NationStates Jolt Archive

Black holes don't exist. Just because some guy who can't even talk says that they exist doesn't make it the indisputable truth. Have we ever seen a black hole? No, of course not. The anomalies which we classify "black holes" because science cannot account for their existence are actually the Hand of God.

You CAN'T see a black hole! Hence the term: Black Hole! Oh, and since one of the prevailing 'theories' for how God created a young universe despite intergalactic distances revolves around the existence of black and white holes, you might want to ixnae the ackblae olehae antrae. :p

Black holes don't exist. Just because some guy who can't even talk says that they exist doesn't make it the indisputable truth. Have we ever seen a black hole? No, of course not. The anomalies which we classify "black holes" because science cannot account for their existence are actually the Hand of God.

Jeese, I even have to deal with this in more than one post. Might I mention that I respect Stephen Hawking almost as much as you may or may not respect Jesus. The guy can't talk. Big deal! He's amoung the smartest people on the planet! He doesn't need to talk, he has math to do it for him!

Heh. I'll have to admit though that one of the jokes amoung scientists (perhaps you've seen the shirt?) is that black holes are where god divided by zero. And hell, science can account for black hole's existance. Where a mass has grown so dense that it's field of gravity is so great that not even light can escape it. (Directly related to the Force of Gravity formula that I provided you with a few minutes ago)

How did the cycle start?

Why are you assuming there was ever a start?

why would the law of conservation necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe?

Because it's one of the foundations of modern science. More interestingly, it's the fact that the law of conservation DOESN'T explain the creation of the universe that makes it so interesting to me. :)

I don't know why I bothered. This guy is obviously a troll. Probably MTAE, the writing style is fairly similar. It isn't that hard to find a new IP to post from.

Because it's one of the foundations of modern science.

Foundation for modern science indeed. It is, as near as we can tell, a universal law. It applied everywhere in the universe.

The problem is, the universe didn't get created in the universe. Whatever reality that may have existed from which the universe sprung need not adhere to these laws.

You don't each a peach and expect it to taste like an apple.

You don't come to my house and expect it to look like yours

You don't go to canada and expect the laws to be the same as in america (though I understand they're quite similar).

Why would you presume to apply the science of this reality to the reality from which this reality came from? Just because the law of conservation is true in THIS reality, it has may have had no baring what so ever prior to this reality.

That's the point.

Why are you assuming there was ever a start?

Well, we know there was a Big Bang that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago and which was the source of our universe as it exists today. Therefore, there was a start to the universe.

If one knows the velocity and radius of the objects, it is a simple matter to find the mass of the object that is being orbited.

Let's assume for the moment that the force of gravity between two objects is constant everywhere in the universe (even though science tells us that at a quantum level, it breaks down). Now, how do we know the velocity of the objects, given that we do not know how far away they are? How do we know their radii? We don't, or we base it on flawed premises.

I'm not arguing the mass/energy balance of a black hole. I'm simply suggesting that Hawking radiation militates for the existence of virtual particle pairs. Which are the spontaneous generation of matter and energy.

And add one to a false vacuum, and you'll get all the matter and energy you want. (I think. To be honest, I'm a structural engineer, so it's a long time since I had to think about this).

On the contrary, as the Black Hole loses mass through evaporation at the same rate Hawking Radiation is generated, the amount of power generated would be finite. Though interestingly,the black hole would 'sublimate' into energy with 100% efficiency. All you need to do is find a energy efficient method of creating and containing black holes. :)

I don't know why I bothered. This guy is obviously a troll. Probably MTAE, the writing style is fairly similar. It isn't that hard to find a new IP to post from.

Yeah, I'm exactly like that heretic (pardon my French) asshole who said that all religious people were stupid. It's a good thing he was banned. And not all people who are more moral than you are "trolls."

Well, we know there was a Big Bang that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago and which was the source of our universe as it exists today. Therefore, there was a start to the universe.

Yes, and I am proposing that the singularity that formed the big bang was created by a previous universe collapsing in a big crunch. An infinite cycle of rebirth, with no beginning or end.

Yes, and I am proposing that the singularity that formed the big bang was created by a previous universe collapsing in a big crunch. An infinite cycle of rebirth, with no beginning or end.

The problem is not only do you have no evidence of that, but you actually can't have any evidence of it by virtue of the fact that we can't see any time before our own universe. As a result, that's a creation belief just like any other; it's an interesting cosmonogic idea like any creation story but neither fact nor provable.

I could just as easily say that God created our universe and has existed forever...both are equally viable.

Yes, and I am proposing that the singularity that formed the big bang was created by a previous universe collapsing in a big crunch. An infinite cycle of rebirth, with no beginning or end.

Given the fact that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, a recurring cycle of bangs and collapses seems unlikely. That said, I don't have an answer for how the Big Bang got started. In science, there are times when we just don't know something...but damned if I won't try to find out (physics major, concentration probably in astrophysics).

Foundation for modern science indeed. It is, as near as we can tell, a universal law. It applied everywhere in the universe.

The problem is, the universe didn't get created in the universe. Whatever reality that may have existed from which the universe sprung need not adhere to these laws.

You don't each a peach and expect it to taste like an apple.

You don't come to my house and expect it to look like yours

You don't go to canada and expect the laws to be the same as in america (though I understand they're quite similar).

Why would you presume to apply the science of this reality to the reality from which this reality came from? Just because the law of conservation is true in THIS reality, it has may have had no baring what so ever prior to this reality.

That's the point.

Well, let's suppose for a moment that's true. It is certainly possible that our universe originated in a universe where universes can spontaneously generate at random. No god need be involved. Then again, He could be. Hell, He could be watching us all on a tv monitor as we speak(do you think he's laughing or masturbating?). Or not. The problem is that a universe that doesn't follow the laws of OUR universe is impossible to mathematically quantify by us. It's as pure a form of speculation as.... well, God. :)

Let's assume for the moment that the force of gravity between two objects is constant everywhere in the universe(even though science tells us that at a quantum level, it breaks down).

Yes, lets. *Ahem* THE GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT! AS IN CONSTANT! The gravitational constant is equal to 6.67*10^-11. Yes, this takes place everywhere in the universe. And yes, your statement is correct, that constant doesn't hold up at the quantum level. Unfortunatly for you, we're not talking about the quantum level, are we?

Now, how do we know the velocity of the objects, given that we do not know how far away they are? How do we know their radii? We don't, or we base it on flawed premises.

Astronomers know the distance between distant objects and how fast they are going through direct observation. You know, those gigantic telescopes we have littering the planet?

Get a better understanding of science. Or stop trying to argue with me about physics. Well, don't. Cause you know, everyone is entitled to be stupid. Some just abuse the privilege.

You have no evidence of that, and can't have any evidence of it by virtue of the fact that we can't see any time before our own universe. As a result, that's a creation belief just like any other; it's an interesting idea, but a metaphysical one rather than scientific.

I could just as easily say that God created our universe and has existed forever...both are equally viable.

Of course. That was my original point. Sovietan is unable to see that there exists possibilities where the universe does not have a beginning, and therefore was wasn't created. He is unable to see the irony in his blind acceptance of his always existing god yet cannot fathom a universe that has always existed.

Yeah, I'm exactly like that heretic (pardon my French) asshole who said that all religious people were stupid. It's a good thing he was banned. And not all people who are more moral than you are "trolls."

ah hahah ahaha! HE said heretic and MEANT IT!


Eh he he he ehehehehe!


*throws up*


you have me al twisted up...like I have a pertzel in my head!

Given the fact that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, a recurring cycle of bangs and collapses seems unlikely. That said, I don't have an answer for how the Big Bang got started. In science, there are times when we just don't know something...but damned if I won't try to find out (physics major, concentration probably in astrophysics).

the problem with that is that it requires energy to expand, and that energy, presumably, is finate.

Take a balloon, fill it up so that it has an inch radius from the center. You can blow it up from 1 inch to 2 inches faster than from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4

It's possible that the energy that is causing the universe to grow will reach a finate point at some point, and began to slow in its expansion, eventually stopping. At which point....who knows. Gravity might start to bring everything back together without the force to pull it apart.

Well, let's suppose for a moment that's true. It is certainly possible that our universe originated in a universe where universes can spontaneously generate at random. No god need be involved. Then again, He could be. Hell, He could be watching us all on a tv monitor as we speak(do you think he's laughing or masturbating?).

Given the state of humanity, and what a sick fuck god must be, presumably both.

Or not. The problem is that a universe that doesn't follow the laws of OUR universe is impossible to mathematically quantify by us. It's as pure a form of speculation as.... well, God. :)

yay agnosticism!

the problem with that is that it requires energy to expand, and that energy, presumably, is finate.

Take a balloon, fill it up so that it has an inch radius from the center. You can blow it up from 1 inch to 2 inches faster than from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4

It's possible that the energy that is causing the universe to grow will reach a finate point at some point, and began to slow in its expansion, eventually stopping. At which point....who knows. Gravity might start to bring everything back together without the force to pull it apart.

Well, that's the whole riddle of "dark energy." Now we're getting to a place where we (or at least I) just don't know the answers to some of these questions. But I bet it's worth a trip to Stockholm for whoever finds out.

Of course. That was my original point. Sovietan is unable to see that there exists possibilities where the universe does not have a beginning, and therefore was wasn't created. He is unable to see the irony in his blind acceptance of his always existing god yet cannot fathom a universe that has always existed.

In general, all cosmogeny is the same kind of speculation. What one person tries to explain with God, another will use a natural explanation, and some people will use any combination of things to construct their own beliefs.

And, of course, even if the universes have always existed, God could have simply have existed alongside them as an eternal watcher. He may not have created it, but he could still be here. He could just be the force that causes the cycle to continue, or any number of ideas.

Astronomers know the distance between distant objects and how fast they are going through direct observation. You know, those gigantic telescopes we have littering the planet?

But they cannot know how far away they are because they have no point of reference. Through a telescope, you cannot have any depth perception because you only have a two-dimensional view of a particular image. As such, you cannot calculate the distance, size, or velocity of a distant star or planet.

In general, all cosmogeny is the same kind of speculation. What one person tries to explain with God, another will use a natural explanation, and some people will use any combination of things to construct their own beliefs.

And, of course, even if the universes have always existed, God could have simply have existed alongside them as an eternal watcher. He may not have created it, but he could still be here. He could just be the force that causes the cycle to continue, or any number of ideas.

My point was simply to show his folly in assuming the universe must have a cause.

The whole dark matter thing just destroys me. What IS that? Is it matter that was changed during the making of stars? Or was it matter thta is literally just dust and therefore not seeable? WTF? somebody explain that one to me, since this thread isn't about god any more, but something far more interesting...

But they cannot know how far away they are because they have no point of reference. Through a telescope, you cannot have any depth perception because you only have a two-dimensional view of a particular image. As such, you cannot calculate the distance, size, or velocity of a distant star or planet.

You're talking through your arse. Seriously. Stop it.

But they cannot know how far away they are because they have no point of reference. Through a telescope, you cannot have any depth perception because you only have a two-dimensional view of a particular image. As such, you cannot calculate the distance, size, or velocity of a distant star or planet.

light distortion due to gravity.

The whole dark matter thing just destroys me. What IS that? Is it matter that was changed during the making of stars? Or was it matter thta is literally just dust and therefore not seeable? WTF? somebody explain that one to me, since this thread isn't about god any more, but something far more interesting...

We don't know yet. All we know is that the mass of the universe doesn't add up without assuming that there is some matter out there we can't see because it doesn't emit any electromagnetic radiation.

My point was simply to show his folly in assuming the universe must have a cause.

The universe doesn't have to have anything; that makes no sense because what the universe requires is literally unknowable.

I mean, there are literally no requirements or constraints on the universe that we can know because of our position inside of it. We can know the rules inside, but what is outside will be forever a mystery (barring divine or external intervention).

The whole dark matter thing just destroys me. What IS that? Is it matter that was changed during the making of stars? Or was it matter thta is literally just dust and therefore not seeable? WTF? somebody explain that one to me, since this thread isn't about god any more, but something far more interesting...

The thing about dark matter is this. Scientists using the motion of galaxies etc, and from that deducing the forces of gravity on it calculated how much mass there is in the universe.

Then they estimated the number of stars etc and figured how much mass there is based on observation.

The second number is 1/10 of the first. So "dark matter" is basically matter "out there", likely between the galaxies, that accounts for like 90% of the universe, but emits no radiation and as such is not really in any way observable.

Why it doesn't observe radiation...we dunno. We don't really know entirely WHAT it is, or how it does, or does not, conform to our version of matter.

On the contrary, as the Black Hole loses mass through evaporation at the same rate Hawking Radiation is generated, the amount of power generated would be finite. Though interestingly,the black hole would 'sublimate' into energy with 100% efficiency. All you need to do is find a energy efficient method of creating and containing black holes. :)

Yah. I think we are talking at cross purposes here. My point was essentially that : if you accept hawking radiation - which is hardly 'shaky science' despite being unproven - then you also accept the existence of virtual particle pairs.

If you accept the existence of virtual particle pairs, then you also accept that they do not occur only in the immediate proximity of a black hole. I agree that normally they self-annihilate and, in other words, make no difference to the total amount of energy or mass in the universe, however, under certain other conditions, i.e., inside a false vacuum, then there will be the subsequent spontaneous generation of mass and energy.

It's not whacky theory.

In any case, conservation of mass and energy is an ad hoc axiom. There is no real reason why it has to be true.

But they cannot know how far away they are because they have no point of reference. Through a telescope, you cannot have any depth perception because you only have a two-dimensional view of a particular image. As such, you cannot calculate the distance, size, or velocity of a distant star or planet.

Of course you can. We do it all the time. How the fuck do you think they measured the height of Mount Everest? *brandishes the cast-iron frying pan*

The whole dark matter thing just destroys me. What IS that? Is it matter that was changed during the making of stars? Or was it matter thta is literally just dust and therefore not seeable? WTF? somebody explain that one to me, since this thread isn't about god any more, but something far more interesting...

dark matter is just matter we can't detect. Like Earth. From a couple billion light years away, we are dark matter. :)

You're talking through your arse. Seriously. Stop it.

Look, you gaze through a telescope, and in the middle, occupying 1/2 of your view, is a box. Is that actually a very small box which is very close to you, a medium-sized box which is a fair distance away, or a huge box really far away? You have no way of knowing.

The universe doesn't have to have anything; that makes no sense because what the universe requires is literally unknowable.

I mean, there are literally no requirements or constraints on the universe that we can know because of our position inside of it. We can know the rules inside, but what is outside will be forever a mystery (barring divine or external intervention).

Not strictly true. If faster than light travel is somehow possible, we can theoretically leave the visible universe and enter a region of space that is not in causal contact with anything. Think of this: if we travel faster than light forever in one direction, so much so that we leave every particle, atom and photon long behind us, to a place where nothing exists because light has never reached it, and the universe collapses behind us, could we return by ftl to a new universe?

But they cannot know how far away they are because they have no point of reference. Through a telescope, you cannot have any depth perception because you only have a two-dimensional view of a particular image. As such, you cannot calculate the distance, size, or velocity of a distant star or planet.

(Sigh) Yes, you can. I don't have enough background in astronomy to explain how perfectly. If you're not convinced that telescopes can do the job, then consider this simplistic version: with telescopes, a person can calculate the distance of what they are looking at to themselves. If they look at the same object over time, they can see how it moved. If one sees something move, you can calculate velocity, which is simply distance divided by time. Woo. You've got velocity of an object moving in space.

Really, I mean it: don't argue science with those who know more than you. It lessens your credibility.

Of course you can. We do it all the time. How the fuck do you think they measured the height of Mount Everest? *brandishes the cast-iron frying pan*

We know the distance between us and Mount Everest, since we can easily measure that. We do not know the distance between the Sun and Alpha Centauri.

with telescopes, a person can calculate the distance of what they are looking at to themselves

How can they do that? Consider my "box" example above. Additionally, contemplate the following. The box moves 10 feet to the right. If it was really small, it would move out of your viewing window. If it was medium-sized, it would move somewhat. If it was really big, it would barely move.

Of course you can. We do it all the time. How the fuck do you think they measured the height of Mount Everest? *brandishes the cast-iron frying pan*

It may be time to switch to a titanium frying pan--the iron one is going to wear out from metal fatigue before long at the rate it's being used in this thread.

We know the distance between us and Mount Everest, since we can easily measure that. We do not know the distance between the Sun and Alpha Centauri.

Yes, we do. Sigh. Ever heard of triangulation? No, of course you haven't. Your brain is made of porridge.

We know the distance between us and Mount Everest, since we can easily measure that. We do not know the distance between the Sun and Alpha Centauri.

It's the same math! It's called Parallax, which is one of the earliest methods of finding the distance to stars. It's pretty basic stuff. Simple geometry. If point A on Earth and point B on Earth are seeing the same star and the arc between the two observatories and the star is measured, and the distance between the two observatories is known, you can calculate the distance between Earth and the star.


A squared plus B squared = C squared. Pythagoras figured that out about 500 years before the birth of Christ. :p

How can they do that? Consider my "box" example above.

Hmm. Alright. (Bear in mind, I'm not an astronomer. This is coming from my engineering skills now). Let's assume that we're using a standard glass lens telescope. Now, glass bends light in a very specific way, to the point that, if bent properly, glass can magnify objects that are close up or far away. This property of glass can be calculated so we know exactly how much the object being observed is being magnified. Thus, if we know how much an object's appearance is being distorted, we can know how far away that object is from ourselves. The principles are the same with telescopes that observe things light years away.

EDIT: It's the same math! It's called Parallax, which is one of the earliest methods of finding the distance to stars. It's pretty basic stuff. Simple geometry. If point A on Earth and point B on Earth are seeing the same star and the arc between the two observatories and the star is measured, and the distance between the two observatories is known, you can calculate the distance between Earth and the star.


A squared plus B squared = C squared. Pythagoras figured that out about 500 years bevore the birth of Christ.

Boom! That works just as well! So, still got any doubts that we can find the distance between ourselves and an object?

It's the same math! It's called Parallax, which is one of the earliest methods of finding the distance to stars. It's pretty basic stuff. Simple geometry. If point A on Earth and point B on Earth are seeing the same star and the arc between the two observatories and the star is measured, and the distance between the two observatories is known, you can calculate the distance between Earth and the star.

The distance between the two points on Earth is very small, while the distance to the stars is most likely very big. It's a triangle with an angle of 0.000001%. What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity? Then your information is skewed by about 1000000%!

Not strictly true. If faster than light travel is somehow possible, we can theoretically leave the visible universe and enter a region of space that is not in causal contact with anything.

Oh, absolutely. It's way too early to assume that we will not be capable of ftl travel; it's impossible now, but given the rate of progress in the sciences over the past century, I would not rule it out in the future. And, of course, it's also possible (or even likely) that the speed of light has sped up and slown down in the past; IIRC, the speed of light has accelerated and slown over the past 13.7 billion years. If the speed of light changes, it's not a hard barrier and can be changed.

Even the cosmological constants may vary slightly over long periods of time.

Think of this: if we travel faster than light forever in one direction, so much so that we leave every particle, atom and photon long behind us, to a place where nothing exists because light has never reached it, and the universe collapses behind us, could we return by ftl to a new universe?

Good question. I imagine it would depend on a number of things, the least of which are the shape of the universe and the existence of multiple universes.

The distance between the two points on Earth is very small, while the distance to the stars is most likely very big. It's a triangle with an angle of 0.000001%. What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity? Then your information is skewed by about 1000000%!

If the light is bent by gravity, then it's no longer following the shortest path, so it'll appear FURTHER away. Which totally refutes your idea that all the stars are five miles above the Earth. Silly person.

Yes, we do. Sigh. Ever heard of triangulation? No, of course you haven't. Your brain is made of porridge.

But porridge could hypothetically have electrical activity.

But porridge could hypothetically have electrical activity.

It's a tad sluggish.

If the light is bent by gravity, then it's no longer following the shortest path, so it'll appear FURTHER away. Which totally refutes your idea that all the stars are five miles above the Earth. Silly person.

Yes, it will appear further away than it actually is. That would prove my claim.

The distance between the two points on Earth is very small, while the distance to the stars is most likely very big. It's a triangle with an angle of 0.000001%. What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity? Then your information is skewed by about 1000000%!

This may be the smallest amount of coherent information ever conveyed in one Internet post. Let's all have a moment of respect for this achievement.

RuleCaucasia, whose puppet are you?

The distance between the two points on Earth is very small, while the distance to the stars is most likely very big. It's a triangle with an angle of 0.000001%. What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity? Then your information is skewed by about 1000000%!

Maybe because anything massive enough to generate enough gravity to bend light that far over that great a distance would be SEEN?!?

Yes, it will appear further away than it actually is. That would prove my claim.

Would you like me to verify your clam?

Nevermind. Even if the distance between the earth and the object was off, the ratio that produces the velocity wouldn't change. So even if we get the numbers wrong, it'll still produce the right answer, as long as our observation remains the same. (Isn't science funny like that? Two wrongs can make a right!)

The distance between the two points on Earth is very small, while the distance to the stars is most likely very big. It's a triangle with an angle of 0.000001%. What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity? Then your information is skewed by about 1000000%!

Yah, but the distance between the points of earth's orbit are rather large,

Think about it.

Maybe because anything massive enough to generate enough gravity to bend light that far over that great a distance would be SEEN?!?

Not to mention felt. Gravity is the weakest of the forces. There simply isn't enough gravitation in the universe to bend the light of EVERYTHING IN THE SKY.

If the light is bent by gravity, then it's no longer following the shortest path, so it'll appear FURTHER away. Which totally refutes your idea that all the stars are five miles above the Earth. Silly person.

Not necessarily. If there were two invisible moons of sufficient size stationed just to the side of the line of sight to the star(one for each observatory), they could bend the light outward and thus narrow the parallax angle. Or course, there would have to be one such transparent moon for each star in the sky for each observatory. Oh, and they would have to be massless or they'd effect Earth's tides. But if they were massless, they wouldn't bend light, would they? *goes cross-eyed*

Maybe because anything massive enough to generate enough gravity to bend light that far over that great a distance would be SEEN?!?

Actually, I believe that Einstein proved that celestial bodies could bend light somewhat in the 1910s. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What happens if the light is bent by 1% due to gravity?

How can you bend something 1%?

A percentage of what exactly are you talking about?

Not necessarily. If there were two invisible moons of sufficient size stationed just to the side of the line of sight to the star(one for each observatory), they could bend the light outward and thus narrow the parallax angle. Or course, there would have to be one such transparent moon for each star in the sky for each observatory. Oh, and they would have to be massless or they'd effect Earth's tides. But if they were massless, they wouldn't bend light, would they? *goes cross-eyed*

Well, to bend light significantly (ie, in such a way that we can detect it) we're talking black hole or galaxy in terms of gravitational pull. But even then there's a way of compensating for it because when light is bent its spectrum shifts towards the red. We can predict (through special relativity) how strong a gravitational source must be to produce the red shift, and remove it from the equation.

*Throws hands up*

Ignore me then!


;)

Actually, I believe that Einstein proved that celestial bodies could bend light somewhat in the 1910s. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ah, yes well, in order to bend light, light would have to pass NEAR them, wouldn't it? So, as light passes near the body of mass on it's way to observatory A and gets bent, and on it's way to observatory B and gets bent, one of two things happen: Either light to observatory A gets bent slightly more or less(thus increasing the parallax angle and making the star appear to be CLOSER than it actually is), or line of sight to one or the other is disrupted by the object in question(look at somethng close and far away at the same time and take turns opening and closing each eye).

Agreeing to disagree takes into account that something is opinion and not ghastly mathematical FACT! :p

Maybe istead of the light, YOU should get bent. :D

Not necessarily. If there were two invisible moons of sufficient size stationed just to the side of the line of sight to the star(one for each observatory), they could bend the light outward and thus narrow the parallax angle. Or course, there would have to be one such transparent moon for each star in the sky for each observatory. Oh, and they would have to be massless or they'd effect Earth's tides. But if they were massless, they wouldn't bend light, would they? *goes cross-eyed*

Yes, but we don't take observations on only one day a year, so you could, I suppose, correct for that. Assuming that it is not a many to one relationship.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

If this is true, I really, really feel sorry for you. If you want an answer to why people believe these sorts of things try this site for example:

Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

Try to keep an open mind and be patient when reading.

Of course, if you don't want an answer, then at least admit that you are ignorant by choice, and don't know better than biologists and geologists worldwide.

*Throws hands up*

Ignore me then!


;)

Who the fuck are you? :confused:



;)

Maybe istead of the light, YOU should get bent. :D

Oh, must he? I hear being "bent" isn't morally acceptable!

... Wait, could that be the problem? Errectile Difficulty at such a young age? Tsk tsk tsk. ;)

Well, to bend light significantly (ie, in such a way that we can detect it) we're talking black hole or galaxy in terms of gravitational pull. But even then there's a way of compensating for it because when light is bent its spectrum shifts towards the red. We can predict (through special relativity) how strong a gravitational source must be to produce the red shift, and remove it from the equation.

Hmm.

"You win again, gravity!" -Zap Brannigan

Who the fuck are you? :confused:



;)

I am one of your offspring from the future! *points at LG then points at self, LG II*

GASP!

Gravity does indeed bend light

Gravitational Lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing)

but the effect is very very small. Not enough to significantly affect the calculated distance to a star.

Gravity does indeed bend light

Gravitational Lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing)

but the effect is very very small. Not enough to significantly affect the calculated distance to a star.

it does get somewhat useful to determine the mass of the star however.

Yes I know I'm kidding, sorta a joke to myself. Spectral shifts however are good to determine the matter makeup of a star, and thus its mass.

it does get somewhat useful to determine the mass of the star however.

Quite, and it allows us to determine the presence of planets around those stars by the microlensing effect.

I am one of your offspring from the future! *points at LG then points at self, LG II*

GASP!

Prove it! Tell us something about me that only my child would know!

Prove it! Tell us something about me that only my child would know!

;) Well dad, I wouldn't want to disrupt space/time, would I? So I can't tell of the future, and I can't remember back into this day of age! I'm rather young right now! :D

;) Well dad, I wouldn't want to disrupt space/time, would I?

You're no son of mine! :mad:

Meh. I had come to like space/time. I didn't want to see it go. Oh well, here you go! Proof! In roughly ten years you and I wi*PWOOF* ...

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

Divide by Cucumber Error. Please restart the universe and try again.

we didnt come from single cell organisms RECENTLY....

Well, when the sperm and egg get together it's a single cell. How recently that was depends, but within the last 100 years for most of us.

I couldn't possibly read this whole thing, but Dwarfstein is officially my new hero for this.

Of course we didn't evolve from goddamn unicycles.

Black holes don't exist. Just because some guy who can't even talk says that they exist doesn't make it the indisputable truth. Have we ever seen a black hole? No, of course not. The anomalies which we classify "black holes" because science cannot account for their existence are actually the Hand of God.
Just a few articles, within the last year, where scientists actually "saw" black holes in action.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/06/black.hole.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/10/black.holes/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/24/black.holes/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/06/black.holes/index.html

Oooh, is the troll still here, I brought my camera this time.

Oooh, is the troll still here, I brought my camera this time.

Ohh! Ohhh! Mister, take my picture with the troll!

Oooh, is the troll still here, I brought my camera this time.

you take the photos,i'll shot it

Basic physics: The Laws of Conservation. Matter and energy must always exist. If that's true, then where did the ultradense surprise present that began the Big Bang come from?

That's what I've been dying to know ever since I heard of the Big Bang. If you find out, will you tell me?

Because so far I seem to be running in circles. Literally. :p

iirc, and it may have already been said here (and i may be inaccurate in my interpretation), prof stephen hawkings has come up with some form of mathematical answer for this:

before the big bang the universe existed on a number of different dimensions which were totally unrelated. due to some hugely cosmologically catestrophic event a 'hole' was torn between some of these dimensions which allowed them to intersect and combine. this combination of dimensions lead to a huge release of energy insofar that the energy (and perhaps matter) that had previously existed on the seperate dimensions was converted into matter. the crucial thing is that this new matter - that which created our universe - was a combination of dimensions: there was up, down, left and right, and time.... the main 4 dimensional world we know today. hence why the "big bang" is seen as the start of the universe and why we cannot percieve - yet alone see - past this event because the universe hitherto the big bang is simply so alien to our understanding of things that it is really quite difficult to percieve and comprehend. also time (as we know it) cojoined with matter at this event to create the linear time dimension as we understand it today... before this event there was no time in our universe. hence why the big bang was the beginning of everything. and also why a creator is not part of the equation.

iirc also, the universe at the point of the big bang expanded/exploded and imploded again thousands of times before one with just the right balance in its creation (what we now call the laws of physics) was stumbled upon and allowed the matter created in the dimensional cojuncture to keep expanding to form the universe as we know it today.

we only 'know it today' because that happened, and this planet happened to be the right distance from our sun (an environment life then adapted and evolved to, eventually leading to us). if either of these two were not true we would not be here today to question these events. NOT the other way round, as some religious people seem to have lodged in their heads, that we are here, the universe must have been created for us in order to allow our existance. to think that is so very small minded it actually gives me a headache.



no, i do not have a source on this as i heard it all in a lecture on string theory (i guess it must have deviated from topic lol) and then shortly after read about prof hawking's theory in the papers. i may be wrong in my interperetation, but meh... it makes sense to me.

Ohh! Ohhh! Mister, take my picture with the troll!

Interesting.......
*sets up stall*
Get your picture taken with the troll, prices at an all time low!

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

I see that you seem to think that the universe springing out magically from someone seems less magical to you...
Life IS a complex of chemical reactions.
And we didn't come from bacteria, but from something that was before bacteria. Bacteria are vegetals. We are animals. We come from unicellular animals.

It's tragic that you heard this very basical notion for the first time only after 8 years of school. What have you learned till 9th grade? Absolute nothing about biology. Maybe you know the Bible very well, but nothing more.

The anomalies which we classify "black holes" because science cannot account for their existence are actually the Hand of God.

"Black holes" suck.
"Black holes" are a manifestation of God.
Therefore God sucks.

"Black holes" suck.
"Black holes" are a manifestation of God.
Therefore God sucks.

Correction, the Hand of God sucks. Which means He has a mouth on His hand, allowing Him to give Himself a blowjob and a hand job at the same time!



How can you doubt the power of God now!?

Correction, the Hand of God sucks.

Certainly that is so, but I don't think I made the fallacy of composition there. I believe suckingness is a logically transferable predicate from the part to the whole.

"Black holes" suck.
"Black holes" are a manifestation of God.
Therefore God sucks.

but in theory are there not 'white holes' at the end of black holes.
and black holes blow
and since they are a manifestation of god
therefore god blows

that is the sign of divinity if anything.
He can both blow & suck simultaneously!

Black holes don't exist. Just because some guy who can't even talk says that they exist doesn't make it the indisputable truth. Have we ever seen a black hole? No, of course not. The anomalies which we classify "black holes" because science cannot account for their existence are actually the Hand of God.

That "guy who can't even talk" as you put it in your oh-so-christian way, has a higher IQ than you could even count to. You really do need to stop this. All you've managed to do is show the entire forum that you know nothing of biology or physics; indeed, that you know nothing but your own arrogance.

That "guy who can't even talk" as you put it in your oh-so-christian way, has a higher IQ than you could even count to. You really do need to stop this. All you've managed to do is show the entire forum that you know nothing of biology or physics; indeed, that you know nothing but your own arrogance.

Please don't stop this. This thread has been so amazingly amusing. It made my day (first 39 page thread that I read all from start to the end). Respect for LG and LG II that made fine and coherent arguments, because I have unsufficient education in physics and biology to present such points, but this was fun.
When it started as unicellar organisms, I was oh well, but when this guy does not believe that dinosaurs existed, he believes that Earth is 6000 years old, and then he thinks that actually we cannot measure distances to the stars and we don't know anything about outer world... This is great. Please continue.

Tell us, RuleCaucasia, Do you think we know correctly distance to the Sun? Moon? To our Satellites? Do we know that Sun is hot or cold? (you mentioned that we don't know about other stars be hot or cold) Do you think medicine works on ill people due to the science used finding cures (medications) for illnesses or because god decides that he wants that person to get healthy?
Is other literature evil? - LotR? StarWars? Soap operas?


P.S. I actually think that RC is not really pure troll, but person who wants to prove their point. It intrigues me, if he starts to see something ridiculous with his viewpoint. And yeah the discussion about dinosaurs lacked bill hick's qoute:
"You know, the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and they existed in that time … you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. "And lo, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus … with a splinter in his paw. And O, the disciples did run a-shrieking: 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh, so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And O, Scotland did praise the Lord: 'Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord.'"

:cool:

Meh. I had come to like space/time. I didn't want to see it go. Oh well, here you go! Proof! In roughly ten years you and I wi*PWOOF* ...

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

Divide by Cucumber Error. Please restart the universe and try again.

Shit. :(

iirc, and it may have already been said here (and i may be inaccurate in my interpretation), prof stephen hawkings has come up with some form of mathematical answer for this:

before the big bang the universe existed on a number of different dimensions which were totally unrelated. due to some hugely cosmologically catestrophic event a 'hole' was torn between some of these dimensions which allowed them to intersect and combine. this combination of dimensions lead to a huge release of energy insofar that the energy (and perhaps matter) that had previously existed on the seperate dimensions was converted into matter. the crucial thing is that this new matter - that which created our universe - was a combination of dimensions: there was up, down, left and right, and time.... the main 4 dimensional world we know today. hence why the "big bang" is seen as the start of the universe and why we cannot percieve - yet alone see - past this event because the universe hitherto the big bang is simply so alien to our understanding of things that it is really quite difficult to percieve and comprehend. also time (as we know it) cojoined with matter at this event to create the linear time dimension as we understand it today... before this event there was no time in our universe. hence why the big bang was the beginning of everything. and also why a creator is not part of the equation.

iirc also, the universe at the point of the big bang expanded/exploded and imploded again thousands of times before one with just the right balance in its creation (what we now call the laws of physics) was stumbled upon and allowed the matter created in the dimensional cojuncture to keep expanding to form the universe as we know it today.

we only 'know it today' because that happened, and this planet happened to be the right distance from our sun (an environment life then adapted and evolved to, eventually leading to us). if either of these two were not true we would not be here today to question these events. NOT the other way round, as some religious people seem to have lodged in their heads, that we are here, the universe must have been created for us in order to allow our existance. to think that is so very small minded it actually gives me a headache.



no, i do not have a source on this as i heard it all in a lecture on string theory (i guess it must have deviated from topic lol) and then shortly after read about prof hawking's theory in the papers. i may be wrong in my interperetation, but meh... it makes sense to me.

As fascinating as it is, and with all due respect to the genius of Stephen Hawking, he might as well have said, 'Elfin Magic'. :p

This very thread is evolutive.
Started with unicelular organisms, passing through dinossaurs, and now is just travelling through the ends of space.

As fascinating as it is, and with all due respect to the genius of Stephen Hawking, he might as well have said, 'Elfin Magic'. :p

well it makes more rational sense than "god did it...... somehow" :p

well it makes more rational sense than "god did it...... somehow" :p

What caused the hugely cosmologically catestrophic event? ;)

What caused the hugely cosmologically catestrophic event? ;)

god farted.

Even if you assume evolution holds up generally, it's a pretty big leap to go from unicellular to multicellular, and even more of a leap to go from non-living to living.

Note that in the second case evolution is useless. If something is not living (and more to the point reproducing), it cannot evolve.

What caused the hugely cosmologically catestrophic event? ;)
Wasn't me!

god farted.

Ah, the spicy burrito theory. Nice. :)

Wasn't me!

We'll know soon enough!

*contacts CSI: Omniverse*

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Wait, wait wait, so where did God made it from then?:p

We'll know soon enough!

*contacts CSI: Omniverse*

that's going to one big case

Ah, the spicy burrito theory. Nice. :)

and people say we're all made of "stardust" :rolleyes: :D

Hell No

Wait, wait wait, so where did God made it from then?:p

In His pants. Haven't you been paying attention? :p

In His pants. Haven't you been paying attention? :p
Atten...oow candy:p

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?
I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but...

Yes, you personally began as a single-cell organism. You developed from a single-cell beginning into the complex, multicellular being that you are today.

If you want, you can come visit my lab and you can personally observe a single cell developing into a multicellular critter.

Given that this can occur in a matter of HOURS, right before your very eyes, why is it so hard to think that it could take place over the course of hundreds of millions of years?

I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but...

Yes, you personally began as a single-cell organism. You developed from a single-cell beginning into the complex, multicellular being that you are today.

If you want, you can come visit my lab and you can personally observe a single cell developing into a multicellular critter.

Given that this can occur in a matter of HOURS, right before your very eyes, why is it so hard to think that it could take place over the course of hundreds of millions of years?

Gamete + Gamete = Zygote...

It's even more "ridiculous" than Rule thinks - there are two cells with only half the stuff needed to create a human being. One of which manages to swim quite a distance in proportion to its size, and meet up with the other cell.

Both of which, in every respect, are simple one-celled creatures in their own right.

And, in his infinite mercy, he gave humans the worst spine in the universe.

Bipedal locomotion is a horrid way of getting around, 'causes a whole slew of structural problems.

So, who's puppet posted this? It's kinda cute. There's no way this guy is serious, no one could come to post that on this forum without reading anything here before hand. Not a chance.

Both of which, in every respect, are simple one-celled creatures in their own right.

I would dispute this labelling of them as creatures in their own right. I picked the word 'entities' carefully waaaay back in the thread so as to avoid this question.

because matter or energy(especially something as complex as life) in this universe can not simply appear from nowhere, it needs a creator.

'Something as complex as life' is irrelevent. Matter and energy may be transformed from one form to the other, but not destroyed - regardless of 'complexity'.

If we are arguing that matter and energy cannot be created, then god is irrelevent, because the matter and energy must have always been here - maybe just in different forms.

Ah, the spicy burrito theory. Nice. :)

ahhh but the philosphical question is quite interesting.

what came first? fart or the burrito?

lol. your comparing a pile of sand to the complexity of say DNA. its apples and oranges.

Of course it is. But both are examples of complexity with order.

And, neither requires an interventionist designer.

If you can't prove they aren't fruit, arguing about which fruit they are appears to be an argument of desperation.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

Hahahah I wonder why, people still insist on this? You do know that evolution is compatible with a belife in God?

Different shops or dining places around town. There's even a Halal pizza place near the Mosque that I go to every once in awhile after prayer. In pinch any meat except pork that has been blessed by a jew or christian is ok. which basically means no chinese food or anything like that.

This may be a hijack, but I'm wondering why you can't eat chinese...

This may be a hijack, but I'm wondering why you can't eat chinese...

chinese food is bless-proof. the prayers just bounce off them and hit innocent bystanders.
Tianmen square, irresponsible blessings...

chinese food is bless-proof. the prayers just bounce off them and hit innocent bystanders.
Tianmen square, irresponsible blessings...

And you know that dog and cat meat can never be halal...

not to mention, it's made by those evil Chinese, who persecute Muslims...

this idea of matter or energy randomly appearing is based on at best very shaky science and last for far less than a second.


The fact that you don't understand the science doesn't make it shaky.


Judging from the evidence, the opposite is probably true...


yet the secularists hold this up as to why they can deny Allah. I find this kind of sad.

Don't be ridiculous. The 'secularists' (like, it's some organised group..?) don't need to deny allah. The extraordinary claim requires the extraordinary evidence.

I find these constant protestations of 'what secularists do', and this idea of a persecuted religious mind, kind of sad.

Ummm..

No need to "deny" Allah. You have to "prove" he exists.

Scientific method, you know. Simple logic, even.

And you know that dog and cat meat can never be halal...

not to mention, it's made by those evil Chinese, who persecute Muslims...

if all it involves is a prayer, can it be done by webcam? If so maybe he should move to an area with wireless connection

if all it involves is a prayer, can it be done by webcam? If so maybe he should move to an area with wireless connection

Heh that reminds me of a story I was told once.

Sooo Guru Nanak is traveling along the Gangesh river when he comes across a bunch of Hindu's ankle deep in the water flinging water with teir hands towards the East. He stops and asks what they are doing and is told that they are flinging water towards their ancesters in the East.

Where upon Guru Nanak enters the river, and starts to spay wather towards the West. When asked what he is doing he replies that if wather from here can reach dead ancesters in the other worlds then surly it can reach his dry feilds back home.

Heh that reminds me of a story I was told once.

Sooo Guru Nanak is traveling along the Gangesh river when he comes across a bunch of Hindu's ankle deep in the water flinging water with teir hands towards the East. He stops and asks what they are doing and is told that they are flinging water towards their ancesters in the East.

Where upon Guru Nanak enters the river, and starts to spay wather towards the West. When asked what he is doing he replies that if wather from here can reach dead ancesters in the other worlds then surly it can reach his dry feilds back home.

:D
sounds like a smartass

Yeah, I'm exactly like that heretic (pardon my French) asshole who said that all religious people were stupid. It's a good thing he was banned. And not all people who are more moral than you are "trolls."

Oh, so you are MTAE. Good to know.

The problem is not only do you have no evidence of that, but you actually can't have any evidence of it by virtue of the fact that we can't see any time before our own universe. As a result, that's a creation belief just like any other; it's an interesting cosmonogic idea like any creation story but neither fact nor provable.

I could just as easily say that God created our universe and has existed forever...both are equally viable.

No - not really.

The idea of a big crunch supports other general observations - it requires conservation of mass and energy, and suggests that there has been a number (possibly infinite) of conservations, but no spontaneous 'creations'.

One can also look at the similarities between phenomena observed in black holes and quasars, to suggest a possible mechanism and mirror for this 'rebirth'.

The thing about dark matter is this. Scientists using the motion of galaxies etc, and from that deducing the forces of gravity on it calculated how much mass there is in the universe.

Then they estimated the number of stars etc and figured how much mass there is based on observation.

The second number is 1/10 of the first. So "dark matter" is basically matter "out there", likely between the galaxies, that accounts for like 90% of the universe, but emits no radiation and as such is not really in any way observable.

Why it doesn't observe radiation...we dunno. We don't really know entirely WHAT it is, or how it does, or does not, conform to our version of matter.

See - I'm a scientist, but Dark Matter has always annoyed me.

It is taken (by many) as though it were 'proven', whereas it's entire existence is only speculated from the fact that two sets of math don't add up.

I'm not saying there is no Dark Matter, I'm just holding open the 'hey, maybe there's some other interference in our calculations' door, too.

chinese food is bless-proof. the prayers just bounce off them and hit innocent bystanders.
Tianmen square, irresponsible blessings...

Better response than I'd expected... ;)

I don't know why I bothered. This guy is obviously a troll. Probably MTAE, the writing style is fairly similar. It isn't that hard to find a new IP to post from.

but trolls are fun!


*pokes troll*

See - I'm a scientist, but Dark Matter has always annoyed me.

When I was a kid in elementary school, ideas like "dark matter" were called "fudge factor".

Unlike Dark Matter, fudge actually exists, and tastes good.

When I was a kid in elementary school, ideas like "dark matter" were called "fudge factor".

Unlike Dark Matter, fudge actually exists, and tastes good.

I'm good with fudge. :)

Don't be ridiculous. The 'secularists' (like, it's some organised group..?) don't need to deny allah. The extraordinary claim requires the extraordinary evidence.

Wait, hold on a moment, I like the way that fellow was thinking...

If I understand correctly, all you've got to do is present an idea (i.e. "Allah exists and made the world") and you don't need any actual evidence to back you up. Instead, everybody ELSE has to start trying to prove you wrong. And you get to be right, by assumption, until they manage to prove you wrong!

This has shaved like 3 years off my PhD thesis. Instead of having to go through the time-consuming, stressful, expensive process of gathering data to test my hypotheses and support my theory, all I've got to do is write down what I think is true and then kick back while everybody else putters around trying to prove me wrong! What a time saver! And my fellowship money doesn't have to be spent on actual research, I can just go out to lunch every day and buy myself a new PS3!

Wait, hold on a moment, I like the way that fellow was thinking...

If I understand correctly, all you've got to do is present an idea (i.e. "Allah exists and made the world") and you don't need any actual evidence to back you up. Instead, everybody ELSE has to start trying to prove you wrong. And you get to be right, by assumption, until they manage to prove you wrong!

This has shaved like 3 years off my PhD thesis. Instead of having to go through the time-consuming, stressful, expensive process of gathering data to test my hypotheses and support my theory, all I've got to do is write down what I think is true and then kick back while everybody else putters around trying to prove me wrong! What a time saver! And my fellowship money doesn't have to be spent on actual research, I can just go out to lunch every day and buy myself a new PS3!

Does this mean that you can spend more time on NS, go back to day trading, and star in more porn movies?

Does this mean that you can spend more time on NS, go back to day trading, and star in more porn movies?

i demand a link:)

i demand a link:)

Bottle did mention shaving in her post.

This thread is useless without pics of Bottle shaving her...

Bottle did mention shaving in her post.

This thread is useless without pics of Bottle shaving her...

cat?

i demand a link:)

Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)

cat?

I heard she has a small cat named Thesis...

Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)

wow i did'nt know people could bend like that!!!!!

This thread is but another show of a small minds ( fundies anyone :D ) trying to explain themselves that they cant die (not really anyway they just go to some huge galactic size dude who says: howdy ho did'ya have a good time before i killed ya with the lightning bolt i hit you with the other day :sniper: ) because they cant understand that we are no more nor less than animals evolved through the course of billions of years of evolution and as such our conscious minds just cease to exist when our brain chemistry stop operating sufficiently to sustain self-awareness ( oh yes would i love to live after "dieing" too bad its not going to happen [in the 1:10¨59937662999123 probability that heaven and hell exists i choose hell, why you ask? you get the best barbeque in all worlds and can have "premarital" sex without someone throwing a lightning at ya])

I am "married" by the way, i just dont point the promise to live and love her for the rest of my days to some invisible dude, i mean thats like promising nothing at all. Ill rather avow my wife that all and really keep it anyway even if theres no lightning throwing giant in the sky watching if im going to fornicate. (i think we can have sex in our bedroom without supernatural dudes jerking on the couch next to bed :headbang: ) And i have never cheated a woman and most likely will never do ( no matter the situation, if you date or are married and want to have sex with someone else then breakup its not going to work any ways then [besides i love tieing wifebeaters and cheaters to the bumber of car and driving 40km/h )

All i can do is feel sorry for you folks in US that have brains, i mean i wouldnt like to live with such lunatics around me, too bad you cant just shoot em with the .45cal pistol that "defies" the laws of god ( since it supports the Law Of Conservation :D ) and be happy burning their bodies at a stake. Call me evil but isnt that exactly what fundies have been doing us rational people for few thousand years, i think i could live without you perfectly and wouldnt miss any of you ( except the ones with a good ass :p )

We'll know soon enough!

*contacts CSI: Omniverse*
But I have an alibi: I was hanging out with Buddy Christ!

But I have an alibi: I was hanging out with Buddy Christ!
Except you're German and that counts against you:p

Except you're German and that counts against you:p
Jesus loves you - but I don't! :eek:

Now, vould you please come wizz me. And don't try to run, or else...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmacht.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmacht.gif http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmachtsoffizier.gif http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmacht.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmacht.gif

(:))

Who ist meiner Fahrrad? Und des Rundfunk meines Grottvater?

Don't mind ze spelling

Who ist mein Fahrrad? Und das Rundfunkgerät meines Großvaters?

Don't mind ze spelling
I'm still riding that very bike, but your grandfather's radio didn't survive the fall of Berlin, sorry. :D

I'm still riding that very bike, but your grandfather's radio didn't survive the fall of Berlin, sorry. :D
Ah, only five errors:D Now give me back my bike:p

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?
Since you're just asking questions...

Do you believe that we didn't? Why do you believe that? What persuaded you to abandon your default uncertainty and hold any opinion at all on this issue?

Ah, only five errors:D Now give me back my bike:p
Nö.

Nö.
Ah, well, okay then.:(

Sorry, a tremendously dense ball of energy that exploded and gradually formed subatomic particles and matter in the 300,000 years following the explosion.

Actually, quarks and leptons (including electrons) were formed mainly within the first second; the quarks had clumped into groups of three by the third minute. It took 300,000 more years for hydrogen to be produced. Fifteen point two billion years later, here we are.

This thread's original poster is not worth feeding.

Correction, the Hand of God sucks. Which means He has a mouth on His hand, allowing Him to give Himself a blowjob and a hand job at the same time!



How can you doubt the power of God now!?

If God has a mouth on his hand that means he is Y'Golonac, which means that everyone who worships him should have kinky sex.

Even if you assume evolution holds up generally, it's a pretty big leap to go from unicellular to multicellular, and even more of a leap to go from non-living to living.

Note that in the second case evolution is useless. If something is not living (and more to the point reproducing), it cannot evolve.

Unicellular to multicellular is the easiest, since we can actually observe this. Cells don't always fully divide.

Bipedal locomotion is a horrid way of getting around, 'causes a whole slew of structural problems.

Our method of bipedalism. The one that every other bipedal animal short of a few birds uses works perfectly fine.

and even more of a leap to go from non-living to living.
Really? Amino acids can form in deep space.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.

A guy I used to work for had a saying he would use every time he got into an argument with me. "You can't argue with a crazy person". I don't know why NSers keep trying it. I don't really know why he kept trying it either.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.

Either that, or he's sniffing glue...

Does this mean that you can spend more time on NS, go back to day trading, and star in more porn movies?
Sure, just as soon as we can convince the NIH and my university administrators to run with this idea of "Any random-ass idea is true until proven otherwise!"

Sure, just as soon as we can convince the NIH and my university administrators to run with this idea of "Any random-ass idea is true until proven otherwise!"

See, that's your problem. You are working with NIH. If it was some other part of the government, any random-ass idea could be used to approve millions of dollars for a government contract doing complete bullshit.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.


A cast-iron frying pan will work on all three. :)

No, I came from multiple orgasms.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.

A guy I used to work for had a saying he would use every time he got into an argument with me. "You can't argue with a crazy person". I don't know why NSers keep trying it. I don't really know why he kept trying it either.

Why? I don't know, really. I guess I derive some kind of morbid enjoyment at it. I also marvel at how stupid and stubborn some people can be, and it's a very strong urge to show them why.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.


because it was fun

No, I came from multiple orgasms.

Hooray! :D

Even if you assume evolution holds up generally, it's a pretty big leap to go from unicellular to multicellular

not really:

think of your own body. what are you besides a giant mound of cells?

when a bacteria divides, the two resultant cells wander off their own way. what would happen if the two divided cells stuck together: say: a freak coat of protein caused the cells to cling to each other.

viola! your first multicellular organism.

at that point, it's nothing but a couple of freak cells that stuck together, but the added advantage of being too large to be eaten by any of the smaller single-celled organisms gave it a distinct advantage over any potential predators in the environment.

of course, it would take quite a while for things like cell specialization or sexual reproduction to occur, but there you have it.

it's a lot like seeing a beehive as a single creature instead of a mass of smaller creatures. where do you draw the line between a pile of individual bacteria and a colony of mold and a jellyfish?



as for the beginning of life, the question is much the same.

If i showed you a chemical that, when it came in contact with a naturally occurring other chemical, reacted with the second chemical and created a copy of itself, what would you call it?

is

A + B -> 2A

life, or not?

what happens when a few stray radioactive isotopes effect the reaction, and instead of causing two separate molecules, causes them to bind to form a larger, more complex, version of A.

won't take long before something that ean 'eat' early amino acids and other proteins found naturally on a developing planet like ours( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ), and the rest is history

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.

A guy I used to work for had a saying he would use every time he got into an argument with me. "You can't argue with a crazy person". I don't know why NSers keep trying it. I don't really know why he kept trying it either.
There are young earth creationists around. They deserve to be corrected just as much as IDers.

Tell us, RuleCaucasia, Do you think we know correctly distance to the Sun? Moon? To our Satellites?

We do know the distance to the moon because we sent a manned spacecraft to our satellite, which was capable of verifying the distance. By the same logic, we are cognizant of the distance to other planets. We might even be aware of the distance to the sun if we sent a spacecraft close enough to it so as to draw correct conclusions.

Do we know that Sun is hot or cold? (you mentioned that we don't know about other stars be hot or cold)

We know that the Sun emits light, which provides us with heat. Since light contains some energy, we assume that energy in the form of heat is also given off by the Sun, but I do not believe that we have proven this yet. Perhaps, however, various comets have melted in close proximity to the Sun, thus proving the point.

Do you think medicine works on ill people due to the science used finding cures (medications) for illnesses or because god decides that he wants that person to get healthy?

Medicine can help a person recover. However, the ultimate choice is up to God; he decides who should live and who should die. Medicine does not factor into his calculations, as it is simply a vessel for conveying the will of the Lord.

Is other literature evil? - LotR? StarWars? Soap operas?

Only if it indoctrinates our children with a diabolical viewpoint, such as that of paganism.

We do know the distance to the moon because we sent a manned spacecraft to our satellite, which was capable of verifying the distance. By the same logic, we are cognizant of the distance to other planets. We might even be aware of the distance to the sun if we sent a spacecraft close enough to it so as to draw correct conclusions.



We know that the Sun emits light, which provides us with heat. Since light contains some energy, we assume that energy in the form of heat is also given off by the Sun, but I do not believe that we have proven this yet. Perhaps, however, various comets have melted in close proximity to the Sun, thus proving the point.



Medicine can help a person recover. However, the ultimate choice is up to God; he decides who should live and who should die. Medicine does not factor into his calculations, as it is simply a vessel for conveying the will of the Lord.



Only if it indoctrinates our children with a diabolical viewpoint, such as that of paganism.



Basic science is lost on you isn't it?

Basic science is lost on you isn't it?

No, I did quite well in biology class. It helped that our teacher was a devout Christian, but I excelled in it nonetheless and earned an "A" without deviating from my beliefs.

No, I did quite well in biology class. It helped that our teacher was a devout Christian, but I excelled in it nonetheless and earned an "A" without deviating from my beliefs.

You got an A in biology learning from a devout christian without violating your young earth creationist beliefs...


This is what's wrong with education in America. Tell me you go to Catholic school.

Quit feeing the troll, Khadgar. Seriously. He doesn't even believe in any of this.

This is what's wrong with education in America. Tell me you go to Catholic school.

Of course not. If the government forces my parents to pay taxes for our crumbling public education system, I'm pretty much forced to go to it.

Quit feeing the troll, Khadgar. Seriously. He doesn't even believe in any of this.

Oh I don't believe for a second he's a 9th grader. He's far too articulate for that, not to mention someone with his narrow beliefs would not be allowed by his parents the unrestricted access to information that the internet provides. Might warp his fragile Christian mind.

I'd guess he's either a puppet of a regular here, MeansToAnEnd, or some new troll. Style is very MTAE though, so that's got my vote.


Anyone else notice he's reply number 666 to his own post? Clearly he's satan.

Creationists are infinitely frustrating. They reject valid proof from everyone else, but when asked if god exists, they use circular reasoning.
Could an anti-evolutionist please explain why I need a new flu shot every year? Why can't my body recognize the same virus two years in a row? And why do whales have small useless pelvises? And why is the DNA from a banana 50% the same as the DNA from a human?

Atheists, you should make puppets and send them to Atheist Empire. We're the leading atheist region in Nationstates.

Oh I don't believe for a second he's a 9th grader.

I never claimed that I was; the only time I took biology was in 9th grade, however. Currently, I am in 11th grade, and taking chemistry (which, unfortunately, is based on equally shaky scientific footing as biology; hybrid orbitals, anyone?).

not to mention someone with his narrow beliefs would not be allowed by his parents the unrestricted access to information that the internet provides.

Actually, my parents are Christian, but very understanding. They brought me up to be a moral person, and I have a firm conviction in my beliefs. No internet site could dissuade me from my surety in the truth of the Bible. My parents acknowledge that to be truly Christian, you have to be capable of defending your religion against the atheist onslaught; they encourage me to see what the enemy is saying so that I can better prepare myself. They are quite in favor of hearing every viewpoint before drawing a conclusion; regardless of what you may think, religion is not bred from ignorance, but rather from strength of heart and mind.

Could an anti-evolutionist please explain why I need a new flu shot every year? Why can't my body recognize the same virus two years in a row?

Because all the viruses which you killed off with your last flu shot are dead, and only those which were able to survive it can make you sick again. I do not dispute that the strongest will survive; it is patently obvious that such is the truth. However, I have yet to see a virus evolve into a monkey, or even a rat, or even a plant.

And why do whales have small useless pelvises?

I do not attempt to question God's handiwork; he knows much more about his creations than we can ever hope to learn.

And why is the DNA from a banana 50% the same as the DNA from a human?

Chances are, since DNA is composed of 4 bases, that randomly-generated DNA will be 25% similar. It's not such a big leap from there to 50%, nor does it necessarily reflect similarity. In fact, cite your source because I believe that humans have a greater quantity of a DNA than a banana.

Oh I don't believe for a second he's a 9th grader. He's far too articulate for that, not to mention someone with his narrow beliefs would not be allowed by his parents the unrestricted access to information that the internet provides. Might warp his fragile Christian mind.

I'd guess he's either a puppet of a regular here, MeansToAnEnd, or some new troll. Style is very MTAE though, so that's got my vote.


Anyone else notice he's reply number 666 to his own post? Clearly he's satan.

Too articulate for a 9th grader?:rolleyes:
I don't think he's a 9th grader either, but how articualte he is has nothing to do with why I don't think he is one.

I'd guess he's either a puppet of a regular here, MeansToAnEnd, or some new troll. Style is very MTAE though, so that's got my vote.

The style struck me as very similar too.

The style struck me as very similar too.

Think MTAE has multiple troll accounts?

The style struck me as very similar too.

The only similarity between MeansToAnEnd and me is that we converse in coherent sentences. Aside from that, our viewpoints are diametrically opposed and I wouldn't even want to be seen anywhere near him. He is not only an atheists, but he has no compunction for the poor and he claims that religious people are stupid. In fact, it makes me sad to know that he lives in the same state that I do.

Think MTAE has multiple troll accounts?

Easily. He seemed quite intent on his goal of trolling. He put a lot of effort into it, which is how come he avoided mod punishment for so long - they figured, he must really believe it, because many trolls just hit and run. A guy like that can easily find another IP to post from.

I never claimed that I was; the only time I took biology was in 9th grade, however. Currently, I am in 11th grade, and taking chemistry (which, unfortunately, is based on equally shaky scientific footing as biology; hybrid orbitals, anyone?).



Actually, my parents are Christian, but very understanding. They brought me up to be a moral person, and I have a firm conviction in my beliefs. No internet site could dissuade me from my surety in the truth of the Bible. My parents acknowledge that to be truly Christian, you have to be capable of defending your religion against the atheist onslaught; they encourage me to see what the enemy is saying so that I can better prepare myself. They are quite in favor of hearing every viewpoint before drawing a conclusion; regardless of what you may think, religion is not bred from ignorance, but rather from strength of heart and mind.


I'm a christian, I also have a bachelor's degree in physics. Faith and science don't have to be at odds.

Also, I'd like to point out something that a very wise man once mentioned; The Old Testament wasn't written by christians. It was written by jews. It was written to pass on traditions meant to carry on the lessons of the past and to keep loosely knit tribes of people in line. With very rare exception even the jews recognize that the Old Testament's stories are just that; stories. But unfortunately, you'd never know that since you don't go to temple, do you? ;) Thanks, Lewis Black

The only similarity between MeansToAnEnd and me is that we converse in coherent sentences. Aside from that, our viewpoints are diametrically opposed and I wouldn't even want to be seen anywhere near him. He is not only an atheists, but he has no compunction for the poor and he claims that religious people are stupid. In fact, it makes me sad to know that he lives in the same state that I do.

O RLY?

You still seem like MTAE.

The only similarity between MeansToAnEnd and me is that we converse in coherent sentences. Aside from that, our viewpoints are diametrically opposed and I wouldn't even want to be seen anywhere near him. He is not only an atheists, but he has no compunction for the poor and he claims that religious people are stupid. In fact, it makes me sad to know that he lives in the same state that I do.

Oh, what a coincidence, he lives in the same state as you. Interesting since he only mentioned that in a single post. And he was banned before your join date. Nice to see you again, MTAE.

Oh, what a coincidence, he lives in the same state as you. Interesting since he only mentioned that in a single post. And he was banned before your join date. Nice to see you again, MTAE.

Actually, I browsed the forums for a while before joining. I wanted to gauge the general lines of thought which characterized this forum (and, aside from learning that some people are seriously disturbed and write very weird topics, I also viewed the political and social ideology of the posters). During that time, MeansToAnEnd had his location as Manhattan, Kansas in his profile. I instantly remarked upon that because it's not too often to meet a citizen of Kansas on the internet, since it is a small and mostly rural state. I don't jump into a forum without getting to know it first; I test the waters prior to diving in.

Actually, I browsed the forums for a while before joining. I wanted to gauge the general lines of thought which characterized this forum (and, aside from learning that some people are seriously disturbed and write very weird topics, I also viewed the political and social ideology of the posters). During that time, MeansToAnEnd had his location as Manhattan, Kansas in his profile. I instantly remarked upon that because it's not too often to meet a citizen of Kansas on the internet, since it is a small and mostly rural state. I don't jump into a forum without getting to know it first; I test the waters prior to diving in.
That, and you are MTAE.

Actually, I browsed the forums for a while before joining. I wanted to gauge the general lines of thought which characterized this forum (and, aside from learning that some people are seriously disturbed and write very weird topics, I also viewed the political and social ideology of the posters). During that time, MeansToAnEnd had his location as Manhattan, Kansas in his profile. I instantly remarked upon that because it's not too often to meet a citizen of Kansas on the internet, since it is a small and mostly rural state. I don't jump into a forum without getting to know it first; I test the waters prior to diving in.

Of course you did. Of course. And you browsed the forums for a while under the name, MeansToAnEnd.

There are young earth creationists around. They deserve to be corrected just as much as IDers.

No, they deserve to be ignored. Sometimes ridiculed. Face it, if it wasn't for the fact that this stupididty has it's roots in religion he'd be dismissed as just another crackpot like those "hollow Earth" nutcases. And why shouldn't they? Young earth creationism is just as dumb of an idea as the whole hollow earth crap.

Of course you did. Of course. And you browsed the forums for a while under the name, MeansToAnEnd.

No, I browsed the forums for a while without joining (without being under any name whatsoever). I was unsure that I would fit in with a population of mostly liberal atheists, but I ultimately decided that I had to try my best to convert you all.

No, they deserve to be ignored. Sometimes ridiculed. Face it, if it wasn't for the fact that this stupididty has it's roots in religion he'd be dismissed as just another crackpot like those "hollow Earth" nutcases. And why shouldn't they? Young earth creationism is just as dumb of an idea as the whole hollow earth crap.

Hollow Earth? Never heard of them..... :confused:

No, I browsed the forums for a while without joining (without being under any name whatsoever). I was unsure that I would fit in with a population of mostly liberal atheists, but I ultimately decided that I had to try my best to convert you all.

Under the name MeansToAnEnd.

Under the name MeansToAnEnd.

What part of "under no name whatsoever" did you not comprehend? Yeesh!

Hollow Earth? Never heard of them..... :confused:

Just what you'd expect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth), Pancake. :D

No, I browsed the forums for a while without joining (without being under any name whatsoever). I was unsure that I would fit in with a population of mostly liberal atheists, but I ultimately decided that I had to try my best to convert you all.

Right, you're trying the religious fundamentalist angle now, instead of the stalinist fundamentalist. And you can't admit to being who you are since that would get immediate deletion, thus ending the fun of trolling prematurely.

Maybe. Anyone who is dead sure of 'yes' or 'no' needs to rethink some things.

Under the name MeansToAnEnd.
What part of "under no name whatsoever" did you not comprehend? Yeesh!
I cannot prove it, but RuleCaucasia does not appear to be MeansToAnEnd. Since the only possible purpose of this line of questioning appears to be opening a door to flamebait, I suggest we drop this argument and debate based on posts, not inflammatory suppositions.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Hollow Earth? Never heard of them..... :confused:

There are people who believe that the earth is hollow and that other civilizations live on the inside of our planet. There are holes through which one could travel from the outside earth to the inside earth at the poles. The Nazis looked into this along with a lot of other stupid pseudoscience. The latest issue of Weird New Jersey magazine has a long interview with a man named Dr. Beard who wrote books on the subject.

Yes, we did evolve from unicellular organisms, the universe also came from nothing (the kind of nothing without God) now can we please move on and start literally misinterpreting the new testament (its a lot less dangerous on the whole).

Yes, we did evolve from unicellular organisms, the universe also came from nothing (the kind of nothing without God) now can we please move on and start literally misinterpreting the new testament (its a lot less dangerous on the whole).

Have a seat. Have a cookie. You haven't been here long, have you?

Have a seat. Have a cookie. You haven't been here long, have you?

Why should that be relevant?

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Me! :)

Why should that be relevant?

It isn't, necessarily, except that threads like this are the stock in trade of NSG. And ones misinterpreting the NT, too. Actually, we'd had a minor dry spell on evolution ones. And I was teasing, you know.

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

But there is no God so how could some mythological creature have created the real world? :confused:

It isn't, necessarily, except that threads like this are the stock in trade of NSG. And ones misinterpreting the NT, too. Actually, we'd had a minor dry spell on evolution ones. And I was teasing, you know.

Just for the record I have been viewing for some months, if not posting. Had I not I would have given a longer reply, but really I know there is no point.

I was just reading page 10 and i realized something about the OP, just tought i should share with you guys.
He said that the bible was written by god. That is the lamest thing i've ever heard. I am a fucking pagan, but still i know that the bible is a compilation of bullshit wrotten by some random people back in the day (You know, the so-called Apostles?). Enough said.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Um. No, they're the people who think that it physically came out of nothing.

Creationists are the people who think that it happened magically.

Jesus!

*hopes somebody catches the refernece*

I was just reading page 10 and i realized something about the OP, just tought i should share with you guys.
He said that the bible was written by god. That is the lamest thing i've ever heard. I am a fucking pagan, but still i know that the bible is a compilation of bullshit wrotten by some random people back in the day (You know, the so-called Apostles?). Enough said.

It was dictated to them by God; he illuminated the way, and they simply followed along the path he outlined for them.

It was dictated to them by God; he illuminated the way, and they simply followed along the path he outlined for them.

Either that or they had a tad too much acid.

Either that or they had a tad too much acid.

Too much acid? What are you talking about? Are you saying that they ate too many lemons or something?! :eek: :confused:

You said that it was written by the HANDS of god (i won't go back looking for it, but you used the word hand).
But now, seriously, could you explain me why the hell did god created earth and we poor humans? I never read the bible, and i wonder if there's something on it about it. Seriously.

EDIT: Just, please, don't try to convert me. One thing I hate about you christians is this. "You're a pagan and are going to hell unless you stop having sex, masterbating and drugs, and start worshiping Jesus."

Either that or they had a tad too much acid.
LMFAO!

Oh, and yes, i'm a sailor. LOL.

Too much acid? What are you talking about? Are you saying that they ate too many lemons or something?! :eek: :confused:

:D

*almost pisses pants laughing*

Oh Science...... :D Ah Evolution! :D

Best laugh I've had all day. You're wayy to effing hilarious to be MTAE- you're probably DCD again!

:D

Sorry RuleCaucasia, but your talking about this God-thingy all the time. I hate to be a bother, but could you please define God for me?

Sorry RuleCaucasia, but your talking about this God-thingy all the time. I hate to be a bother, but could you please define God for me?

He probably won't reply. You can't even spell parrot. :p

In all seriousness, God is an abusive arse of a being that thankfully does not exist.

Parrots are mean. They bite.

Parrots are mean. They bite.

That's because God is punishing you for all the gayness in the USA. *nod*

That's because God is punishing you for all the gayness in the USA. *nod*

But i'm not even american!
*Shakes fist in the air, obviously talking to god* You sick bastard!

It was dictated to them by God; he illuminated the way, and they simply followed along the path he outlined for them.

If God bothered to dictate the Bible to people don't you think he would have popped in to make sure it was right before the printing press arrived?

I mean if he can get people to write it in the first place (not sure how that works with the whole free will thing) surely he could at least make sure the final edition is consistent, error free. He could have made it a little more consise too. I mean no offence to the big fella but its not exactly a ripping read, I mean why did he come down to a whole bunch of folk to get them to write about the same thing... surely he could have just got each person to write about something different instead of getting them to overlap.

I guess I am just jealous, Just seems like a he popped by a lot more a few thousand years ago than these days? Maybe he has got bored and moved on to something more exciting?

Sorry RuleCaucasia, but your talking about this God-thingy all the time. I hate to be a bother, but could you please define God for me?

It's the entity who created the universe, the Earth, and you.

But i'm not even american!
*Shakes fist in the air, obviously talking to god* You sick bastard!

Precisely.

Though I am American and it hasn't punished me. *shrug*

Whoa, just realized you only have four posts, welcome to the zany world that is NSG! :)

It's the entity who created the universe, the Earth, and you.

So, quantum things, gravity, and sexual intercourse?

It's the entity who created the universe, the Earth, and you.So whatever the origin of the universe is, you'll call it god.

Whoa, just realized you only have four posts, welcome to the zany world that is NSG!

Thanks mate! :)

It's the entity who created the universe, the Earth, and you.
Nah silly. This God of yours is just a mean fat nerdy kid over an anthill with a magnifying glass and we're the poor little anties. You get the rest.

Seriously, any religion based on the fear of being tortured for eternity because of some godling's displeasure is psychologically diseased.

Maybe. Anyone who is dead sure of 'yes' or 'no' needs to rethink some things.

I'm as dead sure of 'yes' as I am that the Sun is a hydrogen-burning star and that germs cause disease. The amount of corroborating evidence for all three claims is about the same.

*stretches* Ahhh... Nice to see that this is still going after a day. Ooo, lookie! My region's delegate posted like I asked! Woohoo! LG: yeah, sorry, had to disrupt space/time there. I fixed it though. Want me to try again? ;)

So... what are we talking about now? It looks to me the actual argument is drained up and gone now.

You know, despite being horribly outnumbered and continually proven wrong, I have to grudgingly respect Rule for hanging on to his beliefs so vehemently. I swear, if I was on a predominantly fundie/christian forum trying to convince everybody to be an atheist, I would have given up in frustration before page 10. Besides, he makes his points rather... well, however misguided.

I'd say consistently rather than well :D, Insistently would also fit.

I'm as dead sure of 'yes' as I am that the Sun is a hydrogen-burning star and that germs cause disease. The amount of corroborating evidence for all three claims is about the same.
The whole point of science is that you never know for sure and are always working to improve your knowledge of things...

Granted, what you said is most likely true. And by most likely, I mean, "for all intents and purposes, yeah it's completely true."

At exactly what point did God descend from a mountaintop and hand someone a complete first edition of the Bible, out of curiosity?

I don't know the exact date, but that's a not entirely inaccurate account of the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai.

Just to clarify, I am Jewish, so many arguments that depend on literal Christian interpretations or on so much as a single word from the New Testament do not work on me.

Here are my beliefs:
The universe did not come out of nothingness. 15 billion years ago, G-d created the universe in an event known to science as the Big Bang. Prior to this, He had written the laws of science, and He had rigged it to produce intelligent life.

How did He do this? He's infinitely smart, that's how. He's G-d!

The Bible, especially everything prior to Abraham, is not quite literal. There are a number of metaphors and hidden meanings. No one man can hope to understand them on his own. We Jews have been studying Genesis since it was given to us over 3,000 years ago and we're STILL confused. In my Bible class at my school (a Jewish school), we've been studying Genesis since the beginning of the year. We're on verse 10.

RuleCaucasia, you accept the Bible as literal truth. Many, perhaps most people here think it is a load of BS. I accept is as the word of G-d (dictated to Moses) but not necessarily literal. Surely a being as wise as G-d could incorporate metaphors into His writing if He wished to? Human writers do it all the time!

For example, the world could not have been created in six days, when the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day! Clearly, G-d was referring to 'phases' of creation.

And I do not obey G-d out of fear of eternal damnation. At worst, I'll get 12 months in Gehenna - which would really such, but it's only 12 months. I obey Him because He knows what is best for us. And how does He know this?

He's infinitely smart, that's how!

It was dictated to them by God; he illuminated the way, and they simply followed along the path he outlined for them.
But wait, why are there then so many books of the ancient Bible that aren't in the modern Bible? What makes the Gospel of Luke any more authentic than the Gospel of Judas? The Apocrypha (by which I'm refering to the "negative" Apocrypha, not things like the Book of Moses) is just as old as the rest of the Bible. Hell, large portions of Hebrew Apocrypha comprised the early Christian Bible.


Ask almost any non-ultra Orthodox Jews, even those with great faith: The Old Testament was not written by God. It was oral tradition that was passed on for generations, only being written literally thousands of years after the events took place.

The problem of genetic improbability

From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10,300,000. Pitman, 68.

if you dont read this i guess uve got a heart of solid stone.

But wait, why are there then so many books of the ancient Bible that aren't in the modern Bible? What makes the Gospel of Luke any more authentic than the Gospel of Judas? The Apocrypha (by which I'm refering to the "negative" Apocrypha, not things like the Book of Moses) is just as old as the rest of the Bible. Hell, large portions of Hebrew Apocrypha comprised the early Christian Bible.


Ask almost any non-ultra Orthodox Jews, even those with great faith: The Old Testament was not written by God. It was oral tradition that was passed on for generations, only being written literally thousands of years after the events took place.

the book of genesis was maybe 2-4 thousand given to moses by GOD not oral 'tradition' the other books of the law were written directly by Moses.
as for the rest of the old testament some of the books were written about 200 yrs after.
the NT gospels were finished at about 75 AD along with the epistles.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.
seeing as carbon dating is the basis for atheistic aging of the earth and its ex-enhabitants i looked up this article.
Is Carbon Dating reliable?

Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

RESPONSE: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

1. C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.
For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby the discoverer of the C14 dating method was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).
Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah?)

the book of genesis was maybe 2-4 thousand given to moses by GOD not oral 'tradition' the other books of the law were written directly by Moses.
as for the rest of the old testament some of the books were written about 200 yrs after.
the NT gospels were finished at about 75 AD along with the epistles.
How is that even vaguely possible? Are you arguing that the Jews existed for almost a thousand years without any type of coherent belief structure whatsoever? You do realize you are arguing that none of the Bible existed prior to Moses meeting God on Sinai (where God gave the 10 Commandments...nothing else)?

Why would God have to give the entire history of the Jews to Moses, wouldn't his people already know it? The Bible did not exist in written form for first couple thousand of years, there simply was no way to produce it on any large scale. It existed through oral tradition, through Rabbis and other elders who knew the stories and repeated them and kept them alive. Believing that somehow everything was written down (even though the vast, vast majority of people would have been completely illiterate) is wildly irresponsible.

seeing as carbon dating is the basis for atheistic aging of the earth and its ex-enhabitants i looked up this article.
Is Carbon Dating reliable?

Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

RESPONSE: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

1. C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.
For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby the discoverer of the C14 dating method was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).
Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah?)

How the living hell could C-14 dating be less reliable than it's damned half-life?

Oh, right, it isn't. You're just unthinkingly copying stuff from snake-oil salesmen.

seeing as carbon dating is the basis for atheistic aging of the earth

Wrong

seeing as carbon dating is the basis for atheistic aging of the earth

buh? carbon dating is useful for showing stuff to be older than 6,000 years, so kinda shooting a hole in that young earth idea, but it really isn't very useful in figuring out shit much past the 30,000-35,000 year range.

Carbon dating isn't used at ALL to date things as old as 3, 4, 10 million years old. If it was, then your entire article itself would be dead in the water.

As it stands all your article says is "well, it's only good up to about 30,000 years or so, and 30,000 is close to 6,000, so we're going to assume everything past 6,000 is a mistake, k?" If carbon dating was actually useful in predicting ages in the millions, then the whole point of that would be moot.

The problem of genetic improbability

From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040.
Completely missing the whole point of evolution I can handle... its kind of to be expected. But to totally stuff up some basic probablity is just sloppy.

Even if evolutionary progress did work this way the calculation is out by 10 to the 8th.

The chance for 5 related genes to be effected a positive mutation is (10^8)^4 or 10^32.

This is because the first gene to be effected does not need to be a specific gene.

example

What are the chances of rolling a double on 2 dice?

the answer is 1/6...

the chance of rolling a particular double is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36

So the chances of effecting 2 related genes is 1/10^8

If you needed them to be a specific pair of genes (which you don't because you just need them to be related to each other) it would be 1/10^8 x 1/10^8 or 1/10^16

ok now that we are past this first hurdle

The thing about evolution is that it takes little steps.

we have established that 2 advantageous related genes occur in approximately every 10^8 cells
given that there are on average 10^9 cells in every gram of soil (yes one gram of soil, I happen to work in a mibrobial soil ecology lab, so I know this from experience) according to your calculations there would be 10 sets of advantageous gene pairs found in every generation in one single gram of soil.

Are you starting to get the picture about how easy it would be for these things to occur.

Given that many bacteria have a generation time of a couple of days (in many cases only hours) you could concievably have at least 100 generations of bacteria a year. Thats 1000 advantageous gene pairs in 1 gram of soil in 1 year.

So in a 1000kg of soil over 100 years you would have at least 1 set of 3 advantageous genes...

Now consider millions of years.. and the tonnes of soil all around the earth.... starting to get the picture...

and that is before we even consider natural selection. These calculations were based purely on blind random chance.. no feedback effect.

Evolution and natural selection cause a feedback loop that make these events exponetially more likely.

See the thing is that even though the chances of these things happening are very small the numbers pushing them to happen are so vastly large that things that seem completely impossible are not only probable... but inevitable.




If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10,300,000. Pitman, 68.

if you dont read this i guess uve got a heart of solid stone.

The thing is that a 5% of an eye is 5% more than your competitors... it gives you enough of an advantage that a significant proportion of the population already carries those genes... so instead of needing to multiply the chances of the mutations together you can practically add them...

So the chances of getting a piece of an eye structure may be 10^8 but then that advantage means that almost all of the poulation ends up with that gene for a piece of an eye.. that way when the next 1 in 10^8 mutation occurs instead of it only having a 1 in 10^8 chance of occuring in a cell with the first mutation is might have a 1 in 2 chance. When you look at it like that you can see that given billions of years and billions of organisms you would end up with a stagering array of diversity... and surprise surprise .. look round and thats exactlyt what you see...

Had to look it up but Carbon-14 dating is useful up to around 60,000 years.

Had to look it up but Carbon-14 dating is useful up to around 60,000 years.

ok 60, I said 30. I thought I remember reading that calculations aren't precise enough at less than 3% remaining material, which would put it at 5 halflives or about 30,000 years. Maybe that changed in recent years however.

either way point is still valid. Long enough to disprove any 6,000 year old young earth nonsense, but not at all useful in dating anything that isn't fairly recent in geological terms.

Sheesh, i can't believe you guys are still arguing over the existance of the dinos.

ok 60, I said 30. I thought I remember reading that calculations aren't precise enough at less than 3% remaining material, which would put it at 5 halflives or about 30,000 years. Maybe that changed in recent years however.

either way point is still valid. Long enough to disprove any 6,000 year old young earth nonsense, but not at all useful in dating anything that isn't fairly recent in geological terms.

yes yes, it wasn't a criticism :) I believe techniques have improved.

Sheesh, i can't believe you guys are still arguing over the existance of the dinos.

actually at this point we're arguing with the dumbass who seems to think that we use carbon dating to figure out how old they are.

actually at this point we're arguing with the dumbass who seems to think that we use carbon dating to figure out how old they are.

HAHA, what a loser. He should watch Discovery Channel from time to time.

You are all wrong and suck.


Sperm-Unicellular
Egg-Unicellular


Sperm+Egg Unicellular Organisms.

Did we come from them?

Yes.

Bye.

actually at this point we're arguing with the dumbass who seems to think that we use carbon dating to figure out how old they are.

Carbon Dating does not work for geological time periods, the half life of C14 is too short. Don't they use the ration of Potasium and Argon isotopes?

The thing is that a 5% of an eye is 5% more than your competitors... it gives you enough of an advantage that a significant proportion of the population already carries those genes... so instead of needing to multiply the chances of the mutations together you can practically add them...

So the chances of getting a piece of an eye structure may be 10^8 but then that advantage means that almost all of the poulation ends up with that gene for a piece of an eye.. that way when the next 1 in 10^8 mutation occurs instead of it only having a 1 in 10^8 chance of occuring in a cell with the first mutation is might have a 1 in 2 chance. When you look at it like that you can see that given billions of years and billions of organisms you would end up with a stagering array of diversity... and surprise surprise .. look round and thats exactlyt what you see...

I'm not questioning your math, here, seems pretty sound. I am curious, though: to what advantage would 5% of an eye serve an entity? Only the fully developed eye would provide any conceivable advantage. If an eye was developed piecemeal, as you suggest, what natural benefit would a species have for not weeding out the part of an eye that, as it serves no ulterior purpose, since evolution does not have an end-game or goal? Thus, a piece of an eye would be a mutation likely to be flushed out in the next generation unless natural selection did have some ultimate goal (an eye) in mind...

Sheesh, i can't believe you guys are still arguing over the existance of the dinos.

Did you ever observe one?

Did you ever observe one?

Yes.

I did.

Prove me wrong biaatch

Did you ever observe one?

Did you ever observe Jesus turning water into wine?

Did you ever observe Jesus turning water into wine?

No. Interesting that you automatically presume me to be a Christian.

Yes.

I did.

Prove me wrong biaatch

Then they exist for you, because you have perceived one. Reality is what you see.

Did you ever observe one?

i've seen many hundereds of fossils of dinosaurs.

i guess that counts.

No. Interesting that you automatically presume me to be a Christian.

Interesting that you ignore fossil finds and dating methods.

Then they exist for you, because you have perceived one. Reality is what you see.

goddamn you :p
You study philosophy too dont you!

Interesting that you ignore fossil finds and dating methods.

I asked a question. "Did you observe one" I believe. Interesting, then, that you are so wrapped up in your preconceptions and ignorance that you assume even a neutral question to play into the hands of your silly game.

Note I said nothing about Jesus or fossils or dating methods. I merely asked if the poster had ever seen a dinosaur.

goddamn you :p
You study philosophy too dont you!

;) Naturally. Although I would be inclined to say you might have stretched the truth...

But then again, I have not had your experiences, so what is true for you necessarily differs from what is true for me.