jingo: the way 'I' see it.

i dont have to make it convincing for you

In defense of the missing link -

first off there would of not been many missing links living at any point of time .You've all heard how there is more people living today than there have ever come before us.
Im talking numbers in the ten's of thousands (and consider the missing link had only existed for around 500,000 years, compare that to the fossil record for our earlier ancestors that goes back 4 million years).

Secondly the process to make a fossil is pretty unique, the bones have to be buried pretty soon after death ie in a river/sea/swamp. Anything else and they just dissapear.

Thirdly, these fossils would of been made such a short time ago geologically, that they would all still be buried - so its like trying to find a needle in a haystack that's buried 5 meters under. Not like dinosaur bones which appear on the surfaces of deserts (which used to be sea beds) and cliff faces - after extensive erosion.

And for man making up god for something to beleive in -
as i outlined in an earlier post, religion was required back in those day's to control large population's.
Imagine the anarchy we would have today without law's and the police - it's pretty hard to have civilisation if people don't act civilised.

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 17 July 2000).]

PK

by the same logic you apply i can deduct that god doesnt exist.

where has he appeared lately.

in some womans soup in america. (along with elvis i heard)

apart from a book there isnt a lot supporting your god. and if god does exist then who says that your god is the right one. What about other religions?

Also what religion do you happen to follow PK?

i saw elvis buying fish food yesterday.

Ahh, touche.

*grin*

For some depraved reason, I feel I must say this.

"No Silicon Heaven? But where would all the calculators go?"

Hmph.

So how many of these, fossils, or evidence, is there, to support this, evolution theory?

There are also scientists who are totaly against the evolution theory as well. But I bet their veiwings of things would be quitely brushed aside, as the common theory shadows over it.

It really is depressing, that of all the intelligent people in this forum, they have not the key to see the truth.

Am I the only one here, who thinks this evolution crap is a crock of shit?

If I am, then I aint hanging round such a narrow minded bunch of academic twacks.

And besides. Surely, because evolution took suuuch a long time, that bollocks about not being many missing links at any one time doesnt mean a lot, because over how ever many millions of years you clowns seem to think they came from, there would still be plenty to be found, if they existed.

Surely.

Promise me this time you really are going to fuck off and not come back ....
Your a childish narrow minded naive bigmouthed fucken moron who obviously needs to do some serious growing up ...
FUCK OFF ..

No, that's why they're called ancestors - they died.

And the whole point is that they ARE walking around, in the shape of you and me. That's what the theory is all about.

Also PK, you said "So what.. the entire universe... just happens to be in sync, all the planets and moons, all happen to be in proper orbit? And life just all of a sudden happend?".

Well yes. Get your brain around this - if it's all just luck that we happened to come into existance, then consider yourself lucky. If it's POSSIBLE that it all happened the right way, then it MUST HAVE if we are here? That's not so hard to believe.

Also, with a expansion/contraction theory in place, how many times might the universe have expanded and contracted before an iteration bore life?

Have a think (no, I mean really think) about that.

Oh, and to clarify the above a little - I am NOT discounting intelligent interference or design, merely showing that the possibility EXISTS of other answers.

I am agnostic for the record (as you may already know).

How can the universe expand and contract you sad person.

See, you cant even get over the fact that space, goes on and on for ever, it does not stop. It is impossible for space to end.

There is nothing to end it.

There cant be anything to end it, because there would always be something beyond that.

Space goes for ever, and ever, and ever.

You think its like the edge of the world used to be thought of eh?

Sad, sad, sad.

See you later apes, here, have a bananna.. good boy.

VLAD: Please don't post shit like that. Flaming will achieve exactly nothing.

PK: The thing you have to realise is that to believe in the creationist view you have to believe in God, and it seems there are large numbers who don't. Evolution being the best explanation that doesn't depend on suspension of disbelief in God it's accepted, due to the huge amounts of evidence for it and the way the theory is so hard to debunk.

Weak theory falls over and gets eliminated fairly fast. It's shot down all the time, until it becomes something like the flat earth school of thought: a joke. Evolution has been around a long time and the evidence for it piles up daily, yet that against it is circumstantial and weak. It takes some serious bloody faith to write it off in the face of the evidence, and few here seem to have that faith, even those who believe in God.

There are creationist scientists who are working to debunk evolutionism, and they're not getting far. Until they do I'm happy with the theory; it's robust, scientifically, and it's survived well...survival of the fittest at work again. The best, most likely theories last.

Don't call us narrow-minded until you're willing to enter into a reasonable argument, and consider our side. You're not presenting your side well, so you're not getting treated with much respect. I'm sorry about the flames. I don't think they're called for.

That said, you want us to respect you? Earn it. Right now you're doing the text equivalent of stamping your foot and pouting, all because we won't accept what you say based on faith we don't share with you.

------------------
[email protected]

I dont think I really want any of your lots respect, thanks.

/me takes the banana.

/me shoves it up PK's arse.

/me steps back and frames the scene with his hands.

Hmmmmmmm... I think I'll call it "Absence of Reason".

OK then PK maybe you'll understand this concept.

If all the skeleton's of everything that has ever lived on earth (most of which would consist of marine life - mainly algae[some of them do have simple husk like skeletons]) didn't decay when they died, we would be up to our asses in bones Km's high.

And you don't need the missing link to prove evolution, there are thousands's of better examples in other species.

And the universe is expanding, so resoning suggests it started from a point with a explosion. If you don't beleive its expanding then it must be contracting from gravity (which using your reasoning , you must beleive in gravity seeming its right in front of your eyes) so it'll all end up at a point again.

If someone ever figures out what came before the big bang, or what lies outside our universe they'll be the closest thing to your god you're ever going to find.

F___ it this is my last post - even a f___en monkey is more resonable than you

(language ,his space comment pushed me over the edge )

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 18 July 2000).]

Homework assignment for PK: Read 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking. Discuss.

LOL @ Spoon1!!!!!

People keep saying fossils support the theory of Evolution. This is not the case, and is in fact open to some quite broad interpretations.

First: Radioactive dating "old" rocks... it's not entirely accurate (sometimes very badly off the mark).
Here's some bits out of an article I found:

Eleven sampels were collected from five recent lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe during field work in January 1996. The five lava flows: 2 each from flows on Feb 11 1949, June 4 1954, July 14 1954, and Feb 19 1975 avalanche deposits; 3 from Jenu 30 1954 flow.
All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava.

The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Labs in Cambridge, Boston (A respected commercial lab) for potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, with no specific location or expceted age information supplied (samples were described as young with very little argon present - requiring extra care during analytical work).

The "ages" obtained from the K-Ar analyses ranged from <0.27 to 3.5 (+/- 0.2) million years, for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lava flows 25-50 years ago. (Whoops!)

The lab supervisor re-checked his equipment and re-ran the tests, producing similar (and wildy inaccurate) results. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analysed did not reproduce the same results (unsurprising due to the low levels of argon present in the rocks).

Some geochronologists would say that <0.27 million years is the correct 'date', but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct 'age' if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?

How can we trust the use of this 'dating' method on rocks whose ages we don't know? If this method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?

Evolution 0, Creationism 1.

Fossils.

Fossils are almost never dated radiometrically, since they hardly ever contain enough of the radioactive substances required. A common way of dating fossils (and rocks without said radioactive elements) is by 'dating' an associated volcanic rock (often using the K-Ar method). It depends on the rate at which radioactive K (potassium) decays into the gas Ar (argon).

The K-Ar method works like this:
When the volcanic rock hardens the 'clock' begins ticking. That is, it assumes there is no argon that used to be potassium present to begin with, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay couldn't get out (cause it's inside a rock ) and so after x number of years there should be y amount of argon. (Whoops!)
However, it is well-known that if a radiometric 'date' contradicts a fossil-derived (and evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous.

Evolution 0, Creationism 2

ps. ChaosWulf: your flood argument works both ways.

PK - You are making me more and more convinced we just found that missing link we have been searching for. :P

But seriously... the comment that the universe is for ever.. that means there must be infinite everythings.... Including gods.... ? woa. or.. is there only one god in that infinate space. ?

Which would mean it isnt forever.. wouldnt it? errmmm...... /me shrugs.

I think I am thinking ahead of myself there...

Just take our word for it - your not selling your case well at all. (Kinda like Mark Todd.... he refuses to make a statement telling people they are wrong about him.., yet wonders why everyone keeps on at him about it)

Faith is a cool thing - I envy you In some ways... But you can have faith, AND use your brain too... some things in the bible maaay be wrong. doesnt make Christianity wrong.

Do you believe in Adam and Eve ?



------------------
AdunFX
All that is gold does not glitter.
Not all who wander are lost.

oh yeah, hooray for boobies

Personally I think breats are secondary on a female... a relationship depends on just that - being able to relate. I think it's more important to be friends with the girl than with her breasts.

I still like them though

------------------
What would Brian Boitano do?

Boofhead. if indeed you are correct... that doesnt give creationism any points....

Dont try so hard

Me no scientist.
Take for example, when Bambi was born: Within a day he was able to walk/run etc.
Then, take a day in the life of Bambi: Run away from things that chase you, eat stuff that tastes good, mate with anyone you feel like.

Take one pregnant birdie, add a bit of pain, equals little birdies: They grow up, make out with other birdies, build nests, have more little birdies.

The point I'm trying to make (albeit with poor examples) is that to me, animals seem to have a BIOS. (Basic Input/Output System)
Aka instinct?
Birds: They build nests without a DIY kit, or even a manual.

Bambi: He gets up after birth, then knows how to walk/run.

Do humans have instinct?
Shortly after birth are we able to walk?
To warn others of impending danger?
I don't believe that we have instincts.

Which leads me to my next point: If we (humans) don't have instinct/s, then we are an entirely separate category, not part fish/monkey/whatever.
So... read... think... form an opinion.
If you wish, flame, but not too much as I don't like heat.

NOTE: Lots of holes in my reasoning/theory, so don't shoot it down too badly

PS: Li'l bit tired so adding this disclaimer: What I stated was written at 1AM.

I like nipples. Nipples are great. I even like my own nipples. As for the man-breast question, I would hazard a geuss that saggy man-breasts are a definate no-no, where as a toned and muscled man-breast (lets call then pec's) might be acceptable.

PK is the craziest doped up christian I have ever heard of. But it's all cool man, cause God made him that way. I hope he doesn't burn in hell for not trying to save us.

As for the various Science vs Religion/Faith my vote goes out to Necro and his eloquent post. No, not the one about the boobies.

Spoon1. Where can I get a print of that fantastic artwork?

I'll be auctioning it off at the next Hub (Loaves and Fishes Hall ).

Serious bidders only.

ok, apologies for "trying too hard" - this is a topic I'm quite passionate about. (evolution being a load of balls, not boobies )

------------------
What would Brian Boitano do?

Try not to flame good old boof too badly,at least he makes an effort (unlike someone else whos beyond reason).

K-Ar dating is only accurate on rocks between 100,000 - 4.3 billion years at a resolution of 1 million years. Other methods are used for less than this (carbon 14 dating - accurate before 50,000 years - but that only works on once living material, and other isotope's with smaller half lifes).

If you see a half-life decay curve you'll notice that its really steep to start with and really flat at the end. That's why they make limits for the range between start and end because result's at these points are not accurate.

Its to do with the decay rate's and sensitivity of equipment, even after 100,000 years only 0.005% of the potassium would of decayed into argon.
So to apply such techniques to something 20 - 25 years old is ridiculous (makes you wonder why they didn't give them the expected age). Kind of like asking you to time an event that lasts 1/10000 of a second.

Also the sample cannot be used if they've reheated and recrystalised (a trained geologist would be useful here).
And if those tests had been done properly they would of done them at mulitiple lab's with multiple samples.

creation score's 2 own goal's
the scores tied at 0 - 0 again

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 18 July 2000).]

Oh I see, so you have to make excuses for reasons why something the evolution theory is based on, failed to operate well.

The scientest made a mistake, but oh, its ok, see, he/she was not told the expected date for that rock.

I think if you cannot get your head over the simple fact, that space goes on for ever, then I can see why you would like to think that your an ape.

Space goes on for ever. It is very simple when you think about it... it cant expand, or contract, because space does not end. There is no way, it can end. You may read and think what you like about super scientest X, but if you just stop, and use your thinking part of your brain, in a logical, foward thinking manner, you will conclude, that there is no way, that space, can have an end.

Look at it this way.

You think that universe is expanding. Right?
Its gettting bigger and bigger and bigger all the time?

So its kind of like a huge ball is it, and it gets bigger, and it fills...?

Space. Space, that is already there.

Can you understand that?

If you cannot figure that one out, then yes, I can see how you would have a lot of trouble, grasping the concept, of God.

Do you really think, that all the life on this planet, all of it, every little bug, plant, tree, bird, everything the grows and lives on this planet, that man cannot begin to create themseves, who cannot even begin to hold each living things way of making, was not created by something somewhat more awesome than space itself?

Do you think there is no God?



[This message has been edited by purple+kush (edited 18 July 2000).]

I did think there was no God, but a miracle has occurred; you've posted some of the reasoning behind your beliefs, so perhaps I'm wrong...

Seriously though, The logic behind your space being infinite is great. My mind sees it the same way. I've never really had the other view properly explained to me, so can someone who's up with that one please explain it?

The excuses bit however I feel the urge to correct. That wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation of why the dating process is useless on comparatively new materials, i.e. it only works on those older than the ones used in the test previously cited. It isn't someone excusing the falibility of the process, just explaining why it use isn't taken seriously on 25 year old volcanic rock.

------------------
[email protected]

In theory you should be able to figure out down to the nearest year, but there are limitation's in detecting equipment so the best you can manage is 100,000 years.

Thinking requires knowledge (be it from books,other people or your experiences)-you can't think if you've got nothing to think about.
Ive considered creationism and realised evolution is how i consider the world works. Id suggest you read the theory of evolution (might want to throw in brief history of time while youre at it) and do a bit of thinking.

Well what i consider the universe is matter and energy (they're really the same thing), so once that is all sucked into a black hole or you leave the confines of our universe (most theorys don't think that is possible, but as you said, science will never know everything - and that's why i like it) nothing will exist, whats space if there's nothing contained in it - with nothing to measure time or distance against space is nothing.

Well i don't consider life to be any great miracle, but the universe on the other hand. Like i said before, if anyone figures out where the universe came from id consider them as close to god as anyone will get.

I never said i didn't believe there was a god, i just don't beleive all the stuff in the bible.

I kinda like the idea behind buddhism personally, the idea of being reincarnated when you die as a higher/lower lifeform (problably due to playing too much quake ) ,and the fact its 100% compatable with science.

<FONT SIZE=1><BLOCKQUOTE>Disclaimer:All views contained in this post are that of the author - viewers should make up their own minds based on all availiable evidence (should of started using this ages ago )</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 18 July 2000).]

PK, do you know what a singularity is?

Based on your previous posts and heavy useage of pot I take it you have no clue. Allow me to enlighten you. A singulairty is a region of space time in which gravitational forces are so strong that even general relativity (the gravitational theory of Einstein) berak down there. A singularity marks a point where the curvature of space time is infinite, or to put it another way it posesses zero volume and infinite density. General relativity demands that a singularity will form in 2 circumstances. First, a singularity must form during the creation of a black hole. in the second general relativity shows that an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity.
(gotta love Stephen Hawkings documentarys on video)

As for space going on and on forever, it will have to come to an end, and it will come back on itself. I suggest you read up on dark matter PK, read Stephen Hawkings, and Carlos Frenk's writings.


------------------
Any Norweigan Yarlsburger, per chance?

"Space. Space, that is already there.
Can you understand that?
If you cannot figure that one out, then yes, I can see how you would have a lot of trouble, grasping the concept, of God."

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were arguing intelligently here, or at least trying to. Where do you pull that sort of shit from, PK?
Did your bible tell you this?
Did your Great White Father tell you this?

I personally find it mind-boggling that any one person could be so adamant about anything unprovable and improbable, but I guess thats what religion is about.
God will save me. No matter what I do, God will save me. I'll go to fairy land and live forever and don't have to think about ANYTHING because God will save me.

Don't call evolutionists "narrow minded" just because they're brave enough to see outside the square and you're not yet.

Irrespective of how the world came to be , you seem to be like all other Christian religion types who blindly argue for answers which almost entirely come from the writings in the bible ,and as I have pointed out time and time again christians only make up about 30% of the religious types on the planet .
So the other 2/3s of the planets beliefs are wot ....??
Oh you are right because you are a christian and all the others are wrong because , well because ...umm well because you just no you are right ...
aha ..
Any ways the evolution thing albeit wrong or right is only one persons theory as has been pointed out already , unfortunaly tho nothing you have posted actually amounts to anything which should change the way anyone thinks about it ...
Give us some bible facts for me to poke holes in please ...
I still want to no which cult sect you belong to ..??

Do you think there is no God?

I don't know. But what *I* do believe is there is no limited Christian God. Are you trying to tell me that a God who "made" (for the sake of argument) the universe, life and everything would give a rats arse about sex and marriage? Those aren't godly restrictions, they are man-made. Did "God" only make life on this planet? If so why did he bother with the rest of the Universe? Maybe we are God's failed experiment? Maybe the reason that "we" haven't seen him is that he is on some other planet with his favourite creations.

I could start a freewill/predestination argument but... nah sod it I will. What is the point of living if our lives are already mapped? "God" knows who will go to heaven and who wont. Apparently he knew that before we were born. Therefore the point is...

Why did Adam have tackle before Eve? God wasn't going to create Eve but Adam was lonely (poor tyke) so *poof* Eve. Also, why was Adam lonely. If God created Adam then Adam wouldn't have been a social animal and therefore wouldn't NEED company. QED why Eve?

Blah blahblah blahblah blah.

Umm the adam and eve thing ...
If that is correct then we are all brothers and sisters errrm so shouldnt we all have lotsa teeth missing like rocking chairs and play a mean banjo ??

I'll kill a hundred thousand people, but 'cos it's for God, it's OK.

Singularities are also a point where the time axis stops moving through the height/depth/width axes, mostly because they don't exist anymore. When you stop thinking about time in the linear sense, a lot of things make sense.

ie, when you start to think about it as an axis of movement (a 'fourth dimension' if you will) that is affected in an unusual way by gravity, or in a usual way by an unusual force, things like singularities and the supposed beginning of the universe can start to be a little clearer to you.

Also think for a moment about the scale of the universe.

It's not as if there's only a matter of a few thousand galaxies in it.

Take a glass of water. Suppose that in this glass there's three mol's of water. Now, there's something like (I'm really wishing I remembered this number ) 3 x 6x10^23 molecules of water in this glass. Each molecule contains one atom of oxygen, and two atoms of hydrogen. The first electron shell (1s), also the only occupied shell on a hydrogen atom, can be compared to a pea in the center of a rugby field. The pea being the hydrogen nucleus, and the rugby field (suppose it's a circle with a 50m radius) the first electron shell. Oxygen has a lot more electrons, most of which are in shells a lot further out.

Now, these electrons, neutrons and protons are made up of even smaller particles - the existence of which (mostly due to their size) is not entirely well documented. These particles are things like quarks, leptons, neutrinos, tachyons, bosons, etc. (of which quarks leptons and bosons are the ones that make up the electrons, neutrons and protons - also, forget about the proton as it's basically just a neutron with an electron removed - yep, something that wasn't there has been removed).

As you can imagine, compared to 5 billion people walking around on the Earth, these particles are unfathomably small, and countless billions of them make up enough matter to cover your monitor in that dust that seems to collect on it.

Suppose that 5 billion people walking around on the Earth are the universes equivalent to these particles to us - except that these particles exist inside the universe, so the comparison is ridiculous.

Anyway, with this sort of scale, how can the accident which is life not have come about in at least one place?

Oh, and breasts with it.

And if anyone tries to put Akuhm's Razor on that, favouring religion, fuck off because a) Akuhm's Razor is a scientific principal, and b) religion is a psychological disorder, not a metaphysical explanation, so is by definition out of context to Akuhm's Razor.

(Sorry Akuhm if I spelt your name wrong. )