probably never will. I have no way of verifying that something a physicist says is true or not. However, I can go and read peer-reviewed articles on what the physicist said to see if people who do know agree with him or not.

Moving on, of course the big bang doesn't exist. It was never a thing to exist, it was an event. Saying that it doesn't exist and is therefore irrelevant is like saying the moment you were fertilized no longer exists, therefore you are irrelevant. It is important though for the same reason your fertilization is important: it had consequences. At the creation of the universe, physical laws were set. I don't mean this as an active agent, only that it happened. Why did our constants take such a precise set? Were they free to vary? Are they variable now? Understanding those questions requires understanding the big bang and the answers to those questions might allow for amazing technology. Or really cool toys.

And it's for the prospect of farthing our knowledge as a civilization that I fight with people such as yourself who wish to stick to bronze-age scripture. If you follow through with your line of thought, you are quite literally saying, "if it's not in the Bible, it's not worth knowing" in which case kindly shut off your computer, throw it in a lake and revert to the bronze-age society whom for the bible was written.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Iron-age society

With a bit of engineering from the Romans thrown in.

 

[Grimz101]

Infidels, it is a know fact we were all created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[uppi]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=165

http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field-young/

Debate over.

Yes, the debate is indeed over, as these two links are sufficient to show the general ignorance and extremely bad science of YECs.

Let's have a look at the typical nonsense YECs are sprouting:

One thing is certain. Some of the sun's energy comes from its gravitational self-collapse. Therefore, not all of this energy comes from thermonuclear fusion. This discovery greatly alters all calculations on the evolution of the sun, because all of those calculations attribute practically 100% of the sun's energy over the past 5 billion years to thermonuclear fusion.

Gravitational collapse of the sun might have been a nice idea in the 19th century and might have been somewhat debatable in the 20th century, but it is the 21st century and today we have experimental proof that the energy produced by the sun is pretty much completely coming from fusion.

As for where the oscillations are coming from: The sun is a giant ball of plasma and the nonlinearities in plasmas ensure that it is oscillating on all kinds of timescales. And again we have experimental data that shows quite a bunch of different sun cycles.


The stuff about the magnetic field is even more inane:
[IMG="http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242a.gif"]http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242a.gif[/IMG]
[IMG="http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242b.gif"]http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242b.gif[/IMG]

This is just ridiculous. The energy stored in a magnetic field is proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength. That was discovered over 150 years ago and anybody interested in physics should have learned that in high school. Yet they ignore pretty much everything ever discovered about magnetism and dare to show these two graphs together.


And even if these articles didn't contradict experimental evidence and very basic physics: You can't just take a few data points and fit and exponential decay to it, just because you want to and then claim this is proof for anything.

 

[emzie]

The stuff about the magnetic field is even more inane:
[IMG="http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242a.gif"]http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242a.gif[/IMG]

Negative intensity?

[IMG="http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242b.gif"]http://static.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-242b.gif[/IMG]

Okay, so flood at ~2500 BC meaning... there are trees older than a flood that covered the entire earth. Ages that can be confirmed by anyone based on dendrochronology... well anyone who can count to ~5,000.

 

[uppi]

Negative intensity?

What I think they mean is magnetic field strength along the north-south axis. Which can be negative if the magnetic field is reversed. I don't know whether they're intentionally vague to muddy the waters or just don't know any better.

There is evidence that the magnetic field changed its direction multiple times over the history of the earth, so the current decline just means that it is reversing again. That obviously destroys the exponential decay fit, because, as ParadigmShifter illustrated, a sine is a much better explanation.

But that would point to an old earth, which according to YECs is impossible, so they came up with this ludicrous graph. And here we again have to ask the question: Are they really that ignorant to really believe this or are they intentionally trying to mislead people.

Okay, so flood at ~2500 BC meaning... there are trees older than a flood that covered the entire earth. Ages that can be confirmed by anyone based on dendrochronology... well anyone who can count to ~5,000.

It's useless trying to bring facts to the discussion. If YECs cared about facts and experimental evidence, they'd have stopped being YECs long ago.