Looking for Questions Without Answers

The best one I can think of that has eluded every branch of science, religion, and philosophy is:

Can anyone help me understand women?

just shut up, i was talking about mysteries related to universe and the like, and not all the non-sense u r talking of!!

Sir,

Sorry for your lack of levity in the situation. This is one of the problems with engineers. We take ourselves too seriously and miss the lateral thinking or even the moments of levity, such as was gifted to you.

Let's consider your question. I understood what you wanted. However, I gave you a little humor and a riddle at the same time. Unfortunately, you saw neither.

Consider that some of the deeper mysteries of the universe often do not lie beyond the ionosphere of Earth, but sometimes in the dark recesses of our own minds. It is good to understand both.

It has much better impact and appreciation if the "student" pondering those questions discovers those answers by themselves (with only minimal guidance from "teacher") rather than having the answer simply served to them at will. In this case I feel compelled that I have no choice but to do the latter.

However, you need not be concerned with my taking offense to your remark; as I can assure you with clear conscience that I take none. I only feel somewhat disappointed that you tread over the obvious without, as your avitar implies, smelling the roses.

I wish you the best in your quest for your answers.

i..i am really sorry if i hurt u, but u c, i wasn't probably in the right frame of mind at that time .. n may b i was a bit too rude (sorry!), n i expected a serious answer n yours was d first 1 got n being tempted to reply back i couldn't think of anything else. c i'm really sorry for that , plz, plz don't get offended!!

As I said, it didn't offend me one bit, so please think nothing of it. :)

In-Reply-To Message From Anonymous Hero

""The best one I can think of that has eluded every branch of science, religion, and philosophy is:

Can anyone help me understand women?""

Why?

Ha, Ha.

Remember "If you don't laugh, you cry"

here's a question that has had "cosmologists" chasing their tails,so to speak?, for over a century(even Isac and Albert, did not have a definite answer for!). what is the shape of the universe??. unfourtunately; for those "cosmo guys", and even mr. Hawking fans, the answer is simple. if they had been killed ahead of schedule 40 years ago,like me, i was only dead for two(2) months,or so,but on the other side/and for all you "agnostics" etc. it is there!, about a "quadrillionth of a second away!. while they checked on my "duedate", i was checking out what i thought was a picture. nope they told me, that is a "you are here map", and pointed to where we were in the universe!!. all i will say about it is,"think double helix"!. an if you want to feel small(or really bigg,depending on how you look at it?): it said this olanet was an "electron",one of eighteen,orbiting around the sun or"nucleous of the atom, we call a "solar system". one of the 221.7 billion forming a "molecule", that we call the"Milkyway galaxie"!. enough about that,for now, i may start another fun discussion group, about "the view from the otherside" and living in the"only time, is now time zone"!!.. chukfinn, a(as "AA" would say)"recovering corpse? P.S. being "born again", almost literally, is a real drag!

I want whatever your on.

You just don't feel at home in this universe, is that it? Homesickness, maybe? Well, let me offer some comfort then.

Your mama's callin' and the next spacial interphase will be here on time, in twenty minutes. You might wanna pack a lunch.

muiporuE--

Actually that question does have an answer. It is 'No'.

Here's a couple I wouldn't mind knowing:

1. Where does mass come from? What gives something mass?

2. How big is the universe, does space extend forever or does it have a boundary, if it has a boundary, what is beyond it?

3. Is there life on other planets or in space, or anywhere other than Earth? Can life form by means other than DNA, RNA, etc.?

4. Where are all the antiparticles in the universe?

5. Why is time one way? Why is entropy one way?

6 Is there a quantum description for gravity (is the graviton real?)

7. Is the universe deterministic?

That's all I can think of for now.

"That's all I can think of for now."

Dude, you need a good pal to buy you a beer. Either you're too pooped to pop or you're just fakin' it. My hunch is that you've got a helluva lot more questions than that!

--Europium

Why is time one way? You are asking a question that you think has no answer, and yet you have already decided that it only runs one way, and you have not even begun to define what it is or whether it exists and if it does, what kind of experimants can you design to prove it.... The correct answer is not that there is no evidence indicating the existence of a god, rather that we are unaware of any evidence that might suggest it, and not knowing who, if anyone created the universe implies simply lack of information, not proof that a god exists because someone must have done it. (However much you would like: A. that there be a god, B. that this god would behave the way you want, C. that you are not below god's theshold of perception and D. if god perceives your existence, that he gives a shit, and lastly E. this proposed god that must exist because someone had to create all this stuff is still alive or has not yet left the building. I have a feeling that either I wandered away from my original theme or there may be cumulative punctuation errors in the forgoing paragraphs, but it made sense when I wrote it and now I have to take this phone call...

Roger, you said:

5. Why is time one way? Why is entropy one way?

I think I partially answered this in my post in the thread "Oh, for the simple days":-

Just as a side line I'd like to point out a sort of extension to the anthropic principle.

Of all the possible physics' the only ones which do not self destruct (any progress towards structure), are the ones which constrain time to one sense of direction.

8) Why is there no cream in cream crackers?

9) Why is Bombay Duck a kind of fish?

10) How long is a piece of string?

11) If little girls are made of sugar and spice, why.... no. Let's not go there....

Here is one that has only come up in recent years. It was thought for many years that the universe was expanding but that the rate of expansion was in decay. Now we have discovered that it is actually expanding at an increasing rate. So the question is, what is driving this expansion? This may or may not be unanswerable but at the moment I believe it is unanswered.

The folks I work with (astrophysicists and their kin, mostly) say this more gentle inflationary period is due largely to presence of dark energy. Now what this is and why they think so is something I need to ask them before I come back here to make a public ass out of myself on this forum - not that I've ever let that stop me before...

--Europium

Enough with Hawking. Is Earth unique in the universe, whatever that may be?

I think it is presumptuous to think there is no other intelligent life both above and bellow us on whatever scale you may wish to use. Statistically, one can calculate the mean distance to a planet where there are people having this exact discussion. That's how much stuff there is out there. And please let's not go into a discussion about statistics. The point is only to say when you have billions of stars in billions of galaxies even without statistics, I mean please.

I think everyone on this particular subject is shootin' at the moon, so to speak, looking Out There for intelligent life - but your point is well taken. Especially the part where you mention the possibility of "intelligent life below us."

Just for the record, let me say that I had a very meaningful conversation on this very subject with a couple of ants I found wandering around on my kitchen counter this morning - just before I mashed them.

muiporuE--

It has been said that the best evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that these beings used Earth as their loony bin...

It was good to read this today and see that "most" of the people who subscribe to CR4 have fully retained their sense of humour......keep up the fun and jokes Guys.

Perhaps some of the younger ones need to concentrate on developing such a usefull lifelong trait.......!

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull Boy!" - to quote my Mother....

ok may b u r of d belief that i don't like humor, but c, i do enjoy that n for this, wen it comes to mystery n universe n all, i really get serious n hate stupid replies. so plz ok u may send all that to my other threads, but plz keep them at bay here...

One thing to remember, many things can come in disguise. What appears to be humor can often carry a message worth learning.

Everything tells us something about itself. So, when people throw humor out on the message board it many times contains subtle clues that may be of more value to your questions than the serious answer, which is many time wrong.

On the other hand, sometimes things just decend into chaos and nonesense. Still, we can learn something from that, too.

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud

All work and no play makes jack.

---my grandfather

Late to Bed

Early to rise

Work like hell

And advertise

--- my dad

How much do you know yourself.(Honestly)

much or many??

well, if it's many, then may b i'll reply l8r. hope u don't mind n in fact many of the replies i've received do coincide wid what i think...

"much or many?"

Hmm...I'd say...

'Many' speaks of countable somethings (constituents) having a selfsame unit of measure...

"Many grains of sand (well, how many? Forty grains? Fifty grains? 10⁸ grains?)"

'Much' speaks of an aggregate of (practically) uncountable somethings (constituents), except in a collective sense as a sort of thing unto itself, and which may (and probably does) have a very different unit of measure unrelated to the unit-of-one-constituent.

"Much sand (well, how much? A ton? Two grams? 10⁸ ephods?)"

As these are my operational "definitions," more or less, you might want to 'take them with a grain of salt' (BTW, is this an American idiom, or an idiom from somewhere else? Any idiom experts in the house?).

--Europium

say r u always there to contradict me? but ur thought does make a lot of sense, especially here... thanks for it.

You wrote: "say r u always there to contradict me?"

How's about from now on I agree wholeheartedly with every single thing you post? Sound like a plan?

The assumption behind my post was based on the recognition that I speak fluent American english and, as a resident of another country whose native language(s) is/are not english (in spite of the fact that India was once an English colony), you may not. I took your question "How much/many?" as a legitimate question seeking its answer and, as such, an indication that you might appreciate a little clarification on the more subtle differences between the two terms. It was not a contradiction at all (although you might now believe this is, as it seems that you take offense at nearly every little thing), nor is it an ethnocentric statement of superiority on my part. I'm was simply trying to offer you a hand, but if you want to get all pissy about it, then knock yourself out.

--Europium

The older I get the more "dadisms" I remember. My experiences on this site are beginning to remind me of one in particular "like pounding sand down a rat-hole". Speaking of rats, Friday's Dilbert featured Ratbert and is in my opinion quite timely.

As a Proud Dad myself, I can see a few similiarities sometimes.

BTW, Ratbert and I are down at the saloon sippin' on few beers 'n' talkin' a little shop, just in case you wanted to join us. We're buyin', so come on down if you have a moment to spare.

I might mention, by the way, that Dilbert, bless his heart, is over there in that corner booth and looks to be pretty smashed. And although that PYT sittin' next to him helps to keep him propped up, she can't seem to keep her busy little hands off that funny tie of his. Once in awhile Kitty has to go over there and make her behave.

I need to get a tie like that.

--Europium

Some questions;

1. Why do we use the term "quantum leap" to describe a major, large shift or jump when it should mean the smallest possible leap or jump. I am not speaking about scientific discussions, rather, everyday conversation.
2. Speaking of "quanta", can time be described as, or broken down to a smallest possible "package" or can any given amount of time be divided infinitely? This may be part of Roger's question regarding the reversability of time.
3. Why do we drive on the "Parkway" and park on the "Driveway"?
4. If a 7-11 is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, why are there locks on the doors?
5. Why are there more horses asses than horses?

Question 2 would be my choice if I were offered an answer to only one of my questions.

If a monkey evolved in to man and will still have monkeys, why is it they stopped evolving? Did it all stop on 10/10/0034bc.

Speciation is something that's still not fully understood in evolutionary science, and there are many theories about it's different causes, the relative contributions of the different kinds of speciation and even what exactly the definition of "species" is. So far as I understand it the basic reasoning is that one segment of a population gets seperated somehow from the rest of it's species. As it's generations come and go it starts to develop different traits to adapt to its new set of circumstances until eventually it becomes an entirely different species. Notice that this does not require the destruction of the original species.

For example it's believed that humans differentiated from monkeys (a kind of general term, but we'll go with it) due to allopatric speciation. This means that one group of monkeys became geographically isolated from the rest of the monkeys due to a river forming or an earthquake or moving behind a mountain range or whatever. The new group of monkeys developed human traits (walking upright, loss of tail, etc.) and eventually became humans. Now there are both humans and monkeys in the world. This is far, far more simplistic than the actual reality, but I think it suffices to illustrate the process.

For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Also, 34 BC? We had written history, bronze weaponry, mounted calvarly, sailing, irrigation systems, roads and numerous other technological advances. We speciated from our ancestors WAY before that.

Good answer. I just see it as unfathomable that over 250 million years the river hasn't moved again.

I assume you are talking about human evolution there, and my answer is three-fold.

1. Evolution is a slow, slow process the more developed a species is. If you read about it you will see that some experiments have successfully "speciated" a few organisms, but they are usually fruit flies or bacteria; in thousands of years of selective breeding we still haven't made a new "species" of dog.

2. Some people believe that intelligence on the level we have it interferes with the process of evolution. For example diseases like down syndrome would be quickly removed from the population if we did not give extra support to such afflicted persons. (I'm not making an argument for or against helping such people here, just an observation.) There are also smatterings of evidence that people are, in fact, still evolving. For instance; one study, and I'm sorry I still don't have the specific information for you, found that people who had a certain gene were extremely more likely to have more children. I think they had something like 5 times as many children on average than people without the gene.

3. You are off by a couple of orders of magnitude. The best estimates put the human race as being around 5-6 million years old.

Evolution is a gradual process, not a sudden one. Speciation is a completely arbitrary designation system defined by man, so to ask why a new species of monkey hasn't evolved since Homosapiens branched off completely ignores the fact that we didn't even start defining species until 100 years ago. In fact, there have been species that branched off from man, ourselves being one. We tended to kill the others off (Neanderthal). Here's an evolution timeline (just skip to 15 MYA)

So the reason why there are no new species of monkey is because the cumultative changes required for a species to form a completely new species is much longer than the 100 years we've been paying attention.

Why is it so important to have answers?

Why is it so important to have questions?

--Europium

To "answer" both of your "questions," for the same reason it is so important to have life.

In my case, you're 'preachin' to the choir.' But preach on, Brother!

--Europium

If you don't know why its so important to have answers, maybe you shouldnt be looking at an engineer's forum.

Zenons PAradox

Before an object can travel a given distance , it must travel a distance . In order to travel , it must travel , etc. Since this sequence goes on forever, it therefore appears that the distance cannot be traveled.

In other words, it is mathematically impossible to walk through a door???????

This paradox has been solved. We now know that you can add up an infinite number of numbers and get a number, if the series converges. Here are a couple of examples:

.

Here is a link in wikipedia describing infinite series, it also references Zeno's paradoxes.

Closed forms of infinite series are pretty interesting too...which brings us back to the infinite surface area within a fixed volume.

Is there an echo in here..her... he... h...?

I don't believe they solved it all

In your equation what is the value of forever???????

Have the defined infinity???? if so is (Infinity +1) = infinity ???

Your free to believe whatever you wish regarding this.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm quite positive it's solved.

Roger - see Friday's Dilbert. I'm beginning to feel as though the entropy herein is approaching a limit, for me anyway.

"Roger - see Friday's Dilbert. I'm beginning to feel as though the entropy herein is approaching a limit, for me anyway"

I hear ya. I've noticed it really seems to depend on the thread. So far this week I've learned some cool number theory tricks, some relativity (thanks Jorrie), a funny Dilbert storyline (thanks), some interesting books worth reading, and a bunch of different ways to pump water up hill. In other threads, like this one, there just seems to be a lot of (as you said) entropy.

Yeah, that conclusion used to really bug people until some ne'er-do-well came up with the idea of a limit. Of course, the invaluable contributions of the then-relatively-new concepts of zero, and its equally untidy twin, infinity, didn't hurt here either. (The Pope wasn't pleased at all by the latter two concepts, by the way, and outlawed them for awhile until the Ancient One forcibly called him to repentance.)

--Europium

I'll have to admit I don't know much about it, but I know there is a lot of vociferous debate about string theory and its merits and failings.

Maybe this has been answered, but it would have been relatively recently.

Where does corn come from? There are no known species of wild corn, nor any strain of domesticated corn that can propagate in the wild.

I have been told that corn is the result of selective breeding of grasses. If let to go on its own that it will eventually go back to being just a grass.

I would like some feedback from Elika. Are these the types of questions you are looking for? Here is another type, not quite as esoteric but possibly interesting:

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it fall, does it make a noise?

How do you measure the depth of a thought?

What is the temperature of a hot idea?

Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?

Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

How high is the sky?

How soft is a cloud?

What is the air-speed velocity of an African swallow if it is carrying a one pound coconut by the husk while tethered to a migrating five-ounce European swallow?

If Goofy is a dog and Mickey is a mouse and they can talk to each other in English, why can't Pluto, another dog, talk to Mickey? And why does Pluto have to wear a collar, be walked by Mickey on a leash, walk on four legs, and sleep on the floor of Mickey's house, while Goofy walks on two legs, has his own house and bed, holds down a paying job, and sometimes even drives a car?

Assuming there are angels, and angels can dance, how many angels can dance on the point of an infinitely sharp pin?

I can probably come up with more if these work for you.

"...why can't Pluto, another dog, talk to Mickey? And why does Pluto have to wear a collar, be walked by Mickey on a leash, walk on four legs, and sleep on the floor of Mickey's house,.."

Obviously Pluto is a Republican!

(Just kidding, Folks!!!)

muiporuE--

actually that's d kind of humor that wud do in here! so keep on goin'...

I've got some answers for you STL Engineer

Q. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

A. Clap!

Q. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it fall, does it make a noise?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you measure the depth of a thought?

A. Quickly.

Q. What is the temperature of a hot idea?

A. About 37.5 C

Q. Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?

A. Yes but only in E Sharp

Q. Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

A. Yes, all except purple.

Q. How high is the sky?

A. About 160 km

Q. How soft is a cloud?

A. About as soft as fog.

Q. What is the air-speed velocity of an African swallow if it is carrying a one pound coconut by the husk while tethered to a migrating five-ounce European swallow?

A. Zero. Its dead from heart failure.

Q. If Goofy is a dog and Mickey is a mouse and they can talk to each other in English, why can't Pluto, another dog, talk to Mickey? And why does Pluto have to wear a collar, be walked by Mickey on a leash, walk on four legs, and sleep on the floor of Mickey's house, while Goofy walks on two legs, has his own house and bed, holds down a paying job, and sometimes even drives a car?

A. Pluto is not in the Actors Guild.

Q. Assuming there are angels, and angels can dance, how many angels can dance on the point of an infinitely sharp pin?

A. 42

Hope thats clarified some nagging problems for you.

For my next trick -

I'll prove that Black is actually White and that there are no fish bones in icecream.

Sez you!

This is more of a thought than an unanswered question.

Amoebas reproduce by division. There is no difference between the parent and the offspring, just a splitting. Therefore when we look under a microscope at an amoeba, we are looking at a creature that has been continuously alive longer than mankind has existed.

Well here is the question:

If amoebas reproduce by splitting only, and their DNA never changes, what did they evolve from? Did amino acids and proteins just suddenly become an amoeba one day?

Maybe we have just answered the question of Creationism versus Evolution!

You wrote: "Amoebas reproduce by division."

---------------

If amoebas reproduce by division, then how do they multiply? By using adders on a log table?

I couldn't resist, even if it is an old joke!

--Europium

No, no. Since they multiply by dividing, they must use reciprocals!

You said, "By using adders on a log table?" What do snakes on a piece of rustic furniture have to do with single-cell creature biology anyway?

Thanks for the smile! I need at least one good chuckle per day.

But if snakes had arms, and they could be taught to type. Hmmm, an infinite number of adders at an infinite number of calculators....

Tools, nothing more.

BTW, remember Intel's debacle with that erroneous floating-point problem and their immediate public response to it?

Intel (aka The Borg): "Division is futile. You will be approximated."

--E

Please try to www.adslexpress.ro/soma

Perhaps my original question was obscure, or does not qualify because there are too many answers. Is there a god and how can proof be demonstrated? The answer must be NO, unless there is proof. "somebody must have created the universe" does not really qualify as proof.

I personally feel that, in terms of proving the existence of a God, we're pretty much in the same boat as characters consigned to live between the covers of a novel might debate the existence of the Author.

--Europium

how do you define time without using the word time in the def

I don't define time, nor mass, nor charge, nor a number of other physical quantities which I consider to be axiomatic, pending further data.

--Europium

Assuming someone had demonstrated such proof. Proof you yourself could accept as conclusive.

What would it look like?

--Europium

"The answer must be NO, unless there is proof."

So a thing cannot be true without proof.

What kept us planted on the earth before Newton?

What caused the earth and the heavens to reverse their roles as center before Galileo?

I am an explorer on a newly discovered, albeit, barren planet and stumble upon a shiny Timex watch, ticking away in the sand. Would I assume that the various elements that make up a watch had, purely at random, assembled themselves in precisely the correct amounts and shapes etc. to have produced this strange formation on the planet's surface? I think not, I would make a much simpler deduction, "I am not the first person to have walked on this planet!"

"lex parsimoniae !"

To say "things are the way they are because if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to observe them" to me, is a cop out.

I see far too much evidence, regardless of where I look, to dismiss intelligent design.

Good point, Merk.

You wrote: "Would I assume that the various elements that make up a watch had, purely at random, assembled themselves in precisely the correct amounts and shapes etc. to have produced this strange formation on the planet's surface?"

--------------------

Perhaps Evolutionary Theory could use a formal introduction to The Laws of Thermodynamics. Especially the entropy part.

(On the other hand, they may not get along all that well, considering the one is a theory, and the other is a law.)

--Europium

"The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

To call a living organism an "isolated system" is quite erronous.

If; 1. The planet had previously contained all the molecules neccesary to make the watch, 2. They were all being blown about randomly over the surface of the planet without stopping, 3. Each time two of the molecules came together in the correct orientation to make the watch correctly they became permenantly bonded together and 4. They were given multiple billions of years to do so; then no, I would not be surprised to find such a watch in such a place.

If you don't fully understand the analogy:

Watch molecules = genetic material and its precursors

Wind blowing = random mutation

Permenant bonding of molecules = natural selection

What if God's design was using genetic materials and His design iterations included so-called "random mutation", and His results were achieved by His own process of "natural selection" (If NATURE = GOD then Natural Selection = God's Choice), which He created in the first place?

Can't Evolution be part of God's Creative Process?

Yes, that's true.

But then you can accomodate "God" into ANY set of circumstances or attribute "God's Laws" to any process merely by redefining the characteristics of God.

I think the reason most people do not go along with that view STL Engineer is that the description of the evolutionary process is extremely contradictory to the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and man.

Yes, I agree. If you take everything in Genesis, and the rest of the Bible literally, but what if it was more allegorical? Aren't even many scientific theories explained figuratively, especially where the mathematics is highly complex or even not yet quite figured out?

Jesus Himself used parables and allegories to get His points across. Even Old testament writers and prophets spoke in figurative ways, through dreams and visions, often interpreting them, but just as often, not.

As a project engineer, do I scrutinize every single fastener and mechanism that goes into the design of a machine which has been created by others, or do I review the overall plans, examine a few details to satisfy myself that the work has been done with a certain level of expertise and follows good engineering practices? Usually, it is the latter, and the rest is taken on faith.To do otherwise would be a waste of my, and my employer's, valuable time.

Like this thread!

I'd still be suprised...and I realize that you are playing devil's advocate, but...

Thats a lot of what if's, not to mention that this hypothesis requires sub-assemblies of watch components to be kept instead of being rejected, in spite of the fact that half a gear attached to an un-anchored spring has no function.

The alien Timex is an irreducibly complex system. Lets make it easy for the watch system. We will take appart a fully functional watch and put all of the components into an old coffee can. Shaken or stirred, its your choice, you'll be waiting an awfully long time before they re-assemble into a working timepiece (I am no statistician, but I'd venture that the time required would be longer than the universe has existed). Thats starting with pre-made parts, in a closed system containing precisely the right stuff......

I still believe someone has visited this planet before, and that visitor dropped his watch, I only wish it were a Rolex!

Lets take this a step further, we'll start with a simple sundial, very crude. Merely a rock sticking up in the right place, casting it's shadow on some pebbles arranged around it. Now let us bestow upon this outcropping the ability to replicate. For billions of years, that is all we have, a world inhabited by sundial creatures. Suddenly, after all of this time, almost as if overnight, we are suddenly confronted with not only sundials, but wrist watches, both anolog and digital, fancy and plain, his and hers. Add to this fauna, the emergence of clocks of every imaginable body type, grandfather clocks, mantel clocks, wall clocks even atomic clocks.

The Cambrian explosion of every phylum in existance and those extinct.How can this be?

Yet the text books tell me this is what happened, and it is believed and accepted by all because you would have to be a wacked out, gun toting, Bible thumping Liumbaugh lover to think otherwise.

I for one, enjoy listening to Rush and I definetly believe in God. (although, my being Canadian means only the criminals here have guns, but we can keep small calibre Bibles if we register them)

Just to clear up: I am not playing devil's advocate, I am defending a position I myself believe in. I am both an atheist and I believe that the source of intelligence on earth is evolution and there is sufficient evidence for this. You might have been confused because I don't (or at least I try not to) take a "smarter than you, how can you believe this you stupid, wacked out, gun-toting, Limbaugh-listening, bible-thumping hillbilly" attitude when I engage in debates like this. I actually dislike it when people DO agree with me, but only because there is "scientific consensus" or "only morons believe otherwise." I think far, far too many atheists act like self-righteous jerks. But I digress.

You are correct, the model I presented does not completely refute your stance. It requires those molecules to "know" their proper orientation beforehand, implying intelligence.

However, the irreducibly complex argument is an example of begging the question:

There are irreducibly complex systems in biology (or any other science)
The only way these could come about would be from an intelligent designer
Therefore there is an intelligent designer.

While this is not neccesarily an illogical argument it is fallacious. The second proposition assumes there is a designer. I could similarly prove the existence of Zeus.

There is lightning
The only source of lightning is the god Zeus
Therefore Zeus exists.

There are many alternative explainations for irreducibly complex systems that fit into the model of evolution. Perhaps some of the parts by themselves merely conferred an advantage. Then when combined they conferred a greater advantage, but suddenly one of the parts was now neccesary. For example, there are jellyfish that have only light-sensitive patches of nerves, a precursor to our own rods and cones.

As for the Cambrian explosion; this is something that is really not well understood by evolutionary scientists, and is a large weakness in the fossil record. However, once again you beg the question; you assume that such a large increase in the diversity of species means there is an intelligent creator. An alternate explaination is that those species at that time developed hard shells, making it more likely for them to become fossils. All those phyla may have come about slowly and speciated normally but we don't know about it because they didn't make fossils.

Look behind you and ask the alien if it's lost a watch.

Continuing this train of thought...

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, assume that I am a staunch skeptic of certain claims of History. For example, I don't believe for a minute that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. I think the whole thing is a sham; but not only is it a sham, I think that everyone who holds this point of view has mindlessly succumbed to the fictitious claims of History and are thereby suspect. As the also-fictitious Karl Marx has clearly pointed out, History is the opiate of the masses.

I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate conclusive proof that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. This should be a fairly easy task on your part, comparatively speaking. And as I'm feeling particularly generous today, I'll even give you a leg up on what I might consider to be conclusive proof: what did he look like?

--Europium

Europium,

You should have gone back a little further in time, before photography existed. Abrahm Lincoln and his Presidency were well documented in photographs taken by Mathew B. Brady and others. Also, there are numerous documents with his signature as President.

Photographic evidence and primary documents (not copies, which can be easily altered) are submitted as evidence every day in every court in the U.S., and presumably other countries as well.

If you are talking about a philosophical proof that what we can see and touch is "real", including historical documents and artifacts, then that is out of my realm.

(YEAH CARDS! WORLD SERIES CHAMPS!)

To give the poster every single possible advantage, I deliberately did not go back further in time. As devil's advocate, I have approached this topic in exactly the same way as do those with whom I have debated this issue in the past. In having adopted this approach, I dismiss Brady's photographs on the grounds that current image-processing techniques, together with various relevant photographic and printing technologies, are sufficiently sophisticated to convincingly forge any photograph one might submit to the courts, for example. The fact that the courts accept such "original" photographs as primary evidence, I dismiss (again, as D's advocate) as nothing more than an attempt at "proof by consensus." In so doing, I am emulating the very kinds of objections I have encountered every single time I have debated the topic of objective proof.

This is not a discussion about "philosophical proof" at all. It is a reductio ad absurdum demonstration of a suppression of evidence. The problem isn't that evidence is lacking. There's plenty of it and to spare. So what is the real issue? Stripped of its ornamentation, it basically boils down to one of the suppression of evidence in order to substantiate a claim to the contrary.

--Europium

I am not sure what side of which argument you are arguing, or is this just contradiction, a la "Monty Python's Flying Circus"?

Yes, you can go into absurd arguments about forging historical documents. That will put you in the nut-house with other "conspiracy theorists" who believe that:

1. The 1969 and subsequent manned lunar landings never took place, it was all staged by NASA to continue their funding after failure of key space technologies.

2. Project Bluebook and the whole UFO "cover up" was more than just an attempt by the Air Force to maintain secrecy of top secret aircraft development projects. (There really are superintelligent aliens with technology to traverse huge expanses of space, yet crash their advanced spacecraft into our forest, deserts, and mountains, leaving alien bodies and spacecraft debris for our scientists to study and our government to keep secret, yeah, right!)

3. The NAZI "Final Solution" during World War II, which sent around 6 Million (mostly) Jewish Europeans to their deaths in concentration camps, gas chambers, and firing squads was just a hoax, intended to destroy the fine reputations of the Nazi leaders of the Third Reich.

4. The current conflict in Iran was started by George Bush ONLY to get re-elected and to protect a prime source of Mideast oil, and incidentally Saddam Hussein was really a nice guy who had no plans for regional (or beyond) conquest and no Weapons of Mass Destruction (who is counting a few measly Chemical and Biological weapons, I mean, really, you have got to blow things up to have WMD's right?)

5. And President John F. Kennedy was....oh, let's just NOT go there!

If you believe any of these conspiracy theories, well, I have this bridge in Brooklyn....

You are missing the point entirely.

--Europium

He is missing your point entirely, I agree.

If I understand correctly your point is there is tons of evidence for the existence of god, but people merely suppress it and thus argue through contradiction, never actually proving their own point, god's non-existence. Correct me if I am wrong.

It is important to realize that when claiming the existence of god the burden of proof is on YOU, the claimant. Just like a person being tried for a crime is innocent until proven guilty, in the mind of a rational being god must be nonexistent until proven existent.

Keeping this in mind, what exactly IS your evidence that god exists?

I hope this doesn't come across as insulting, I am actually genuinely interested in what you have to say Europium.

OK, Euro. My apologies. I reread your post, in light of what Mr. Rocket posted and now realize that you were just playing Devil's advocate, which is somewhat ironic, don't you think? After all, isn't one of the Devil's goals to get Man to deny the existence of God, and therefore keep human beings separated from the Love of God, as he himself is?

Regardless, I have to agree with Mr. Rocket, that in an argument, the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, but what is the claim? God does exist, or God doesn't exist?

In Christianity, if not in Judaism, or Islam, that point is moot. The point is belief, not proof. Do I need proof to believe something? Not necessarily, but it helps. Are there arguments and "proof" on both sides of the issue, certainly. But eventually, it seems, it just boils down to contradiction, Monty Python nothwithstanding, and one has to choose what one believes based on faith.

Apology accepted. (BTW, I've never been much holding grudges. My memory is too short.)

My fave is the 'Architect Sketch' btw

--Europium

If the answer to life, universe and everything is say '42', then what if, in the equation, the probability of nothing happening is zero. Then if something happens you have not zero. However, if nothing happening was part of the equation and it did happen then nothing happening is 1. But if nothing happening is a happening then happening means nothing. Back to zero.

Therefore life is zero. When something happens, let me know.....

Reminds me of the old Abbott and Costello routine,"Who's on first?"

Is this what you call circular logic?

Check out the link for a great laugh!

And congratulations to the St. Louis Cardinals, World Series Champions!

A lot of beating around the bush going on here and I am sure that those responding are A. Intelligent, B. Primarily Athiest, C. have good reserves of wacky jokes. but is anyone going to offer "Proof" that god exists, or did exist, or cares whether you pray or not..? So, Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Will you be having your usual?" Descartes says, "I think not," - and disappears. Good night.

No beating around the bush here. I'll smack that sucker right on top of its main stem!

A. Some may say I am extremely intelligent, others, not so much.

B. No, I am primarily a Christian, and secondarily, and tertiarily, etc.

C. Some wacky, some not so wacky, but I don't need to offer "Proof" that God exists and cares for us and our prayers, I accept Him as he accepts us, based on faith alone. Your acceptance may differ.

So, is this bar in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" ?

Wait a minute..... oh, yeah.

So, Darwin walks into the same bar. The bartender again says, "Will you be having your usual?" Darwin says, "That would be my natural selection," - and evolves into a higher form of existance. Good afternoon!

1. Faith is not proof. You are on the wrong page. 2. Belief is not proof. 3. So many poeple can't be wrong is not proof. 4. The bible is not proof. 5. The kill numbers throughout history in the name of Jesus is not proof. Am I on the wrong page? I thought this discussion was for engineers. If I was wrong, I have some great jokes from catholic priests to pass on....

"1. Faith is not proof. You are on the wrong page."

I never said it was. I was merely responding to your (probably wrong) assertion that those responding are "B. Primarily Athiest" and your question 'is anyone going to offer "Proof" that god exists,...' If you are looking for someone to answer that question perhaps you ARE on the wrong page. Try looking for a webpage on religion or philosophy, not engineering.

And what gives you the right to tell me that I am on the wrong page? I have just as much right to be here as anyone else.

As for your other points:

2. Again, I never said it was.

3. Ditto

4. Double ditto.

5. OH, COME ON! Get off it already. That old saw just won't cut. If I went out and committed a murder, or a series of murders, even gruesome, cannabalistic, corpse-mutilating, bizarre, no-apparent-motive killings, and said, "I did it in the name of Elvis", or "Elvis appeared to me in a dream and told me to do it, or "I played "Hound Dog" backwards and heard Elvis singing, 'Kill them, kill them all!' ", would that tarnish the reputation of The King of Rock and Roll?

You can't blame Jesus, or God, for atrocities committed in His name by humans, either.

Actually, I would love to hear "some great jokes from catholic priests"!

By the way, I loved your Descartes joke. Very funny!

Hi. Let me get this straight. So you hypothesize that because you (presumably a majority of one?) are not an athiest my suggestion that the majority of contributors here might be athiests, I am probably wrong? Added to your apparently having taken "the leap of faith", would it be valid to assume that you have no evidence for doing so? I liked the list of French war experiences, but then I am English. The French have a quaint little saying that makes them feel better: (best told with a French accent). "The Germans live to work. The French work to live. The English....Well, the English, they do neither". The English have a quaint response. "The French, they are a funny race, they fight with their feet and they fuck with their face". I am not sure what this all has to do with the original question, or even the one about evidence prooving the existence of god, but keep going...

Paul,

You said, "So you hypothesize that because you (presumably a majority of one?) are not an athiest my suggestion that the majority of contributors here might be athiests, I am probably wrong?"

Wait a minute. If you had said in the first place "the majority of contributors here might be atheist", I would not have disagreed, or agreed, with you. However, you said that "I am sure that those responding are ... B. Primarily Athiest..." and all I said was that I, for one, am primarily NOT an atheist. I will now go so far now as to say that many, if not a majority, of those who read and post to CR4 are NOT atheists. My evidence is in the dozens, if not more, posts from various people here at CR4 which I have read in the last few months, arguing both sides of the question when discussing creationism versus evolution. Many of these non-atheists are much more conservative (bible-thumpers) than I am. Even some of those who argued for evolution did not necessarily disbelieve in some form of a supreme being, so they could not technically be called 'atheists" either. Neither are the several obviously Hindu and Budhist contributors. I am not sure if there were any Islamic posters, but I would guess that some of the "Guests" might be, since we do get a lot of questions from obviously "Third World" proto-industrialists and technicians.

Also, you said, "Added to your apparently having taken "the leap of faith", would it be valid to assume that you have no evidence for doing so?"

I already told you, I don't need evidence. As I said, "Your acceptance may differ". By definition (not mine, but Merriam-Webster's) Faith is:

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Check that: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" See, even M-W says I don't need proof for faith! However, while there may not be any "proof", that you accept, there is plenty of "evidence", especially for one "who has ears to hear, let him hear."

BTW, it seems to me that you HAVE taken a leap of faith. By claiming that God does NOT exist, you have taken on the burden of proof to support your claim. Where is your "proof"? I merely said that I accept God on faith, you are free to believe what you want, and suffer the consequences, if any, for it.

And what's all this about "French war experiences",...you are including a reply to someone else in your reply to me? Didn't even begin a new paragraph, just change gears with the very next sentence and start replying to another post without any reference. How cheesy!

So you can make a leap of faith apparently without any evidence whatsoever (since you continue to avoid actually presenting any), you apparently cannot even keep track of more than one conversational string at a time, and so your response is to allow yourself the luxury of personal insults. Can you actually define the meaning or origin of the word cheesy? Don't you at least have any good jokes to tell?