In some way, we already are gods, we have, although using already existing lifeforms as a basis, created species that did not exist before.

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about Robocop:
Can you make me a timeline of the beginning of the earth to life as it is today, and scientifically prove everything on it?

---

Can you take the observable chronoligical progression of ANY species over ANY time frame and claim it's scientifically impossible?

Well, I'm sure you could claim it, since, like most creationists, you don't seem to care much about evidence, but assuming you're going to re-enter the realm of rational thinking, I'd like to see you do that.

But seriously, quit while you are ahead... so to speak

Karnaj, you rock! You rock big time!

[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Vorago ]

quote:

---

How.... Cetona.... uughhhhhh:
Can you make me a timeline of the beginning of the earth to life as it is today, and scientifically prove everything on it?

I'd like to see it.

---

Appeal to ignorance: I don't have to cater to your demands just because you're not doing well. Saying "Oh yeah? Prove evolution irrefutably!" doesn't do a whole hell of a lot for your case. If you choose to remain ignorant of just HOW evolutionary theory works, that's your problem, not mine.

On a second note (and various tidbits I picked up in my lifetime, some of which might be horribly wrong but undoubtedly someone will smack me if they are..);

Not all stars go nova - some decay down into neutron stars or white dwarfs, because they can't sustain a high enough burn rate to get to the point of going nova; and the 20% number is actually more like 15% (or so it was taught here) - with the advent of the Hubble telescope, more remnants have been discovered, but as Karnaj already said, some nova's don't leave remnants, and the ones we can see are the ones in our 'immediate' vicinity.

Since our solar system is in one of the 'younger' parts of the milky way, we won't be seeing any detectable remnants any time soon. I think the biggest one to date was a few years ago when they caught some nice footage of a star going nova with the hubble telescope.

Also, don't forget that if a star located a few billion lightyears away goes nova, it will take a god awful long time for that to become visible to us (since the light has to travel a shitty ass long distance). Hence, there might've been a shitload of nova's already, we just don't know about it yet because the light hasn't gotten to earth yet.

It's also believed (or so I've read), that the universe has no boundaries but is finite - currently the human language lacks the definitions needed to talk about more than 3 dimensions, and generally it is believed that the universe is, at the very least, 4 dimensional (length, width, height, time) - and even then it's sketchy because time is still a very odd subject..

To go off on a tangent, what is time anyway? I mean, take a look at a certain species of butterfly that only lives for 24 hours - does that butterfly see it as 24 hours? Or does it have some faster interpretation of time and in fact it's crammed 75 years into that 24 hour period? (yes I know this is wack shit but I just thought of it.. someone humor me and tell me!#@$)

It has to do with mass. Stars the size of our sun still explode because they're collapsing under thier own weight. When hydrogen runs out, the helium in a star fuses into carbon, the carbon into oxygen, and so on, until the core is mostly iron. Unlike the previous elements, iron does not release energy when it fuses. When the pressure builds enough to fuse iron, it robs the core of heat and electrons, both of which are needed to support the mass of the star. The core collapses, a flood of neutrinos is released, and the outer layers of the star explode outward in a supernova.

After the outer layers peel off, the superdense core becomes the neutron star in the cases of stars the size of our sun. It becomes a black hole in the case of stars around eight times the mass of our sun or larger.

I think explosions resulting in neutron stars are simply Novas, where those resulting in black holes are Supernovas.

The idea that the universe has no bounderies but is finite relies on the definition of the universe as space inhabited by matter and energy, meaning it has no bounderies in that you can travel infinitely but it is finite in that there is a finite amount of matter.

[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Maradon XP ]

quote:

---

So quoth Maradon XP:
All stars explode, but the results of the explosion vary.

It has to do with mass. Stars the size of our sun still explode because they're collapsing under thier own weight. When hydrogen runs out, the helium in a star fuses into carbon, the carbon into oxygen, and so on, until the core is mostly iron. Unlike the previous elements, iron does not release energy when it fuses. When the pressure builds enough to fuse iron, it robs the core of heat and electrons, both of which are needed to support the mass of the star. The core collapses, a flood of neutrinos is released, and the outer layers of the star explode outward in a supernova.

After the outer layers peel off, the superdense core becomes the neutron star in the cases of stars the size of our sun. It becomes a black hole in the case of stars around eight times the mass of our sun or larger.

I think explosions resulting in neutron stars are simply Novas, where those resulting in black holes are Supernovas.

The idea that the universe has no bounderies but is finite relies on the definition of the universe as space inhabited by matter and energy, meaning it has no bounderies in that you can travel infinitely but it is finite in that there is a finite amount of matter.

---

You sure about that? I could swear that that's not what happens... *trots off to find a book*

Hmm, it says here that only stars above a certain mass have the ability to go nova - our sun, for example, lacks the mass to go nova. If a star lacks the mass to go nova, it'll start expanding (like all stars do near the end of their lifetime), but because it can't make critical mass for a nova, it'll shrink down into a white dwarf, and will eventually cool down.

Book's from 1985 though so it might be outdated. I'm pretty sure though that a star has to be above a certain mass for it to go nova..

I'll see if I can dig up some more on that later if anyone really wants to know

(that and it's not really topical to this thread so .. hehe)

I could have sworn there was SOME kind of explodey thing involved in the formation of neutron stars though.

quote:

---

Maradon XP got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, researching the matter after the fact (that's the way to do it ya know) on novas is turning up something about binary systems.

I could have sworn there was SOME kind of explodey thing involved in the formation of neutron stars though.

---

The book I have doesn't mention neutron stars in any great detail but it seems that if you have a star of sufficient mass that goes nova, it can collapse down into a neutron star if circumstances are right.

I might be wrong.. can't seem to find anything on it right now and I'm too lazy to go question the mighty Google oracle at the moment. I'll dig it up after dinner

Then, it'll expel the outer layers in mini-novas, eventually collapsing down into a small dwarf.. Probably white.

How did the universe come into existance? (The matter that existed before the big bang, where did it come from?)

Where did the first life on earth from come from?

How can you prove your answers to these questions?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, by the way, just trying to see exactly where you stand.

quote:

---

How did the universe come into existance? (The matter that existed before the big bang, where did it come from?)

---

Our current universe probably came from the big bang. The second part of that question can't be definatly answered. If the big bang theory is correct all of the mass in the universe would be a singularity. Quite honestly we have never been able to create a singularity so we do not know how one would behave. It has been proposed though that a asemtope exists in time at the point of the big bang.

quote:

---

Where did the first life on earth from come from?

---

From the water. Been awhile sense I've read an article on this so hang with me. I believe the theory goes that the stuff that makes up life was floating around in our oceans. The unstable atmosphere of the time was electricly charged. (Think really big thunderstorm, all the time.) When electricle discharges hit the ocean that provided the little spark of life.

Don't know if that theory is outdated or not though, so don't fry me on it.

quote:

---

How can you prove your answers to these questions?

---

How can you prove there is a God? Remember lack of proof isn't proof. If you think that because the Bible says so then I say that there is a mystical land called Narnia, because a book says so.

That last one was meant to be sarcastic by the way.

quote:

---

Maradon XP had this to say about John Romero:

since, like most creationists, you don't seem to care much about evidence,

---

I've asked for peoples evidence of evolution, and still haven't been given it. The only thing people have done were prove my points wrong, which is fine. I don't claim to know everything about physics and all that. I just want some logical, scientific evidence of either the fact that evolution occured, or that God did not create the earth.

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about Tron:
I just want some logical, scientific evidence of either the fact that evolution occured

---

Where the hell have you been the whole thread?

Nothing I have seen on this page shows that evolution falls under "science"

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
I've asked for peoples evidence of evolution, and still haven't been given it. The only thing people have done were prove my points wrong, which is fine. I don't claim to know everything about physics and all that. I just want some logical, scientific evidence of either the fact that evolution occured, or that God did not create the earth.

---

For evolution... those that believe in Evolution are burdened with proving their side.

But you see, you believe in creation, and that it was God's doing, which is fine. But it doesnt swing differently. You have to prove YOUR side, not ask us to either prove ours or disprove yours.

How about you give solid scientific proof that evolution DIDNT occur?

[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Falaanla Marr ]

1) I think we were created, the whole theory that we came from a big explosion is just freaky and in my mind that would mean there was something out there first.

2) No I dont think we were just created out of thin air. I think that a greater being set something up and thus he/she/it created the big bang and just let it carry on from there.

3) Yes I do belive that he/she/it killed the dinosaurs and decided that he/she/it would create a different type of being (people). Thus he/she/it evolved the animals to the right point and then he created Adam and Eve.

quote:

---

Karnaj had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Even the simplest bacteria could not form from inanimate matter. However, an organic molecule can certainly form from inanimate matter, and life began on this planet with nothing more than a molecule whose atoms happened to be arranged in such a manner as to permit self-replicating chemical reactions.

---

How do you know for a fact that that's what happened? If you can't prove it to be true, then the "life can only come from other life" statement is true, thus making evolution back into a theory. In fact, there are many problems with stating thats what happened.

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about Cuba:
If you can't prove it to be true, then the "life can only come from other life" statement is true, thus making evolution back into a theory.

---

For one, we can't yet prove.

And for three: You can't prove creationism to be true, so life can only come from life statement is true, thus making creationism back into a theory.

Or something. I can twist your statements too.

You may say, "To teach Creationism or Intelligent Design as a valid theory in school is to violate separation of church and state!"

For starters, we may as well label "church" as "religion" as it has been determined to apply so. So the question is, Is creationism or intelligent design a religion? I think the obvious answer should be no.

Dictionary.com to the rescue, once again! Their first and third definitions are the only ones that really apply.

Religion:

1. a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

At first glance, Creationism and the I.D. theories may seem to fall under these definitions. However, upon closer inspection...

quote:

---

...and reverence for...
...personal or institutionalized system...
...and worship...
...values, and practices...
...a spiritual leader...

---

These rule out the Creationism and I.D. theories as religion. The structure built around these by the Christian Church are, indeed, religion. But they are NOT an inherant part of the theories.

Faith, according to dictionary.com( among other definitions) is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Faith, according to the writer of Hebrews is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…" (Heb. 11:1).

There are countless gaps in both theories. These gaps are inadmissable for an attempt to state one or the other as fact based on science. Untill these gaps are filled, both theories believe "in things not seen," and have a lack of "logical proof or material evidence." But evolution is the only one taught in our schools, and, at that, it is taught as fact.

If you can't see a problem with this, then i have a bit of wisdom for you. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matt. 11:15)

I have to get off, so my mom can work. Maybe i'll have time to get back to everyone tomorrow.

-Bibleboy, out

Edit 101!! That's right, i'm taking you to SCHOOL!... I sound like mightion )

[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Archon ]

Evolution can be taught in a scientific manner because there is science to support it. Natural selection and gene swapping, for instance, could be used to support the theory that is evolution, although I'm much too braindead at work right now to get fully into the debate of how.

The point is that neither can be proven, and neither can be disproven really. They both have equal merit to be learned, and we choose what we want to believe.

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about dark elf butts:
I know that creationism is a theory. I said something to that degree in the abortion thread.

---

Wrong. Creationism is NOT a theory. You will find no formal submission of any creation theory in any respectable scientific journal that has not utterly been torn to shreds in subsequent publishings. Sure, there are plenty of creation journals where creationists can publish their works free from peer review, but they are simply ignored by the scientific community, as rational discussion is all but impossible.

quote:

---

Cetona had this to say about pies:
Thats not the reason I wanted his timeline. There are many different beliefs that fall under evolution, and I wanted to see which ones he believed. Since you dont feel like doing that, could you just answer these questions?

---

Wrong again. Evolution is fact and theory. All of science is based on theories. We don't question observed phenomona even if all the underlying mechanisms aren't totally understood. As an example, we don't question gravity, and yet there is no working quantum gravity theory. Newtonian mechanics explains gravity, but not quantum mechanics. Are we supposed to say gravity doesn't exist because there's no quantum theory for it yet?

Evolution is an observed phenomonon. It is fact as well as theory. Evolution is NOT a belief. Beliefs are purely subjective and have no requirement whatsoever to hold their basis in reality. Facts and theories are by definition objective.

My beliefs are irrelevant for this discussion, as well as none of your business.

quote:

---

How did the universe come into existance? (The matter that existed before the big bang, where did it come from?)

---

First of all, the contention that something existed "before" the universe began is irrelevant. Time and space converge at the Big Bang. Anything that happened "before" the Big Bang happened outside our universe and is therefore irrelevent.

I know what you're trying to do, and I'm not going to fall for it. Look in a college-level physics book. You'll see the current accepted standard cosmological model for how the universe came in to existence.

The evidence? Point a radio telescope at any part of the sky. You'll read an ambient background EM radiation with a wavelength of 7.35 cm wherever you point. This radiation is consistent with a perfect blackbody radiating at a temperature of 2.7K, which agrees with the theory of the Big Bang. The radiation you pick up is an "afterglow" and firm evidence for the Big Bang.

This is not my belief. It is theory supported by fact.

quote:

---

Where did the first life on earth from come from?

---

Didn't I cover this when I shattered your bio-genetic law quote? I'll re-iterate, in case you skipped over it.

Even the simplest bacteria could not form from inanimate matter. However, an organic molecule can certainly form from inanimate matter, and life began on this planet with nothing more than a molecule whose atoms happened to be arranged in such a manner as to permit self-replicating chemical reactions.

Occam's Razor makes the above explanation more plausible than mindlessly saying "God did it!" Observe: any theory or explanation which requires the intervention of God must be automatically discarded if a workable theory exists which doesn't require God to explain any part of it.

quote:

---

How do you know for a fact that that's what happened? If you can't prove it to be true, then the "life can only come from other life" statement is true, thus making evolution back into a theory. In fact, there are many problems with stating thats what happened.

---

Bullshit. Your ignorance of the scientific method and logic in general is your downfall on this one. If you knew about Occam's Razor, you'd learn that the simplest theory is often the best. What I stated above fits the criteria better than bio-genetic law. Therefore, we must choose that as the better theory.

On another note: evolution has always been a theory. Creationism has never been a theory. Please remember this, because I really hate it when people make me repeat myself because of their own ignorance, and your ignorance of the scientific method is simply astounding. Read this next part carefully, because I'm about to school you:

There is no such thing as a conclusive scientific "proof"- proofs exist in mathematics but not in science. However, there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution. The fossil record, the homology of animal species, the geographical placement of related species are all consistent with evolution theory while being inconsistent with a so-called "creation theory". If one theory is consistent with the evidence while the other theory is not, the scientific method demands that we pick the former theory.

BTW, I picked pink because I'm feeling festive tonight. Now, if you want to try presenting an argument that doesn't showcase your amazing ignorance of the scientific method, I'd be more than happy to address it.

I love you, Karnaj.

[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Dr. Pvednes, PhD ]

Why can't evolution and creationism both be true at the same time???

why can't the world be both millions of years old, and greated somewhere in the nieghborhood of 6000 years ago?
Is there empirical proof that the world was somehow assembled 6000 years ago, in an already aged state, with fossils in the ground, different species with similar attributes, and all the rest of what we see around us?

Can you give me a single shread of evidence disproving the existence of a God, whilst keeping in mind that a lack of evidence is not a negative proof. Remember folks, Occam's Razor is merely a useful tool for hypothesis testing, it states that when two hypotheses fit all observed facts, the simpler of the two is USUALLY right. Note that it is not a proof, but merely a probability.

I will stipulate that there is probably no God, but I will not state firmly that there is not one. When there is a complete lack of evidence, all hypotheses are equally true.

Since the theory of an earth being created 6000 years ago, in a pre aged state fits every fact supporting evolution, it must also be treated as being equally true.

quote:

---

Big_Mac said this about your mom:
well, since everyone ignored my post on page 2, i figured i'd try again...

Why can't evolution and creationism both be true at the same time???

why can't the world be both millions of years old, and greated somewhere in the nieghborhood of 6000 years ago?
Is there empirical proof that the world was somehow assembled 6000 years ago, in an already aged state, with fossils in the ground, different species with similar attributes, and all the rest of what we see around us?

Can you give me a single shread of evidence disproving the existence of a God, whilst keeping in mind that a lack of evidence is not a negative proof. Remember folks, Occam's Razor is merely a useful tool for hypothesis testing, it states that when two hypotheses fit all observed facts, the simpler of the two is USUALLY right. Note that it is not a proof, but merely a probability.

I will stipulate that there is probably no God, but I will not state firmly that there is not one. When there is a complete lack of evidence, all hypotheses are equally true.

Since the theory of an earth being created 6000 years ago, in a pre aged state fits every fact supporting evolution, it must also be treated as being equally true.

---

You know, I've said "bullshit" so many times in the last few days I should open up a fertilizer business and retire before the New Year.

Once again, I shall begin by point out that there are ENORMOUS amounts of evidence that simultaneously support evolution and debunk creationism. And creationism isn't even a theory!

Furthermore, where did you get this 6000-year old statement? The Bible? That thing is so inconsistent that anyone who takes its creation story as a literal truth is so deluded they shouldn't be let out in public. "Nevermind that the creation story violates the laws of physics, and goes against the standard cosmological model, it must be true because God said so!" You'd have to be completely irrational to take the Bible literally, in which case, you have no place in a rational debate.

So you're basing your claim that the earth was created in a pre-aged state on a shoddy book that has no less than 960 self-contradictory statements within it, including two completely different stories of creation?

God is irrelevent in a rational discussion. Simply because there is no evidence against his existence does NOT mean we must give a theory which requires his intervention equal credence, when we have a valid explanation that does not need a God to act as a catalyst.

In short: Occam's Razor. You're throwing in unnecessary and redundant variables to explain something which, is paradoxical and impossible to qualify by its very defintition. It's just a flight of fancy, and in the light of a valid evolution theory, has to go. Sorry, this one's getting cut. *slice*

I'm having flashbacks of Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brando(they both did the line, though Brando first!).

A beaten, battered man at the end of his string mumbling, "I coulda been somebody.. I coulda been a contender," to anyone who will listen.

Just out of curiousity, what are you studying again?

quote:

---

Tarquinn had this to say about Tron:
Karnaj:

Just out of curiousity, what are you studying again?

---

Informatik. At least, that's what I think it's called.

Oh yeah, might be double-majoring in German, if I can see my way to spending a semester abroad.

("Informatik" is correct btw.)

I don't think I've seen ownage been handed out at this level of perfection in several months. In fact, I'm going to bookmark this thread for next time I have that debate.

Karnaj rules.

quote:

---

Tarquinn enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Interesting, but makes sense.
Anyway, two thumbs up for what you did in this thread and the other one.
I think even if tried really hard I couldn't have said it any better, even though I love discussions (the verbal ones) about religion.

("Informatik" is correct btw.)

---

Goethe?

quote:

---

Karnaj impressed everyone with:

So you're basing your claim that the earth was created in a pre-aged state on a shoddy book that has no less than 960 self-contradictory statements within it, including two completely different stories of creation?

---

Link please.

quote:

---

Cetona stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Link please.

---

Gladly.

Contradictions in the Bible

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Cetona said:
Theres obviously quite a few there. Are there any in particular you want me to address?

---

Address all of them. You seem to want Karnaj to address all points of Evolution.