| Author |
Comment |
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 15
(2/3/04 6:11 am)
206.63.170.76
| Del
All |
Big Bang
Problem?
Hi all,
I know I haven't been around since the uppy\shadow
incident, but I was reading your last posts on the "beliefs" thread
and I got interested again. So I thought I'd ask this question just
to for the fun of it. Here goes...
Evolutionist's believe
in the big bang right? And they believe that all the "dirt" in the
universe came together and was compressed into a dot no larger than
the dot under this question mark, right? So, I was wondering, where
did this dirt that got compressed come from?
Maybe I
shouldn't be stirring this up again, but I got curious. So sue me.
Shadow III
|
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 4984
(2/3/04
7:19 am)
212.246.17.130
| Del
 |
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
Hello again.
*sarcasm mode* Probably those who believe on that theory
will say something like "It all just was there, and then it
'uncompressed'"..
Anyways, that's what I have always thought
when thinking about that theory. Where did that stuff come
from?
Some think there's been this all before too, but then
the Universe shrunk back and expanded later again.. But then, how
did it start? Thinking about that leads to allkinds of questions
that are probably impossible to answer.
And notice, I don't
know almost anything about this subject!
That very thing is
the very base of my thinking I don't believe physics are
true.
Edit: Yeah, and interesting to see where this goes..
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey Edited by: KeenRush
at: 2/3/04 7:20 am
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 968
(2/3/04 7:53 am)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
What if it _never_ started?
________
¨@_ |
adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 912
(2/3/04 8:38 am)
203.21.143.199
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
That's not really a possibility, given our current understanding of
physics. If the universe never started, then it would have to have
either an infinite energy content, or an infinite source of new
energy, neither of which appears to be the case; therefore, it
started sometime.
|
KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 673
(2/3/04 11:58 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
Quote:
Evolutionist's believe in the big bang right? And they believe
that all the "dirt" in the universe came together and was
compressed into a dot no larger than the dot under this question
mark, right?
Not necessarily. Not
necesarily. But, if you're talking about the state before the big
bang being that of a singularity (which is an infinitely tiny point,
not only a point "no longer than the dot under that question mark"),
you have to remember that none of the physical laws as we know it
apply, or are true at all, within one. I'm not a physicist, but I'm
guessing it's not beyond possibility that, if no known physical
rules applied in a certain instance of probability, it might indeed
have created itself. The term "dirt that got compressed" is a bit
misleading, since firstly the atoms might not have been in their
solid state and secondly it implies that the dirt already existed
and was "compressed" into this.
Quote:
Just remember that this is the year of the elite
devil.
1337 + 666 = 2003
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 970
(2/3/04 12:06 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
I know - I meant that more as an answer to KeenRush's speculation
about an ever-pulsating universe.
________
¨@_ |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2298
(2/3/04 12:14
pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
Keenempire are you really serious that without physical laws it is
possible that someting created itself. I'm not that religious
anymore but I'd say that a God in that case makes more sense to me.
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
|
Too
Much Spare Time 
King Slug
Posts:
790
(2/3/04 12:27
pm)
218.101.96.242
| Del
 |
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
Actually, let's not be too quick to discredit Snaily's suggestion
of an eternal universe. There is one theory that proposes that as
the universe changes and evolves, its PAST actually changes, just as
does its FUTURE.
At the current stage in the universe's
development, we can work back and see a "Big Bang". However, in say,
a gajillion years' time, one could work back and find that perhaps
there was a completely different start to the universe! When it
comes to measuring something as conceptually elusive as time, all
that is most certain is the NOW. Past? Future? Who knows. In a
gajillion years from now, the NOW might suggest a very different
start to the universe... maybe one where the start IS the end (for
example)!
So, perhaps in Newton's day, when they decided that
the universe was giant clockwork machine that had no start and no
end, perhaps, just PERHAPS... IT *WAS*... but then it changed,
altering its own history such that we now see that there was a Big
Bang... Ooh... spooky eh?
Oh and if you want to know more
about this theory... I just made all that up. Thanks for reading it.
----------
The Chasm of Strife (deceased):
www.ThisStrife.com/Sluggy/chasm.htm Edited by: Too
Much Spare Time at: 2/3/04 12:30 pm
|
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 179
(2/3/04 12:33 pm)
203.220.175.144
| Del
|
We thorld sakes
mense yen wou kook lat yit.
Well, my theory is that the nothingness that existed (or didn't
exist) on the other side of the Big Bang is the world that actually
makes sense. Or sakes mense. Or something. Or nothing.
Thatnever.
The outhabitors in this other realm of nothingness
and timelessness fabricated a world that makes no sense whatsoever,
but which runs by laws that its inhabitors are misguided into
believing make sense.
This absurd world is one where Infinity
is an elusive concept--in the real world, the pre-/post-/omni-Big
Bang world, the idea of limitation, of a world of boundaries and
laws, remain as incomprehensible as the idea of a boundless world is
to us. But somehow, the idea manifested.
So, perhaps we're
the nothing. Perhaps this 'something' that surrounds us is simply
the world of nothingness that came before the Big Bang, which we can
scarcely imagine, ceasing to exist... or not exist... or
nothing.
But then, Omni-Big Bang World could have an Omni-law
that causes the world to exist (be nothing) and not exist (be
something) from no time to no other. And yet perhaps both can be
happening at once, and there could be yet a third 'opposite' world,
and thus an infinite array of equally polarised worlds existing and
not existing and neither existing nor not none at once, and all at
fiftieth.
Or something. Or nothing... Or whatever is opposite
to them both...
>Commander Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ |
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 4987
(2/3/04
12:38 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
^ I have heard that thing ("never started") Snaily, and it's kinda
funny.. :P
One can easily compare science to some religion;
in both of them people believe something is really true. Those who
believe in science can always say "It's tested with a number of
experiements, and it's true", but of course you can never know
anything for sure, and all the theories about things that simply can
not be known start to sound pretty pointless, to me, at least. And
how do you know your physics and other stuff aren't just "local"?
(Don't say "experiements"....)
Everything starts from something,
and even if you believe in science you need to believe you exist,
man can get valid information, world is what you can read from the
physics book, mind is atoms & other cr*p.. The point is that one
can believe in the formulas of physics, another to the word of the
Bible, but you still need to believe something before accepting any
information you think is right, and that way believing Newton's
stuff about dropping something and it falls down here on Earth isn't
more than believing God because this all exists, because in Bible
you can see God created all..
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey |
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 180
(2/3/04 1:10 pm)
203.220.175.144
| Del
|
An Arbitrary
Present.
Quote:
There is one theory that proposes that as the universe changes and
evolves, its PAST actually changes, just as does its FUTURE.
Actually, I'm in the midst
of reading a book entitled The Shape
of Things to Come by Jane Anderson,
which offers an intriguing version of this:
"Imagine space-time like
a huge three dimensional patchwork blanket spread throughout the
universe. (Space-time is really a four dimensional concept ... [but]
a 3-D imaginary blanket will suffice to get the picture!) The
patchwork squares may stretch and curve when pulled by the gravity
of a nearby planet, or elongate under the tension of localised
motion. The lines forming the edges of the squares (curved or
otherwise) are chunks of time, some long, some short, each sharing
corners with interecting lines (points of agreed now moments), but
each experiencing different time values relative to each other.
Apart from the interescting corners, there is no common agreement on
now....
"On this space-time patchwork blanket, where is the
present moment if no now points of time can be agreed? Take one now
point. Do all the other now points fall into either past, future, or
(maybe) present moments relative to this chosen now point? If so,
the future already exists, just as much as the past does. No longer
does it become a matter of when is tomorrow, but a weird mixture of
where and when.
"This is the timescape view of time
understood by many modern physicists to be the best model for the
reality of time. Just as we can stand back and view a landscape,
they argue, so we can perceive a timescape, where past, present and
future all exist together. This model, also known as block time, not
only suits their theories, but also their scientific
observations."
And some time
later, there comes this:
"The
question of meaning is further compounded by the theory of parallel
universes which, accordning to quantum physics, may well exist. If
they do, then you, as an individual, exist in multiple variations in
an infinite number of alternative universes.
"Every subatomic
situation, according to quantum physics, has a variety of possible
outcomes, each of which already exists. Which outcome seems to
occur is determined by the observer since, according to modern
physics, the observer's mind is always part of the experimental
outcome. However, since all possible outcomes exist, then so do all
possible variations of the observer's expectations. The observer and
the event exist in multiple parallel universes, each one featureing
a different expected
outcome."
So, if we can no
longer discern a difference between the past, future and present,
and the universe is continually remodeling itself according to (or
preluding to) our expectations, then can we be changing the past
equally as frequently as we change the future by acting in the
present, creating a new universe, in its entirety, every single
moment we exist?
Could evolution and creation have formed two
streams of universe separately, only to coincide in Darwin's era?
Could we be descended angels and
ascended apes simultaneously, albeit in two universes intertwining
as one?
Could the world really have been flat in another
universe, until another was formed by a mass change of
perception?
And as TMST points out, can there have really
been a clockwork universe that blurred into one of microscopic
organisms and even more microscopic building blocks, in turn
blurring into another universe in which quantum physics enters the
picture?
We cannot answer these questions from looking to the
past, nor the future, for if the above is true then we are
refabricating them as we go.
Or is none of it true and the
universe is simply giving us what we want to see so we can decide
what we want to believe, and perhaps see through the façade and
realise that there's more (or less) to it than that.
Imagine
the power we have to resculpt our worlds if the universe is in a
constant state of omnievolution, forwards, backwars, upside down and
inwards, as we decide to experience it. Simply changing one
predominant thought brings about an alternative past that creates
the necessary present moment for great things to happen.
All
and none, as one.
>Commander Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ Edited by: CommanderSpleen
at: 2/3/04 1:15 pm
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1394
(2/3/04 1:46 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: An Arbitrary
Present.
The Big Bang and Biblical creation are not mutually exclusive. Do
creationists just attack it out of evolution-induced habit?
|
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 181
(2/3/04 2:30 pm)
203.220.175.144
| Del
|
Duality. The
only possibility?
Quote:
The Big Bang and Biblical creation are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not saying I believe
they are. I believe quite strongly that they both exist
side-by-side, as with creation and evolution. I'm just using them as
examples, albeit overly simplified ones, as to theoretical effects
of alternate intertwining universes whose nature is ultimately
timeless yet manifesting a unique past, present and future, as
perceived by any entity dwelling within, for each moment that
passes.
Perhaps it was an either/or situation regarding
Creation vs Evolution at some point the apparent past of this
universe, but two possibilities have merged as one to form a single
possibility that we now experience where it's becoming increasingly
more likely that the two were intertwined from the very
beginning.
I don't necessarily believe that to be the case,
but it's a possibility. As I mentioned in another post, I'm
convinced of the dual nature of the universe where apparent
opposites can and do exist as one ultimate truth. And indeed it's
possible that this must be
the case for the universe to exist at all--we see positive, negative
and neutral in effect everywhere we look, right down to the atomic
level (which quantum physics is proving to be a lot blurrier than
originally thought), apparently holding everything
together.
In amongst this duality can potentially exist a
linear time and an omnichronology, a creation and also an apparent
'fluke' event sparking the universe into existence, each possibility
clinging to its opposite to form one unified reality.
But if
it's the case, how can we tell that it always 'has been', that the
past we know in this universe hasn't been completely fabricated,
merging an infinite matrix of possibilities into an apparent linear
format?
As TMST said, we could look back in a gajillion years
at the history of the universe and find it remarkably different to
that which we know now. But would we be able to notice this,
observing from that particular NOW a gajillion years into the
future?
My point here isn't to emphasise any separation
between ideas that we can observe as intertwined anyway, but to
question the nature of the universe and try to see how the most
incomprehensible possibilities could exist. It's a futile endeavour,
but it's thought-provoking/mind-numbing
nonetheless/allthemore.
EDIT: Actually, now that I look back
on the post in question, it seems I did word it a bit
incorrectly.
Quote:
Could we be descended angels and ascended apes simultaneously,
albeit in two universes intertwining as one?
What I was meaning to get at
here was that perhaps each could be the one and only truth in two
particular universes that merged when the truths were called into
question, formulating an entire new stream of past, present and
future to fit the paradox.
Sure, it's an absurd example, but
then so is the rest of my ranting above. But that's just my
point--our whole existence could be absurd when looked at as a lack
of nothingness that runs on apparently absurd rules (or lack
thereof).
>Commander Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ Edited by: CommanderSpleen
at: 2/4/04 10:46 am
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish
Posts: 2734
(2/3/04 3:11
pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del
|
Re: Big Bang
Problem?
Shadow, there's really no difference in believing the speck of
matter came from nothing and God came from nothing. If you say God
was, is, and always will be, I could say that matter was, is, and
always will be. I'm an "evolutionist" but I question the big bang as
much as you. I really don't have a theory for how the universe
began.
Quote:
Originally
posted by: KeenRush
One
can easily compare science to some religion; in both of them
people believe something is really true.
No. Religion is belief based
on faith. Science is belief based upon evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Quote:
Originally
posted by: KeenRush
The
point is that one can believe in the formulas of physics, another
to the word of the Bible, but you still need to believe something
before accepting any information you think is right, and that way
believing Newton's stuff about dropping something and it falls
down here on Earth isn't more than believing God because this all
exists, because in Bible you can see God created all.
One is seeing something with
your own eyes, the other is word of mouth. Once again, there's a
difference between faith and evidence.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain
spatang.com
Edited by: Xtraverse
at: 2/3/04 3:11 pm
|
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 4989
(2/3/04
4:19 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del
|
Burn the
physics..
"Science is belief based upon evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt."
Well, people change. And things are different in
different cultures and stuff like that. Before the science of this
day would be thought as nonsense (at least somewhere). But everyone
isn't thinking the same way, or believing that things are as some
others think they are.
Scientist and most of the people of these
days, together, define what is reasonable/sensible (whatever it is)
- it isn't universal concept. It depends on the culture and
religions and so on. As they define this, they can say what is
reasonable - or insane.
The point is that person/people can't
"judge" what is reasonable, truth, valid fact/info.. That is just
believing (or whatever word you want to use) that you and your
"group" are right.
And you can't be sure the physics are working
or anything, since there are no "universal certificate" or anything.
You can't be sure - how do you know everything isn't controlled, and
things accidentally stop "behaving" like they have done this far?
You only believe - you believe that the very basics of things are
how they are, and that way "bigger" things "work" as they do. For
example you believe for example that reality consists of atoms (and
their smaller parts and so on), and believe gravitation because of
that and finally you believe the glass you drop falls down the
ground.. It may have happened every time before, but it can stop -
it is defined true among the physicists because it has always gone
that way..
Ok, I know, I repeat there stuff and it's probably
hard to read and so on.. But the point is that you believe things,
you just believe, and that's why I say you can compare religion and
physics; in both of them you believe same things than others
do.
"One is seeing something with your own eyes"
Yeah, and
that's of course allways true what your senses tell
you........
And I don't claim (right word??) that I know
something, I'll do the same than Socrates and say that I really
don't know. 
But I just believe God and all that, it's that
faith.
Well, you have your free will given..
I had
something else in mind, but I just simply forgot. 
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey |
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish
Posts: 2735
(2/3/04 8:05
pm)
69.162.175.74
| Del
|
Re: Burn the
physics..
Quote:
Well, people change. And things are different in different
cultures and stuff like that. Before the science of this day would
be thought as nonsense (at least somewhere). But everyone isn't
thinking the same way, or believing that things are as some others
think they are.
Nowadays there is an
established scientific method. Go back to the times where people
thought the earth was the center of the universe and look at their
"scientific" methods.
Dictionary.com says science is "The observation, identification,
description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation
of phenomena."
Quote:
It may have happened every time before, but it can stop
Have you seen it stop? Have
you heard of gravity ceasing to work on earth?
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain
spatang.com
|
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 265
(2/3/04 11:33 pm)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
faith
Quote:
Xtraverse: No. Religion is belief based on faith. Science is
belief based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lets not forget evolution is
faith based too, and one without any evidence. Christians have the
Bible, which is a supposed account from people at the time, that's
more evidence than evolution will ever have.
|
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 16
(2/4/04 4:59 am)
206.63.170.77
| Del
|
Re: faith
First of all,
Thank you Josephburke for your last post.
This is precisely the point I'm trying to get across.
#2: Ek, why must you always attack christianity. I was
not trying to attack evolution, I was just asking a completely
legitimate question.
Quote:
Shadow, there's really no difference in believing the speck of
matter came from nothing and God came from nothing. If you say God
was, is, and always will be, I could say that matter was, is, and
always will be. I'm an "evolutionist" but I question the big bang
as much as you. I really don't have a theory for how the universe
began.
Thank you xtraverse,
this is also the point I was making. Belief is having faith in
something, such as: I believe the next key I strike will be a nine:
6 Darn, wrong key! Anyway, if you sit down on a chair, you believe,
or have faith that the chair will support you. Science is being able
to take something and test it to prove it right, and to be able to
observe it. You cannot observe evolution, or test it. Therefore,
evolution is not science, but a belief. That's right, evolution and
creation have to both be accepted by faith. 
If this is true, then why are public schools using our
tax money to openly teach an unprovable theory as fact? If they're
going to teach evolution, then I think they should teach creationism
as well. Evolution is one of the biggest and most successful lies in
the world today.
Oh, yeah; one more thing. Water doesn't
compress. So how did water come to be? If all the matter in the
universe compressed it would create enormous heat. If there was
water, it would have evaporated...
I am now openly attacking
evolution. 
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 972
(2/4/04 5:39 am)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: faith
Damn, that is like, SO last year.
(on a sidenote, does these
topics come in waves? is it debate season, perhaps?)
________
¨@_ |
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 4992
(2/4/04
6:11 am)
212.246.17.130
| Del
|
Re: faith
Hmmm, good use of emotikeens there.
"Nowadays there is an established scientific
method."
That still can't be proven true, and you only have to
believe it's valid.
"Have you seen it stop? Have you heard of
gravity ceasing to work on earth?"
Probably I haven't, but I
wouldn't wonder if it happened.. right.. about.... NOW!
"If
this is true, then why are public schools using our tax money to
openly teach an unprovable theory as fact?"
That I wonder
too..
"Oh, yeah; one more thing. Water doesn't compress. So
how did water come to be? If all the matter in the universe
compressed it would create enormous heat. If there was water, it
would have evaporated..."
Well, if I have understood correctly,
which I probably haven't, all the matter that was there, means just
parts of atoms. They were there freely and not "connected" to each
other any way.. Well, when it "explode", some of them formed some
basic atoms, because there was so hot. Those atoms formed stars,
which burned and formed new atoms. Later those atoms and stuff in
space "condensed" and formed Earth and other stuff. And there they
finally managed to develop into plants and conscious and living
creatures.. And every part of your body's atoms, has been flowing
there in the space long long time ago..
^ Yeah, sounds very
true..
*sarcasm off* I hate that kind of stuff taught in
school..
Well, sometimes (ok, often) discussing things is
pretty hard because of different beliefs of people.. 
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1396
(2/4/04 7:03 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: faith
me attacking
Christianity?
uh...
whatever.
Hint: read what I
say without bias or assumption and you may actually understand what
I intended.
|
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 265
(2/4/04 9:21 am)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
change
Topics like this are pointless, the world isn't perfect so why try
to change it, change yourself instead.
|
adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 913
(2/4/04 10:49 am)
203.21.143.49
| Del
|
Re:
change
"There is a theory which states that
if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it
is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something
even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which
states that this has already happened."
-- Douglas Adams.
CommanderSpleen wrote:
Quote:
But if it's the case, how can we tell that it always 'has
been', that the past we know in this universe hasn't been
completely fabricated, merging an infinite matrix of possibilities
into an apparent linear format?
As TMST said, we could look
back in a gajillion years at the history of the universe and find
it remarkably different to that which we know now. But would we be
able to notice this, observing from that particular NOW a
gajillion years into the future?
My point here isn't to
emphasise any separation between ideas that we can observe as
intertwined anyway, but to question the nature of the universe and
try to see how the most incomprehensible possibilities could
exist. It's a futile endeavour, but it's
thought-provoking/mind-numbing nonetheless/allthemore.
It's all very well to come
up with theories like this, but it's not very supportable reasoning.
All our data indicates that as time goes by, things behave in
particular ways, and end up in a state which can give a very good
indication of the way they were behaving in the near past -- and no
data that suggests otherwise. Therefore, to extrapolate that to say
that we can deduce the past of the universe (to some extent) with
fair certainty is eminently reasonable; while to propose a theory
such as you or TMST here do is much less reasonable. (Occam's razor
at work?). It doesn't eliminate the possibility, but it puts it in a
very uncertain light (always assuming that logical reasoning is
valid and has any connection with the universe (always assuming that
the universe exists (always assuming that existence is a valid
concept, which I'm taking as given), which I'm taking as given),
which I'm taking as given). 
Xtraverse wrote:
Quote:
Shadow, there's really no difference in believing the speck of
matter came from nothing and God came from nothing. If you say God
was, is, and always will be, I could say that matter was, is, and
always will be.
No; to say that matter was,
is, and always will be is *less* supportable, as it goes against the
majority of our observations, and is not very reasonable. When
considering about God, one is essentially considering something that
is beyond our observation, and thus beyond reasonability or
unreasonability.
|
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 182
(2/4/04 12:30 pm)
203.220.175.218
| Del
|
Amusing.
Quote:
It doesn't eliminate the possibility, but it puts it in a very
uncertain light (always assuming that logical reasoning is valid
and has any connection with the universe (always assuming that the
universe exists (always assuming that existence is a valid
concept, which I'm taking as given), which I'm taking as given),
which I'm taking as given).
The medium of a message
board post is insufficient to describe the laughter that induced.
I'll be laughing at that for days.
Quote:
to propose a theory such as you or TMST here do is much less
reasonable
Exactly. And thus it makes
perfect sense in the real world (assuming this is the imaginary
world, which I'm giving as a taken).
Argh. The amusement
continues... only four emoticons have shown up... one of them is
. So much irony... so little time. Man, I'm gonna pass out if I keep
laughing. Baahahaha. 
just loaded up.
I need less sleep...
Argh... computer keeps doing amusing stuff still. Better end this
post before it gets out of hand.
>Commander Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ |
Flaose
The Vagrant
Posts: 1390
(2/4/04 1:17 pm)
68.147.109.142
| Del
 |
Re:
Amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by: ShadowIII
#2: Ek, why must you
always attack christianity. I was not trying to attack evolution,
I was just asking a completely legitimate question.
If you actually read what eK
had said, you'd realize he was specifically not
attacking Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by: ShadowIII
If this is true, then
why are public schools using our tax money to openly teach an
unprovable theory as fact?
They still teach physics in
school, and I don't hear you complaining about that.
--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs.
Eat at
Joes |
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 4996
(2/4/04
4:19 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del
|
Re:
Amusing.
^ I have complained about it (to myself), but not here.. Often I
have thrown my physics book down and cursed the whole thing.. Too
bad some knowledge of physics starts to be required, and that's only
reason I'm reading that more than necessary.. I must be stupid, I
could have stopped some months ago.. 
"the world isn't perfect so why try to change it, change
yourself instead"
That's a good tip, but is this topic about
changing the world, no, it's just about complaining how it sucks.
Hmmm, wait a second, that wasn't the original topic. Well, can't
remember that anymore..
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1397
(2/4/04 4:29 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re:
Amusing.
The Big Bang is just a theory based on evidence. Even now, as we
argue about it, scientists are working to improve on it. There are a
lot of questions left unanswered. There is evidence for it - the
expansion of the universe, for instance, and it's not completely
made up.
Right now, it's the best scientific theory as to how
the universe began, and until there's a better one, it'll stay that
way.
Likewise, evolution is a similarly based theory. There
is, however, a lot more going for evolution than the big bang
theory. It's been around far longer and is much more refined. The
big bang theory, in contrast, is very new and hasn't had as much
time to be perfected.
Darwin's original theory was far from
complete. We know FAR more about it now than we did then, and we
have much more evidence for it, if you only cared to see it.
|
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 265
(2/4/04 5:40 pm)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
evolution and
evolution
I think we need the elephant analogy, now just to remember it… Hope
this is exact, sorry if it isn't. Three blind men walk up to an
elephant, the first feels the trunk and says it's a snake, the
second feels it's legs and says it's a tree trunk, the third feels
it's horns and says it's a bull.
The Evolutionary theories
have less of a base than the three blind men's guesses. These men at
least had an elephant (something tangible) and over time would have
felt the whole thing and known what it was, Evolutionists don't have
something tangible and never will. What Evolutionists are trying to
figure out is impossible to figure out, it happened in the past so
they can only guess (yes guess, nothing more than fancy ideas) at
the truth.
There are other questions though, if things evolve
(change into a different species and eventually become new thing
altogether) then we should be able to see this happen right? You
haven't seen it happening, really! What's your solution? You're
going to change your theory again and when it fits again you're
going to call that 'new' evidence? It makes perfect sense, believe
(which takes faith my friends) in something blindly and when it
doesn’t fit just change it till you're contently blind
again.
It's great that you didn't abandon your theory in all
that trouble, except haven't you now pervert and abandon science?
Oh, you don't care; everybody else in your opinion (which thus far
is very faulted) is wrong; their ideas are unfounded because they're
faith based just like yours. Strange, the only real difference seems
to be that one theory (Evolution) seems to display an excessive
amount of ignorance about itself, not to mention it lacks credible
evidence... Doesn't that remind you of a conceited person? Are
evolutionists conceited people? Maybe it's just the theory? I don 't
know, I'm not conceited enough to make an opinion on it.
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1398
(2/5/04 1:04 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: evolution
and evolution
You didn't give an argument at all. If you're going to argue
against evolution, please, use some evidence. Save us all a lot of
time, and please, only post if you have something worth
saying.
There is evidence against evolution out there, find
it and use that.
If people aren't going to at least make an
attempt at argument and presuation, this topic is going to turn into
a dirt flinging competition.
|
lemur821
Vortininja
Posts: 129
(2/5/04 1:49 am)
64.48.129.112
| Del
|
Re: evolution
and evolution
Quote:
You're going to change your theory again and when it fits again
you're going to call that 'new' evidence?
Well, yeah. That's how
science works. You make up a theory, and then everyone tries to
prove or disprove it, depending on whether they like it. When
someone finds a flaw, the theory must be abandoned or modified,
depending on how big the flaw was. Eventually you get it right. It's
a winnowing process, like natural selection, only
faster.
Here's a question. Since we know that a species can
change quickly over time when it is bred selectively by a breeder,
why can't that happen naturally over a longer period of time?
|
Flaose
The Vagrant
Posts: 1390
(2/5/04 2:01 am)
68.147.109.142
| Del
|
Re: evolution
and evolution
Really, where does it say in the Holy Bible that animals can't
change over time? Where does it say that the Big Bang couldn't have
been the work of the great Jehovah?
The only thing the Bible
says is that GOD created the Heavens, and the Earth, and Man (and
all other living things). Who knows how long Adam and Eve stayed in
Eden? Who says that animals only existed inside Eden? Who says that
those animals couldn't have evolved during that time? The only thing
that Creationists can be sure of is that
the Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not
evolved from any other species.
--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs.
Eat at
Joes |
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 183
(2/5/04 2:55 am)
203.220.175.64
| Del
|
Aether and
evolution.
Here's some interesting reading material. It originates from
www.ascension2000.com in chapter two of Shift of the Ages. Some of
it won't make a lot of sense on its own, but the basic idea should
be fairly apparent.
Quote:
- On a separate but relevant note, the DNA structure changes as we
move from one density to another, and we now have a scientific
model to explain why. The spiraling “torsion” (i.e. “twisting”)
energy waves in the aether have the pattern of DNA written into
them at the smallest level, as programmed by the intelligence of
the Galaxy. These spiraling waves exert subtle but measurable
currents of force on physical matter, as we will show in Volume
III. As loose elements bounce around, they are increasingly caught
up into the currents of these spiraling waves and will
automatically arrange together like a jigsaw puzzle, first into
amino acids, then eventually into DNA.
- When a given
planet passes into a zone of higher energy density, the underlying
spiral waves become more complex, and the DNA structures thereby
become more highly evolved. One of the discoverers of the DNA
molecule has published a remarkable study that suggests that most
of the visible dust in the galaxy has all the same qualities that
we would expect from bacteria, showing this energetic DNA
formation in effect throughout the Galaxy.
- Dangerously
high amounts of this energy, far more than what is used for
healing work, can be sent through one organism and transfer the
DNA qualities of that creature to another organism, causing a
physical transformation / mutation. Dr. Yu. V. Tszyan Kanchzen was
able to use this process to cause a hen to begin mutating into a
duck, which included the appearance of webbing between the hen’s
normally naked toes.
- Dr. Kanchzen’s discovery provides
effective proof that the spiraling torsion waves are the true
hidden architects of the DNA molecule, and that these templates
can be energetically altered within a single lifetime. Despite
ethical objections, these experiments could be repeated relatively
easily, if desired.
- Species evolution, both physically
and in terms of consciousness, automatically results when we pass
from one level of aetheric density to another. We already have a
great historical record that shows when and how this has happened
before, where in a remarkably short time the indigenous creatures
of Earth disappear and more highly-evolved forms take their place
– and that was only what happened as we went through various
sub-levels of density; now we’re breaking through to another major
“true color” level.
- As we read in the last chapter, we
already are far along in the process of a mass extinction on a
level not seen since the time of the dinosaurs, so there is no
need to fear some unseen doom – we’re already most of the way
through this process now. We have assumed that these events are
strictly “manmade” causes, but the model suggests otherwise. Every
time this has occurred in the past, new and more highly evolved
species have emerged very suddenly upon the world stage – and this
time will be no different.
Creation and evolution
working side-by-side?
>Commander Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ |
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 267
(2/5/04 9:35 am)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
science and
belief
Quote:
eK: If people aren't going to at least make an attempt at argument
and presuation, this topic is going to turn into a dirt flinging
competition.
Fair enough.
Quote:
eK: You didn't give an argument at all. If you're going to argue
against evolution, please, use some evidence. Save us all a lot of
time, and please, only post if you have something worth saying.
The argument, I put forth, was
that evolution doesn't have any tangible evidence. I would, for
example, take the expansion of the universe and evolutionists' big
bang idea as an elephant's trunk is being called a snake. It is
impossible, imo, to believe in the big bang without having faith.
Additionally, I would say the same thing about the evolutionists'
take on Natural Selection and evolution through
mutation.
Maybe that's not evidence for you, but I consider
the whole matter one of faith and theology; which is the main
difference that exists and the thing that needs to be resolved.
Should evolution continue to be at the level of being called
science? When I think of science I think of evolution and everybody
else probably does too. Maybe it should just be science, with other
ideas like evolution taught separate.
Quote:
lemur821: Since we know that a species can change quickly over
time when it is bred selectively by a breeder, why can't that
happen naturally over a longer period of time?
The changes needed to occur for
evolution to be true haven't yet been proven, creatures adapt via
Natural Selection but it takes mutation for evolutionary changes to
occur. This coop between mutation and the evolutionary theory hasn't
yet been proven, and it'll be a long, long time before it can
be.
Also, your assertion suggests that things can be sped up
by human beings, right? Then why have all attempts from scientists
to build even a simple life form failed? IMO, there simply isn't
enough evidence to support evolution right now.
Quote:
Flaose: Really, where does it say in the Holy Bible that animals
can't change over time? Where does it say that the Big Bang
couldn't have been the work of the great Jehovah?
The only
thing the Bible says is that GOD created the Heavens, and the
Earth, and Man (and all other living things). Who knows how long
Adam and Eve stayed in Eden? Who says that animals only existed
inside Eden? Who says that those animals couldn't have evolved
during that time? The only thing that Creationists can be sure of
is that the Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not evolved from any other
species.
No where, which is why it's
mostly all faith and not science. I'm just a part of one of many
different Christian type factions, some of these being: Mormons,
Catholics, Judaism, and Pentecostals they're all different and
whether I choose to believe in evolution doesn’t matter. My
assertion is that it's a religious belief, not science; maybe one
day there will be enough evidence to call it science, but not this
day.
(ed - had two s' in the word 'as.')
Edited by: JosephBurke
at: 2/5/04 9:44 am
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 974
(2/5/04 3:28 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: science and
belief
Quote:
Also, your assertion suggests that things can be sped up by human
beings, right? Then why have all attempts from scientists to build
even a simple life form failed?
Mainly because it is easier
to change something perfected over thousands of years to what we
want instead of creating it anew. And this has been done.
________
¨@_ |
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 267
(2/5/04 8:57 pm)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
hmm
^What, creating something new?
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1399
(2/5/04 11:54 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: hmm
Thing is, evolution IS science. It's pretty clearly science, and I
can't see how anyone couldn't see that unless they:
A) Don't understand
science very well
B)
Don't understand evolution very
well
C)
Don't care to understand either
D)
Both A and B
Science DOES
require faith, to a degree. You have to believe that when faced with
the evidence it presents and the results it gets, that it's all
true. Everyone is presented this, and most everybody accepts it and
puts their faith in science continuing to explain reality as best it
can. It continues, and evolution is just part of that. It's a
completely solid theory. There's no way it will be completely thrown
out, but it WILL be refined as we better learn the mechanisms under
which it operates.
Look, if you don't believe in evolution,
then please, throw out your assumptions and take a class on it. It's
very, VERY solid, with lots of backing evidence. There is no
question in the scientific community as to whether or not it works,
only questions posed by those who refuse to even give it a
chance.
I find it rediculous that so many people will trust
science in everything but evolution, where as evolution is as much
science as anything else. It's like debating gravity. Newton's
original theory was pretty sound, though since we've learned MUCH
more about gravity, and it's almost a completely different mechanism
in it's current form. Evolution is the same - it's already undergone
heavy revision as we learned abouit DNA and seen examples of natural
selection at work.
And, as for Commander Spleen - that's
silly pseudo science, all theory and no testing. Like String Theory
- if you're going to attack any theory, attack that one, that one,
at least, is deserving of attack. Without going into details, it's
completely unsupported and unproven as of yet (though compelling).
At the very least, if you're going to attack a theory, again, don't
do it with metaphor, do it with evidence. I can't very well call for
evidence without providing my own. So, here it is, evidence that
without a doubt proves that evolution works:
Evidence
for evolution?
Fossils!
Lots and lots of fossils, all dated to the approxomite time of their
death. Dating methods are imprecise, but they are not random and
incredably inaccurate. They're accurate enough to give us a
chronological picture of the evolution of some species (including
the controversial evolution of our own, of which there is AMPLE
evidence, perhaps more in this area than any other). These fossils
don't show every step in the process, impossible due to individual
variation, but changing skeletal morphology from archaic (not to
imply primative) to modern forms over time has been seen in a number
of species.
Since I know human evolution by far the best, I
can give you a rundown based on fossil evidence.
Firstly,
about 14 million years ago apes began to appear in the fossil
record. What differentiates apes from monkies? Other than their body
size, which is considerably larger, they have a different tooth
structure (involving the number of cusps) than monkies. No monkies
or prosimians have teeth like apes, and all apes share these dental
features. There was an explosion in the number of apes. They covered
the world, and there were countless species of them, such as the
Dryopithecus (an arboreal species).
Apes continued to
proliferate for a while, but the number of different types dropped
off considerable before we reached modern times. Conversely, the
variety in the apes increased. Early apes were very similar, mostly
tree dwelling - where as modern apes vary in their locomotive
types.
Between 4 and 3 million years ago our first clear
ancestors showed up. There were ones before this, but this is one
everyone can agree on: Australopithecus afarensis. They had brains
just like chimps, smart, but not close to as smart as us. Their
brain size was roughly a third of ours. They walked upright, not
quite the way we do, but very similarly. They were also quite a bit
more sexually dimorphic than we are, with Males as tall as 5 feet
(1.8 meters? I'm guessing.) and females as short as 3 foot 6 inches
(1.1 meters or so?). We have seen evidence of the evolution of human
traits beyond this point, but we don't quite see where bipedalism
came from.
Later came Australopithecus africanus, slightly
smarter, slightly larger, less sexually dimorphic, but overall, not
much different.
Then there's an evolutionary split. One one
end, you get Australopithecus Robustus and Australopithecus Boisei -
both with huge jaws and a heavy bone structure. They were
specialized for eating things like tubers (potato are tubers). They
weren't as tall as us, nor much smarter than africanus (though they
were a bit).
Between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago along
comes Homo habilis, which I'd personally argue wasn't part of the
genus homo, as I think it's too much like the australopithicines.
Why is it classified as homo? Stone tools. It was the first to
develope them, and it's brain size was more like 40% the size of our
own. It should be noted that this doesn't mean they were that
stupid, they also had smaller bodies, and if their bodies were as
big as ours their brains would be larger too. The difference is
still there, and quite noticably, but they were no dummies, that's
for sure.
We have found transition fossils between habilis,
and the next step, erectus. Erectus is a misnomer, as our ancestors
could walk upright long before erectus showed up. These finds are
recent and very confusing. Originally scientists thought erectus
evolved in africa, because until then they hadn't seen any habilis
remains outside of africa. Recently, though, they've found fossils
of hominids with habilis and erectus features, using the same tools
as habilis dated to 1.7 million years ago in Europe, suggesting
maybe they evolved there.
Erectus was the first Homo I'd say
was like us. They spread all over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Each
region with it's on distinct sub-species with slightly different
traits. All of them shared similar tools, which were more advanced
and more specialized than those of habilis. These guys were about as
tall as we are (maybe a LITTLE shorter, but only an inch or two
overall), and much more robust. They were probably a fair deal
stronger than we are. Their brains were almost modern size, 1100cc
compared to 1450cc. Pretty impressive guys.
They hung around
until about 600,000 years ago where we start to see clear
differences among some of the communities. In africa the species is
starting to look more like modern humans, where as in Europe they're
taking on the characteristics of Neanderthals. I won't go into the
details about Neanderthals (as this is already a massive enough
post), but it seems they were a dead end evolutionarily, just like
the robustus and boisei. By 200,000 years ago homo sapiens sapiens
(that's us!) were walking the earth. By 60,000 years ago all the
Neanderthals were dead, replaced by us. This could be that we were
smarter, but I think it's more likely that we just had a stronger
culture. We had more advanced tools, for instance, allowing us to
build more complex structures to shelter us better and much better
clothing (we has sewing needles). Like the american indians facing
the europeans, it wasn't that the neanderthals were dumb (in
actuality, they had even larger brains), they just didn't stand a
chance.
All of this is well documented, and the dates are
accurate. You can't claim that dating techniques are completely
fallable and inaccurate, as they've created a clear picture of our
history, where as inaccurate dating would only create more
confusion.
There are gaps in the fossil record, such as -
where are the intermediate fossils between aferensis and a
non-bipedal ancestor? Or, where's Homo habilis come from? We don't
have clear intermediaries at either point but I doubt they would
have appeared out of nowhere.
Evolution works, we have proof.
It's not perfect, and we'll definately keep improving on it, but it
works, and we've seen it work.
/me falls over from
exhaustion (I should get paid for this)
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1400
(2/6/04 12:14 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: hmm
Pictures
Australopithicus
africanus
Australopithicus
robustus
Homo
habilis
Homo
erectus
Homo sapiens
neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
sapiens
Edited by: eK
at: 2/6/04 10:13 pm
|
CommanderSpleen
Vortininja
Posts: 187
(2/6/04 10:21 am)
203.221.144.180
| Del
|
These threads
lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
Quote:
And, as for Commander Spleen - that's silly pseudo science, all
theory and no testing.
On the contrary, there's
much scientific experimentation to back it up. There's no point
arguing about it, though, so believe what you will, whether it's
based on an assumption or a genuine interest in discerning the truth
from the matter.
Much of my faith in the material is based on
my own personal experience from which I'm apt to take metaphysics,
and thus information apparently chanelled from a higher being about
the nature of the universe, very seriously indeed.
Quote:
I find it rediculous that so many people will trust science in
everything but evolution
I don't trust popular
science all that much anymore. It used to be my mainstay of
interest, but I've found the entire system to be quite dogmatic,
holding back new theories due to established self-interests in their
prevailance. I know it's not all like this, but there's much that
could help the world change for the better if there was less of
it.
Quote:
Like String Theory - if you're going to attack any theory, attack
that one, that one, at least, is deserving of attack.
Who's attacking theories
here? This thread almost seemed like a civil discussion until people
started reading into it an argument between evolution and creation,
though you've certainly offered a decent argument, and indeed much
enlightening information, in its defense.
>Commander
Spleen
ö Cave assectatorem Ductoris Alacris ö
"For a long time
progress has been hampered by the old feeling of separatism and the
intolerance of another's method of approach to the truth. But even
that handicap is finally beginning to be overcome. The cry for
world-wide unity, peace, brotherhood and the casting down of
barriers is increasingly making itself heard."
- The Finding of
the Third Eye, Vera Stanley Alder (1938, 1982)
JimSoft
Lair
http://jimsoftlair.tripod.com/ |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1401
(2/6/04 8:37 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
No, that IS pseudo-science. It can claim whatever it wants, cite
expiriments, throw up evidence, but if you look elsewhere or dig a
little deeper you'll see the truth. You can throw up theories about
the aliens creating the pyramids too, and if you read those books
about it, they certain put up what seems like a good
case.
The fact is though, that it's not.
As for the
mass extinction, yes, it's happened a number of times. This is due
to meteors (there's been more than just one mass extinction due to
them), and we've seen geological evidence all over the world of
this. Meteors would kill off all the complex organisms, and the
simple ones will flourish and repopulate the planet with a new set
of organisms. This does not create super-organisms, and it does not
just randomly happen. the one we're going through right now, that IS
caused by humanity (unless you've seen a meteor I haven't). We've
killed off all the megafauna through our efficient hunting
strategies - and now our industry is killing off smaller organisms
(as well as normal fauna, such as the killing of birds by
DDT).
This is not magic, and it will not produce uber beasts
that humanity will have to struggle against - not in our lifetimes,
anyway. (it takes a while for new species to evolve)
This is
the kind of silly science that evolution is commonly mistaken for.
Edited by: eK
at: 2/6/04 10:46 pm
|
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0 
Vorticon
Elite
Posts: 1383
(2/7/04 3:43
am)
203.26.24.213
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
who cares how the universe began?! God created it and we're living
with it. End of story.
We acomplish nothing from these
insignificant "discoveries"; And whenever we do so, we seem to be
destroying the world even more than we already have.
"The Universe Is Toast!"
Amen Mortimer... Amen!
Family, Religion, Friendship. These are the three demons you must
slay if you wish to succeed in business! - Charles Montgomery
Burns |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1403
(2/7/04 6:18 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
You could say we're growing to better understand God's
creation.
or, if you want to really impress us, you could say
something super enlightened like that!
!hoo needs dis herr
lernedness i shur dont!
|
KeenRush
Photachyon
Transceiver
Posts: 5006
(2/7/04
7:29 am)
212.246.17.130
| Del
|
....
eK, have you ever though human(s) can simply not understand
everything, and that science isn't the Answer (which is 42, we know
that already) - not even the Question..
Yeah, and I think kinda same than UnFleex - I don't care how
this begun, it just is here and it's quite a miracle. (Though,
depends if you believe you & stuff exist etc..)
"For years they studied,
collected, catalogued. When they had learned all that they could,
they began to modify." 3001: The final Odyssey |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1404
(2/7/04 11:15 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: ....
"and He bestowed a teacher uponeth the Earth, to make Mankind his
disciple, and to teach unto them all that is, was, and will be."
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2309
(2/7/04 4:45
pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
Quote:
but I think it's more likely that we just had a stronger culture.
We had more advanced tools, for instance, allowing us to build
more complex structures to shelter us better and much better
clothing (we has sewing needles). Like the american indians facing
the europeans, it wasn't that the neanderthals were dumb (in
actuality, they had even larger brains), they just didn't stand a
chance.
You're talking about we
killed them, but there is no evidence that that happened if I
remember right, there was a skelet found from a girl that had both a
Neanderthaler and a homo sapiens as their parents. So I think most
of the Neanderthalers just lived with the homo sapiens together
until they dissapeared in the crowd. I think it's not impossible
that the homo sapiens multiplied faster and so they became dominant.
I don't believe that their culture was more advanced since like you
already said the Neanderthalers were more clever anyway and homo
sapiens probably took a lot of their ideas.
But to prove
evolution you don't need to go so far back in time. I believe that
the plague for example is evidence enough: the people who with a
weak health died and the fittest survived. The plague ended with the
medieval time so you could say humanity was stronger afterwards.
It's just how things work, the stronger ones always survive in fact
that's just evolution I can't imagine that people don't believe this
part but that evolution causes extremely different species sounds
like fantasy to me.
Quote:
This is the kind of silly science that evolution is commonly
mistaken for.
So the extinction of
animals today because of humans because we are just stronger than
them (I don't say that this is a good thing) is no evolution? Than
what is it...
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1405
(2/7/04 8:50 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
I never said that, but I can't imagine that there was no fighting,
and if there was, then more often than not the more advanced culture
(ours) seems to have one.
As for inbreeding, for one they
don't know for certain that that skull's a hybrid, that's mere
conjecture - remember, skull morphology varies a lot within a
species, and her apparently hybridized features could merely be
coincidence. Regardless though, they can look at aspects of our
genetic code for evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals, and
there is absolutely no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence that
points to no inbreeding. It could be that inbreeding just didn't
happen, or that inbred populations died. It's still possible, but
pretty unlikely.
I find this suprising, you'd think there'd
have been some inbreeding, but it sure seems as though there wasn't,
given the results of the mRNA and Y-chromosome tests.
|
adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 913
(2/7/04 9:31 pm)
203.21.143.110
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
Quote:
the people who with a weak health died and the fittest
survived. The plague ended with the medieval time so you could say
humanity was stronger afterwards. It's just how things work, the
stronger ones always survive
The plague had an
alarming tendency to kill whoever came down with it, regardless of
their general health. Those who survived were mainly those who
didn't come into contact with it.
Moreover, it did not end in
medieval times; there have been many serious outbreaks of plague
since then: that in England in the 17th century is one example;
there have even been epidemics of it in the 20th century (though we
now have a much better understanding of it, and know how to deal
with it to stop it becoming a pandemic).
|
Flaose
The Vagrant
Posts: 1391
(2/8/04 2:22 am)
68.147.109.142
| Del
|
Re: These
threads lead nowhere. It's a fun ride, though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Djaser
I believe that the plague
for example is evidence enough: the people who with a weak health
died and the fittest survived.
That's not evolution though,
that's simply natural selection. Evolution relies on freak mutations
that lead to winners in natural selection.
As an aside, I
don't think I'd wanna breed with someone who had a different bone
structure than my species...
--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs.
Eat at
Joes |
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0
Vorticon
Elite
Posts: 1391
(2/8/04 2:42
am)
203.26.24.213
| Del
|
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
Quote:
You could say we're growing to better understand God's creation.
True. But people also
make up a lot of myths that make absolutely no sense at all. 
Quote:
eK, have you ever though human(s) can simply not understand
everything, and that science isn't the Answer
Although science isn't
always the answer. I am not against it. Science cannot prove
EVERYTHING in existence in this universe or even on this earth.
There are far too many miracles that science cannot find an
explanation for.
Family, Religion, Friendship. These are the three demons you must
slay if you wish to succeed in business! - Charles Montgomery
Burns |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1409
(2/8/04 3:17 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
there are limits to what science can teach us, but none of us can
guess what those will be.
|
lemur821
Vortininja
Posts: 134
(2/8/04 5:52 am)
171.75.220.12
| Del
|
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
People talk about science like it's something other than curious
people investigating things that interest them. It's kind of weird
to hear people say things about science like it's a religion or a
belief system. I can almost hear a capital S.
Edited by: lemur821
at: 2/8/04 5:53 am
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2315
(2/8/04 10:47
am)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
Quote:
The plague had an alarming tendency to kill whoever came down with
it, regardless of their general health. Those who survived were
mainly those who didn't come into contact with it.
Well ehm that's how you
see it. I think it's pretty sure that because of the bad hygiene the
plague had a better chance.
There were also people that simply
didn't die because of the plague, just because they were resistant
to it.
Quote:
Moreover, it did not end in medieval times; there have been many
serious outbreaks of plague since then: that in England in the
17th century is one example;
Ok I forget about that
but even than, the plague didn't spread as much as in medieval times
anymore. Back then the European population was reduced to 50% as
before the plague.
Quote:
there have even been epidemics of it in the 20th century (though
we now have a much better understanding of it, and know how to
deal with it to stop it becoming a pandemic).
I thought that wasn't
the same disease as the plague but even it was it only proves that
people had became more resistant it.
Quote:
That's not evolution though, that's simply natural selection.
Evolution relies on freak mutations that lead to winners in
natural selection.
Ok it was just an
example maybe a bad one. Maybe you could say that (most of) the
indians had a weaker culture than the Europeans and see what
happened back than as evolution. It's almost the same situation as
the Neanderthaler and the homo sapiens at that time.
Quote:
As an aside, I don't think I'd wanna breed with someone who had a
different bone structure than my species...
Maybe maybe not, I've
never seen a Neanderthaler. 
Of course the situation was different at that time.
EK
maybe it's true that there wasn't much inbreeding but if there
wasn't than the homo sapiens must have killed the Neanderthalers and
I thought we didn't have evidence of that either. Maybe both
happened but the Neanderthalers have extincted for some reason, if
both didn't happend than what let them dissapear?
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
Edited by: Djaser
at: 2/8/04 5:28 pm
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 974
(2/8/04 12:45 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
Replace "ignorant" with "resistant" in post above to enhance
comprehension.
________
¨@_ |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2318
(2/8/04 5:29
pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: {Ack!} [Stammer] REPLY!
Hmm I knew it was wrong.
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
|
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 16
(2/9/04 5:45 am)
206.63.170.102
| Del
|
Re: Genetic
Info.
Quote:
If you actually read what eK had said, you'd realize he was
specifically not attacking Christianity.
Sorry, but anyone who
defends the Big Bang defends evolution. and whoever defends the
theory of evolution attacks Christianity and the Bible,
intentionally or not. They cannot both be true.
The
theory of evolution hinges on this one point; genetic information.
Macro-evolution requires an increase in information. Natural
selection and mutation only decrease and shuffle information. (For
example: A wolf has more genetic information than a terrier.)
Explain how this fits in with your theory please.
Also,
about your "ape men":
1: The Australopithecines, which were
made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from
humans. Several detailed computer studies of Australopithecines have
shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between
man and living apes.* Another study of their inner ear bones, used
to mantain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of
chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of
humans. One Australopthecine fossil-a 3.5-foot-tall, long armed, 60
pound adult called Lucy-was initially presented as evidence that all
Australopithecines walked upright in a human manner, studies of
Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very
unlikely. She probably swung from the trees and was similar to pygmy
chimpanzees. The Austrapolithecines are probably extinct
apes.
2: The first confirmed limbbones of Homo habilis have
been discovered. They show this animal clearly had apelike
proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).
3:
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking man to be the remains of
apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by
true man. The classification Homo
eretus is considered by most experts to
be a category that should never have been created.**
4: For
about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was
stooped and apelike. This erroneous belief was based upon some
Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.
Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were
humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than
people today.***
Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon
man are now considered completely human. Artist's depictions of
them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite
imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.
If
evolution is true, where are the transisional fossils? There should
be zillions of them! We should be tripping over them every day!
Well, where are they?
Your dating systems don't work.
Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilized
nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are
supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants
which the bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million
years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long
well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25
million years before flowers supposedly evolved. Most evolutionists
and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with
the evolutionary time scale.
Oh, and joseph, I liked your
elephant post a lot. It was great!
* Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred
to below, were leaders in the developement of a powerful
multi-variate analysis procedure. This computerized technique
simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of
corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and
the Australopithicines. Their verdict, that the Australopithicines
are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different
from the subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most
anthropologists.
"...the only positive fact we have
about the Ausrtralopithicine brain is that it was no bigger than the
brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human
character of the Australopithicine face and jaws are no more
convincing than those made about the size of it's brain. The
Australpoithicine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as
opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to
an assertion that black is white." -Zuckerman
** "[The
reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo
erectus as a viable taxon." Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, as quoted in "Homo
Erectus Never Existed?" Geotimes,
October 1992, p. 11.
*** Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth
about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest,
Arkansas: Master Books, 1998 ).
John W. Cuozzo, "Early
Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory," The Journal of the New Jersey Dental
Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn
1987, pp. 33-40.
Edited by: ShadowIII
at: 2/9/04 6:04 am
|
Flaose
The Vagrant
Posts: 1392
(2/9/04 1:46 pm)
68.147.109.142
| Del
|
Re: Genetic
Info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by: ShadowIII
Sorry, but anyone who
defends the Big Bang defends evolution. and whoever defends the
theory of evolution attacks Christianity and the Bible,
intentionally or not. They cannot both be true.
You
are wrong. Why do you think such a
rediculous thing?
--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs.
Eat at
Joes |
JosephBurke
Tres-tria quindecim
Posts: 268
(2/9/04 11:33 pm)
68.106.139.158
| Del
|
ah
He isn't saying that the Big Bang is Evolution anymore than I can
say that Original Sin is a bedrock principle for someone to be a
Christian. It's true that the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang
theory are separate theories, but the Big Bang isn't so completely
different from Evolution that one can separate it completely. What I
mean is that an Evolutionist doesn't have to believe in the Big Bang
but someone that believes in the Big Bang does have to believe
something far fetched like Evolution.
If you can point out
some specific theories or beliefs that should make us change our
mind then we'll probably do that, just for now though, their pretty
synonymous.
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1412
(2/10/04 12:07 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: ah
Wow, so much is wrong with Shadow's post I'm at a loss as to where
to begin. This is going to take a while..
Quote:
1: The Australopithecines, which
were made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from
humans...etc
Look, you didn't even read
what I wrote, did you? I said they were short, ape height -
everything you described was dead on, except for the interpretation,
which shows your flawed understanding of evolution (and that of your
sources, as well). Of course they aren't intermediates between
humans and modern apes, there's no such thing. We both deviated from
a common acestor long ago. With the case of the gorillas, I believe
it was about 11 million years ago, and with chimps more like 5 or 6.
Our common ancestor was quadripedal, and probably had arms and legs
of similar length (similar humerofemoral index), meaning it walked
on all fours and wasn't a "knuckle-walker". You'll never find an
intermediary, because there's no such thing. Research evolution -
you clearly have little idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
2: The first confirmed limbbones of
Homo habilis have been discovered. They show this animal clearly
had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as
manlike (Homo).
It was classified as Homo
because of it's use of tools - just because it was short doesn't
make it less human, are dwarfs not human, then? I agree that it
shouldn't be classified as Homo, but not because of it's size --
because of it's cranial morphology.
Quote:
3: Many experts consider the skulls
of Peking man to be the remains of apes that were systematically
decapitated and exploited for food by true man. The classification
Homo eretus is considered by most experts to be a category that
should never have been created.**
Most experts indeed! How
about we see that some people don't like the idea of homo erectus,
and others do. For that matter, some people think it should be split
to erectus and ergaster -- different species for different regions.
Classification, for that matter, is pointless, as evolution doesn't
stop, it keeps going, we classify only for our own benefit, not out
of some inate difference. Overall you'll find clear differences
between most erectus and habilis specimens, but there are a number
that merge the features of both, and classification of those is
difficult to say the least.
Quote:
4: For about 100 years the world was
led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This
erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals with bone
diseases such as arthritis and rickets. Recent dental and x-ray
studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a
slower rate and lived to be much older than people
today.***
Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man
are now considered completely human...etc
Of course, who said
otherwise? They're certainly human - as were archaic homo sapiens
(the african ones, not heidelbergensis of europe and the middle
east) - as too was erectus.
Quote:
If evolution is true, where are the
transisional fossils? There should be zillions of them! We should
be tripping over them every day! Well, where are they?
Um, we've found a number of
them... and for that matter, you don't trip over fossils. Human
remains are terribly hard to find, as the fossilzation process they
go through is not common at all. Regardless, we have transitional
fossils, and are continuing to find them. As I said though,
classifications are erroneous, and so, therefore, is the concept of
transitions between them. You should take a class on physical
anthropology and evolution.
Quote:
Your dating systems don't work.
Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilized
nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are
supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants
which the bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred
million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with
long well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are
dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved. Most
evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries
which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.
No one ever said that dating
techniques are perfect, but they're a lot more accurate than you
know - and if they weren't, it would be obvious, because nothing
would date right and we wouldn't even HAVE an evolutionary
history.
Use some logic, for crying out loud!
And for that
matter, study evolution, stop reading what creationists write.
You're only hearing one side of things, which is why you're ideas
are so misguided. I've looked at both sides, and I've seen both
arguments for and against. I didn't just assume evolution was right,
I learned it was right.
Edited by: eK
at: 2/10/04 12:44 am
|
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 17
(2/10/04 3:43 am)
206.63.170.66
| Del
|
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
Quote:
Um, we've found a number of them... and for that matter, you don't
trip over fossils. Human remains are terribly hard to find, as the
fossilzation process they go through is not common at all.
Regardless, we have transitional fossils, and are continuing to
find them. As I said though, classifications are erroneous, and
so, therefore, is the concept of transitions between them. You
should take a class on physical anthropology and evolution.
Ummmm, I wasn't
talking about intermediate fossils just between manlike apes and
apelike men; I was talking about the scads of intermediate fossils
that should be found for the thousands of different species of
animals out there. I mean, if there are so many fossils of animals
found, there should be even more intermediate fossils between the
different species.
I would also ask you to show me these
intermediate fossils that you have found. Where did they find those
tools, in their hands? Those tools didn't necessarily have to be
used by apes just because they were found near them you
know.
I'll get back to you and flaose's posts when I have a
little more time.
Ek, It's the interpretation of evidence
that makes theories. If the interpretation is wrong, the theory is
wrong, no matter how much you believe in it. I have studied
evolution enough to know that it doesn't add up. It is flawed, it
has gaps, and it would be ridiculous to believe some of the things
that it insinuates. I could use some of the same evidence you give
for evolution, for creation. It is only evidence, not proof. If you
have some PROOF for evolution, I suggest you put it forth now,
otherwise I will stand my ground and say that you don't have any.
All you have is evidence based on conjecture and
assumptions.
Humans don't trip over fossils? *Gasp* Really!?
Come on!
I know you have a little ironic humor in there
somewhere.
I didn't mean to personally offend you, but it felt good to
tap that out. I hope you're ok with that.
edit* Also, now
that those apelike men and manlike apes are divided into the two
camps of men and apes, where are our real ancestors? Is this the
missing chain?
Edited by: ShadowIII
at: 2/10/04 3:47 am
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 975
(2/10/04 9:43 am)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
Didn't we have the same discussion last year?
Oh well, just
keep clobbering each other with large chunks of text.
________
¨@_ |
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1413
(2/10/04 1:14 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
Last year I didn't provide proof. Last year I hadn't taken classes
on these subjects - though I didn't learn much in terms of evolution
in that class.
Anthropology rocks.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2321
(2/10/04 2:00
pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
True, I'm thinking about studying it.
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
|
Flaose
The Vagrant
Posts: 1395
(2/10/04 11:30 pm)
68.147.109.142
| Del
|
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
Quote:
Originally Posted by: ShadowIII
It is only evidence, not
proof. If you have some PROOF for evolution, I suggest you put it
forth now, otherwise I will stand my ground and say that you don't
have any. All you have is evidence based on conjecture and
assumptions.
What is proof? You can prove
mathematical equations, not reality. Prove to me that God exists...I
don't want your historical evidence based on conjecture and
assumptions; I want proof.
--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs.
Eat at
Joes |
adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 915
(2/11/04 8:10 am)
203.21.143.81
| Del
|
Re: ah,
hmmmmmm....
Even mathematical proofs all hinge on some elementary assumptions
at the beginning (although they're often considered definitions).
Nothing is really completely provable, if you want to be
pedantic.
|
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 18
(2/21/04 3:08 am)
206.63.170.61
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
What is proof? You can prove mathematical equations, not reality.
Prove to me that God exists...I don't want your historical
evidence based on conjecture and assumptions; I want proof.
Mathematical equations
aren't real? Unless you consider the Bible proof, (which I doubt) I
don't have any proof that God exists. What's your point?
Quote:
Even mathematical proofs all hinge on some elementary assumptions
at the beginning (although they're often considered definitions).
Nothing is really completely provable, if you want to be pedantic.
I thought Ek said he had
proof! Anyway, thanks Adurdin. I am glad we can all agree that both
ideas must be accepted by faith. (creation and
evolution)
About the dating methods and the example of their
flawed use I posted before. It is not a minor error, it is a huge
mistake, and it's not the only one. How do you double check your
dates anyway? You can't.
Add what I said about genetic
information to your evolutionary ancestorage and where does it get
you? Natural selection is not macro-evolution. It won't even lead to
macro-evolution. The whole idea of macro-evolution is bogus.
Why do people confuse evolution with science anyhow? You can
repeat science, you can't repeat evolution. (when I refer to
evolution I am refering to macro-evolution unless otherwise
stated)
*edit: edited for clarity.
Edited by: ShadowIII
at: 2/21/04 4:26 am
|
LevelLord00
Meep
Posts: 2
(2/21/04 10:18 am)
219.88.58.104
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Three critical problems with evolution;
1.) You can have a
fossil T-Rex, Tribolite or whatever, but we never have a fossil of
something evolving into something else, where are the half
butterflies and 3/4 triceratops?
2.)Mutations generally make
things worse, you don't turn windows 98 into XP by randomly altering
code, you'd end up with a mess. (and even if you selected for better
code, 'harmless mutations' would build up until they overwhelmed the
system.)
3.)Mutations alter whats there, they don't add new
stuff. Bill Gates didn't turn Dos into XP through modifying stuff
already there, he added new files.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp
Posts: 2364
(2/21/04 3:50
pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del
![]() |
Re: Proof
Quote:
1.) You can have a fossil T-Rex, Tribolite or whatever, but we
never have a fossil of something evolving into something else,
where are the half butterflies and 3/4 triceratops?
Dunno about your
butterflies:
But I have a 90% Triceratops here:
A
80% one here:
Here
is your 3/4:
The
70%:
The
1/2:
That's
all I could find. LOL
I don't believe in evolution either but
your information is wrong.
-----------------
Download free games on The
Dos Vault!!!
The Dos Vault
forum, guest posting allowed.
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 978
(2/21/04 5:18 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
1.) You can have a fossil T-Rex, Tribolite or whatever, but we
never have a fossil of something evolving into something else,
where are the half butterflies and 3/4
triceratops?
2.)Mutations generally make things worse, you
don't turn windows 98 into XP by randomly altering code, you'd end
up with a mess. (and even if you selected for better code,
'harmless mutations' would build up until they overwhelmed the
system.)
3.)Mutations alter whats there, they don't add new
stuff. Bill Gates didn't turn Dos into XP through modifying stuff
already there, he added new files.
Just because these things
shouldn't go unresponded to:
1. As Djaser points out (but
rather crudely), there are fossils that can be shown to be more and
more specialized.
2. Evolution works because of the very
small chance that a mutation works better than the original, and I
don't see why the system would be overwhelmed by mutations? Also,
would you explain why and how evolving new breeds of dogs
works?
3. Your comparison to source code is extremely silly.
Even though it would be possible to create XP from DOS without
adding a single file, it is wrong because mutations are more than
simple "source code" changes. Mutations can change the way the code
is interpreted, among other things.
You may discuss
creationism, but please
get some arguments that aren't bollocks first.
________
¨@_ |
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 20
(2/21/04 10:59 pm)
206.63.170.45
| Del
|
Re: Proof
I don't know about levellord's analogy of computer files, but what
he says is very close to dead center. For example, if a bird is
evolving from a lizard, the lizard's going to have a useless arm
long before he'll have a good wing. You have to believe in
spontaneous generations to get around this obstacle. Think about
it.
Quote:
1. As Djaser points out (but rather crudely), there are fossils
that can be shown to be more and more specialized.
I can show you sparrows
that are more specialized than other sparrows, but it's not
evolution. They are still sparrows. Just because you've found
fossils of different variations of Ceratopsians doesn't point
towards evolution. Thay are all part of the same family. No
additional information, just different combinations of what's
already there.
Quote:
2. Evolution works because of the very small chance that a
mutation works better than the original, and I don't see why the
system would be overwhelmed by mutations? Also, would you explain
why and how evolving new breeds of dogs works?
Like I said, shuffling
of genetic information, not addition. If you have a poodle on one
hand and a wolf on the other, which do think has more genetic
information? The wolf does.
Specialized breeding shuffles and
eliminates certain genes to produce a different variety of the
original parent. This also produces more weaknesses and
susceptibility to disease sometimes increases. Overall, this weakens
the species, not strengthen it.
Quote:
3. Your comparison to source code is extremely silly. Even though
it would be possible to create XP from DOS without adding a single
file, it is wrong because mutations are more than simple "source
code" changes. Mutations can change the way the code is
interpreted, among other things.
And they are 99.99%
harmful and add no additional genetic information...
By the
way, just because you don't like the information we present, doesn't
mean it is wrong....
|
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0
Vorticon
Elite
Posts: 1475
(2/21/04 11:22
pm)
203.26.24.217
| Del
|
Re: Proof
mutation is just wrong. apparantly, birds are mutated to give them
different colors. 
> Hello Kiddies! I'm Silly the Ghost!
|
LevelLord00
Grunt
Posts: 7
(2/22/04 12:20 am)
219.88.57.103
| Del
|
Re: Proof
1.) Okay then; why is it all the dinosaur fossils can be grouped?
Some idiot somewhere is grouping togeter fossils that are evolving.
Some other idiot has given us a T-Rex that is only part of a
spectrum.
2.) In most breeds of dogs the rate of mutation due
to severe breeding has become such that nearly all adults are
suffering breed specific abnormalities. (Golden retrievers are
suckers for arthritis.) This has become so serious some groups are
demanding a varied background in a dog over show quality. In some
species of british bulldogs (The one's with the wide shoulders,)
normal births are a rarity and C-sections the norm.
Consider:
you are a mutation ahead of you is the dartboard of genetics. There
are say 1 million places you can strike, only say 5'00'000 of which
will benefit the organisim. What do you think you'll
hit?
Each of us carry about 10 recessive DEADLY mutations,
the recessive part means that they can accumulate WITHOUT CAUSING
ANY DAMAGE but slowly weakening your genetic code. Add to that all
the 'harmless' mutations and you can see that an organisim that gets
1 or 2 good mutations will probably get 1 or 2 bad ones (Smack a
watch and usually it breaks instead of running faster.)
If
this organisim is successful it will INCREASE the concentration of
bad mutations in the population, no matter how hard natural
selection struggles the vast multitude of defects will crush it
eventually.
Its the second law of thermodynamics folks,
nothing gets better, it all gets worse.
3.) No you CAN'T
turn DOS into XP. XP needs MORE CODE THAN DOS! How does mutation of
existing stuff produce MORE CODE. I don't care if you have a super
quantum computer, you will never be able to interpret the DOS code
to give you microsoft word EVER.
My brother studies genetics
and mathematics at university. I hear this crap all the time, so I
know what I'm talking about.
|
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0
Vorticon
Elite
Posts: 1477
(2/22/04 1:27
am)
203.26.24.217
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
XP needs MORE CODE THAN DOS!
hmmmm... Makes sense!
> Hello Kiddies! I'm Silly the Ghost! |
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 22
(2/24/04 4:49 am)
206.63.170.46
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Maybe we should send out someone to look for more evolutionists? :P
|
LevelLord00
Grunt
Posts: 24
(2/24/04 9:33 am)
219.88.58.111
| Del
|
Re: Proof
I just don't get how such a shakey thory could become an
unshakeable paradigim, ask nearly anyone and they'll act like
Ëvolution? duh! thats a fact proven thousands of times years ago.
It's a rock solid explanation of everything."
Perhaps E.M
Grace put it best: "I belive in the totaly unworkable theory of the
origion of the species because the alternative is to belive the
untestable, the unspeakable, the unknown."
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 979
(2/24/04 7:48 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
I don't know about levellord's analogy of computer files, but what
he says is very close to dead center. For example, if a bird is
evolving from a lizard, the lizard's going to have a useless arm
long before he'll have a good wing. You have to believe in
spontaneous generations to get around this obstacle. Think about
it.
I've thought about it,
and i still don't see any problem that should cause us to drop the
volutionary theory. The number of fossils we've found so far is a
drop in the ocean compared to the amount of living creaturs that
have walked upon the face of the earth. Coupled with the fact that
evolution tends to stabilize at local maximas (i.e. kill off the
lizards with the useless legs) it isn't that strange that the
fossils we've found on the net are of distinct species. Notice that
I said tends to stabilize - I can think an environment where having
strange legs isn't a problem, but evolving alternative means of
finding food would be selected for.
(sidenote - reply if you
want to: Would you go so far as to admit that there are mutations
that are bad in one environment, but good in another?)
Quote:
Like I said, shuffling of genetic information, not addition. If
you have a poodle on one hand and a wolf on the other, which do
think has more genetic information? The wolf does.
Specialized
breeding shuffles and eliminates certain genes to produce a
different variety of the original parent. This also produces more
weaknesses and susceptibility to disease sometimes increases.
Overall, this weakens the species, not strengthen
it.
<snipped my quote>
And they are 99.99%
harmful and add no additional genetic information...
By the
way, just because you don't like the information we present,
doesn't mean that they are wrong.
I'm only going to adress
the issue of genetic addition; why isn't it possible? There are
types of mutations that remove, shuffle and add new information.
There are even certain ways genes can be passed between different
species - there are examples, but I am trying to keep the length of
the post down.
Since I don't want this to turn into a clobber
war of three page posts, I won't address the poodle-wolf comparison
nor the alleged "uselessness" of mutations. Rest assured, I can
answer them, but I'd like to concentrate on one thing at a
time.
Also, I don't really have an opinion about your
standpoint as such - I merely reply because there are logical
answers to everything you've pointed to so far, and things that are
wrong should not go
unrefuted.
Edit: stupid Snaily
messed up the quotes.
________
¨@_ Edited by: Snaily
at: 2/24/04 7:51 pm
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1420
(2/24/04 8:25 pm)
143.109.90.166
| Del
.gif) |
Re: Proof
Punctuated Equilibrium - look it up.
Steven J. Gould
proposed it, and he knows his shit. There's tons of evildence for
it.
|
LevelLord00
Grunt
Posts: 30
(2/25/04 4:33 am)
219.89.1.153
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Indeed; those are plausable explanations, but none of them can
overcome the power of the second law of thermodynamics. Mutations
just have too few good targets and an overwhelming amount of bad
targets to hit. EVERY organisim gains more and more harmful or
usless mutations. No matter how hard natural selection tries it can't
remove all (or indeed most) of the mutations.
This can (and
has) been proven mathematically. If youtake several sets of three
letter 'genes' (using a 3 base genetic code) and randomly mutate say
10 base pairs you'll find that most of the mutations will harm or
not affect the genes. The exact amount of damage depends on how many
combinations are harmful, etc.
Consider also:
mutation
in action. mutatiun in actiop. mueatiun in adtiop. mueatiuf ir
adtiop. muevtiuf ir aytiop.
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 980
(2/25/04 2:48 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
The thing about mutations is that even if there are a lot of them
in an organism, it won't be "naturally unselected" (die) unless a
certain mutation that is very bad manifests itself - then it removes
itself. True - while in a stable state, there are extremely few
mutations that are only good for the organism, but when conditions
change the "invisible" mutations might prove useful adn become more
common in the gene pool.
Having mutations generally isn't
bad, unless it does something bad to you.
And regarding the
mutilated sentence - I'm not sure what your point is, but every
living languages evolves as well. Also, mutation is not only
changine base pairs, it is adding and subtracting.
________
¨@_ |
LevelLord00
Vortininja
Posts: 41
(2/25/04 9:32 pm)
219.88.57.17
| Del
|
Re: Proof
The point is that the useless mutations greatly outnumber the bad
or advantageous mutations. While at first they don't do any harm,
after a while the clog the code, building up like weeds until the
genetic code just collapses. Radiation damage is an advanced state
of this.
Even if the enviroment changes, considering that
there is about 800 (at least) mutations that can affect the
heamoglobin protein say, only one or two is going to become useful,
the rest will still be there, overwriting useful
information.
If you want to add a room to a house, you work
to a plan rather than rplacing brick at random with other materials.
(You might get your room eventually, bu by that thime your house
will have a window in the floor and insulation jammed into the hot
water tap.)
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 981
(2/26/04 4:36 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Mutations are not like dust in the sense that they accumulate. They
each have a distinct effect - good or bad, mind you - and act
indepentendly of each other.
And please lay off the
metaphors, It seems no one else but me is reading and responding to
this, and I can do well without them.
________
¨@_ |
LevelLord00
Vortininja
Posts: 47
(2/26/04 10:01 pm)
219.88.58.87
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Incorrect, most mutations are harmless, since they don't affect
part of a protein that binds activly to something they have little
effect on an organisim and aren't selected for so they accumulate,
only being removed if the organisim obtains a bad gene.
I
have often wondered how an organisim would use a new gene, it codes
for a protein that it doesn't have a use for,(Whats a bacterium
going to do with light sensitive protein if it has no eye and lives
in dirt?) However if chromosomes line up incorrectly a fully
functional gene can be dup[licated and its function changed. In
humans about 5% of our genome is duplicate. Problem is this
overwrites a perfectly good gene.
You're also running out of
junk to write new genes out of, 'junk' DNA contains thousands of
gene regulators and signalers going by such names as 'distal
enhancer' and 'insulator'.
Mutations also don't always act
independently, evolution should tell you that much. Won't a mutation
that gets a fish out of water help select for the fish whose
excessive bone and muscle structure were before just a
hindrance?
Science has shown us just how fragile we are, our
genes code information not just in base pairs, but in how methylated
our genes are, their location, what enhancers surround them, where
they're expressed and more. Can you honsetly tell me you believe
that if you shook enough sprockets around long enough a watch would
appear?
(Sorry about the meatphors, but aren't many things in
science metaphorical? Electrons orbit a nucleus like planets around
the sun, for instance. There's nothing like a little similie to
liven up the cold language of science.)
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 982
(2/27/04 7:25 am)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
Incorrect, most mutations are harmless, since they don't affect
part of a protein that binds activly to something they have little
effect on an organisim and aren't selected for so they accumulate,
only being removed if the organisim obtains a bad gene.
OK, I was perhaps a bit
unclear: mutations
accumulate, but their
effects
don't - I've never even heard of two mutations that have a
synergetical bad effect (but they probably exist, so feel free to
dig it up).
Quote:
I have often wondered how an organisim would use a new gene, it
codes for a protein that it doesn't have a use for,(Whats a
bacterium going to do with light sensitive protein if it has no
eye and lives in dirt?) However if chromosomes line up incorrectly
a fully functional gene can be dup[licated and its function
changed. In humans about 5% of our genome is duplicate. Problem is
this overwrites a perfectly good gene.
You're also running
out of junk to write new genes out of, 'junk' DNA contains
thousands of gene regulators and signalers going by such names as
'distal enhancer' and 'insulator'.
While the light
sensitive protein is useless at the time - as long as it isn't very bad
for the organism, it will propagate to its offspring, and one day
their species might have use for it (I can think of examples - I'm
sure you can, too).
New genes doesn't have to be made out of
the junk DNA lining the genes or by a wrongly aligned copy (unequal
crossing over, I believe it is called) - there are other ways - and
they don't have to destroy useful genes, either.
Quote:
Mutations also don't always act independently, evolution should
tell you that much. Won't a mutation that gets a fish out of water
help select for the fish whose excessive bone and muscle structure
were before just a hindrance?
Sure, there are causal
effects, but that wasn't my point.
Quote:
Science has shown us just how fragile we are, our genes code
information not just in base pairs, but in how methylated our
genes are, their location, what enhancers surround them, where
they're expressed and more. Can you honsetly tell me you believe
that if you shook enough sprockets around long enough a watch
would appear?
(Sorry about the meatphors, but aren't many
things in science metaphorical? Electrons orbit a nucleus like
planets around the sun, for instance. There's nothing like a
little similie to liven up the cold language of science.)
While I agree that
metaphores have their place (and the above wasn't one of them, I'm
afraid), very often they cloud the whole picture and makes you think
that something is exactly like the thing you compare it to.
And
you'd better look up electron orbitals, since
electrons in very few ways orbit around nuclei like planets.
________
¨@_ |
LevelLord00
Vortininja
Posts: 54
(2/27/04 10:11 am)
210.86.45.247
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
mutations accumulate, but their effects don't
Indeed, if a mutation
has an negative effect it probably won't accumulate, but those with
no effect can accumulate like cracks in the brickwork until the
damage is too great.
Light sensitive protein is not only
useless, but a waste of energy and will be selected against.
Quote:
New genes doesn't have to be made out of the junk DNA lining the
genes or by a wrongly aligned copy (unequal crossing over, I
believe it is called) - there are other ways - and they don't have
to destroy useful genes, either.
Do tell me how new genes
can arise, I'm interested.
Quote:
I've never even heard of two mutations that have a synergetical
bad effect (but they probably exist, so feel free to dig it up).
The biggest class of
such mutations is cancer itself, over the years it has been found
that there are very few cancer genes that act independently; the
cell has many defense's and mutations on dozens of proteins may be
required in cases.
The protein
cis-vop
needs to mutations, one at amino acid 56 (gly to leu) and one at
amino acid 134 (phen to ala) to deactivate it. Other combinations of
mutations on the protein have a lesser effect.
Quote:
And you'd better look up electron orbitals, since electrons in
very few ways orbit around nuclei like planets
Oh I know all about the
s,p,d and f orbitals, their quantum numbers shapes and
hybridization, periodic theory is an interest of mine. However at
school we are still told that electrons 'orbit', all stars 'burn'
hydrogen and other such simplifications. (At university they still
espouse the lewis octet theory.) Metaphors are often used to get
difficult or technical subjects across to the public.
You'd
make a good scientist, you have a rational mind and the strength of
your convictions, but beware the paradigm, many 'rock solid'
theories have fallen in the past. I believe that evolution is in the
Newtonian stage, just waiting for an Einstein.
"No one should be here" -Level Lord |
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 983
(2/27/04 1:12 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
Indeed, if a mutation has an negative effect it probably won't
accumulate, but those with no effect can accumulate like cracks in
the brickwork until the damage is too great.
Light
sensitive protein is not only useless, but a waste of energy and
will be selected against.
I don't accept your
reasoning that the mutations with no effect will build up to
something that does have an effect.
Yes, the light sensitive
protein might be a source of energy loss and then it willb e
selected against, but it might also be so insignificant it doesn't
matter, and then it is a resource for the species if they'd ever
encounter an environment where light sensitivity is a good
thing.
Quote:
Do tell me how new genes can arise, I'm interested.
Alright. Possible
non-destructive ways of adding DNA (they might destroy something -
"copy over" - but then again, they might not):
* Unequal crossing
over (as you mentioned).
* Errors in DNA replication, causing
insertion of one ore more pase pairs.
* Vectors (viruses, for the
most part) transmitting more between organisms than they should. It
is believed this is why certain plants (peas, for instance) have
hemoglobin in their roots.
Quote:
Oh I know all about the s,p,d and f orbitals, their quantum
numbers shapes and hybridization, periodic theory is an interest
of mine. However at school we are still told that electrons
'orbit', all stars 'burn' hydrogen and other such simplifications.
(At university they still espouse the lewis octet theory.)
Metaphors are often used to get difficult or technical subjects
across to the public.
Then we agree that
metaphors should be avoided as far as is possible?
You'd make
a good scientist, you have a rational mind and the strength of your
convictions, but beware the paradigm, many 'rock solid' theories
have fallen in the past. I believe that evolution is in the
Newtonian stage, just waiting for an Einstein.[/quote]
I
don't know who you are to tell me, but I think you'd be even better.
Reasonable scepticism is needed.
I think we've reached a
deadlock - you believe the corruption of the genome goes faster than
the reparation, and I vice versa. How about we agree to disagree,
and I close the topic?
________
¨@_ |
LevelLord00
Vortininja
Posts: 58
(2/28/04 12:57 pm)
219.88.57.110
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Agreed. We could probbably argue and rebut till we turned blue, the
last time I argued with someone like you they locked the topic after
6 months and 237 posts.
"No one should be here" -Level Lord |
ShadowIII
Grunt
Posts: 25
(2/28/04 10:29 pm)
206.63.170.67
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
Yes, the light sensitive protein might be a source of energy loss
and then it will be selected against, but it might also be so
insignificant it doesn't matter, and then it is a resource for the
species if they'd ever encounter an environment where light
sensitivity is a good thing.
If a mutation occurs
that causes an extra leg to grow out of a cow's back, will it pass
it on to the next generation? It could be compared to saying this:
"I cut my finger and have a scar from it, therefore my child will
have a scar." Actually, I'm winging this part of the post so don't
answer it if you don't care to.
Quote:
I don't accept your reasoning that the mutations with no effect
will build up to something that does have an effect.
We all have genetic
mutations. If they are apparent or not depends on whether the male
and female chromosones have the same mutation when joining to create
offspring. When they do, you have birth defects, down's syndrome,
etc. Notice these things are bad not good.
Anyway, Snaily's
right. We're never going to convince the opposition to change
they're beliefs, but I do believe in standing for the truth. (which
you obviously believe as well)
Therefore, I am going to ask one
question.(to change the subject) Does anyone know how the process of
metamorphosis could have evolved?
|
eK
Isonian
Posts: 1422
(2/29/04 3:00 am)
143.109.90.166
| Del
|
Re: Proof
already answered
|
LevelLord00
Vortininja
Posts: 66
(2/29/04 4:08 am)
219.88.58.113
| Del
|
Re: Proof
The 'scar' theory was espoused by several communist scientist who
believed by physically altering crops huge gains in productivity
would be possible, they were supported only on a political basis.
This caused huge famines.
What snaily is saying is that if
the protein doesn't tax the lifeform too hard it won't be selected
against, and when the environment changes an eye will evolve. (Of
course this would be a 'useless' mutation accumulating to have a
positive effect later which suggests negative effects may also
appear when conditions change.)
Edit: Nice point about
vectors snaily; viruses have littered genomes with useless (and in
some cases harmful) copies of themselves (sometimes hundreds of
copies in a row) just ripe for genetic change. (they actually
produce useless proteins.)
But how did insect wings evolve?
certainly not from membranes stretched across legs; they seem to
have sprouted straight from the thorax.
"No one should be here" -Level Lord Edited by: LevelLord00
at: 2/29/04 4:10 am
|
Snaily
Messie
Posts: 984
(2/29/04 2:46 pm)
213.65.97.229
| Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
But how did insect wings evolve? certainly not from membranes
stretched across legs; they seem to have sprouted straight from
the thorax.
Actually, I have no idea
- I've never even heard about it before.
Locked, since most
of the contesting parties consented.
________
¨@_ | |
Public Commander
Keen Forum
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies