|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 14, 2004 19:36:43 GMT -5
Okay I'm back, and well, Darwin was right. And I accidentally killed the first life form on Earth, and the effects are going to travel through the time line and destroy all life as we know it. So goodbye folks and have nice End of The World. Bye! BTW: Nightfalcawk stop making such big posts! But Phantom told me to!
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Mar 14, 2004 19:37:49 GMT -5
BTW: Nightfalcawk stop making such big posts! Yeah nightfalcawk, I asked for a little bigger. Not stupidly bigger. You always take things too far!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 14, 2004 19:39:08 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I moved this to Coleman Francis Mt. because, nightfalcawk's posts notwithstanding, it is more of a topical thread than a spam thread.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Wilbur on Mar 14, 2004 19:43:27 GMT -5
Wait- wouldn't we all have died the instant you stepped on ol' Limpy back there? Stupid space-time-continuum paradoxes. Makes...my...whadya call it...hurt. And seriously nightfalcawk. It's getting out of hand. For some reason the effects of my killing of Ol' Limpy are being slowed down by the Raul Julia Clones. There's just a whole lot of them, about 25,348,342,432,538 of them to be exact. Each one is sort of a buffer against the effects of space time changing. Just to answer your question. And to bring the spammyness to a close. We can't prove either theory because we don't know for sure what happened and we probably won't know until we have Timeships or something. Lets just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 14, 2004 19:50:21 GMT -5
Oh, I don't expect we'll conclusively prove anything. That's not my goal.
I just have a problem with a scientific theory that, for many people, is just presupposed as true without applying any scientific rigor to it.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Wilbur on Mar 14, 2004 19:51:45 GMT -5
Only if we had Time Machines, then we could prove it once and for all. But we won't have Time Machines until, probably the 26th century.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Mar 14, 2004 20:17:02 GMT -5
Oh, I don't expect we'll conclusively prove anything. That's not my goal. Oh yes it is! Your original post about this was to show that one scientific law contradicted the evolutionary theory. You were drawing a conclusion. Now your backpedaling to try and sound "open minded." I'm very disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 14, 2004 20:57:04 GMT -5
Oh yes it is! Your original post about this was to show that one scientific law contradicted the evolutionary theory. You were drawing a conclusion. Now your backpedaling to try and sound "open minded." I'm very disappointed. Because of new evidence he decided that they really don't contradict each other. The minds of people can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Mar 14, 2004 21:35:03 GMT -5
Because of new evidence he decided that they really don't contradict each other. The minds of people can be changed. I'm aware of the "new evidence" but I'm not aware of Mr sampo changing his view because of it. maybe I missed that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 15, 2004 1:28:40 GMT -5
I haven't seen any of this so-called "new evidence".
So far, no one has sufficiently answered my two main points. (The 2nd law and irreducible complexity)
And, phantom, in my original post, I asked why evolution is taught as fact. I fail to see how that implies a goal of conclusive agreement on an origin theory.
I brought up the contradiction to show that the theory is not flawless and we shouldn't presuppose it's truth without scientific analysis.
Most of us know I have religious convictions, but carefully re-read all of my posts on this. I have not once brought religion into the discussion (that has usually been you, phantom). I have not once said that evolution is conclusively untrue. Just that it is a theory with some unanswered questions.
I simply opened up the theory to a scientific and socratic inquiry. Your defensiveness and unfounded accusations that I'm doing more than that is more than a bit rude, and frankly it's getting tiresome. #nosmileys#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 15, 2004 1:43:37 GMT -5
You know what?
I like you phantom.
And Mr W.
And Nightfalcawk.
Oh, heck. I like all of you.
Like I like ice cream.
And since I'm the only one keeping this thing alive by being contradictory, I think I'm done. I think we're having too difficult a time understanding each other. No need to waste well-earned respect and rapport over this.
No, I'm not backtracking, and I still haven't had my questions answered. But it doesn't matter enough to keep going for me.
Back to the goofy fun of Gamera movies for me. I think he's the missing link.
|
|
|
Post by marytrobot on Mar 15, 2004 6:50:29 GMT -5
OK so here's what i think, and I don't care if you don't agree, if you're catholic and you think I'm gonna go to hell or whatever... First off I've found that there is far to much evidence for me to believe that there is no such thing as evolution. i believe the bible absolutly but sometimes you can't take everything literally. Sure maybe the world was made in 7 days (well 6 for the day of rest) but how do you know if the bible was refering to 7 days by people I recall there was a passage in the bible, "1000 years to us is a day to God" perhaps it was refering to time by God, and he himself used evolution. I think the reference to adam and eve where simply the first primates that understood there was a right from wrong and had morals, and the apple was when the went against these morals, doing so they no longer had a perfect world "eden". Saying so perhaps we all start out in Eden and after that first major sin, knowing it was wrong, everything changes for us, and sinning becomes even easier. Also one last thing, why would the bible not say what actually happend? You must understand that this was in the BC era, and explaining the concept of evolution saying that everyone was a small molecule and that their ancestors where once fish etc, would be too much for them to comprehend, and they probably wouldn't except it, so Moses and God made a story that made more sence to people.
|
|
|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 15, 2004 16:57:30 GMT -5
Oh, and I meant to mention this before when nightfal brought it up. The second law of thermodynamics absolutely applies on the molecular level. I can prove it in two words. Cells die. And adding energy to a system as a protection against entropy is a nice theory. Except it goes against the First Law of Thermodynamics. And that is, you can't add or take away energy from a system. The system wherein life exists has always had the sun, and yet the second law of thermodynamics has always applied. The sun "adds" nothing to the system on a temporal basis. Im not sure I completely understand what you just said Mr. Moranis, but the sun doesn't create energy. The sun harnesses the energy which was used to make it and sends it out across the universe until it dies. First law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, not added or subtracted. You can always take energy away from a system and put it someplace else. The laws apply for the universe and not just the earth. But Im probably just restating what you just said.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 15, 2004 17:18:18 GMT -5
Im not sure I completely understand what you just said Mr. Moranis, but the sun doesn't create energy. The sun harnesses the energy which was used to make it and sends it out across the universe until it dies. First law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, not added or subtracted. You can always take energy away from a system and put it someplace else. The laws apply for the universe and not just the earth. But Im probably just restating what you just said. Yeah. You are (I think). Sorry if my post was confusing. I was responding to Mr. W's post that said the sun's energy is what keeps entropy from occuring. My response- to use your (more correct) terms- was that the sun isn't "creating" any new energy that keeps entropy at bay. Of course, I'm not taking part in this discussion anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Mar 15, 2004 20:26:05 GMT -5
Firstly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The earth is an open system with a constant source of energy (the sun). The sun supplies the energy, but is itself running down in the process. Entropy will take over when the sun has run itself down (in a few billion years or so).
Secondly, the eye is not “irreducibly complex.” The human “camera” eye evolved over millions of years from a simple eyespot, and many of the transitional forms can still be seen in various creatures. Natural selection is not an all-or-nothing proposition -- it keeps the successes and eradicates the mistakes. Obviously, an organism that had even some vision would be better adapted than one who had none. In addition, it is not true that every part of the eye must function for a person to have vision -- even people with astigmatism, say, do have partial vision, which I’m sure they would prefer to having no vision at all.
A LOT of books have refuted creationist arguments, but I personally recommend Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things,” which has a chapter on creationism and effectively debunks 25 of the most popular arguments against evolution, both scientific and philosophical, including these two canards.
|
|