Evolution

[glacier]

400!

[Eagle64]

Must.. resist .. urg ...

mustn't make pointless post .... just to make the 401st... post....argrghhhh

cant ... resist ..........

haha 401 .^%$#&&&

beeeeeeeeeppppp..............


[Edit] - Damnit to slow

[This message has been edited by Eagle64 (edited 04 August 2000).]

[mr selfdestruct]

Endymion: I salute you man. I tip my hat to you. You are a legend. You made a thread that broke the 400 mark.

You're a GOD

[Don]

I like tits , they have good shape

[Uncle Gus]

Who really gives a fuck about evolution? We grow up in a world where women have breasts, then we have the nerve to question why or how they have breasts? Just shut up, grab a tit and be thankful!

------------------
That's all I have to say about that.

Uncle Gus

[THATBladE]

This is from a paper i wrote for 7 science. its a reed but i recon it says a bit... i got told i talk to much hehehhe

One of the most fascinating problems of today’s science is the begging of our universe. From the old philosophical theories that Earth’s nothing but a shield of plate of which one can fall off and that from a sheet that is spreading up high in oval shape on which stars, sun and moon are attached to a less ancient “Vatican” theory that accepted that Earth is round, but still was sure that it must be the centre of the universe around which everything else is rotating, in which they all believed enough to swiftly “remove” anyone who brought science and question into it (Galileo: “It still turns”, while he was to be executed)

Just as they have been certain in such “Dogma”, today most people believe in a “Dogma” of “Big Bang”. In order to understand it a few fundamental aspects must be understood. One such aspect has never been proven yet it has been existent since the begging of science. It is the principle of casualty, which simply sates that the cause happens before the consequence. In simple terms, bullet will fly as a conscience of trigger being pulled. Yet, to precede this “dogma”, which is yet to be proven, must not be taken so that the time is seen as an arrow which moves along constantly and in only one direction. For example bullet flying out could be the cause to the trigger being pulled or mans death would simply mean that he is going to be born. Time can be seen as being able to go bout forward and backwards (a less popular “Yo-Yo” theory that universe expands, stops and then reverses together with time introduced the aspect of time going “backwards”). Also the “Theory of Relativity” by Einstein in 1905 proved that speed of light is constant and unreachable and that time, which today due to this is look upon as 4th dimension of space (thus creating space-time), is only relative to how fast you are moving to where its measured. Speed of light can be seen as unreachable because if you were going at speed of light in a spaceship, which travelled above the speed of light, that arrives at a distant star, to those looking from that star it would seem like it arrived before the light of its departure comes, thus the consequence happened before its cause, thus breaking the casualty law. Take in mind that the speed of light is “only” 300,000 km/sec. Yet if that spaceship was travelling just over a year when measured from earth, a distance of one light year (less than c – speed of light) to those on-board it the journey would only last some 5 days. Bout measurements of the time spaceship travelled are “correct” and bout comply the law of casualty.
Quantum physics must also be understood or taken for granted. It use to be believed that stars emit energy at an infinite rate (Lords Rayleight and Sir James Jeans theory), but if so then a body (lets say human-body) would emit energy at such a rate that it would eventually run out and disappear, which is impossible as proven by Max Planck. Thus energy is finite, not infinite.
It also is a mechanic system that shows the impossibility to find a particles velocity/position must be known. In order to find a particles position/velocity one must use very small wavelength of lite to shine on particle and the smaller the wavelength the more accurately will its position be found, but the smaller the light particle (quantum) the more will it disturb the particle thus changing its velocity, whose accuracy reading will decrease. The uncertainty in the mass of the particle * the uncertainty in its velocity * the uncertainty in its position cannot be brought below a certain value which is known as “Planck’s constant”. This principle (“Heisengberg’s principle) is fundamental and has introduced a value of uncertainty and chance into the science. If we are unable to accurately access the present universe, how can we assume its past/future? Also the idea that matter in form of something that is “actually there” must be taken loosely. It has been proven that light is a wave (“two slit experiment”). Yet light is unable to escape the gravity of the “black holes” (very dense objects with unimaginable gravity pool) and therefore if they are pooled towards it just as a cosmic object, spaceship or human lead to the idea that we, ourselves are just complex waves, and that matter is truly non-existent, but just a form of an energy, a wave. This answers the question of where did the matter come from (i.e. “out of nowhere”) and also introduces the idea of anti-matter. All the Matter + all the anti-matter (can be seen as reversely charged matter, i.e. electrons are +, which could easily happen in the chaotic variants of the “Big Bang” theories) will equal 0, thus the final mass of the universe is 0.
Once these principles are understood, which coexist and yet don’t, the big bang theories, which are based around these can be attempted to be explained.
These theories are favourite amongst scientists. They are based upon a fact that our universe is expanding as light from stars is moving towards the red spectrum which, upon the understanding of Doppler effect (Siren fluctuations from an ambulance coming towards you sound closer together than when they move away due to closer/further away starting positions) means they are moving away. Also it assumes that each of those galaxies would see itself moving away from the rest of the matter, thus everyone is moving away from everyone, i.e.: the volume in which matter is in is increasing thus increasing the distances between particles inside.
Also “Big Bang” theory is based upon and is attempted to understand the stillness, or perfection of the constancy (similarity in shape, background cosmic radiation levels constancy) of the universe, and our existence itself. It is apparent that universe expansion is slowing down as the rate at which everything is moving away is slowing down. Once that rate has been found, and the rate at which it expands, the start of that expansion, or the “Big Bang”, has been found to have happened some 10/20 billion years ago.

One of the leading present scientists that is pondering such, to an average human incredible, is Steven Hawkins, who has taken the best out of all the theories, proven many of them unlikely/impossible. Einstein’s general theory of relativity states that all space-time began at the big bang singularity (all matter in one shape) and that it will end either in big crunch, or in a black hole, due to all mater attracting itself. This can easily be understood as all mater is attracting itself and no matter how fast its moving away, it is slowing down, eventually accelerating towards itself. Once “Quantum Physics” was introduced to its beginning and end, the uncertainties they brought could not be ignored, and thus the beginning and end (if they existed) are pulled toward theory, not fact. The fact that anti-matter could very well exist and thus pushing the universe apart (due to the reversed “polarity”) an infinite expansion could be possible.

In Friedmann’s (one of the first) model universe is expanding and cooling (two times the distance of its expansion, two times will its overall temperature drop). In his Big Bang theory for the first hundredth of second the temperature was so great that there might have been even free quarks (the very smallest “fundamental” particles that make up particles like protons etc…). After a hundredth of a second the temperature fell down and neutrons, electrons and protons now became stable. Its density is still large and would look like liquid plasma. After first hundredth of a second the radiation is low enough to allow build up of nuclei. Later proto-galaxies are formed, with galaxies, protostars, stars and heavier elements within them are created. This radiation involved within this process is still around and is only of a 3C0 higher temperature than absolute zero (-273C0) (where no movement of particles is detected, unreachable as once neutrons stop moving they cease to exist; also can be seen as stoping of movement of the energy/wave (quantum mechanisms) which eliminates the particles itself, also impossibility). Later as these giants collapsed they released some of the heavier atoms and building blocks of life, which went into space or orbited its origin (such as Earth). Here life slowly started to develop once the planet itself was cool enough.

On this Hawkins builds his theory, which is considered to be the main one at the moment, stating that temperature is simply the measure of the energy/speed of its particles, thus at the big bang the mass of the universe was zero and that it was unlimitedly hot. That is the first mistake within the “Big Bang” theory as phrase “zero size” should be changed to “close to zero” as temperature cannot measure nothingness, and then the question of where did that mass come from, however little, comes into the perspective. Also the law of conservation states that “matter cannot either be created or destroyed”, despite the possibility of anti-matter, still doesn’t explain why did the Big Bang happen, which brings into perspective the old Romans/Greeks and the Church’s higher power.
Another question is brought upon us, and that is the stillness or the perfection of space in such way that there, overall, is lack of chaos and all areas look evenly same. Theories that compare universe to water arise a lot. When water is in its liquid form it is similar to what maybe universe was like during the first few seconds of the big bang, but upon its cooling (i.e. freezing of water) it, not as water does when it crystallizes (which is nothing like the universe would be like as crystals are uneven) it was super frizzed, thus keeping the stillness and perfection in the radiation/mass distribution/ expansion rates that it has. The transition would be so sudden that the bubbles of the irregularity (much like the steam or the crystal) would join up and eventually consume the entire space thus making everything even. If these bubbles were going at light speed or close to it (again the c cant be reached) still they would not be able to join up with each other as they would be just as fast moving away from each other, thus not producing even space.

Hawkins & his, today standing, “Big Bang” lets this be an inevitable result, which means that however the universe originally started, weather this is a cycle between the collapses of it, the ending result would always be this, which means that the original mass that exploded must have the same radiation proportions in it (as today radiation is evenly spread) and roughly same density everywhere, which in such high temperatures with within a mass of millions of tons where matter and anti-matter would be colliding (Note: one kg of matter + kg of anti-matter = 43 * 1 megaton of H-Booms exploding) is hard to believe. Surpassing this, lets say, as Hawkins wants us to believe, that time is truly connected with space (time-space), taking into fact that without space there is no time, that universe never started, never will end, it just IS there. Also he suggested that all mater is just as Earth is, in a sphere. As you travel towards one end you never reach it, instead you return to the origin, thus eliminating start beginning, making it infinite. This has a massive flow in it, as there must be matter/space inside this sphere, which he ignored, thus making universe a ball that does have boundaries, thus if finite. Also he brought concept of imaginary time, thus eliminating real time. Again he uses an Earth like sphere where north pole represents Big Bang and south pole the Big Crunch, thus making time spherical and universe ever existing, a concept hard which can be accepted but is not possible for it to be tested, thus forever staying a theory, and it can be seen only as philosophical interpretation of what is there and is completely different. Seeing all this, “Big Bang” is left to yet another earth being a shield on top of a tortoise, leaving this universe a simple production of a chance of many different possibilities. This possibility of our universe happening by chance would be like leaving two year olds to type and seeing how many of them would type this study (which would be today’s universe), which however hard to believe it did happen, or letting a higher power create the laws of today’s universe and create the intelligent life which would study its origin. As there are more of those chaotic universes therefore it is more likely that the universe today should be chaotic. An unlikely explanation to this is that our universe was chaotic but due to expansion it “got smoothed out” as the background cosmic radiation is impossible to be smoothed out to this effect. Einstein also stated that we must allow infinite time for evolution to happen, but the time is not infinite, it is 10-20 billion years, which is large, but not large enough to be infinite. Another question that is brought upon is the way that duration of Big Bang has been measured. It is compared to a calendar like time which was created about fifteen billion years after the assumed miracle of the universe. It could of very well lasted two minutes, or five billion years, not few seconds. Thou Einstein stated that time is “A steady unvarying inexorable time flow, teaming from the infinite past to the infinite future”, the speed or the rate at which that time was moving must not be compared to the rate at which we are moving now (Space-ship that travels close to speed of light) as the expansion and force of the expanding of the universe must be so great that what seems like seconds to us could very well be billions of years, or on contrary even smaller amount of time, thus allowing other possible “Big Bang” theories that require more time than provided to happen, to be just as likely as the hot Big Bang model, described above. A fact that weight of the universe is believed to be 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trillion tons, we must accept that all this matter was condensed within a smaller than dust particle, thus ask ourselves the energy required for such compression (no matter our big bang is just after a big crunch of another big bang (see the diagram below) still could it be really crushed to such extent).

Why is it important to know the origin of space is a question some lite-minded people may ask. That would be like asking why do we need to know does god exist. A fact that the universes existence must have a cause, therefore a begging stands in whichever theory, weather it was “always there” because to everything there is a start, and that is a statement that has the most common sense. The perfection of universe impales that there must be a purpose to it and a force/process that was able to design it, and the laws that govern it. If it can be proven that the universe was created and thus has a start, that would bring us one step closer to proving the existence of a higher power, but yet if it can be proven that our existence is merely but a chance, then we shall take ourselves one step further away from god and on this earth nite out of ten people believe in some sort of a higher power to a bigger or smaller degree. Questions such as “what is the point of living?” would arise and religious chaos would cause wide spread panic and possibly in worst scenario end life as is.

In my opinion, the theory of “Big Bang” and Hawkins’s “Universe has always been there” I could just as easily chose another great scientist, Homer Simpson, and his “Donate-Shaped Universe” theory, as all of them have too many assumptions and too many flaws and questions as stated above. The perfection of our universe and the beginning of it out of nowhere indicates a creator, and even “was always there” sounds like a line out of the bible.

[Boofhead]

Yautja said: How they (white god fairing people) justified slavery was blacks were viewed as no higher than animals (so nothing in the bible applied to them), so could be kept like any animal pet with no human rights.

That's an interesting idea, but it doesn't fit with the Christian ideal of love for all men (regardless of skin pigment). From books I have read, Evolution was the cause of slavery/racism etc. because it (evolution) said that since black people evolved separately from white people - so were therefore a different species and inferior.
(It's interesting to note that these people were "Christians"... another fact I read was that the Theory of Evolution was first accepted by religious leaders of the time, while prominent scientific figures ridiculed it.)

Smokingman: I have read your explanation of the exponential decay of the speed of light before... you say that "early technology was poor and their would be huge error margins in all measurements", but I think you are wrong. Just because people don't have access to technology developed this century doesn't mean they are any less able to calculate things like the speed of light. People were smart in the olden days .

Some more interesting points were brought up by Yautja and Necro:
Yautja:
If you copy you brain patterns into a computer, it won't be your consiousness in it - just a copy. To everyone else it will be you, but it won't be 'you' if you get what i mean.
Necro:
Uploading your memories into a machine would not make you immortal, it would only create an AI with your memories
I think these ideas would not work because they forgot the part of a person that makes them truly unique - an eternal soul.

[Boofhead]

oh yeah - if you have any questions about Christianity, please try them on me... I'll do my best to answer them.

[Whiplash]

boof: You also have to understand that, at the time, if the church didn't accept it then any theory which went against dogma would wind up getting you killed. So most 'scientists' were too afraid to speak out.

[Yautja]

Im pretty sure slavery has been around for far longer than the theory of evolution, and a species is defined as a group of animals that can reproduce to produce fertile offspring.

Like i said they wern't considered men, so love for all men didn't apply.
Why does the bible always refer to people as men, humans as mankind - sounds sexist to me. This to do with eve being made from adams rib ?.

Yeah what Whippy said, the church used to be the law , but killing was only a last resort. First they would try to discredit their work using reasoning/logic/even making up lies, if that didn't work they'd try and discredit the person and then their family by making up rumors.

If that didn't work they would put them under house arrest, denying all contact with the outside world - even their family, and not allowing correspondance/books/writing materials.
They even went as far as banning all books and printing presses in some parts of the world (good old fashioned book burning - they still have them in some parts of USA's bible belt).
If house arrest didn't work they basically put them in a dungeon and left them to die where nobody would notice.

They never killed them for their idea's either (they made up some other reason, and never killed them publicly) because this would make them a martyr, turning one mans beliefs into a 'religion', Jesus is problably the best example of that.

Most scientists got around this by having their life work published after their death.

One question boof - you can do anything you want in heaven - does this include stuff that goes against the bible/christianity.

[chiQ]

It's not sexist. It's semantics. Science does the same thing. You'd have to be pretty pedantic to demand that gender is specified in such sweeping contexts as these terms are generally used.

[smokingman]

Boffhead: Of course inferior technology would have caused huge amounts of error in early measurements. The instruments they used would not have anywhere near as accurate as what we have now, nothing like an atomic clock was around at that point in time (in the first measurements of the speed of light the speed wasn't measured directly but they did use rotating disks and would have needed to know the rpm therefore had to measure time).
Thats not to take away what was actually achieved by the scientists at the time, in all areas of science the people who made pioneering discoveries did so with incredible ingenuity.

[FB]

Holy fuck, this thread is STILL going..

ThatBlade
In that paper, your using todays science to dis-prove theory..

But what is todays science mostly based on?
THEORY..
you cant use Theory to dis-prove theory..

hrmm.. Catch 22 there

I have a really thought out theory in my head.. I just dont have the frame of mind to convey it of late.. damned brain..

FB

[chiQ]

When you look at religion, science, your own beliefs do you see anything but theory?

If you do you're either blindly faithful or just plain blind. It's all theory.

[ReBEL DeM0n]

tits.

------------------
irc.rebel.net.nz:6667

Is it chiQ.

[Yautja]

In english please ChiQ

(after looking up dictionary.com )
The bible wasn't originally in english so whatever it was written in maybe wasn't interpreted as man.

Or maybe it was just that languages were developed and the bible written when society was extremly male dominated (releative to today).

You can't deny that christainity is a male dominated institution.
God is depected as a male , jesus ,moses ,noah , male bishops(until recently) , male pope , is there even such a thing as a female saint ? .....

But Christainity 'evolves' to adapt for rulers/society or it would die out. With equal rights these days it has to allow female bishops etc because if it dosn't, there will be less and less christain women to have christian children and it will die out.

Its already adapted that fact that the earth is not flat , not the center of the solar system/universe , stopped burning people on stakes, and its just starting to accept evolution,equal rights for females\gays,the universe is finite and had a beguining.

In other words it evolves to whatever makes it more likely to continue, just like anything else.

We have beliefs is to make us a more efficent member of our society. Thou shalt not kill/steal/commit adultery makes society better, these days we have laws and courts for those things (I just hope NZ dosn't end up like USA, also explains why PK chooses to ignore certain laws).

Society in an information/technology age where science is valued more by governments/people than religions. Its becoming incresingly difficult to get work that dosn't involve information/technology because they are more efficent than traditional methods.

Cars are more efficent for transportation, money easier for trade, medicine makes us live longer and work better , farming is more efficent than hunting and gathering.........
Progress is never ending and all so we can become better at reproducing and consuming energy/resources.

Basically the only way to save chistianity (in the form it is today) is to become amish(sp). People will still believe in God in the future, just not as the biblical form.

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 09 August 2000).]

Blah blah oga booga.

There are churches, that are not at all holy. There are churches, that are very money orientated. These ait what churches are supposed to be. Female ministers, are also not allowed. And certainly not gay ministers. But they exist, and are breaking the very religion they are there for.

I dont even go to church.

The bible intends woman to be of a servant to man, to look after the house, cook meals, etc. And most of the time, this works, no worries. It does not mean that man is supposed to sit on his arse and do nothing, but work and bring home the bacon.

The bible has lots of parts, that are very hard to understand. Lots of parts that have hidden meanings. But if you want to get what the bible is about in a nutshell, read Proverbs. Very, very, very good advice, wheather you are a christain or not.

Also, I am all for people being hung or stoned if they rape, murder, and such evil.

'in this way, we will get rid of such evil.'

Yep, we will. Much better than keeping them in prison, using our tax, then letting them out 6 years later for good behaviour, only for them to do it again.

Dont know what your going on about though pred, there has always been farmers, aint nothing against it in the bible, aint nothing wrong with IT, aint nothing against it in the bible, there aint nothing against tradeing with money in the bible, didnt say thou shalt not use a car. Dont talk bollocks.

Dont matter how advanced the human race is or becomes, nobody will create life, nobody will find the missing link, nobody will escape the bounds of God. He made us, all living things. Dont you think that hes a tad more clued up than the human race will ever be?

Evolution is false, the most needed evidence cannot, and will not be found. Get over that.

As for evidence of God. Well. Everything in the bible is true. Everything.

[Marshall]

PK

Surely if you follow the bible word for word then you dont celebrate birthdays, christmas etc except for easter?

(This is a question not a statement)

[chiQ]

Yeah tits.

In English? Damn, have I been speaking a foreign language all this time?

BTW if I've been a bit obscure with a post do tell me which one and what about it is fucked up so I can try and reword it.

[Spoon1]

PK: You're wrong, existance of God will never be proven and the Bible is not proof of His existance, so get over it.

...

Gee, that seems somehow familiar...

Nap, God exists, Bible is true.

you get over it

[Spoon1]

Hehe.

Sad.

[Yautja]

Sorry that bit about progress didn't come out right PK (cars/farms etc in my post had nothing to do with the bible).

My idea is that society(religions , laws - everything which is used to control our behavior) can be considered a living being, and changes to whatever improves our species the most at that point of our evolution.

Religion used to be what was best for our advancement a few thousand years ago, but now science is. So unless religion becomes compatable with science it will dissapear.

Technology is everywhere in todays society , you're exposed to it from before you're born to school/work/entertainment. Last time i checked it was science creating technology not god. They don't teach religion in (most) schools now, they teach science instead - hence the governments change what children are exposed to, in order to make the country more competitive in the global market.

And good luck in your seach for a slave-mate PK (or just keeping the one you have), they're becoming an endangered species .

ChiQ: Nothing wrong with you're post , just my vocabulary , don't change them - i have to learn english one day .

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 10 August 2000).]

Shh pred

Nah, I also think I put it wrong maybe... I dont mean my misses to be some do it all woman, for sure.

Spoon1: Hi

[Fenchurch]

I can remember reading somewhere (no, I don't know where, I think it was Some Famous Author Guy) that biologically, we may have stopped evolving. Instead, our culture will change for us. We've got the ability to alter the world to suit us, instead of doing it the hard way during the last Ice Age in Europe (for most of us).

And some cultures will survive, since they'll be the fittest, and some will be wiped out 'cause they won't have the stuff to compete. We'll pass our memetic legacy, not our genetic legacy: Neal Stephenson covers this a fair bit in The Diamond Age, which you ought to read anyway if only for the sublime description of gravel rash.

I'd also like to point out that a culture which ignores the gifts of half its population differentiating on one chromosome is handicapping itself severely.

[Endymion]

If we've stopped evolving, why are there so many differences between different races, and even the same race living in different places?

Or do you mean that we've stopped biologically evolving very recently?

------------------
Addict.Net - can you resist one more hit?

[Necro]

Godpeople, could you explain why things such as virii, bacteria, and other such malignant life forms exist? I mean really, what is their point in the 'great scheme of things'?

also, why was it that christians were the cause of SO much pain during the last 200 years if they are supposedly the chosen of god? What was the reason (if any) other than suppression?

Why is satan such a major part of the last 2000 years, but now he's pushed down on the priority list of things to bitch about, and yet society is most definatly becoming evil as you would define it.

Why cant people like pk actually be nice? You supposedly beleive in god, but you show no fucking sign whatsoever of following some of your '10' commandments. Obviously you are either so stupid that you dont realise you are sinning and will go to hell, or you dont really beleive in his command and only say you do to be different, and to fuck people off with your comments.

also, why do you have to follow the exact worship of the almighty, and not some other religion to save your soul from the fires of hell? Some wank could go out doing henious acts and then repent his sins before death to get into heaven, yet some native of indonesia who is kind to his fellow man and beleives that good character is the most important thing in life, yet will suffer eternal pain for not devoting his life to the big boss.

That perhaps is the thing the fucks me off most about christians (and others), is the holier than thou attitude of so many of its vocal members, looking down on us non beleivers because we are going to suffer pain for the rest of existance.

Another one I cant work out is wrath being a deadly sin, yet god certainly gets mad at times if the bible is to beleived, cant he follow his own rules or something? or is it do as I say, not as I do?

bah, I know I'll probably get the usual trite replys, but maybe one day someone will answer these questions and I'll understand how they can beleive such things....

[Fenchurch]

Endymion: I don't know if it's true. As far as I know, it's a nifty theory that someone thought of that sounds cool. It's also pretty fucked up, because although evolution per se is not supposed to be a linear progress, it's often percieved as such. People shouldn't think they're the height of creation: this is a very people-centric and Christian (historically, cf the Great Chain of Being) thing to do and in my opinion, is also very fucking stupid.

It would have to be very recently, but has nothing to do with the different races and phenotypes wherever (and "race" is a somewhat vague term anyway). What anyone looks like now is the result of pre-history. Whatever point we stopped physically evolving at, we'd still all look different...not like we're all evolving to one point (see the lineal thingie about).

[Fred]

The other falacy the theory has is that it presumes evolution is purely about selection via survival alone. It may be quite valid to point out that for some sectiongs of humanity then the pressure to survive is greatly lessened but in these same sections then the selection criteria for reproduction becomes the dominant process.

This is still evolution - remember all evolution constitutes is random mutation, reproduction and various selection processes.

|THAT|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'

[FB]

About the stopping Biological Evolution thing..

Yeah, I think it seems like a reasonable argument that we would stop evolving to suit our environment, since we evolve our environment to suit us..

I think that Technological Evolution has taken over that process now. Which may not be a good thing..

from what I remember from 7th form science, there are 3 types of evolution
1) Physical (Biological)
2) Cultural
3) Technological

Altho if we depend too much on our technology, what happens when we're caught without it - we're absolutely useless..

I.e if some people were stuck in the bush, they just wouldnt survive, cause they have no-idea how to survive without technology
(hehe - did anyone see The Edge on TV the other night?)

FB

[Endymion]

Eventually we'll probably started integrated technological evolution with biological evolution. It will obviously be difficult to make it work from birth (ie, without implanting the technology). Interesting post on <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">/.</a> about DNA computing.

------------------
Addict.Net - can you resist one more hit?

[Yautja]

Those DNA circuits are the beguinings of nanotechnology - the next age of mankind. We'll be able to make anything we want from existing matter (even cells PK, entire structures made of diamond from raw coal, microscopic super computers....... basically the power of god at our fingertips) using tiny robots 10^-9 m in size as nano suggests.

As with anything theres always the risk someone will use it for evil as have already been pointed out in this thread (nano-robots will have to self-replicate because of the numbers required to do anything significant, if they malfunction/mutate they could spread like a cancer across the earth uncontrolled).

These little robots could maintain you're body's cell indefinatly so in essence making you immortal (I might have problems putting anything with the name Lucent attached to it in my body though - the company in the article). Or modify it to anything you want - taller body, bigger brain....

Anyway, it'll be a while until they will be able to manipulate things at the atomic level at least, might see the ability to kill individual cancer cells and unclot arterys in our lifetime though ?, the future is too hard to predict .

[glacier]

RANDOM OUTBURST OF PHILS ARSE

here are several major flaws in the cosmological arguments that keep them from proving the existence of god. One problem arises with the premise that every reason has a cause. Another problem arises when it is shown that there must be a first cause and how this has occurred when taking time into account. Another problem arises with the infinite regress that occurs about causation of God. The argument also fails to mention the true nature of the God it is trying to prove.

A common feature that the cosmological argument assumes to be true is that every event has a cause. It then goes on to suppose that if this is the case, then it is rational to say that if everything has a cause then the universe as a whole must have a cause and that cause is God.


It can then be continued with this line of argument that there had to be a first cause to set the entire series of other causes in motion. This can be countered by saying God caused the first event to occur but does not need a cause himself to set the series of causes in motion. This is the fatal flaw to the argument. If everything has a cause than some event must have occurred to cause God. A reply to this would be that everything except God has a cause and he himself has no cause as he is the cause of everything, but then God has no cause contradicts the premise that everything has a cause. If one is true then the other is false. The casual argument must also apply to God to remain valid. As this cannot be done the argument is invalid.

For if we were to say that everything except God has a cause then "God is the cause of everything without himself being caused". Then what caused God? God cannot be the cause of everything if he is not the cause of himself. To counter this it could be argued that the causes cannot continue backward forever and that they must stop at a certain point in time, the first cause, God. But then it is illogical to stop there; we must continue further back in time to see what caused God, which then means that a being more powerful than God must have created God. Then we must ask what created this being stronger than God and the reply would be another being stronger than this being. Hence, infinite regression is achieved.

If a theist were to argue that time is infinite as opposed to saying that God is the first cause, this also denies Gods existence. If time were to be infinite then there is no place for God on this timeline. God cannot create something, namely the universe, which has always existed.


The argument is also flawed as it fails to address the true nature of God. In general the argument defines God as the event that caused the universe coming into existence. So the word "God" becomes a metaphor for how the universe came into existence and has little to do with the Judaeo-Christian God or any other God from numerous religions. That is, a Greek and a Buddhist could both try to prove the same argument, as it is not closely related to any religion. Science has continued to prove religious beliefs incorrect and supersede the argument. A simple example is that the Old Testament says God created the universe 6004 years ago. Yet science has proved that the Earth itself is at least 4 billion years old.

As shown, if a theist is to try and argue for this argument there becomes a problem with infinite regression. This shows there to be more than one God, if a God is to exist inside space and time. This does not at all fit with the Judaeo-Christian God and cannot be accepted. A reply to this is that God is eternal; he exists outside space and time. This idea is very abstract, and since the argument is based on scientific fact, it is up to the creationist to prove this kind of argument. If this fact is proved to be false then the argument becomes invalid. Yet the possibility does remain that eternal existence is possible, and until this can be totally denied by science this reply cannot be totally rejected.

[Spoon1]

If an omnipotent being existed they could do things that defy our logic.

ie: They could make an object too heavy for them to lift and yet lift it also. If they could not do this they would not be omnipotent. Just because that breaks our laws of logic doesn't mean they can't exist.

Simple really.

To say it again, if God were to soley obey the laws of logic, He would not be omnipotent. The "ultimate being" would even be able to exist and not exist at the same time, or else be described "nigh-omnipotent"

[glacier]

is that replying to what i said spoon?

someone just sent me that yesterday
i just replied to him with "BS"

[Yautja]

If god is also omnipotent, how can he lift any object seeming they are all contained within his infinity?

What something comes from is always easy to answer, if you really want to bake your noodle try to figure out why anything(universe/god) exists (don't think even god knows that one).

My thoughts on the greater universe are that whatever stuff our universe exists in is infinite, there are infinite universes in this 'stuff' constantly being born/crunched at a infinite rate and the stuff has existed forever.
This provides an easy solution to any problems , and no-one can prove it wrong (can never be proven right either - so its kinda like god - so like i said before god=universe [and science is its bible ]).

I quite like this quote (hope its right)
Today a young man on acid realised,
that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration,
We're all one consiousness experiencing itself subjectively,
Theres no such thing as death,
Life is but a dream,
And we're the imagination of ourselves,
Heres Tom with the weather

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 12 August 2000).]

[glacier]

please tell this person that they are actually talking about the ontological argument and not the cosmological argument (which i was talking about, and does not allow this reply regarding the cosmological arguments premises). The ontological argument can actually be proved using sequential logic (a form that numbers premises, and is closely related to the logic learnt in computer science), however the argument has been rejected by many theist philsophers. In actual fact this argument merely become a play upon words.

[Spoon1]

?

If you define God as omnipotent then you cannot define that being by logic. Why? Because for that being to BE omnipotent they must be able to bend/break ALL "rules" including logic.

Simple ay?

If you want to argue against a NON-omnipotent being - that's cool but otherwise you just won't be able to get past the above..

Or explain how I'm wrong.

[FB]

For Example:

When your dreaming, YOUR omnipotant relative to your dream. You can merely "watch" your dream, or take a physical form in it.

Things are true simply because you will them to be, not because of some defined logic..

hrmm.. Perhaps we are gods dream?

FB