And you put in so very little effort in coming up with support for such a bold statement that the theory of evolution isn't true.
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.
However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
You certainly put a lot of effort into arguing against something that so clearly isn't true.
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better
big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed
how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?
no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject
Thats really what the big bang is. All matter/energy concentrated in one point. The question is how much do you have to feed a black hole before it explodes? We know there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Once the galaxies themselves are eaten do we get an explosion? If the void of space is infinite could there be other universes on the same plane and new ones forming all the time? What would be the intensity of an explosion like that? What happens when those two expanding universes collide?
Since there seem to be people here with much more of a math backround than I have I would like to ask a question I've been wondering about.
We know that a stars collapse causes a black hole. How much gravity is needed to restrict the movement of light? Could an extremely massive star do it or only one that has acheived the density of a black hole?
I'm 90% sure that something must have the density and gravitional pull as great as a black hole to restrict the movement of light, but I'm not exactly sure.
You just need enough mass to make the escape velocity greater than the speed of light. The earth could be a black hole if you compressed it enough (like to tennis ball size IIRC).
But can an extremely large mass do it or just an extremely dense object. I guess my question is - Is there a point at which a star is so massive that it will not emit light?
Originally posted by: Yzzim
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
I've got the same question. Seems that it's OK for other people to say they believe it happened this way or that way, but there's no right or wrong and it hasn't been proven yet so they put faith in what they believe is true. However when someone else says they believe God created it, they suddenly get shot down?
Seems a little hypocritical to me.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Yep, ptolemy.
Every time we think we have the definitive answer to something, something comes in and screws it up. To me, quantum fluctuations are just TOO freaky. Like epicycles.
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better
big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed
how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?
no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject
Black holes evaporate at a rate proportional (inversely? I'm pretty sure it's not though) to their mass. IIRC, once the mass becomes high enough, the evaporation rate looks like an explosion, and again, IIRC, the singularity may actually explode.
Yes I know. I was just wondering if there was a point before the collapse where the mass of the object alone could restrict light or if that is the exact point it would collapse. Could we have dark stars as well as black holes even though the results would be similar.It's a tradeoff. You can have something extremely massive, thereby reducing the density requirement, but the thing is that very very massive things tend to collapse on themselves from the force, thereby forming an extremely dense object.
Originally posted by: MindStorm
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.
However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
You certainly put a lot of effort into arguing against something that so clearly isn't true.
And you put in so very little effort in coming up with support for such a bold statement that the theory of evolution isn't true.
Originally posted by: fredtam
Yes I know. I was just wondering if there was a point before the collapse where the mass of the object alone could restrict light or if that is the exact point it would collapse. Could we have dark stars as well as black holes even though the results would be similar.It's a tradeoff. You can have something extremely massive, thereby reducing the density requirement, but the thing is that very very massive things tend to collapse on themselves from the force, thereby forming an extremely dense object.
Originally posted by: fredtam
Yes I know. I was just wondering if there was a point before the collapse where the mass of the object alone could restrict light or if that is the exact point it would collapse. Could we have dark stars as well as black holes even though the results would be similar.It's a tradeoff. You can have something extremely massive, thereby reducing the density requirement, but the thing is that very very massive things tend to collapse on themselves from the force, thereby forming an extremely dense object.
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.
However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
You certainly put a lot of effort into arguing against something that so clearly isn't true.
Originally posted by: dtyn
Earth doesn't exist. My view is better than everyone else's. Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: dtyn
Earth doesn't exist. My view is better than everyone else's. Prove me wrong.
Then where did John Lithgow land? Hmmmm???
Answer me that one!!
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: Fausto
Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.
If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.
Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).
Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.
However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
You certainly put a lot of effort into arguing against something that so clearly isn't true.
And just what exactly is so clearly not true, oh bard of the basis of all belief?
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.
I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.
Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.
I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.
Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.
No, actually this is well predicted in Quantum mechanics... long before we even begin to discuss string theory. IIRC, solid state electronics somehow rely on this happening, although I've long since forgotten the exact mechanism.
here's a linkhere This stuff can actually make for some quite interesting reading!
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.
I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.
Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.
No, actually this is well predicted in Quantum mechanics... long before we even begin to discuss string theory. IIRC, solid state electronics somehow rely on this happening, although I've long since forgotten the exact mechanism.
here's a linkhere This stuff can actually make for some quite interesting reading!
But its still based on the uncertainty principle. Solid state might rely on it, and our understanding of it may work well enough, but that doesnt mean everything is perfectly right. You dont need relativity to calculate the trajectory of a cannonball.
If quantum mechanics as it stands is right, then it shouldnt clash so much with relativity. Out of the two theories, relativity is also quite hard to grasp, but when you really, really think about it, you can understand why it MUST be it is the way it is. Quantum mechanics you just have to accept, not because it makes sense, but because you just HAVE to. We understand HOW it works, but we dont understand WHY.
Im no physicist, but from my point of view, something is missing. I understand quantum mechanics probably more than the average man, well enough to know its something that bothers everyone. We may never know what, or for a long time, but something is up. Nothing else in nature is that screwed up, and I dont accept that just because its dealing with something we can barely observe that screwyness is allowed.
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.
Right?
God created the universe. How else can this be explained?