44% of people are idiots.

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
And you are still as wrong as the first time you said it. The idea that the universe is older than 10,000 years has been scientifically tested, and scientifically validated, repeatedly.

This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what science is and what math tells us about science.

Math doesn't tell us anything about science. Math is not evidence. Observations are evidence. Math is simply a language.

The two theories are mathematically indistinguishable.

Mathematics are not observations, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

Since you can't grasp this simple concept, there's little point in addressing the rest of your tripe, ignorant crap.

Which is creationist code for: I can't argue against the evidence.

You cannot demonstrate how such a hypothesis could be "validated," because a hypothesis cannot be validated, only invalidated.

Nonsense. A testable hypothesis will have specific predictions, and when you find those predictions to be true the hypothesis is validated.

However, I would like you to supply a link to one peer-reviewed study supplying empirical evidence which contradicts the 10k theory that I put forth.

You didn't put forth a theory. Regardless, some googling on parallax should supply those readers-along with precisely the evidence you will doubtlessly continue to pretend doesn't exist.

there is really no point in continuing to respond to him. He's just degenerated into troll mode.

In his mind, he's right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

 

[Howard]

What the hell is going on in here?

 

[GasX]

cyclowizard, I salute you. You patience is quite impressive. I disagree with some of your points, but you are doing a bang up job of addressing every point without so much as a sign of the aneurysm I would be having were I in your shoes. I must point out, however, you are falling for the oldest trap on the internet - arguing with people on the internet.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Howard
What the hell is going on in here?

A clusterfuck of near epic proportions.

 

[imported_six]

Thanks for the laugh. Still LOL. Science FTW!!! This thread takes me back to my science olympiad year in the early 90s.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

you are asking separate questions under the guise of one question.

Planetary formation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation

As for Abiogenesis, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

you are asking separate questions under the guise of one question.

Planetary formation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation

As for Abiogenesis, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That doesn't explain how though. To say stars exploded and the big bang happened, why and how were there stars? How the universe began will be a mystery forever. the first particle ever, what caused that? Evolution is a logical explanation of how we got here. But it doesn't explain the very first second ever, there had to be a start to this all.

I'm waiting for some Rainman dude to explain this to me. Maybe like Kevin Spacey in K-Pax or something.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

you are asking separate questions under the guise of one question.

Planetary formation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation

As for Abiogenesis, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That doesn't explain how though. To say stars exploded and the big bang happened, why and how were there stars? How the universe began will be a mystery forever. the first particle ever, what caused that? Evolution is a logical explanation of how we got here. But it doesn't explain the very first second ever, there had to be a start to this all.

I'm waiting for some Rainman dude to explain this to me. Maybe like Kevin Spacey in K-Pax or something.

Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

fascinating stuff.

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution is just how life forms changed over the years due to natural selection.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Mwilding
]True, but its application becomes more valid as we add data and/or complexity to a system. In this case, instantaneous creation of a massive dynamic system at a level of complexity that far exceeds that which exists in just a single animal cell on a scale too large to imagine is not nearly as logical as a system that developed to that level of complexity over time.

No, the Razor is either right or wrong - it can't be more or less valid. This is because the assertion that the theory with fewer parameters is more appropriate is either right or wrong. As I've said, both of these theories predict all of our data equally well because they make identical claims about everything that's happened in the past 10,000 years.

Did I just read that right? Young Earth creationism and Evolutionary theory make identical claims about the last 10,000 years? Humans have existed in our current morphology for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND years. Is this some weird form of post-modernism?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
100% of me doesn't care and is 100% happy not caring about anyone else's beliefs.

You 100% DO care about people's beliefs. Or at least you did, when you stepped in the voting booth in November. And yes, I am telling you what you believe. Deal with it.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Mwilding
]True, but its application becomes more valid as we add data and/or complexity to a system. In this case, instantaneous creation of a massive dynamic system at a level of complexity that far exceeds that which exists in just a single animal cell on a scale too large to imagine is not nearly as logical as a system that developed to that level of complexity over time.

No, the Razor is either right or wrong - it can't be more or less valid. This is because the assertion that the theory with fewer parameters is more appropriate is either right or wrong. As I've said, both of these theories predict all of our data equally well because they make identical claims about everything that's happened in the past 10,000 years.

Did I just read that right? Young Earth creationism and Evolutionary theory make identical claims about the last 10,000 years? Humans have existed in our current morphology for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND years. Is this some weird form of post-modernism?

this is the crux of the criticism of Cyclodude.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Howard
What the hell is going on in here?

People who have never bothered to read a single paragraph of Evolutionary theory are attempting to tell us that a century's worth of scientific evidence has the same same factual value as a book of Jewish mythology through an elaborate barrage of non sequiturs and logical fallacies.

But then again, why read? Scientific fact is just a matter of opinion anyway, right?

 

[Bill Brasky]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Howard
What the hell is going on in here?

A clusterfuck of near epic proportions.

I lol'ed so hard! TY good sir.

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
People still don't understand that evolution says nothing about the origins of life...

I do think it is very frustrating this distinction isn't emphasized. Evolution describes how life diversified on Earth, not how it began in the first place. It amazes me creationist can't figure that out.

 

[SparkyJJO]

44% of people are idiots.

Not what the article said.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

Of course they can tell you how these things happen. They (we) have been telling the world for centuries how these things came about. Amazing, the conclusive discoveries that have been made. Truly Amazing!

You just won't listen. I don't know why; and I'm pretty sure I'll never know why. My only explanation is that you're fucking retarded.

but that's just a theory of mine. my evidence is your posts. Amazingly, this is as much evidence as any religion as yet attempted to posit for itself.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

Of course they can tell you how these things happen. They (we) have been telling the world for centuries how these things came about. Amazing, the conclusive discoveries that have been made. Truly Amazing!

You just won't listen. I don't know why; and I'm pretty sure I'll never know why. My only explanation is that you're fucking retarded.

but that's just a theory of mine. my evidence is your posts. Amazingly, this is as much evidence as any religion as yet attempted to posit for itself.

really? you can explain to me how it all started? not a theory at to what is believed to have happened. I'm a fucking retard for wondering WHY. A question nobody can answer, even the HOW question can't be answered with more than a theory. I wouldn't say I'm a retard for wondering about shit that's impossible to prove or even begin to figure out. Maybe it's the Newcastles in me talking but when I think about the universe and how it had to have existed forever. How the fuck do you figure that out? I don't believe there was a ever a start it's just always been there. I know what air is, but WHY? If you know all this you should really write a book, I've read a couple and they don't answer any of my questions. They just go over shit I learned in High School, just in far greater detail.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: meltdown75
100% of me doesn't care and is 100% happy not caring about anyone else's beliefs.

You 100% DO care about people's beliefs. Or at least you did, when you stepped in the voting booth in November. And yes, I am telling you what you believe. Deal with it.

i'm Canadian... i didn't take part in your election.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: meltdown75
100% of me doesn't care and is 100% happy not caring about anyone else's beliefs.

You 100% DO care about people's beliefs. Or at least you did, when you stepped in the voting booth in November. And yes, I am telling you what you believe. Deal with it.

i'm Canadian... i didn't take part in your election.

burninated.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: meltdown75
100% of me doesn't care and is 100% happy not caring about anyone else's beliefs.

You 100% DO care about people's beliefs. Or at least you did, when you stepped in the voting booth in November. And yes, I am telling you what you believe. Deal with it.

i'm Canadian... i didn't take part in your election.

MY condolences. Well, you cared whenever it is you had your Emperor pull a sword from a stone, or whatever it is you people do up there. When you say "beliefs", what you really mean is religious beliefs, because they get a special pass. You don't mean moral beliefs, you don't mean political beliefs, you don't mean historical beliefs.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: meltdown75
100% of me doesn't care and is 100% happy not caring about anyone else's beliefs.

You 100% DO care about people's beliefs. Or at least you did, when you stepped in the voting booth in November. And yes, I am telling you what you believe. Deal with it.

i'm Canadian... i didn't take part in your election.

MY condolences. Well, you cared whenever it is you people had your Emperor pull a sword from a stone, or whatever it is you people do up there.

i don't know what it is you're getting at or implying, but you're making me want to do some actual work right now. thank you for reminding me what an absolute waste of time it is trying to make sense of troll posts. :beer:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: GasX
cyclowizard, I salute you. You patience is quite impressive. I disagree with some of your points, but you are doing a bang up job of addressing every point without so much as a sign of the aneurysm I would be having were I in your shoes. I must point out, however, you are falling for the oldest trap on the internet - arguing with people on the internet.

Not much else to do while I'm running my simulations. Er, I mean, scratching my butt at home in my underwear. Hillbillies who are ignorant of science don't run simulations. My mistake.

I just do it because I always find it amusing that people feel so strongly one way or the other when there's literally no way to scientifically ascertain any difference between the two cases I presented: it's a purely philosophical question pending the advent of a time machine that would allow us to achieve data before whatever time I choose that time began.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Did I just read that right? Young Earth creationism and Evolutionary theory make identical claims about the last 10,000 years? Humans have existed in our current morphology for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND years. Is this some weird form of post-modernism?

No, you didn't read that right. I never mentioned anything about creationism. I simply stated that there is no way for us to discern between the following two theories:
1. The universe started in a big bang billions of years ago, and
2. The universe started x years ago with an initial state identical to that predicted by theory #1 for the appropriate time.
This is a mathematical certainty, since any solution evolving from time x with initial state equal to that predicted by theory 1 will match every prediction by theory 1 because they are governed by the same field equations.

This idea is used every day by engineers in solving a vast array of problems in process control, hereditary integrals, viscoelastic constitutive relations, and so on. I can simply demonstrate this concept. Compute the values for the following equations:
1. y=5*t, and
2. y=5*(t-t0)+25.
They are identical for all t>=t0 when t0=5. Obviously, this math requires a magic sky fairy to work. Right?

edit: 25 here would be the "initial state," for those of you who need someone to hold your hand through the scary equations!!1!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I was talking about an event which would exterminate the all species, which has demonstrably not occurred. What I was saying was that the only thing that could have prevented "something" from eventually being around to wonder whether or not it had a place in the universe was the end of all life on earth. Whatever that end result was, it would be connected to every species that came before it by a long and bendy genetic trail that would lead all the way back to the first life on earth. Sitting here, looking at that long line that stretches out behind us to the single-celled creatures in our past, it's hard not to be dumbfounded by how unlikely it is that it wasn't broken somewhere along. What you're forgetting is that the line is but a single branch among millions or more. This multitude of life is what makes our own unlikely situation easier to swallow without resorting to divine intervention as a solution. Each species is just as unlikely as the next, yet it's just as unlikely for ALL of them to be killed a once, which is what it would take to end the whole thing. You would expect quite a few species extinctions to occur in the course of things, but you wouldn't expect them all to go out just because it's hard to believe something should keep going for that long. What of the ones who make it then? Individually it's hard to believe that this or that specific species should be around, but life in some form was probably going to make it, so why not us?

You misunderstand what I mean by luck. I don't think of luck as a sort of mystic force that actively protects one from misfortune. Luck is something that can only be recognized in hindsight, and is simply the occurrence of advantageous events or the lack of particularly disadvantageous events over a period of time. Right now humanity is lucky because it is part of a minority made up of species that haven't died out yet. If we are to guess that there have been a trillion species alive on this planet, then being among the 1.5 million that are on the planet now makes us part of a statistical minority, and thus, lucky. We may not be so lucky tomorrow, but chances are there will at least be some other form of life to be lucky in our stead. That life won't be "chosen" any more than we are, however lucky it is and it's state of being lucky "right now" doesn't mean that it can't blink out an instant in the future.

Ah you are right, I did not understand your definition. That is an interesting explanation and approaches the issue from a different angle of analysis that I had not heard before. Though rather than narrow the idea of a unknown force or entity or people helping us here and there to survive and progress it leaves it even more probable. If we are to subscribe to a simple idea of X amount of species have died and we have risen up over that it makes it even more likely at some point in the millions of years some intervention taught us certain skills, truths, whatever you want to call it to push us into a direction of survival.

The idea of some unseen force teaching us just enough to give us a chance is just as credible as the belief that somehow against all odds, over millions of years we did not only survive but were the only species ever to actually truly progress, not just in one central area, but tribes that were thousands of miles away.

Your idea does not discount any of the ideas I have proposed, rather it compliments them. Though as I said, your analysis is somewhat refreshing in regards to what is a very stale and repetitive theory.

 

[alexruiz]

I'll post a quick reply. Amazing how a forum full of nerds has struggled to really get comfortable with the numbers and provide equations that prove this concept so clearly. Amazing also how the bunch of nerds are having trouble in really linking some scientific concepts

1) Math is science In fact, as described by Gauss himself "Math is the queen of sciences". Remember, a scientific law is a concept/explanation proven to behave exactly as described under the conditions set. This means formulas Math is in fact the most powerful tool in the arsenal of science to disprove the myths.

2) Cyclo, your example is wrong. You are just picking a pair of linear equations where one is displaced in the X axis, hence making the result match the first equation. It obviously will have the same values. To make a VALID comparison, you need to take the SAME equation and pick different points in time. Again, as you would say "use math properly" The model usage you are trying to use doesn;t apply to this situation.

3) Now cyclo, you are the mathematician, or so you say. You are right that having only only measure cannot reveal the initial state of the equation. You are wrong that it cannot be shown at all.
Here is your proof of the universe age, or at least that YOU really can measure the age of some things from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay
Unlike your example, where you have a pair of equations, hence making it invalid, you need to use only one equation. Geologists measure the amount of some isotope, measure it some point in time later, and then, because we already know the half life of such isotope, calculate the initial amount in the same equation N(t) = N0 * e^(-tau/t) Or, if you wanna do it properly, use the differential equation and solve it dN/dt = -tau/N Your assessment about carbon 14 not being useful is wrong, and you know it. Oh, I forgot, we don't want to know No, we want to know the value of "t" at N0.... simple, just rearrange the equation. Use the values of the 2 measures in time as the integration limits, and you are set.