Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Vatican against Intelligent Design
12
Vatican against Intelligent Design
2005-11-08, 11:16 AM #41
Originally posted by Rob:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE.

Humans did not evolve from MONKEYS OR APES. WE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.

Apparently you missed the point....

The point was to demonstrate how creationism and evolution are compatible -- God took the first step and created stuff, then evolution carried it on from there. Still have the whole of evolution, and still have the whole of creationism.

The point was NOT to explain the timeline of evolution. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, I didn't bother researching to make sure every last detail was correct.
May the mass times acceleration be with you.
2005-11-08, 11:19 AM #42
Originally posted by Greenboy:
Evolution is crazy from the beggining. If there was a big bang, something was there to make the bang. Something had to be made from something which also had to be made from something. So, what came first is sort of impossible to find out truely. But all this physical stuff didnt just go BANG and appear. If it did, something that is NOT physical had to have created it. Simple logic, eh?


If someone created it, how did that person exist in the first place? Did he create himself? Logic problem.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2005-11-08, 11:43 AM #43
Originally posted by Greenboy:
Evolution is crazy from the beggining. If there was a big bang, something was there to make the bang. Something had to be made from something which also had to be made from something. So, what came first is sort of impossible to find out truely. But all this physical stuff didnt just go BANG and appear. If it did, something that is NOT physical had to have created it. Simple logic, eh?


Most importantly, Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Evolution.

But besides that, the emergence of the Big Bang theory is from the observation that galaxies, and the Universe in general, are moving away from eachother. So, if they're moving away from eachother now, then at some point in time, they were a lot closer together. Further back from that, they were even closer. Go right back and back, and everything in the Universe existed as a single zero-dimensional particle (and expanded from there).
It is important to remember that this doesn't just apply to space, but it applies to time as well. The words 'before' and 'after' rely on the concept of time, but time only exists within the Universe. The beginning of the Universe was, quite literally, the beginning of time. And the end of the Universe is just as literally the end of time. Trying to talk of anything 'before' the Universe is irrelevant, because there was no 'before' the Universe.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2005-11-08, 12:25 PM #44
Or
Quote:
The year is 2150. The circum-lunar particle accelerator, the greatest and most expensive scientific instrument ever created, is days from being switched on for the first time. The huge supercooled liquid helium tanks at each substation start pumping the coolant, bringing the electromagnet coils closer to their superconductive range. Seven equatorial fusion reactors ramp up to full capacity; ready to pump quintillions of joules into the accelerator. For the first test, something simple has been planned. Two protons, accelerated in opposite directions, will be slammed into each other. If all goes well, the energy involved in the collision will be enough to probe the smallest reaches of the universe – the Planck length.

The temperature of the coils is now well within operating temperature, and the output of the fusion reactors are dumped into several hundred house-sized capacitors (each one alone costing nearly a billion dollars). The protons are injected into the collider tube. After a few revolutions, they will have a velocity of 0.99999999999999 times the speed of light. Then the paths will be deflected ever so gently such that they hit each other in the vicinity of a bunch of detectors attached to the fastest supercomputer ever built – made from 2^16 modules, each module containing 2^16 processors, each processor having the computational capacity of an entire planet’s worth of human brains.

Zero-hour. The protons are approaching the collision chamber at the fastest velocity ever attained by any non-tachyonic particle ever. In an instant of time too small to measure, the event is over. The colliding particles have disappeared, sucked into the rift in space-time that they created. The singularity widens, propogating outwards at the speed of light. It overwhelms the chamber, then the detector suite, then the nearest substation, and soon the entire moon. The universe begins to fold around itself, bringing everything closer together. Superstrings collide and form a series of black holes winding throughout the entire extent of the universe. Gravitational waves traveling at several trillion times the speed of light warp and twist everything until all physical matter rips itself apart down to the level of quarks. The extensive dimensions are decoupled from the rolled-up dimensions; the strings that form the basis of everything contract to infinitely dense points.

Within hours, the universe has been completely destroyed. Space and time themselves have been sucked into a singularity, along with the remnants of everything that used to exist. But the singularity contains enough energy that the forces reunify; symmetry is regained. Suddenly, repulsion wins over attraction. Big Bang.

14.7 billion years later, the circum-lunar particle accelerator, the greatest and most expensive scientific instrument ever created, is days from being switched on for the first time…
Stuff
2005-11-08, 12:51 PM #45
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
Most importantly, Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Evolution.

Let's not forget that neither theory attemps to explain how the universe came to be in the first place. Rather, "who started the big bang" or whatever. Science leaves that as unknown instead of saying "oh...um, GOD did it! Yeah, that's it."
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-08, 1:01 PM #46
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Science works more like this: First some people tried to think of a way to explain the world. Every one accepted it. Then some other people else comes along and said, "The other guys were idiots. It's this way. Then people laughed, and some times, for political or religious reasons, abuse the poor guys who noticed that the previous guys were wrong.


Kind of reminds me of what happened to Darwin in a way.
>>untie shoes
2005-11-09, 4:45 AM #47
Originally posted by darthslaw:
Apparently you missed the point....

The point was to demonstrate how creationism and evolution are compatible -- God took the first step and created stuff, then evolution carried it on from there. Still have the whole of evolution, and still have the whole of creationism.

The point was NOT to explain the timeline of evolution. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, I didn't bother researching to make sure every last detail was correct.



Obviously you missed the point.

It was that you said something STUPID.
2005-11-09, 5:58 AM #48
Originally posted by Emon:
Let's not forget that neither theory attemps to explain how the universe came to be in the first place. Rather, "who started the big bang" or whatever. Science leaves that as unknown instead of saying "oh...um, GOD did it! Yeah, that's it."


Well, it's less of an 'unknown' and more of an irrelevancy. Science is the study of the Universe. Anything that isn't in the Universe isn't science.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2005-11-09, 9:05 AM #49
Could this thread have gotten any farther off topic? Barely anyone has talked about ID itself... the reason it shouldn't be taught in public schools is because it isn't falsifiable (i.e. can't be proven wrong), which is a requirement for something to be considered a scientific theory/hypothesis/etc. You will always be able to look at something in nature and say something like "yeah look those rings are proof that it was designed by some intelligent being" and I have no way to disprove that. So then the question becomes, why teach ID and not the flying spaghetti monster theory, A.K.A. pastafarianism? Why not my own theory I just made up right now about hamsters and tire irons?

I think the most laughable part about the whole ID movement is summed up in two sentences from a geology professor at my university who wrote in to the newspaper a few weeks ago: "Do the fundamentalist ID proponents really think everyone believes them when they say the 'higher intelligence' in their argument is not God but just some sort of intelligent designer? You're telling me they're spending millions of dollars and years and years so public schools can teach their kids the world was created by, oh, I don't know, aliens from another planet?"
2005-11-09, 10:33 AM #50
Originally posted by Bill:
Kind of reminds me of what happened to Darwin in a way.


Galileo and others had it way worse.
2005-11-09, 10:41 AM #51
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
Well, it's less of an 'unknown' and more of an irrelevancy. Science is the study of the Universe. Anything that isn't in the Universe isn't science.

How can you study something if you dont even know how it began? Also, your idea that the universe came from one particle doesnt mean anything. That single particle could not simply suddenly exist. To do so would be supernatural, something you seem to not beleive in.

o.0
2005-11-09, 11:42 AM #52
im not going to say that god did start everything, but i do have a question, a serious one, if anyone knows the answer please post something on it:
ok this pertains to the origion of life. ok say you have a pile of primordial sludge or what have you. this stuff has no life in it as of yet. in a hundred million years unless somehow it becomes "alive" your still going to have a pile of sludge its not going to change or evolve, it cant its a lifeless pile of sludge. how do you go from no life... to suddenly having even the most primitive spark of basic life. no life whatsoever... to suddenly... LIFE! is there a scientific explanation(sp) for this?
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2005-11-09, 11:46 AM #53
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
how do you go from no life... to suddenly having even the most primitive spark of basic life. no life whatsoever... to suddenly... LIFE! is there a scientific explanation(sp) for this?

Yes, although it's not exactly that simple. It wasn't *BAM* chemical reaction -> single celled organism. It probably took a LONG time.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-09, 11:57 AM #54
Your debates have stuck in to the 1800's! Woah.

Amazing that just the boring lot of the stories few thousand years ago have survived this far. Some people even calling them facts. Heh.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2005-11-09, 12:35 PM #55
Originally posted by Echoman:
If someone created it, how did that person exist in the first place? Did he create himself? Logic problem.


you cant aply logic to a nonsentient being who by its very nature is not bound by the rules of logic... besides either way you run into a logic problem, either "god" has always existed since before time into infinity, or the first molocule that started the big bang did, either way one of them has always existed, hence you run into a logic problem either way. feel free to dispute/correct what i just said.

Originally posted by Emon:
Yes, although it's not exactly that simple. It wasn't *BAM* chemical reaction -> single celled organism. It probably took a LONG time.


you still run into the problem of life from non-life, granted its going to take a long time to set op the right conditions for life to emerge, but there is still going to be an actual moment of *pop* non-life to life. on another note is there any info on what the conditions of the planet were during the begings of life and how fast those conditions may have changed? every thing i read in the article you refered me to (which was a very interesting read by the way, thanks for directing me to it.) required certain conditions for polimers or lipids to self replicate, if these conditions changed to quickly would it destroy what was going on or would it force, lets call it basic evolution in order to adapt to conditions, or did the conditions stay the same for long periods of time? ... :confused: sorry if that got confusing...
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2005-11-09, 12:53 PM #56
The problem here is really the definition of life. A virus is certainly far more complicated than the first self-replicating molecules, but it isn't usually considered "alive". It's more of a continuum, I think, between not alive (rocks), a bit alive (self-replicating molecules), somewhat alive (virii), and fully alive (everything that you would consider "life").

As far as the conditions that would allow for abiogenesis; they probably existed in one form or another for several tens of millions of years at least. And yes, it would force some type of primitive "evolution"; a molecule that might have been the "best bet" for life at one point might have been destroyed when the temperature or salinity of the water changed; which in turn allowed for another type of molecule that was more suited for that environment to take hold. I don't mean "take hold" as in the way that life does; just that if conditions are more favourable, certain chemical compounds will form more readily than others.

Here's something funny - scientists have produced self-replicating molecules in the laboratory, IIRC. Therefore, Intelligent Design (tm) has been proven to exist. :p
Stuff
2005-11-09, 12:54 PM #57
Capitalization is your friend.
2005-11-09, 1:56 PM #58
Originally posted by Jipe:
So then the question becomes, why teach ID and not the flying spaghetti monster theory, A.K.A. pastafarianism? Why not my own theory I just made up right now about hamsters and tire irons?


It's not so much that ID shouldn't be taught in schools, IMO, it's that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Kids need to know what is out there, which is why it should be included in relative depthi in every student's social studies cirriculum.

Moving on from Jipe's comments, there are a few problems. These compromises are not going to make everyone completely happy. Some people believe God created the earth in seven literal days, and then made Adam out of some dirt, and Eve out of his rib. Evolution is evil because it means we are just monkeys with pants (and DON'T freak out on my for saying monkey, it is AN EXPRESSION).

Others, like me, believe that God had himself a little lump of matter, his wife was probably out for the night and he decided to play chemist. Things got out of hand and next thing you know, BANG, Universe in his living room. His wife comes home and after a severe chewing out, she decides it might be a good learning experience (and babysitting service) for their kids. So, God sets up all this cool stuff. He bumps a particle here and there so that it just so happens that living things form. Eventually it gets to the point where he has critters running around, flying, swimming, and so on. So he takes one of his older sons and sticks him on one of the planets specially made for his kids. He realizes the dude is going to get lonely, so he puts one of his other kids (let's not get started on the incest shpiel) down and says 'you guys are equal, it's like I made her out of your side dude, she is like your rib, not your foot!'

See, I have come to a personal balance. Most people, don't care, they want it their way, and that is why Burger King will soon be the dominant franchise in fast foot. Except for Wendy's, which will be always omnipotent after McDonalds is overthrown.
2005-11-09, 4:09 PM #59
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Duh. It wasn't even serious. I can't belive you thought it was a serious argument. :rolleyes:

How am I wrong if I didn't even state an openion?



You went through a serious amount of effort just to produce that trivial bit of nonsense then. However, I don't think you were :rolleyes: :rolleyes: kidding :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

How are you wrong if you didn't even state an opinion?! That's lunacy! It would be impossible to be 'wrong' if you did state an opinion. You are wrong because your facts are wrong. In this case, your facts on how 'science works.'
2005-11-10, 7:51 AM #60
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/

So, so sad. Much sadder than the ending of Titanic in which Leo had to let go of the floating bit of wood. I feel like sending money overseas to help the needy children.

...

No words.

....

Don't these morons believe the bird flu can affect humans?

.....

I will now print off the words 'kansas education' on a sheet of paper and will have a **** on it.
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
enshu
2005-11-10, 7:56 AM #61
damned fools
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2005-11-10, 1:21 PM #62
man that is a depressing article...

Quote:
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.


and what the heck is this!!!

science doesnt need to and shouldn't have to include religious aspects, and inversly, religion by its very nature doesnt need to be explained by science... sheezz

i personally do think the bible should be used as part of the ciriculum(whoa how do you spell that?) in all schools, but in the historical literature context, not in science classes... and again inversly i think evolution needs to be taught as a constantly changing theory, instead of the current theories being the end all of everything. not all teachers teach it that way but quite a few do.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2005-11-11, 12:00 PM #63
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2005/11/11/111005-942x312-badreporter.gif
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
enshu
2005-11-11, 1:34 PM #64
Rob: How do you know humans and apes have seperate evolution chains and it wasn't that humans came from a group of apes that broke off onto their own evolutionary branch?
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2005-11-11, 4:48 PM #65
Originally posted by Tenshu:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/

So, so sad. Much sadder than the ending of Titanic in which Leo had to let go of the floating bit of wood. I feel like sending money overseas to help the needy children.


Well, it's Kansas.
But that is still a bit disturbing.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2005-11-11, 6:32 PM #66
CURSE YOU KANSAASSSSS

Are there any Kansan Massassians? I don't think there are!
2005-11-11, 6:52 PM #67
[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Rob: How do you know humans and apes have seperate evolution chains and it wasn't that humans came from a group of apes that broke off onto their own evolutionary branch?[/QUOTE]

Or versa vica.
2005-11-12, 10:43 AM #68
[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Rob: How do you know humans and apes have seperate evolution chains and it wasn't that humans came from a group of apes that broke off onto their own evolutionary branch?[/QUOTE]

That is actually the case (if by the second 'apes' you mean 'old world apes'.) The hominini and gorillini tribes split from the homininae subfamily. The gorillini became the gorillas we know today. The hominini diverged into the homo (4 million years ago??) and pan genus. We are of the homo genus, while "modern" chimpanzees and bonobos are of the pan genus.
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
enshu
12

↑ Up to the top!