The Dink Network

Evolution

October 15th 2010, 03:27 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
What do you think about it?

Don't turn this into a fight.
Just discuss.
October 15th 2010, 03:31 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
MY opinion: I personally do not believe in evolution.

This is why. one of the things evolutionists believe is that blue whales evolved into hyenas over billions of years. But in order for a blue whale to evolve into a hyena it would take 2,700 DNA letter changes.

The odds are larger then winning the annual powerball lottery 200 years in a row, or throwing 2,000 dice AT ONCE and them all landing on the number 3.

(1/364 FOLLOWED BY 1,625 0's)
October 15th 2010, 04:42 PM
anon.gif
itsame
Ghost They/Them
 
i think teh pokemans are much cuter if you dont evolve them
October 15th 2010, 04:47 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
nice one, wise guy.
October 15th 2010, 05:32 PM
anon.gif
Absolution
Peasant They/Them
The Dark Lord of the DN. 
MY opinion: I personally do not believe in evolution.

There's plenty of proof out there that proves that humans evolved from apes.
October 15th 2010, 06:03 PM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
...not sure
October 15th 2010, 06:26 PM
knight.gif
KrisKnox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Species can evolve to fit their environment, Darwin and several other scientists have proven this. But, the Theory that Humankind evolved from apes is complete and utter bullshoot. Firstly, because there is no conclusive evidence that humans did indeed evolve from apes, and secondly because the chance of apes evolving into Humans would take a great deal of luck. It's like rolling a fifty sided dice and trying to get fifty rolls from one to fifty perfectly. You'd literally have a 1-2500 chance of succeeding; maybe less. There are too many variables that would have to be taken into account, everything from weather to food supply.
October 15th 2010, 06:55 PM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Perfect we are. And we are somewhat naked apes, call it whatever you want.
October 15th 2010, 07:09 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
Of course KrisKnox.

You can take a fresh water fish and slowly give it salt and it will become a salt water fish.

If it will turn into a human is another thing.
October 15th 2010, 10:15 PM
custom_fish.png
SabreTrout
Noble He/Him United Kingdom
Tigertigertiger. 
There's plenty of proof out there that proves that humans evolved from apes.

God faked it all. Otherwise we would know God exists and we wouldn't need faith. Without faith, God is nothing.

Obviously.
October 15th 2010, 11:20 PM
knight.gif
KrisKnox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
In Genesis, it talks about snakes* having legs, until a certain one tricks Eve into eating an apple**. God has the snake lose it legs.

Nowadays, if you look at a snake's skeleton, it shows that snakes have a place for legs to go.

*In the Bible, the snake is called a serpent.

**This is what is widely accepted, though back then the fruit could have been a number of things and not an apple at all.
October 16th 2010, 02:47 AM
eye.gif
Icesaber
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
Defeat isn’t bitter if you don’t swallow it 
Its not about evolving from apes. That statement is incorrect. It is all about evolving from a common ancestor. Exactly what who this ancestor was is debated and also when the line branched off.

I disagree that there is not conclusive evidence for evolution. Where did you get all your chance figures from? It has nothing to do with chance, only natural selection; survival of the fittest.

There are fossil records of many different species of bipedal primates some even with their own genus. These include primates such as Australopithecus boisei, A.robustus who were the "brutes" of their time. Then there were primates such as A. africanus and probably most importantly A.aferensis also know as Lucy (after the beatles song by the way ) . These were the less physically powerful but more adaptive. i.e. a jack of all trades.

Although there are many different models for evolution it is widely accepted that Lucy's species was the one that survived because of its ability to adapt to the changing environment and evolve from there. The rest as they say is history.

@ Wongo: Correct me if I am wrong but I believed it was the other way around that whales, as such, evolved from land based animals. Anyway, you must remember that this, as you said is over billions of years as speciation occurred. That is a long time and it's not like they suddenly woke up and they were completely different. An analogy could be of giraffes; they may have started out with relatively short necks. Ones with really short necks however would have died out while ones with longer ones survived. This is natural selection and eventually becomes speciation over time. If this happens over billions of years the desirable characteristics will carry on and the rest will die off.

Edit: Apes would have been apart of another successful branch that derived from the common ancestor.
October 16th 2010, 04:54 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
What all of you are forgetting is that these chances are only valid if you start out with a certain starting situation and then see what the chance is you'll end up with a certain ending situation. This is not really a valid way of reasoning as from this starting situation you could get multiple ending situations which would all be plausible. So, imagine starting out with a whale and waiting long enough for 2700 important DNA sequence changes to occur then you might end up with a lot of different species, all of whom are valid species. Maybe the chance of it becoming a hyena is only 1/364*10^1625 but it could end up as a lot of different species too. It might end up as something hyena-like, or maybe it grows to be cow-like; maybe it evolves to something seahorse like, or something so alien we wouldn't even be able to describe it. In short: Don't apply chances retroactively, it means you are ignoring other plausible outcomes that could have been.

Let me draw a comparison: What is the chance that someone's parents marrying each other and not someone else? It obviously depends on a lot of factors, but 10% definitely doesn't sound to high for me. Now if my parents wouldn't have met I wouldn't have existed. And I have two sets of grandparents too and the same thing applies to them. So going two generations back (to my grandparents) my chances of existence have shrunk to just 0.1% Now if I were to go back a 100 generations using the same assumptions my chances of existence would be nearly non-existent.

Still, as per Descartes, I exist. But there probably are almost an endless amount of other ways in which a person could exist in my place. If you want to calculate the chance of there being a person at the place where I am you'll also have to include those possible births.

The conclusion: When calculating chances for evolution also include all possible outcomes that do not exist. Your chances of winning the lottery may be only one in a billion, but if a billion people join in on the lottery the chance of someone hitting the jackpot are in fact quite reasonable.
October 16th 2010, 05:10 AM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
Hmm...I agree completely with met but just want to point out.
chances are only valid if you start out with a certain starting situation and then see what the chance is you'll end up with a certain ending situation
There is no starting point you see if I want to say that:
whale>hyena
?>whale
?>?
?>?
?>?
infinity
There are infinite startings and infinite endings.
eg:If you say a thousand years after birth I will be a thousand years old.I could say what are the chances of my living a thousand years?
Similarly we can not assume that I will die immediately.
Same holds true when talking about the past.
There is no fact that proves evolution from apes but there is no fact that opposes it.
What we are doing is mainly based on guess work
October 16th 2010, 10:31 PM
fish.gif
Simeon
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Any fool can use a computer. Many do. 
@wongo: I suggest you read up on the difference between 'random chance' and 'natural selection', as they are not quite the same. The theory of evolution does not require such probabilities to work. What you are saying is basically Hoyle's fallacy as there is no requirement for all changes to be done instantly and correctly right away.
October 17th 2010, 04:29 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Aliens created us and that's how we got the idea for God. Nuff said.

Oh, and Metatarasal's theories are perfect, by the way.
October 18th 2010, 03:31 AM
fairy.gif
ToKu
Peasant He/Him Austria
Think positiv. Say NO. 
That's a facinating topic.
Its fantastic how much all species on this world are capable of adapting to their environment. If you call this evolution then I agree: Yes there is evolution.

If we talk about creation of new species or new attributes of living beeings than this is different. I just imagine what immense possibilities are 'built in' into the living beeings here on earth. There is the DNA with its numerous possibilities and there is something more around the DNA that triggers the different 'functions' of the DNA. So who can say that a 'new' species/attribute is really new?

Sometimes I try to think of a program that does something similar. It has a lot of features and is able to change them. Whatever triggers the change of the features I always end in a limited number of combinations. There will never be something new (something that was not defined in advance by me).

So I think that creation of new attributes/species is nothing a process of 'survival of the fittest' is able to provide.
October 18th 2010, 03:47 AM
fish.gif
Simeon
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Any fool can use a computer. Many do. 
@ToKu: that depends on how you define 'information. If I know 'A' and through a mutation I get 'AA', the amount of information has indeed doubled and this may very well change the shape and functioning of a descendant of that organism.
October 18th 2010, 04:06 AM
fairy.gif
ToKu
Peasant He/Him Austria
Think positiv. Say NO. 
@Simeon
Sure this changes the information. That's no question.

But is it something
- new?
- not intended/in advance implemented?
October 18th 2010, 06:47 AM
eye.gif
Icesaber
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
Defeat isn’t bitter if you don’t swallow it 
@ToKu: Survival of the fittest as I meant it, is about a species as a whole and not individuals. There is a huge amount of variation between individuals in the same species. Take the amount of variation in humans for example. This variation will favor certain individuals which will have an advantage in reproduction which will affect the species as a whole as the gene frequency will increase for that particular characteristic. This is what I meant by survival of the fittest; it is an on-going process ever changing the species.
October 18th 2010, 09:52 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
IceSaber... let's see... Yep, you're already on the NZer list in my DN profile
October 18th 2010, 11:11 AM
fish.gif
Simeon
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Any fool can use a computer. Many do. 
@ToKu: Let us not forget what mutations are: a mistake when copying genetic material. Indeed, then a molecule A can end up being molecule B in the copy through a mistake (= wrong chemical reaction). So yes, mutations can result in new and not originally intended information.
October 18th 2010, 06:06 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
Dr. Dino is great, everything he says makes sense. Go there, but if your so ignorant you can't handle a different idea, don't.

Your choice.
October 18th 2010, 07:02 PM
seth.gif
Seth
Peasant He/Him Japan
 
Hi Wongo,

I was raised creationist too so I totally understand where you're coming from. Yep I know who Dr Dino is. (is he out of jail yet?)

I've even met Ken Ham who I'm sure you're familiar with.

Anyway, a warning: Those guys lie and exaggerate, they don't even attempt to do science and simply pander to an uneducated evangelical Christian audience who is only too happy to hand over cash for their slop as long as it reinforces their magical beliefs.
October 18th 2010, 10:25 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
Hi.

I don't think so. I think he has 7 more years to go.

You've met Ken Ham? Nice.

Thanks for the warning.
October 19th 2010, 01:35 AM
fish.gif
Simeon
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Any fool can use a computer. Many do. 
If you agree completely, why do you say that Dr. Dino is great?
October 19th 2010, 03:25 AM
fairy.gif
ToKu
Peasant He/Him Austria
Think positiv. Say NO. 
@Icesaber: This process I see in the first category - adaption to the environment

@Simeon: Hey that's really interesting to think this through.
I understand that mutations are 'mistakes'. This results in an new combination in the DNA. A combination that is not yet available.
But: The 'functions' that are defined behind that new thing are not new. Just the combination with the other elements. This might/will result in new possibilities (right) but still with the old functionality.
An example that comes to my mind: You have three different types of blocks with which you can build a building. The combination of theese create the different structures in the building. The bulding plan defines where you have to put each type of block. So when an error occurs in the plan you will end up in a different structure of the building. But you will never have some wood inside the building just because there is an error in the plan.
October 19th 2010, 04:25 AM
fish.gif
Simeon
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Any fool can use a computer. Many do. 
@ToKu: you are right that mutations can cause non-functioning of an organism. But to take your example, let's say a mutation makes some building block slightly stronger than the building blocks in the previous building. This means you might be able to build a slightly bigger and taller building because of the stronger foundations. In quite a few generations, these beneficial mutations allow you to go from a simple house to a skyscraper, if being a tall building was somehow favorable. To keep talking in biological terms, if a house can't reproduce with a skyscraper, the skyscraper can be considered a new species.

I should note though that the analogy only goes so far because buildings don't have survival pressure or a need to grow taller to have better chances of survival. Similarly, speaking about reproduction between different types of buildings makes not so much sense. However, for an organism, you can indeed talk about the need to survive and the ability to fit to the environment.
October 19th 2010, 06:39 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Holy crap! Seth posted in an off-topic thread!

*Bows before Seth
October 23rd 2010, 10:39 PM
anon.gif
Guess who
Ghost They/Them
 
crud, another "relgion" thread...

evolutions a bunch a bull, and many, many scientists have said so...
my theory is this, people believe in evo cuz they dont want to believe theres a god, therefore they wouldnt have to have morals... which is appealing to them.

thats my opinion anyway...

bty... lets not bite each others heads off eh?
October 24th 2010, 01:29 AM
slayer.gif
Step 1: Post any uneducated idea.
Step 2: Say "Just my opinion".
Step 3: Profit! Anyone challenging you is now taking it way too seriously.
October 24th 2010, 01:33 AM
death.gif
kenji720rs
Peasant He/Him Australia
👾~ #беспл 
I have no idea why we are on this earth and I don't really give a shoot.
October 24th 2010, 11:32 AM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
Holy,crap!
This is history in 2010
-------
Of course instead of having a better mutation you could end up with a weaker block
and if such blocks make a building it could be a stall instead of a house or a skyscraper
BUT
If there are many blocks and they are evolving in different ways
We could get
stall reproducing with skyscraper = stallscraper
stallscraper reproducing with house = stacraphouse
And eventually the result is infinity
the reason there are arguments about evelotion is because there are arguments about
What is infinity?
October 24th 2010, 02:54 PM
peasantfr.gif
Interesting discussion

I think that there is indeed evolution. As said before small mistakes in the copying of DNA can lead to new characteristics of species. If such a mistake turns out to have an effective characteristicchange and positively influences survivability it will spread out to following generations. Through survival of the fittest the small "effective mistakes" are surviving and becoming part of future generationg. These changes are not noticable because they are very small changes but as time goes more and more little changes occur and in millions of years all those small changes together become noticable. I believe that in the beginning there where only a few (possibly only one) species and during billions of years they evoluate to all the species there are at this point. I believe there is evolution, I do not believe that evolution is reproducable, so if you make a copy of the world a billion years ago and wait a billion years the world will look different than it does today.

But what dazzles me is that there should be a start of this evolution, maybe a Big Bang, but than again why did this Big Bang occur, there has to be something that triggered it. I do not believe in a god, so I really have no idea what started all existence. But that is an other thing.

Besides evolution of species I also believe there is evolution on a larger scale, evolution of the world itself. The world started with only one continent and through earthquakes and stuff over billions of years it changed to the world we know now. I believe that the world itself also fights to survive and to that all creatures living on it are parasites/symbiotes to the world. I do not believe the world itself is a living thing, but I see the world as a "thing" that has a need to survive. The earth has different assets to help it survive like cycles and weather. It is hard to explain but I'll give an example of what I believe the world can do to survive. The glacial period for example could have been a defense mechanism from the world against dinosaurs who at that point overrun the world and may have been parasites to the world. So for the world to continue to exist it had to get rid of the parasites (dinosaurs) and by causing a glacial period it did this. Presently the I believe humans are (close to becoming) parasites to the world and the global warming is another defense mechanism to protect the world in its survival.
October 24th 2010, 03:38 PM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
Ahh,interesting side topic
Additional facts:
The cause of the big bang(the scientific theory):
At first there was nothing then there was a gas this gas,only the size of a ball in that can fit in your hand,was the universe it self.slowly the ball began to expand,generating heat as it went *_*
slowly this one gas became two and two became three which became six which multiplied on and on,while it was still expanding.
then suddenly there was too much pressure and the gasses needed more space but the ball was not expanding at a rate fast enough to fulfill the required.Too much pressure...then there was an explosion(the big bang)the gases,no longer in the shape of a ball expanded at an immense rate and continued to multiply.
then the world and the universe(as we now know it)was forged out of these gases.

The first life form:
bacteria with all the living conditions necessary bacteria started to develop
This incredible first species created oxygen from carbon dioxide.
This bacteria evolved into all life forms.

*_*:but if this theory is to be believed that means somehow,in the beginning,something started and since energy,the ability to do work/function,was not present before this started
It means that the energy was created
BUT
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but may only be changed from one form to another"
EDIT: please don't flame me
October 24th 2010, 04:10 PM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
An interesting theory is that everything we know and the universe that we see is a super-advanced computer program that some alien made and we're living in it.
October 24th 2010, 05:15 PM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
I wont lie... That thought HAD occurred to me...
October 24th 2010, 11:51 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
@Quiztis:
We are the Sims version 666? Trapped in a dimension we ourselves have referred to as the Matrix?
October 25th 2010, 05:47 AM
knight.gif
KrisKnox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
@Hellfire:
My sunday school teacher talked with me about that. We had a lengthy discussion on how science can point out the existence of God and how it can disprove several theories.

The Big Bang requires a great deal of faith for it to work. How can there be nothing, then something? That is impossible because of the Law of Conservation of Mass. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You cannot turn lead into gold because of the differences in electrons, protons, and neutrons.
It requires a great deal of faith because of the question, Where did the matter come from?
Go to your nearest Big Bang preacher and ask them where the matter that fueled the Big Bang came from. How did it multiply? How did one atom become two? and two to four? They will give you a confused look and will do one of two things.
A.) Consider your side of logic and consider whether or not your idea works better and they will find a better alternative.

B.) This is basically when the person ignores you and starts to deify the man who came up with the concept behind the Big Bang. (Not the man who named it the Big Bang. He used the term to convey how silly it is for the universe to be made in a big bang. I'm sure the man had forgotten how much Humanity as a whole loves large explosions.)

I'll give you another thing that requires a leap of faith. Religion. (Please do not start a flame war!) Religion is defined in many ways, but all it comes down to is a blind leap of faith for a deity or deities. For Christians like me, our leap of faith is the belief that Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins and that by believing in Him that we may have eternal life in Heaven.

The Big Bang Theory's Leap of Faith is that the matter had to just randomly appeared. Why then? Why at that moment? where did it come from? Those three questions can be answered in a few ways. It just appeared, It was already there, God made it.

Now, I'm going to touch into the Bible really quick, so please note that I mean no offense to anyone outside of my religion. (Please to not start a flame war!)
In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Pretty basic in the terms of introductions. The Bible goes on to say how God them began to mold the Earth into the perfect world, stopped to create light, then finish.

Hold on, He stopped to make light? Yes. 'Let there be light.' It is quoted in the Bible. It goes on to describe how Light came into being. God opened his mouth and light came out.
Because the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 186,282 miles per second) Light literally shot out of God's mouth. Here's the closest I can give you how Light came into being. Example.

So God made light and worked on the Earth and finished it on the sixth day, taking the seventh day to rest. Now, you're probably wondering how God could know what days were when there was no Earth going around the Sun. God is the creator of Everything, that's the answer. He just decided that for everyone's sake that he make days and to make seven days a week. He rested on the seventh day so that humanity as a whole would have six days of work and one day of rest. You're thinking 'Six days?!', but remember. Sin had yet to enter into the world so with no pain and suffering, working would have had to have been more fun than a four month WoW binge.
(Or for some of us, a six month Dink binge.)
October 25th 2010, 06:46 AM
slayer.gif
The Big Bang requires a great deal of faith for it to work. How can there be nothing, then something?

Thing is, the Big Bang is not a thoroughly explored field. All we know for certain is that at some point in the past, matter was concentrated into a very tight spot, from which the universe then expanded. How this happened, we do not know for certain. But it is surely better to try to find out and fail for the time being, than to make it up?

This is basically when the person ignores you and starts to deify the man who came up with the concept behind the Big Bang.

Any scientist that makes a religion out of the Big Bang is, well, not a real scientist. Feel free to mock those people if you see them.

Those three questions can be answered in a few ways. It just appeared, It was already there, God made it.

Sounds an awful lot like "Goddidit". Anything can be explained with that.
October 25th 2010, 09:11 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Something started it and advanced technology will eventually discover how it all started by looking further and further back in the universe (time) to the beginning of everything.

Somewhere out there in the vast nothingness of space...
October 25th 2010, 09:24 AM
knight.gif
KrisKnox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Until that day, we will have unanswered questions and flame wars.
October 25th 2010, 10:48 AM
peasantfr.gif
God did it doesn't explain anything at all. It is just an easy answer to not have to say you don't know or don't understand so you don't have to feel stupid. (Not trying to start a flamewar, just my opinion) I do not say people who believe in god are stupid, they are not more stupid than the scientists who didn't come up with a allcovering answer. It is just a different way to explain things, believers do not care how it happend fysically and are satisfied that there is a god who created it. Scientists just don't accept that as an explaination.

Even though I do not believe that it all started with a god, I think the world could have been made by something people refer as to god, but that also means there has to be an explanation to where god came from. If god did it than where did "god" came from (remember somewhere there should have been nothing not even a god)?

This subject is just something we do not know and people can't accept to not understand something so they keep looking for an answer which starts discussions.
October 25th 2010, 11:00 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
There will always be the question "where did the beginning come from?". The truth is, we don't really even exist.
October 25th 2010, 12:33 PM
spike.gif
That's moving the question just as god or whatever else is.

Bottom line, it's a really simple question with only two imaginable answers... Either something just sprung up one day, or something has always been here.
October 25th 2010, 02:41 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
In the beginning there was nothing, then there was nothing, and after that there was nothing. Then nothing exploded for no reason at all, and nothing turned into something.

Makes a whole lot of sense.
October 25th 2010, 02:43 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
"There will always be the question "where did the beginning come from?". The truth is, we don't really even exist."

Then how can you feel, love, touch, cry, hurt, experience pain, make things, etc?

We have to be real. Have some logic, Skull.
October 25th 2010, 03:19 PM
eye.gif
synbi
Peasant He/Him Finland
 
Skull, it's easy to say matter doesn't exist, but it doesn't make any sense. I know food exists because I get hungry. I know other people exist because I get lonely without them. I'm more inclined to believe there has never been "nothing" at any point, even before the Big Bang.
October 25th 2010, 03:49 PM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
well reasoned,kris.
BUT
Why did 1 become 2 and 2 become 4?
I believe that it is because of heat.
In the beginning there was matter and there was heat.
now because of heat matter began to expand some of it faster than other.
Do see?
It has already happened 1 has become 2
And in the same way 2 shall become 4

But the really interesting thing is that
what starts must end
and the universe started that means the universe WILL end
October 25th 2010, 04:37 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
"But the really interesting thing is that
what starts must end
and the universe started that means the universe WILL end "

You got that right, Hell. And soon.

(Jesus is comin' back!)
October 25th 2010, 07:59 PM
slayer.gif
Even if we did not exist in objective truth, we do have every justification to act as though we did. How do you act accordingly to the idea that we do not really exist, anyway?
October 25th 2010, 08:06 PM
slayer.gif
You got that right, Hell. And soon.

(Jesus is comin' back!)


See, this is why discussion like this is important: the scariest of creationists not only believe that the universe came to being not long ago, but they also believe that it will come to an end not long from now. When you believe in that, you don't have to care about the future, since Jesus will save us all.
October 25th 2010, 10:24 PM
peasantfr.gif
Why did 1 become 2 and 2 become 4?
I believe that it is because of heat.
In the beginning there was matter and there was heat.
now because of heat matter began to expand some of it faster than other.
Do see?
It has already happened 1 has become 2
And in the same way 2 shall become 4


heat just makes molecules move more and in most cases the molecules need more space when they move more. So when you heat something and it expands it is not getting more it is just getting more nothing in between it so it looks more. Anyway if you have ice and you heat it just intill it is melted you will in fact find that the volume decreased by increasing the temperature.
The only way to get more molecules is to have a reaction that splits molecules into smalle molecules but than you still don't get more material, just more parts.

But I had enough science for one night, just broke my head about reactionkinitics to help out a friend of mine.
October 26th 2010, 02:58 AM
spike.gif
If that doesn't make sense then you will just have to believe that something has always existed. In any case, god is unnecessary to explain existence because any reason you use to explain god can just as well be used to explain existence directly.
October 26th 2010, 04:09 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
There's quite a famous formula for this actually:

E = mc^2

It implies that energy and mass are related. In fact mass is just a form of energy, just like kinetic energy. And heat is just a form of highly disordered kinetic energy. (For the scientists among us: I realize that heat is only referring to the transfer of internal energy and not to a form of energy by itself, and I do realize that internal energy is more than just kinetic energy, but this approximation will suffice for now.) This also explains why the atomic bombs produce such an enormous amount of heat: Matter is destroyed and turned into heat. Under extreme conditions you could imagine the reverse happening: Heat transforming into matter. To get something the size of the universe would require quite a bit of heat though, in the atomic bomb that fell on Hiroshima around 0.6 gram of matter was destroyed...

All of this assumes that normal physics can be applied to such a situation, which is highly unlikely. Our laws of physics aren't fundamental enough to explain such fundamental concepts. That's part of why so many scientists like to work on it.

And reaction kinetics are cool! (metatarasal studies chemistry)
October 26th 2010, 05:10 AM
burntree.gif
hell7fire1
Peasant He/Him Botswana
It's like that. 
"That is impossible because of the Law of Conservation of Mass. Matter cannot be created or destroyed"-kriss
October 26th 2010, 05:29 AM
slayer.gif
I'm pretty sure that means you can't permanently erase from existence the basic essence--whatever matter and energy are fundamentally composed of.

So you can convert matter into energy and vice versa.
October 26th 2010, 05:46 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Mass != Matter

Thus the law of conservation of mass does not imply that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely that the total amount of mass in a closed system is constant. If you go into creation or destruction of matter you get into the realm of relativity in which mass is a bit more complicated than in classical mechanics. (Wikipedia knows a bit about it...)

EDIT: Actually general relativity is a bit too complicated for my level of knowledge. I just know it's there...
November 8th 2010, 08:15 AM
duckdie.gif
No, I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in D-Generation X.

And I DON'T believe in evolution. Humans were humans. Darn you, Darwin!
November 8th 2010, 11:04 AM
custom_marpro.png
Marpro
Peasant He/Him bloop
 
I am a sleeping planet and all of you fools are something my mind made up in this continuously dream.

0.0