So, the theory is that there COULD be a planet the same size and condition as our beloved Terra, with the exact same orbit around the Sun, simply on the other side of the Sun as us. As such, we've never been able to see it, and satellites in orbit around our planet wouldn't ever get a shot of it.
Anyway, the "theory" was originated by one John Norman in a series of books that referred to the planet as "Gor" and that it had it's own culture and alien overlords.
While the majority of it is easily written off as science fiction, the idea that there COULD be a sister planet in our solar system is an interesting one.
How far have our probes gone? What is it 93 million miles to the sun from here? So it'd be 186 million miles away IF you went straight through the sun.
There were also no documents from the 1600's that said there were no aliens at the first thanksgiving.
Hmm?..ya never know.
... I think the idea of a counter Earth is an interesting theory...and hell a few Hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat...so who knows what we ( well not us personally...but mankind) will eventually discover.
Aerethan wrote:How far have our probes gone? What is it 93 million miles to the sun from here? So it'd be 186 million miles away IF you went straight through the sun.
Don't be daft you don't have to travel all the way to the other planet to observe it. Probes are sent out to Jupiter and beyond but you don't need to go that far - once a probe is a certain distance away from the Earth it should be able to just see around the other side of the sun to see if there's something there. Anyway, it's not physically possible for a planet to remain always obscured by the sun because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, even if the other planet matches the pattern of movement of Earth exactly it would appear visible at times.
Wikipedia comments...
If such a planet actually existed, according to present scientific cosmology, it would be permanently hidden behind the sun but nevertheless detectable from Earth, because of its gravitational influence upon the other planets of the Solar System. No such influence has been detected, and indeed space probes sent to Venus, Mars and other places could not have successfully flown by or landed on their targets if a Counter-Earth existed, as it was not accounted for in navigational calculation.
It must also be noted that the Earth orbit is not a circle but an ellipse, and in respect of Kepler's second law, a planet revolves faster when it is close to the star. So if the Counter-Earth followed the Earth on the same orbit with half a year of delay, it would sometimes be visible from Earth. Rather, to be hidden from Earth, the Counter-Earth would have an orbit symmetrical to Earth's, not sharing the second focus.
Any planetary sized body at Earth's L3 point should have been visible by the NASA STEREO coronagraphs during the first half of 2007. The separation of the STEREO spacecraft from Earth would give them a view of the L3 point during the early phase of the mission. Later, as the spacecraft continued to separate, the L3 point drifted out of the field of view. Given the sensitivity of STEREO's COR2 coronagraph, anything larger than 100 kilometres (62 mi) in diameter should have been detected.
So in summary, it's not possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:hmmm.....do they have milk there? how bout potatoes? if not,they arnt worth are time
According to a source of mine, you can milk anything with nipples, so odds are there is milk. Not sure about potatoes.
Reports of men lactating are pretty low (not zero surprisingly enough).
An Interesting theory, yet it will remain just that, It's disproven. For example the Hubble telescope can see out of our solar system. It would've been spotted, also the fact that our earth was created by meteorites and the fact it's a very rare chance that its makeup could provide life. I doubt there would be two.
InquisitorVaron wrote:An Interesting theory, yet it will remain just that, It's disproven. For example the Hubble telescope can see out of our solar system. It would've been spotted, also the fact that our earth was created by meteorites and the fact it's a very rare chance that its makeup could provide life. I doubt there would be two.
In the same solar system I agree highly unlikely, however in the universe at large there are a LOT of earthlike planets.
You seem to be a little confused with the meteorite thing too, our best guess is water came to earth via meteorites/comets/asteroids whereas the bulk of the mass came long before the water and was certainly not from meteorites or even asteroids..
Earth didn't just appear as a big rock during the Big Bang. It was the culmination of multiple large masses of rocks.
The meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs due to then being reptiles and unable to regulate temperature also contained bacteria that was effectively the standard template construct for sentient beings.
InquisitorVaron wrote:Earth didn't just appear as a big rock during the Big Bang. It was the culmination of multiple large masses of rocks.
The meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs due to then being reptiles and unable to regulate temperature also contained bacteria that was effectively the standard template construct for sentient beings.
Effectively says what I said, one large collision and about the multiple meteorites and comets. You're right about the water and I've not disagreed there. We've both pretty much said the same thing but differently.
Effectively says what I said, one large collision and about the multiple meteorites and comets. You're right about the water and I've not disagreed there. We've both pretty much said the same thing but differently.
Your skimming the surface.
It was the fact the Universe was so dense at the start It appeared to have no mass, a personal theory of mine is that the components were through different dimensions and aligning them to an immeasurable amount of time.
Anyway in short the Universe expanded as It became less dense. I think from that you could affectively make things Hyper-Dense which shrinks them for storage in space. If we could harness that. It's also about the amount of Anti-Matter to matter ratio, possibly there were many attempts but the Anti-matter prevailed. As I said Dimensions probably come into play.
InquisitorVaron wrote:I was talking to Corpses. But funny reference, let's out that behind us and move on like normal people eh?
Are you religious or do you not believe the Big bang is true, I don't want to step on any toes or offend someone with my possible reply.
i believe in god,but im not religious. and it has nothing to do with my dis belief in the big bang. i just dont agree with it.
i rest my case.
I really hope that isn't how you consider the Big Bang to have happened.
not exactly. aperantly it was just a condensed ball of everything,which exploded. which is bull crap to me. dont care if god made it or is even real,i wont believe crap like that.
not exactly. aperantly it was just a condensed ball of everything,which exploded. which is bull crap to me. dont care if god made it or is even real,i wont believe crap like that.
It's... quite a bit more complicated than that.
Damn, why don't I have my theoretical physics books with me?! Michio Kaku can help explain anything.
So that means that every rule that supports the theory including evolution are wrong? Even Einstiens theory of relativity supports it, your not telling me thats wrong.
Even though Neutrinos if found to be faster than light disprove it, but It's a miscalculation. It worries me it's not been found yet.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:hmmm.....do they have milk there? how bout potatoes? if not,they arnt worth are time
According to a source of mine, you can milk anything with nipples, so odds are there is milk. Not sure about potatoes.
Reports of men lactating are pretty low (not zero surprisingly enough).
Galactorrhea is a medical condition which causes the nipples to lactate spontaneously. Men and women can lactate and its partly psychological, in fact there is a phenomenon known as "Sympathetic Pregnancy" where a father will experience similar symptoms as the mother. Its partially believed to be related to a potential envy of the mother being able to give birth and the father being unable to do so, but after watching videos of childbirth in EMT classes I fail to see how anyone could envy that. Still makes me shudder.
A counter earth would have an evil malfred, and we all know I'd
look ridiculous in a goatee. Therefore, an evil malfred couldn't
exist.
this guy knows his science.
Automatically Appended Next Post: nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
A counter earth would have an evil malfred, and we all know I'd
look ridiculous in a goatee. Therefore, an evil malfred couldn't
exist.
this guy knows his science.
Automatically Appended Next Post: nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
I hope to god that you're joking at this last bit.
A counter earth would have an evil malfred, and we all know I'd
look ridiculous in a goatee. Therefore, an evil malfred couldn't
exist.
this guy knows his science.
Automatically Appended Next Post: nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
I hope to god that you're joking at this last bit.
nope. probably explained it horribly,but its true. they found fossilized wire they thought was some ancient dinosaur thing.
Carbon dating being accurate and all that, look your not going to persuade us without proper retorts.
Using cliched picture to explain a point does little more than amuse, unless that's your intended goal.
Explain how the Planets are all constantly moving away from the same point in the Universe? If you don't believe Scientists experiments you can do it yourself with a Telescope and plotting chart.
InquisitorVaron wrote:The meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs due to then being reptiles and unable to regulate temperature also contained bacteria that was effectively the standard template construct for sentient beings.
What? No where do you get that from?
Some people suggest that bacterial cells arrived from space but that was at the origin of life on earth. By the time that the dinosaurs died out mammals were already present on Earth and would evolve into humans.
I don't know why you think that cells to create sentient beings only arrived on the planet 65 million years ago. That's a new one on me.
So you believe Jean Paul Llamrick and his gained characteristics work? So we all originate from Worms.
Evoloution has no major flaws, If you can point one out that doesn't have a decent retort then you arguements have merit.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
A counter earth would have an evil malfred, and we all know I'd look ridiculous in a goatee. Therefore, an evil malfred couldn't exist.
I wonder what an evil Malfs's view on socks would be ? I mean...would he gather them up and set them on fire?...run from them?
Socks would be to Evil Malfred as toys are to the Bergermeister.
The one issue I have with evolution is that it seems to have stopped in certain species and if it is supposed to continue then we should see more variations than what our ancestors did. But I still believe in it, the trick to being a Christian and a scientist is to believe that science just explains god's work. I got into an argument with someone who said that religion isn't needed anymore, she said that its like if you took a wind-up toy and set it off. At first you would think its some sort of magic before realizing that its actually springs. I told her that I would wonder how and why it was made and that is where religion comes into play. Seriously the more I learn about the everyday processes the human body goes through the more I believe that there was something with its hands in the primordial cookie jar. The chances for mistake are insane.
InquisitorVaron wrote:Carbon dating being accurate and all that, look your not going to persuade us without proper retorts.
Using cliched picture to explain a point does little more than amuse, unless that's your intended goal.
Explain how the Planets are all constantly moving away from the same point in the Universe? If you don't believe Scientists experiments you can do it yourself with a Telescope and plotting chart.
Yeah so writing a personal statement sucks.
Firstly there is no single point all the planets are moving away from, rather space itself is expanding causing EVERYTHING to take up more space and move apart.
Secondly I've had this chat with him before, he doesn't shift on the matter
InquisitorVaron wrote:So that means that every rule that supports the theory including evolution are wrong? Even Einstiens theory of relativity supports it, your not telling me thats wrong.
Even though Neutrinos if found to be faster than light disprove it, but It's a miscalculation. It worries me it's not been found yet.
More tests should and are being conducted though.
Please stop.
Relativity is totally unrelated to evolution and there is no way you can state with any certainty that the kerfuffle with neutrinos is due to a miscalculation.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Hrrrrrrgh. My head hurts.
they found a ball of fossilized mud and rock.they thought it was a dinosaur. they broke it ope,inside they found human made wire that couldn't bee that old.
maybe i should mention they got it from the ocean.
We've sent probes to Venus, AND to Mercury. Pretty sure we would of noticed SOMETHING floating out there on the way. And not to mention that the orbit would have to be SO precisely perfect to ours, that I think we could all win the the mega millions by the time the odds added up. No way. The only thing I would think maybe on, is that "planet X" thats suppose to be really close to the sun and is a black planet. That one, only because the Sun is a real bitch to photograph.
InquisitorVaron wrote:The meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs due to then being reptiles and unable to regulate temperature also contained bacteria that was effectively the standard template construct for sentient beings.
What? No where do you get that from?
Some people suggest that bacterial cells arrived from space but that was at the origin of life on earth. By the time that the dinosaurs died out mammals were already present on Earth and would evolve into humans.
I don't know why you think that cells to create sentient beings only arrived on the planet 65 million years ago. That's a new one on me.
That's an oddball whack that I wanted to add in. I don't believe that don't worry Sorry if that comes across as trying to save myself from sounding like an Idiot, I have to have some whacky outlet.
The dinosaurs were wiped out because they were reptiles though, they couldn't regulate their heat to the cold climate whereas the mammals can and survived the conditions. Survival of the fittest.
they found a ball of fossilized mud and rock.they thought it was a dinosaur. they broke it ope,inside they found human made wire that couldn't bee that old.
maybe i should mention they got it from the ocean.
Oh I think I remember that story.
Some folks found a big lump of mudstone in a region where fossils preserved in mudstone is relatively common (still bloody rare though) and spent quite a bit of money on extracting it only to find it was a bit of wire that had become encased in mudstone.
That doesn't invalidate all fossil evidence though...
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
InquisitorVaron wrote:Carbon dating being accurate and all that, look your not going to persuade us without proper retorts.
Using cliched picture to explain a point does little more than amuse, unless that's your intended goal.
Explain how the Planets are all constantly moving away from the same point in the Universe? If you don't believe Scientists experiments you can do it yourself with a Telescope and plotting chart.
Yeah so writing a personal statement sucks.
Firstly there is no single point all the planets are moving away from, rather space itself is expanding causing EVERYTHING to take up more space and move apart.
Secondly I've had this chat with him before, he doesn't shift on the matter
InquisitorVaron wrote:So that means that every rule that supports the theory including evolution are wrong? Even Einstiens theory of relativity supports it, your not telling me thats wrong.
Even though Neutrinos if found to be faster than light disprove it, but It's a miscalculation. It worries me it's not been found yet.
More tests should and are being conducted though.
Please stop.
Relativity is totally unrelated to evolution and there is no way you can state with any certainty that the kerfuffle with neutrinos is due to a miscalculation.
Didn't they do several tests that had it moving faster than the speed of light after the first test?
They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
I agree with that current theory, It reminds me of the theory that there is only one electron but It moves through time and space to be everywhere. Still valid suprisingly.
I do think miscalculation is possible It my thoughts on what happened, not what did. The margin for error is minute and the measurement of distance is perfectly accurate IMO.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
Now you do realise that site is written by religious quacks who may have a slight bias and don't and not report actual scientific findings.
They are in fact full on six day young earth creationists.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
Not to be taken seriously by anyone at all.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Basically if it doesn't fit the bible then it's not valid evidence.
Durrrr, if I read that moronic site too much I might catch the stupid from them.
InquisitorVaron wrote:I agree with that current theory, It reminds me of the theory that there is only one electron but It moves through time and space to be everywhere. Still valid suprisingly.
You are getting slightly muddled again.
Quantum theory dictates that every single electron (not one electron) is everywhere and everywhen at once until observed at which point it collapses to the observed location.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
Now you do realise that site is written by religious quacks who may have a slight bias and don't and not report actual scientific findings.
They are in fact full on six day young earth creationists.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
Not to be taken seriously by anyone at all.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Basically if it doesn't fit the bible then it's not valid evidence.
Durrrr, if I read that moronic site too much I might catch the stupid from them.
*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
I can see how you might think that. Thats the true thing, I was saying how a scientist believes that there is only one electron in existance but loops through time and space, and It's still a valid theory.
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
Well current quantum theory strongly disagrees with this scientist.
In fact the existence of superconductors more or less prove him/her wrong if you accept that observing a quantum entity collapses it's probability density function.
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
lord commissar klimino wrote: *shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
*edited for misreading*
Blah. Anyway. There's plenty - multitudes even - of good evidence for both evolution and the big bang.
Although I have to ask, Klimono - enlighten us. What do you, personally, believe?
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Your 'disbelief' of evolution and the big bang is due to the germans using... 'alines' in WWII?
typo,its aliens and wow,m sorry,but it obviously is unrelated to that. i was merely stating its as dumb as that. seriously? why the hell would that affect my opinion on evolution? the 2 arnt related mr.
corpsesarefun wrote:Well current quantum theory strongly disagrees with this scientist.
In fact the existence of superconductors more or less prove him/her wrong if you accept that observing a quantum entity collapses it's probability density function.
Superconducters are the ones that allow levitation of objects? I remember an article or program where they recreated the Ark to see if this "God miracle" had a scientific reason, It worked and showed that possible the Alchemists were more advanced than we give them credit. It also fitted all the accounts of the event.
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
i dont have 3 hands. i rest my case.
WTF does that even mean? The fact you'd like three arms and don't have them means that evolution is false? Forget it, I mean read your crazy bible sites and live in ignorance and don't bother with education or anything else that might trouble you like that complicated thing we call 'knowledge'.
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
corpsesarefun wrote:Well current quantum theory strongly disagrees with this scientist.
In fact the existence of superconductors more or less prove him/her wrong if you accept that observing a quantum entity collapses it's probability density function.
Superconducters are the ones that allow levitation of objects? I remember an article or program where they recreated the Ark to see if this "God miracle" had a scientific reason, It worked and showed that possible the Alchemists were more advanced than we give them credit. It also fitted all the accounts of the event.
Superconductors are caused by the de-localised electrons within a material forming cooper pairs and effectively acting as bosons when they move through a circuit, this means they pass through with no resistance and thus produce extremely powerful magnetic fields (allowing for some levitation due to magnetic repulsion).
If there was one electron in quantum superposition then it could only form a pair with itself when not observed, however we have obviously observed superconductors in action... I will concede it is possible for there only to be two electrons in existence but that having any number greater than one somewhat defeats the point in the statement.
As for alchemists, European alchemists were exceedingly stupid whereas middle eastern alchemists were pretty good for their time.
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Frankly the evidence for evolution is not in short supply if you read a few good books.
i dont have 3 hands. i rest my case.
WTF does that even mean? The fact you'd like three arms and don't have them means that evolution is false? Forget it, I mean read your crazy bible sites and live in ignorance and don't bother with education or anything else that might trouble you like that complicated thing we call 'knowledge'.
ive had need of 3 arms before. the fact the after thousands of years we dont even have a slight jump towards being better disproves it. plus,the peanut butter video.
The peanut butter video was me avoiding breaking rule 1.
FITZZ wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Clearly I underestimated the power of OT forums, this being my first topic in it.
I'll not share my views on evolution or big bang THEORIES.
Topics do have a tendency to " snow ball" down here...and pick up all sorts of interesting items as they roll merrily along.
In the case of the political and religious ones it's more of everyone jumps into a pickup and sees how fast it can go before it hits the brick wall at the bottom of the hill. Hence why I don't post in them.
n0t_u wrote:The peanut butter video was me avoiding breaking rule 1.
FITZZ wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Clearly I underestimated the power of OT forums, this being my first topic in it.
I'll not share my views on evolution or big bang THEORIES.
Topics do have a tendency to " snow ball" down here...and pick up all sorts of interesting items as they roll merrily along.
In the case of the political and religious ones it's more of everyone jumps into a pickup and sees how fast it can go before it hits the brick wall at the bottom of the hill.
Hence why I don't post in them.
I'd say that's pretty accurate... , but what amuses me as that even topics such as this on, with no religious or political overtones have a tendency to...morph.
n0t_u wrote:The peanut butter video was me avoiding breaking rule 1.
FITZZ wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Clearly I underestimated the power of OT forums, this being my first topic in it.
I'll not share my views on evolution or big bang THEORIES.
Topics do have a tendency to " snow ball" down here...and pick up all sorts of interesting items as they roll merrily along.
In the case of the political and religious ones it's more of everyone jumps into a pickup and sees how fast it can go before it hits the brick wall at the bottom of the hill.
Hence why I don't post in them.
I just find it funny that people talking about science always have to bring up religion, and that they get so upset that people opt to believe in what said "scientists" BELIEVE to be wrong.
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
Check your ears and nose for fluid.
what...what did i do did i just hurt fitzz with words?
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
Check your ears and nose for fluid.
Nothing but peanut butter...which has amazingly begun to spawn new life...yarrr...take that creationist.
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
Check your ears and nose for fluid.
Nothing but peanut butter...which has amazingly begun to spawn new life...yarrr...take that creationist.
quick! get that to a lab! you'll be famous! and possibly rich!
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
Now you do realise that site is written by religious quacks who may have a slight bias and don't and not report actual scientific findings.
They are in fact full on six day young earth creationists.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
Not to be taken seriously by anyone at all.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Basically if it doesn't fit the bible then it's not valid evidence.
Durrrr, if I read that moronic site too much I might catch the stupid from them.
*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
corpsesarefun wrote:They did a lot of tests and found it happened a statistically significant amount of the time, current ideas coming from CERN is that the neutrinos cheated and took a shorter path through other spacial dimensions which gave the illusion of them moving faster than light.
So they discovered the warp and declared David Blaine a minion of Tzeentch?
no,thats obama
I believe something in my brain may have just ruptured..
Check your ears and nose for fluid.
Maybe we shouldn't have added that jet engine.
That wasn't it, maybe Fitzz hasn't eaten enough pulled pork. Quick, get the man a sandwich!
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
Now you do realise that site is written by religious quacks who may have a slight bias and don't and not report actual scientific findings.
They are in fact full on six day young earth creationists.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
Not to be taken seriously by anyone at all.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Basically if it doesn't fit the bible then it's not valid evidence.
Durrrr, if I read that moronic site too much I might catch the stupid from them.
*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
too random. evolution is considered more "controlled". or is it more of a mutation to you guys? still don't believe it. whoohoo,tiny cells can adapt to what we trow at them,soooooooo major epic awesome sauce proof!
Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
Now you do realise that site is written by religious quacks who may have a slight bias and don't and not report actual scientific findings.
They are in fact full on six day young earth creationists.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
Not to be taken seriously by anyone at all.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Basically if it doesn't fit the bible then it's not valid evidence.
Durrrr, if I read that moronic site too much I might catch the stupid from them.
*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
too random. evolution is considered more "controlled". or is it more of a mutation to you guys? still don't believe it. whoohoo,tiny cells can adapt to what we trow at them,soooooooo major epic awesome sauce proof!
Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
I hope he's just trolling, I met intelligent design only people in real life before. When even your priest believes in evolution its hard to say it doesn't exist.
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
I hope he's just trolling, I met intelligent design only people in real life before. When even your priest believes in evolution its hard to say it doesn't exist.
He isn't trolling, he is a young man from texas who has been raised in a (presumably strongly) religious family.
you guys just gave me 2 definitions that mean different things. before you dis me,at least agree on the same thing 1st.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
halonachos wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
I hope he's just trolling, I met intelligent design only people in real life before. When even your priest believes in evolution its hard to say it doesn't exist.
He isn't trolling, he is a young man from texas who has been raised in a (presumably strongly) religious family.
i leave religion out of these conversations as much as possible. i hate most sections of Christianity anyways. not overly strong either,if anything its part of the reason i hate mt family.
We gave the same definition. Survival of the fittest is where the failed adaptations are killed off due to being inferior. Mine was for evolution in general whilst he elaborated on the selection process.
lord commissar klimino wrote: you guys just gave me 2 definitions that mean different things. before you dis me,at least agree on the same thing 1st.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
halonachos wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
I hope he's just trolling, I met intelligent design only people in real life before. When even your priest believes in evolution its hard to say it doesn't exist.
He isn't trolling, he is a young man from texas who has been raised in a (presumably strongly) religious family.
i leave religion out of these conversations as much as possible. i hate most sections of Christianity anyways. not overly strong either,if anything its part of the reason i hate mt family.
Creationism is the religious equivalent to evolution. Ergo you leave religion out of a religious point your are trying to make. You're even the one who brought religion into this thread.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
lord commissar klimino wrote: you guys just gave me 2 definitions that mean different things. before you dis me,at least agree on the same thing 1st.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
halonachos wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
I hope he's just trolling, I met intelligent design only people in real life before. When even your priest believes in evolution its hard to say it doesn't exist.
He isn't trolling, he is a young man from texas who has been raised in a (presumably strongly) religious family.
i leave religion out of these conversations as much as possible. i hate most sections of Christianity anyways. not overly strong either,if anything its part of the reason i hate mt family.
Creationism is the religious equivalent to evolution. Ergo you leave religion out of a religious point your are trying to make. You're even the one who brought religion into this thread.
no...no i didnt. i posted an article,were it had religious and no religious stuff,and you guys only looked at the religious and then started using that to say it must be 100% fake cause religion is involved.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
Evolution is always random and means an species becomes better suited to it's environment, this is entirely subjective in that if you took a fish out of the water it's highly evolved gills would be rendered useless. By the same token if you put a human in space with no protection our highly evolved heads would pop.
"solving problems" is a very human way to look at things, nature doesn't care about "solving problems" but rather about producing offspring.
n0t_u wrote:That's an interesting possibility. This could be the counter-earth.
Wouldn't that make us the evil us?
Oh no. It makes perfect sense.
The Middle East is a giant hug fest. Pakistan and Indian are a single country. China exports kittens instead of lead, and asks politely for new technology so they can help improve on it. The US loves everyone, Vietnam was resolved via tickle fights, and every 2nd Friday of each month is 'Mexican Nationality Appreciation Day'. Ice cream cakes and pie are mandatory.
4chan is world renowned as a place where the greatest minds go to solve any world problems that may occur.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
Any mutation is a form of evolution, the process in which the mutation is absorbed into the species is how effective it is in its adaptation to its surroundings; known as "survial of the fittest". It would be absurd to think there was order to it and it was always correct. The changes which fail to deal with the surroundings die off thus over a series of generations it naturally becomes better suited to the environment.
It started when you claimed the Big Bang was a big joke, whether it was intended it was the catalyst. I think at this point you may as well just make a thread about it so we can get back to counter-earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote:
n0t_u wrote:That's an interesting possibility. This could be the counter-earth.
Wouldn't that make us the evil us?
Um...you do realize that we're discussing drugging baboons, arming them and releasing them on the populace in another thread...
corpsesarefun wrote:What if we were the counter-earthmen all along?
profound.
and intelligent design is not necessarily a religious concept.
I refer you to the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. netflix it.
I agree that intelligent design is not always a religious concept, however most of the time it is used by the religious as a way of agreeing with most of accepted science but simply adding that an intelligent creator was behind the scenes helping it all along.
As I said I'm fine with this, believe whatever you like causes evolution as long as you don't ignore evidence.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
Evolution is always random and means an species becomes better suited to it's environment, this is entirely subjective in that if you took a fish out of the water it's highly evolved gills would be rendered useless. By the same token if you put a human in space with no protection our highly evolved heads would pop.
"solving problems" is a very human way to look at things, nature doesn't care about "solving problems" but rather about producing offspring.
contradiction. if nature wanted offspring,it would stop mutations that would make less offspring. yet it allows them to happen.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
Evolution is always random and means an species becomes better suited to it's environment, this is entirely subjective in that if you took a fish out of the water it's highly evolved gills would be rendered useless. By the same token if you put a human in space with no protection our highly evolved heads would pop.
"solving problems" is a very human way to look at things, nature doesn't care about "solving problems" but rather about producing offspring.
contradiction. if nature wanted offspring,it would stop mutations that would make less offspring. yet it allows them to happen.
Evidence, in some cases the human body will abort the fetus on its own should it prove to be incapable of living outside of the womb.
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
Evolution is always random and means an species becomes better suited to it's environment, this is entirely subjective in that if you took a fish out of the water it's highly evolved gills would be rendered useless. By the same token if you put a human in space with no protection our highly evolved heads would pop.
"solving problems" is a very human way to look at things, nature doesn't care about "solving problems" but rather about producing offspring.
contradiction. if nature wanted offspring,it would stop mutations that would make less offspring. yet it allows them to happen.
and intelligent design is not necessarily a religious concept.
I refer you to the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. netflix it.
I saw that, it was the one hosted by Ben Stein right? Its funny to think that we've come so far socially as to completely be prejudiced against the theory of intelligent design as much as we were against evolution back in the day...
BTW...I know this joke fits into this thread somewhere but I'm not sure where...
So I'm going to go live on counter earth...I'll come back in a year and tell you if the air's breathable and if they have decent public bathrooms or not...
ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
lord commissar klimino wrote:we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
lord commissar klimino wrote:we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
lord commissar klimino wrote: gays
Welcome to the ignore list.
yes,cause i meant it personally. thats 1:0 me winning.
They're not attacking religion they're just saying they have proof that the evolution theory is the more likely scenario. Anyway I thought religion wasn't part of this.
infinite_array wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:
BTW...I know this joke fits into this thread somewhere but I'm not sure where...
Could someone please explain just how in the name of all that's Sheri Moon Zombie...did we get from the theory of a Counter Earth to where we are now?...
This has got to be some sort of OT record derailment.
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
I don't know what you are doing, you're countering evolution and acting more like a right-wing religious fanatic than I am... and I'm a card carrying member of the Catholic Church.
More deformed kids: Ever hear of thalidomide? Sometimes mutations occur due to exposure to radiation or some other sort of chemical. Skin cancer occurs thanks to the DNA of the cell becoming denatured due to exposure to the sun, its why humans in sunnier areas have darker skin. The cells release melanin that covers the nuclei of other cells so that way the radiation from the rays of the sun don't do too much damage to the DNA inside of the nuclei. That right there is human evolution.
Infertility can also be caused by exposure to things that you shouldn't be exposed to. If you want to be infertile one thing you can do is take your lap top and actually sit it in your lap and cook your gametes.
Cancer is the same deal, people are sometimes exposed to things they shouldn't be exposed to naturally. As to cancer that occurs "naturally" and kills people you could say that its like a larger scale version of apoptosis. Maybe its a programmed death for the larger organism to prevent overpopulation and health sciences are just mucking it all up.
Less immunity, because I'm sure the majority of Europeans were immune to the Plague as well.
They're not attacking religion they're just saying they have proof that the evolution theory is the more likely scenario. Anyway I thought religion wasn't part of this.
you guys have pretty much been:
"i don't believe the big bang."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in evolution."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in religion."
"this guy knows what he is talking about."
not to that simpleness or crudeness,but still the basic principle of how you have acted.
They're not attacking religion they're just saying they have proof that the evolution theory is the more likely scenario. Anyway I thought religion wasn't part of this.
you guys have pretty much been:
"i don't believe the big bang."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in evolution."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in religion."
"this guy knows what he is talking about."
not to that simpleness or crudeness,but still the basic principle of how you have acted.
And best of all it relates to warhammer, space marine at 2:00.
They're not attacking religion they're just saying they have proof that the evolution theory is the more likely scenario. Anyway I thought religion wasn't part of this.
you guys have pretty much been:
"i don't believe the big bang."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in evolution."
"what...your an idiot."
"i don't believe in religion."
"this guy knows what he is talking about."
not to that simpleness or crudeness,but still the basic principle of how you have acted.
And best of all it relates to warhammer, space marine at 2:00.
mattyrm wrote: I would like to proudly point out that I havent opened my mouth once this entire abortion of a thread. Not even once since the creationists turned up.
Ill just go back to.. gnawing.... this piece of knotted leather.
And for that matty your badassery has increased ten fold. Why did his badassery increase without talking you may ask, well because only matty could hold matty back.
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
lord commissar klimino wrote:not exactly. aperantly it was just a condensed ball of everything,which exploded. which is bull crap to me. dont care if god made it or is even real,i wont believe crap like that.
Until you've spent a decade or more studying physics, you don't really get to have an opinion on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Until you've spent a decade or more studying evolution, you don't really get to have an opinion on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The one issue I have with evolution is that it seems to have stopped in certain species and if it is supposed to continue then we should see more variations than what our ancestors did.
The trick with evolution is realise it isn't a march forward, it's just changing to make the species better able to gather energy and produce offspring. When a design works brilliantly well, there's nothing to drive further changes. Some designs work so well, that even when other animals evolve aroudn them they remain perfectly adapted.
But I still believe in it, the trick to being a Christian and a scientist is to believe that science just explains god's work.
Absolutely. Science looks to discover what is happening, religion looks to explain why. They're fundamentally incompatible, and efforts to use one to explain the other have generally made each of poorer off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:http://creation.com/fascinating-fossil-fence-wire
That link doesn't say what you think it says. A roll of wire was fossilised, exactly as people would expect. The only point the anecdote had was to show that an object could fossilise over a very short period of time, which they thought was relevant because it dispelled the idea that it took a very long time for an object to become a fossil.
It isn't actually relevant to anything, because the evidence for the life of a fossil doesn't come from it being a fossil, but from dating methods that study the decay of elements within the fossil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:*shrug* not the best 'evidence' but ive yet to see good evidence of evolution and the big bang. i stick to my thoughts: both are as BS as the Germans having used alines in WW2.
Seriously, unless you've actually spent the time studying the big bang and/or evolution, you really don't get to say that.
You actually need to learn about a thing and consider it for a long time in order to give a decent opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote:I just find it funny that people talking about science always have to bring up religion, and that they get so upset that people opt to believe in what said "scientists" BELIEVE to be wrong.
Everyone has the civil right to be wrong.
Well obviously. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. I mean, how could we physically force someone to stop believing something, even if it was complete nonsense?
But information gathered through scientific study, used to form predictions, then tested on with experiment, leading to more information and so on is straight up completely better than stuff people just decided to believe because they liked the sound of it.
Everyone knows this. They just choose not to believe it when there's a bit of nonsense they like to believe, that will have no direct consequences for them if they're wrong. Because if a doctor said the mole on your arm was a malignant tumour and they wanted to cut it off, whereas Bobby over the road says he didn't think it was, everyone is going to go with the doctor, the guy who's studied for years, where that study was disciplined, rigourous information that had been thoroughly tested.
Yet when it comes to disagreeing with the scientific consensus on something like evolution or the big bang, people like to think you can have whatever opinion you'd like, and the knowledge of experts just doesn't matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:too random. evolution is considered more "controlled". or is it more of a mutation to you guys? still don't believe it. whoohoo,tiny cells can adapt to what we trow at them,soooooooo major epic awesome sauce proof!
You don't understand evolution. You really, really need to understand a thing before you can pass judgement on it.
I just can't say that enough. You need to know things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
n0t_u wrote:Evolution is random, it is the adaptation to external influences. It is not always going to solve issues and it takes a long time...
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution is the adaptation of life over a series of generations to better suit the environment by means of natural selection, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what evolution is other than an alternative to intelligent design.
one says its random,and doesn't always solve problems.
the other falsely claims what i know, and says it does always solve problems.
n0t_u misspoke slightly when he said evolution is random. Evolution isn't random, mutation is random, and those mutations are then acted on by natural selection, which is neither random nor guided.
You misread corpsesarefun terribly when you claimed he said it always solves problems, he never said that. Obviously evolution doesn't solve every problem, because then no species would ever die out.
sebster wrote:But I still believe in it, the trick to being a Christian and a scientist is to believe that science just explains god's work.
Absolutely. Science looks to discover what is happening, religion looks to explain why. They're fundamentally incompatible, and efforts to use one to explain the other have generally made each of poorer off.
I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
lord commissar klimino wrote:contradiction. if nature wanted offspring,it would stop mutations that would make less offspring. yet it allows them to happen.
Nature doesn't want anything, because nature isn't a conscious thing. It doesn't 'allow' anything to happen, because it is not a conscious thing.
Mutations happen because in the process of copying cells, mistakes are made. Just like if you copied out this sentence, you might mistype a word. Most of the time the result is gibberish. Over a sufficiently long time a whole lot of gibberish collects in the text, to the point where some of that gibberish actually becomes new words, with new meanings. If those words give the creature abilities that help it survive, it is more likely to breed, passing on that new information.
That's it. That's evolution. You may think 'that sounds pretty whacky' but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the ideas of evolution have been studied and tested for more than a century, and they've not only stood up, they've been used to predict things that we later verified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:Mutations that create less survivable offspring cause the offspring to not survive and thus don't pass on the genes.
That is exactly what natural selection is and it works just fine until humans start being sentimental and save the pandas.
Sort of. It's a mistake to conclude natural selection decides what should and shouldn't survive. Simple fact is pandas ought to survive if we decide they're worth saving. Just like something that's very well adapted to life and has a rapidly growing population isn't more deserving of life, if we decide they're doing too much damage then we should get rid of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
Some opinions are more informed than others. People who study this stuff for a living are more informed than you, and more informed than me. We should be smart enough, and humble enough, to accept their greater knowledge.
You know this is true. If you didn't believe it, you would be just as likely to listen some guy living in a caravan about the possible skin cancer on your arm as you would be to see a dermatologist. But deep down you know education has value.
You just choose to ignore when it comes to evolution and the big bang, because you have the luxury of there being no direct consequences for being completely wrong.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
First up, evolution doesn't predict more perfect species. It states the species will grow increasingly capable of producing offspring. Given we just ticked over 7 billion people, it seems to be working very well.
Everything else you've written is basically just you lacking basic scientific knowledge.
Homosexuality, and infertility, are likely not the product of genetics. More likely they're the product of environmental factors, such as hormones introduced the womb, and the like.
Evolution has a minimal effect on cancer, because most cancers begin to afflict people once they've passed the child rearing age.
We are not more vulnerable to disease. Diseases have ripped through humanity, and reduced it to a fraction of it's present population, that we now ignore because of the immunities we've built up. Look at what happened when the Europeans arrived in the Americas, and diseases they brought with them ravaged the native populations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:not to that simpleness or crudeness,but still the basic principle of how you have acted.
You need to really, really consider the idea that you don't know much about these subjects, and deciding an entire field of learning is entirely wrong when you don't understand it properly is, basically, an idiotic thing to do.
Now, I figure you're probably going to go away now, hurt and offended that people have been mean to you, and use that ignorance to avoid questioning anything you've claimed in this thread. Please don't do that. Instead, please consider the idea that you really need to read a lot more about these subjects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
This is not fossilization, It is accreation. Totally different process that does not take millions of years, it can happen in a handfull of years in a reactive environment like the salty ocean. Get your science correct before you publish nonsense.
Comment: Charlie, the science is correct. For example, if you look up dictionary.com for the definition of a fossil you will read: “any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc.” In other words, fossils can take many forms, and the encased fencing wire is an example of one of those forms. It is a trace of a living thing because the fencing wire was obviously made by a living agent. I’m glad you appreciate the point of the illustration, which is that the processes involved in fossilization do not take millions of years. We want to break the incorrect perception that most people have that fossils prove long ages.
the highlighted part made me hurt myself laughing. So the metal in my computer was alive because it was made by a 'living agent'?
2) Malf on Counter Earth would be like Santa, just with socks. and year round.
3) the worst part would be to find out WE are the evil ones. It could be My little Pony's awesome over there!
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
I like how the fact that humans are not perfect in every way somehow disproves evolution. Evolution has never ever claimed to solve all problems, or give species what they 'want'. Which is a bizarre way of looking at it, animals and nature don't 'want' anything.
Random mutation means that natural selection only gets to work on those mutations offered. You will get a 'fitter' organism as the generations pass, and it will be fit enough to survive. But there's nothing at all to say that evolution leads to the best case solution at all times. I have to say that klimino is coming out with many comments that are typical to people who have no real education in evolution and only understand what twisted things they have been told in a deeply religious upbringing, by people who are equally clueless about that which they teach. The only way to address this is for him to have a genuinely open mind and question what he's been taught, and to start his biology education right at the beginning. Bombardment with internet links won't help.
Also I can''t be bothered to help people who talk about how the human race is getting worse because we are "less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc."
I don't want to invoke Godwins law casually because I'm not saying this to be rude but as a point of fact, but saying that the human race is 'getting worse' because of the disabled people and homosexuals does in fact make you sound like a nazi, and that's not silly name calling, that is literally how your opinion reads.
----------------
Anyway, back to my previous point. Given the twists and turns in evolutionary history of humanity, there are all kinds of things which are far from perfect in nature. Take the human eye, that thing that creationists time and again claim is proof of intelligent design; it only has one area which can see particularly high levels of detail (macula lutea), you have a blind spot where the optic nerve leads away from the retina, you have fairly widespread colour blindness, many humans have their eyes start to fail in childhood needing glasses.
Explain to me why if we are "intelligently designed" why the eye and other things are A) designed in such a flawed manner and B) not designed to last.
The way I like to think of it is Evoloution plays the nirmbers for any catastrophe that could happen. Through Sexual reproduction and not Asexual we can pick up mutations that often help us.
Another point is why would be become perfectly adapted to our environment when the earth can shift Environment fast, we are a young race still.
And earths only been around for 1/3 of the Universes existence.
I like to flip this around now, defend religion.
We've already explained outside and given countless reasons that disprove you and prove Evoloution and the Big Bang. Even other religions state that a flash of light created everything, so the Big Bang.
Religion and Science are closely interlinked as Religion was the old science.
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Intelligent Design isn't conventional religious thinking. The Pope accepts the scientific theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. He accepts the Genesis creation story as a metaphor. Same for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
ID and young earth creation is a pretty far out religious belief.
alarmingrick wrote:the highlighted part made me hurt myself laughing. So the metal in my computer was alive because it was made by a 'living agent'?
I'm just puzzled about how someone claiming to run a website carrying scientific information can counter someone's scientific explanation with a dictionary.com definition. I mean seriously, how did we come to this?
I think they can co-exist just fine, right now, as long as everyone understands where one stops and the other begins.
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Unforunately it wasn't. Basically, fundamentalist Christianity, starting in the 1920s, had a big problem with evolution, but lost the fight to have it taught in schools. They then set about creating their own 'scientific' explanation that ran counter to evolution. In one sense there's nothing wrong with that, coming up with an alternative theory and then running tests to prove their theory better explains the natural world is what science is all about.
Unfortunately, they didn't try to do that. Instead they just set about making claims about the failings of evolution, many of which were wrong or had nothing to do with science, while almost the claims with any scientific validity have since been disproven. At no point did they attempt to build a complete definition for their theory, or to test any part of it.
It was, basically, a politically motivated effort to control what is taught in schools. In continuing this process for more than 50 years, they've produced a vision of the world that denies direct evidence of how it works (poor science) and reduced themselves to a very shallow reading of the bible (bad religion).
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
Less immune to disease? If that's the case then it's probably because of all yhe antibiotics we force down our throats for the slightest ailment.
More deformed kids? Proof please or shut up....
Infertility? (not infertileness..) that's always been around, thanks to the advances in science, it's not much of a problem these days..
Cancer? Again, that has most likely always been around. It's only thanks too Science that we can recognise and try to fight the symptoms..
Gays? you are aware that a good deal of Roman aristocracy were gay, right? That's right..they only slept with women when they felt the need to breed..Ergo, it's not a new phenomenon. It's a sexual practise dating back almost 2000 years.
Rented Tritium wrote:I just found this thread, are we not talking about counter-earth anymore? I was all ready to drop my knowledge of lagrangian points, too. Sad.
Feel free to attempt to steer the thread back, it sounds somewhat interesting.
Counter-Earth has been categorically disproved, there's only a small region in which it could lie for it to be obscured by the sun at all times and our satellites and probes are capable of observing this region. There's really nothing to discuss.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Didn't Terry Pratchett come up with a similar theory? He called it the Counter Weight Continent iirc..
No, the 'counter weight continent' was a continent on one hemicircle of the discworld that was small, but weighed exactly the same as the rest of the continents on the other hemicircle (due to it being almost entirely comprised of gold). Thus providing balance and preventing the discworld from tipping over...
As for the theory involving counter worlds and lagrange points, we can see both the lagrange points and so far we've come up with diddly-squat...
After skimming through this thread, my only thought is "At least not all of the ignorance is coming from Americans".
@corpses:
The discussion about there only being a single electron (on whatever page that was) is actually somewhat valid. The underlying principle is that an electron moving forwards through time is mathematically identical to a positron moving backwards through time. There's no way (according to current theory) to tell the difference.
So, rather than thinking of an electron and positron coming together to annihilate each other and give off a photon, you can think of an electron traveling along, then suddenly becoming anti-matter and moving the other direction through time, giving off a photon as it does so. So, if there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter (this would mean that there's a lot of anti-matter out there we haven't seen), all electrons could actually be a single electron playing with itself as it bounces back and forth through time.
Grakmar wrote:After skimming through this thread, my only thought is "At least not all of the ignorance is coming from Americans".
@corpses:
The discussion about there only being a single electron (on whatever page that was) is actually somewhat valid. The underlying principle is that an electron moving forwards through time is mathematically identical to a positron moving backwards through time. There's no way (according to current theory) to tell the difference.
So, rather than thinking of an electron and positron coming together to annihilate each other and give off a photon, you can think of an electron traveling along, then suddenly becoming anti-matter and moving the other direction through time, giving off a photon as it does so. So, if there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter (this would mean that there's a lot of anti-matter out there we haven't seen), all electrons could actually be a single electron playing with itself as it bounces back and forth through time.
That is valid, however cooper pairs still present an issue for the one electron idea.
Aerethan wrote:Anyway, the "theory" was originated by one John Norman in a series of books that referred to the planet as "Gor" and that it had it's own culture and alien overlords.
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Intelligent Design isn't conventional religious thinking. The Pope accepts the scientific theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. He accepts the Genesis creation story as a metaphor. Same for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
ID and young earth creation is a pretty far out religious belief.
Also, ID has failed as a scientific proof.
I know, I was saying that ID was unconventional thinking...
sebster wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Unforunately it wasn't. Basically, fundamentalist Christianity, starting in the 1920s, had a big problem with evolution, but lost the fight to have it taught in schools. They then set about creating their own 'scientific' explanation that ran counter to evolution. In one sense there's nothing wrong with that, coming up with an alternative theory and then running tests to prove their theory better explains the natural world is what science is all about.
Unfortunately, they didn't try to do that. Instead they just set about making claims about the failings of evolution, many of which were wrong or had nothing to do with science, while almost the claims with any scientific validity have since been disproven. At no point did they attempt to build a complete definition for their theory, or to test any part of it.
It was, basically, a politically motivated effort to control what is taught in schools. In continuing this process for more than 50 years, they've produced a vision of the world that denies direct evidence of how it works (poor science) and reduced themselves to a very shallow reading of the bible (bad religion).
I'm pretty sure the theory had origins before that but either way you're right about the fundamentalist Christian movement...
On second reading I've found that the theory's definition tries to disprove natural selection which has a lot of proof behind it...
honestly, I find it easier to believe that if hypothetically the universe was created then the creator must have also created evolution and natural selection...hence what I was saying about the two intersecting...
Rented Tritium wrote:I just found this thread, are we not talking about counter-earth anymore? I was all ready to drop my knowledge of lagrangian points, too. Sad.
Feel free to attempt to steer the thread back, it sounds somewhat interesting.
There was a movie based on the counter earth theory back in the 70's. It was called Doppleganger.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Counter-Earth has been categorically disproved, there's only a small region in which it could lie for it to be obscured by the sun at all times and our satellites and probes are capable of observing this region. There's really nothing to discuss.
It's one of things that works rather nicely as a little thought experiment. I mean, the idea of a second Earth always exactly being blocked from our vision by the sun is a pretty cool idea. But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:I'm pretty sure the theory had origins before that but either way you're right about the fundamentalist Christian movement...
Sure, it had origins much sooner than that, as people looked to reconcile their faith in God with the growing evidence behind evolution. I mean, Charles Darwin had a set of beliefs that you could describe as a kind of
As we discovered more though, it seems like they broke into two camps, one set that accepted the evidence of evolution and was fine with the watchmaker analogy, and a second group that went on to argue for intelligent design. It's that second lot that people have a disagreement with.
honestly, I find it easier to believe that if hypothetically the universe was created then the creator must have also created evolution and natural selection...hence what I was saying about the two intersecting...
I hope that makes sense because it does to me...
Yeah, that's the watchmaker analogy, the idea that God put all the pieces in place then set it off, and it's been chugging away according to the system he put in place all those millenia ago.
sebster wrote: But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
sebster wrote:But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
My impression from the OP was that it was a serious suggestion.
Howard A Treesong wrote:My impression from the OP was that it was a serious suggestion.
Yeah, the OP missed the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:I'd like you to meet my friend, internet.
There needs to be some kind of theory that the loudest, least informed person is the most likely to dominate a discussion, because of the amount of time needed to explain to that person why their claims are crazy. Therefore, the more people a conversation is open to, the greater the chance of that conversation being dominated by a crazy person. Therefore, the internet...
i was going to give a long post buuuuut....then i saw i had like,20 things id have to read in depth and pick apart. not worth it,ever.
so i tried to think of something simpler,and then remembered how i shouldn't care about 90% of what that all said,and the other no biased,civil 10% would be too hard to get out and reply to.
i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
im sure you guys will find plenty of ways to smash that article to pieces,but hey,i found his writing style amusing,so i got something out of it either way.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
I've just skimmed that article and it's just so hopelessly wrong it made me laugh.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
yup. doesnt matter what the thread is about,it its in OT, someone will find a way to change the subject.
unless its something completely funny and silly like "how dakka users invade countries".
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
the harvard part was more of a joke
What do you think of my brief response to a few points in your article? It's late here so I'm not picking it all apart, it's just a few sections just made me laugh they were so hopeless. I mean if that's the sort of stuff you rely on to get your info, well it's totally wrong, a basic textbook would tell you that.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
A good, googable example of this would be a recent study that showed 1 of our pairs of chromosomes is actually a fusion of two (the 2nd and 13th I think) chimpanzee chromosome, they even found alleles in the middle of our particular chromosome in question.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
the harvard part was more of a joke
What do you think of my brief response to a few points in your article? It's late here so I'm not picking it all apart, it's just a few sections just made me laugh they were so hopeless. I mean if that's the sort of stuff you rely on to get your info, well it's totally wrong, a basic textbook would tell you that.
yeah,no offense meant in any way,but i dont look for edits,and if you hadnt told me,id never have seen it. its easier to just post them separate.
now,about your thoughts:
like i said,he has an amusing writing style.
while bits are odd even to me,there's still points i like. like if evolution is random and natural selection, we wouldn't have birds or elephants. as for those 2 you chose to talk about, i dunno much bout the subjects myself. ill get back to you in depth.(that,and as its not right below me,i cant remember all the details )
as for the textbook; no. 1st of all,depending on how old it is, i wouldn't be able to trust everything in my book. that,and they all only point out facts that would prove popular science right,never the wrong.
lord commissar klimino wrote:like i said,he has an amusing writing style.
Well I did laugh I'll give you that.
as for those 2 you chose to talk about, i dunno much bout the subjects myself. ill get back to you in depth
Well there's really not much you can say, it's just factually wrong. Without even getting into anything to do with evolution theory itself, the claims about how chromosomes and DNA work are mistaken.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I've just skimmed that article and it's just so hopelessly wrong it made me laugh.
i see plenty of good parts,along with stuff i dont know enough about.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
your 1st part doesn't say within a the same species,only if you compare 2 close relative species,bu already you make a problem. 1st off,you have to believe the 2 species are related,which there not. 2nd,if they were,then the smaller one wouldn't be around by evolutions rule,so its faking itself.
and editing things in a lab doesn't count for much,as chemicals can do all sorts of jack that wouldn't happen naturally.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
Sure, none of us have PhDs in evolutionary biology, so you're absolutely right that you shouldn't listen to us. The point is that you should listen to the guys who do have PhDs in evolutionary biology, and who are actively studying the field every day of their lives. Those goes know lots, and they all agree that evolution is a real thing.
I mean, honestly, think about the example I gave of receiving medical advice. When the dermatologist tells you that the mole on your arm looks serious and you should get it cut off, you will listen to him, and not the guy down the street that thinks it looks like nothing. Because we all understand that there are people in the world who know more about medicine than we do, and we should listen to them.
Yet, suddenly, when it's a subject with no immediate, direct penalty for being wrong, we start pretending every opinion is equal, that no-one knows any more about this subject than anyone else.
im sure you guys will find plenty of ways to smash that article to pieces,but hey,i found his writing style amusing,so i got something out of it either way.
First up, the guy who wrote that has an incredibly hazy idea of what science is. A single piece of argument doesn't 'prove' a thing wrong. That is not how science works.
I really, really can't be bothered looking up answers to every single point he's raised, but I can tell you he is flat out wrong on the first point. He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey, or as part of mating rituals (which is supported by the number of birds today who use their wings for such, and the tendency of birds more than any other species to demonstrate incredibly elaborate mating rituals).
He didn't bother to consider any of this as a possibility, because his primary interest in this is not science. He's trying to think of things to justify the viewpoint he already holds, so when he thought 'birds - how did they get those wings' it was enough for him to think 'I don't know therefore it's impossible therefore evolution is wrong woohoo I'm a genius'.
lord commissar klimino wrote: its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is
A species has no control over evolutionary changes. DNA does not want, or not want, anything. There is a difference between evolution and the belief that there is an endpoint that something is heading to. I suppose it would be easier just to say you are assigning agency where none exists.
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
Fair enough. Sorry I misremembered your position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
No. That's not what I said. I said you don't get to have an opinion that an entire field of research is wrong, unless you have extensively studied that field.
I don't just get to say 'cars would be better with five wheels. All those car manufacturers and engineers are just stupid heads who have been wasting their time'.
I don't just get to say 'cancer can be treated with proper bedrest and chicken soup. All those doctors are just stupid heads who have been wasting their time'.
You have to acknowledge that there are people who know more about this issue than you do. They don't have to be people in this thread. And when all those people who actually know about a thing belive in it, then you just saying 'I don't believe that because from the four web articles I've read it sounds pretty unlikely' is completely, utterly ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:while bits are odd even to me,there's still points i like.
Why would you try and take anything from an article in which the individual is factually wrong on basic elements of science? Why would you think he has anything useful to say on the subject at all?
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
To clarify, there are repair mechanisms, but they don't completely reverse all changes as the article claims.
Mutation is often harmful, so it's not good to operate at a high rate, especially in complex organisms where reproduction is low. But mutation leads to new genetic variation, so a small degree is acceptable. But if your offspring is riddled with mutations then it's likely that the organism would survive. Just a few here and there, that's more manageable. A mutation doesn't need to be fatal, but large numbers of mutations is unlikely to be of benefit. A low rate of mutation is better suited to slower rates of reproduction.
Bacteria don't have repair mechanisms and they do have a higher rate of mutation. But it doesn't matter because they reproduce at a huge rate. It doesn't matter if loads of them die because of damaging mutations, there are loads more without mutations, and a large number with useful mutations. This is why bacteria evolve quickly and acquire antibiotic resistance. High mutation rate coupled with high reproduction rate. They can afford high losses to the population.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
your 1st part doesn't say within a the same species,only if you compare 2 close relative species,bu already you make a problem. 1st off,you have to believe the 2 species are related,which there not. 2nd,if they were,then the smaller one wouldn't be around by evolutions rule,so its faking itself.
and editing things in a lab doesn't count for much,as chemicals can do all sorts of jack that wouldn't happen naturally.
Firstly you compare two species you know are related because they share many distinct characteristics. They will share an high proportion of genetic material and often arranged in roughly the same order in their chromosomes. It may also be possible to cross breed them. You would agree that all species of cat are related right?
I don't know why you then say that if any two species are related then evolution means the smaller one should not exist. There are different species of cat but you don't then say that 'evolution's rule' means the smaller one shouldn't exist. The fact that two species have evolved shows that they fill different ecological niches. They are differently adapted having evolved from a single shared ancestor. While being related and showing many genetic similarities, they have differences too, they are not in total and direct competition requiring that one has to die out for the other to survive.
'Editing things in a lab', yes you can induce changes using chemicals, but mutation and chromosome abnormalities can be increased by naturally occurring chemicals in the environment or by radiation (UV light). Also chromosome fragmentation and chromosomes numbers can alter within the same species between generations. It's not very common, but it occurs frequently enough to pick it up in casual research on organisms where occasionally the offspring have a different number of chromosomes. These can be found commonly in the wild in plants and insects.
sebster wrote:I really, really can't be bothered looking up answers to every single point he's raised, but I can tell you he is flat out wrong on the first point.
hey,now,im suppose to be the lazy one here!
Spoiler:
evolution true or not,this is still funny.
He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey,
yes he does,but the thing is those had to start from something. like normal arms. if all of a sudden you have these odd flaps on your arms,then your going to be at an disadvantage compared to your fellow non flappy brothers and sisters. thats another thing; they wouldn't know how to use it effectively. they would have to learn,but in trying to learn they would of died.
and so your saying that the pattern is random? i grow flaps,and somehow breed alot until one of us know how to use them. now one of us has feathers,and he has no idea what they are. the females hate him,cause he doesn't seem like one of us,and looks ugly. he bred....alot. now there bones are hollow. he can move faster,but we can kill him so much easier now. he stumbles to the ground dead as his lightness and flaps caused him to get flung into the air and he didnt know what tp do and hit the ground and died. he still bred,and now theres a bunch who know how to get flung correctly......
or as part of mating rituals (which is supported by the number of birds today who use their wings for such, and the tendency of birds more than any other species to demonstrate incredibly elaborate mating rituals).
yes,but how did that start out? the female that saw the 1st feathered guy dancing would find that odd and probably wounder why he was doing it instead of bucking chest like the manly ones.
He didn't bother to consider any of this as a possibility, because his primary interest in this is not science. He's trying to think of things to justify the viewpoint he already holds, so when he thought 'birds - how did they get those wings' it was enough for him to think 'I don't know therefore it's impossible therefore evolution is wrong woohoo I'm a genius'.
he stated the basics,and i just expanded on them. you dont need to go uber specific,just give the base line. usually.
Please don't be like that.
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
lord commissar klimino wrote:im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
That has got to be one of the worst possible responses. I doesn't make you seem deep and considered, it makes you seem petty, small minded, and foolish. It is the kind of thing a person incapable of deep thinking would say because they can't face their own shortcomings.
lord commissar klimino wrote:im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
That has got to be one of the worst possible responses. I doesn't make you seem deep and considered, it makes you seem petty, small minded, and foolish. It is the kind of thing a person incapable of deep thinking would say because they can't face their own shortcomings.
touch'e no seriously,look, you did it too.
Posts deleted for being offensive in a wide variety of ways.
lord commissar klimino wrote:hey,now,im suppose to be the lazy one here!
It isn't out of laziness. I've been through debates like this countless times, and in my experience either people get that the websites they're relying on are poorly informed and disingenuous from the first fact that is quickly shown to be such, or they don't get after every single claim is dismissed.
He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey,
yes he does,but the thing is those had to start from something. like normal arms. if all of a sudden you have these odd flaps on your arms,then your going to be at an disadvantage compared to your fellow non flappy brothers and sisters. thats another thing; they wouldn't know how to use it effectively. they would have to learn,but in trying to learn they would of died.
Please read my post. I stated there was a range of advantages that the flappy skin folds might have given, so that they would have been successful and given the mid-range step towards fully fledged flight. Once again, skin folds could have been used to allow creatures to glide from tree to tree, to assist in leaping, to capture prey, or as part of elaborate mating rituals.
and so your saying that the pattern is random? i grow flaps,and somehow breed alot until one of us knows how to use them.
No. All manner of creatures have mutations in which skin folds will extend between the limbs. Fairly commonly humans will get such folds between their toes. Less commonly you'll see folds between the arms.
Sooner or later that kind of mutation shows up in a creature that is, for instance, leaping between trees on a regular basis. That creature can now leap a little further, or maybe control their leaps a little better. Generations on and those skin folds get more sophisticated, and musculature in the arms has begun to evolve to be well suited to controlling gliding. Then the creature can evolve the ability to gain some upward thrust, and so on.
now one of us has feathers,and he has no idea what they are. the females hate him,cause he doesn't seem like one of us,and looks ugly.
Selective breeding is not a feature in every species.
yes,but how did that start out? the female that saw the 1st feathered guy dancing would find that odd and probably wounder why he was doing it instead of bucking chest like the manly ones.
It evolved from more simple mating rituals, which evolved from more simple rituals than that. Each step along the way the physical features and sophistication of the performance were signifiers for the health and well-being of the creature, which in turn was a signifier for the likely health and well being of any offspring.
he stated the basics,and i just expanded on them. you dont need to go uber specific,just give the base line. usually.
No, he didn't. The basics would be 'I don't understand how wings might have evolved.' That would be a basic, simple thought. If you asked me 'how did wings evolve' I would respond 'I don't understand how wings might have evolved.' That would be a basic response, that recognises my very limited knowledge of the subject.
He didn't do that. He said 'I don't know how wings have evolved, therefore evolution is proven wrong.'
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
please dont be like that.
Seriously, please don't make this about little snipes going back and forth. That's not going to do anyone any good.
I'm trying to explain to you that the attitude taken by the guy you linked to is an attitude that makes him dumber. He rejects the idea that other people know more than him, and this means instead of learning about something as complex and fascinating as evolution, he limits himself to the nonsense that charlatans like Ken Ham are selling.
There's no reason for you to be the same.
I noticed you didn't respond to my analogy with the doctor, by the way. Do you reject the informed opinion of doctors when they give you medical advice? If not, why do you think it's any different to reject the informed opinion of evolutionary biologists?
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
To clarify, there are repair mechanisms, but they don't completely reverse all changes as the article claims.
Mutation is often harmful, so it's not good to operate at a high rate, especially in complex organisms where reproduction is low. But mutation leads to new genetic variation, so a small degree is acceptable. But if your offspring is riddled with mutations then it's likely that the organism would survive. Just a few here and there, that's more manageable. A mutation doesn't need to be fatal, but large numbers of mutations is unlikely to be of benefit. A low rate of mutation is better suited to slower rates of reproduction.
Actually most mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial.
I know, but for the sake of simplicity I was only talking about beneficial and harmful mutations as they are the ones most relevant to evolution. There is a spectum of 'benefits' from any mutation - many mutations end up in non-coding regions of the genome and can have no effect, others only cause a change so small it makes no difference. There are some fatal mutations though, even down to just a single DNA base.
If all DNA repair mechanisms were perfect then you wouldn't get cancer, because all cells in the body would be identical. Cancerous cells begin where the coding regions controlling certain cell activities like division become damaged and go out of control.
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
Well, in an attempt to bring the thread back, we do have probes which we still receive information from which are outside our solar system: Voyager 1 and 2!
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
please dont be like that.
Ive managed to keep my mouth shut long enough, but I really have to say that I dislike the hypocrisy of being called "shallow" because I don't like believing in any random nonsense.
Tens of thousands of things have been superseded over the years, we don't teach medical students about spirits causing illness since we learned about germs, is my doctor "shallow" because he isnt open to the idea of ghosts giving me a headache?
Someone needs to really tell you this... Opinions can be wrong.
Not "this is my idea and Im allowed to think it and you can just think your's" but absolutely wrong. Big fat feth off manky wrong.
Paris isnt in Germany, 2 + 2 isnt 5, and the mother fething planet earth IS NOT 6 thousand years old.
well without potatoes they are only worth nuking. 
that,or real estate.
did i just hurt fitzz with words? 
