Evolution vs Creationism

414 posts / 0 new

Hi Thom,

Thank you for your guest last night--Dr Piccione, the physicist who stated the impossibility of particles to creation. Look at the true, proven science. There has never been a case of any living or
non-living thing gaining more dna information. Sometimes dna info changes, s'times it decreases, it may skip a generation or more, but never increases or is added to... So
there is no way all of creation has evolved from dirt! or an amoeba! Now there
is empirical evidence for micro-evolution, that is, changes within a species. That
explains how there are 100's of very different species of dogs, for example; and how people
have so many different physical characteristics etc. but macro-evolution is a huge jump and there has never been any evidence to support this--and there never will. I am no scientist and may not be stating this as well as I could. I have done much independant research however, as a Christian home school mom. (Did you know there was such as thing as a true Christian liberal?) There is much information on creation science vs evolution online. I'd like to urge your viewers to research this further.

cola4's picture
cola4
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:34 am

Comments

If something cannot come from nothing then who created God?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote cola4:

there is no way all of creation has evolved from dirt! or an amoeba! Now there
is empirical evidence for micro-evolution, that is, changes within a species. That
explains how there are 100's of very different species of dogs, for example; and how people
have so many different physical characteristics etc. but macro-evolution is a huge jump and there has never been any evidence to support this--and there never will.

Macro evolution and micro evolution are not separate or distinct concepts. All Macro evolution is, is micro evolution plus time. And so evidence for one is evidence for the other. In fact genetic analysis proves we are related to bacteria just as much as it proves we are related to primates.

And by the way, evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life, just an explanation for the development of life and the diversity of it since its emergence. While plausible explanations for the origin of life exist that are consistent with the laws of physics (and without the need for a creator), the fossil record has yet to offer enough data to prove any of them.

And no hypothesis on the origin of life that I'm aware of proposes that life came from dirt. That would be silly and non-scientific.

Quote cola4:

I am no scientist and may not be stating this as well as I could. I have done much independant research however, as a Christian home school mom. (Did you know there was such as thing as a true Christian liberal?) There is much information on creation science vs evolution online. I'd like to urge your viewers to research this further.

Creation "science" is not science, at least not by the definition of the modern physical sciences. It is, rather, philosophy.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Did God 'marry' the mitochondria to the anaerobics?

the precursors of humans, and every oxygen breathing creature on Earth were taken over by aliens untold millions of years ago, when anaerobic life and the aerobic mitochondrial life 'married', resulting in all oxygen breathers on the planet.

Like remoras on remoras, both types of life thrived, living off each other, and on each other.

Many diverse life forms ensued.

LIfe is the pair-o-dice of what you perceive as God.

Shit happens.

Some of it is beautiful. Some is horror.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote cola4:

There has never been a case of any living or non-living thing gaining more dna information. Sometimes dna info changes, s'times it decreases, it may skip a generation or more, but never increases or is added to....

This is not a true statement. Naturally occuring polyploids can have two to six sets of duplicate chromosomes. It happens everyday.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/polyploidy-1552814

This can either reinforce or create desirable or undesirable traits as a species evolves.

You are partly correct in saying there has never been a non-living thing with DNA, but don't forget corpses and viruses.

Many people misunderstand that rock makes dirt, and holes in rock hold water, and human babies come out of the waters just like the single-celled organisms which became multicellular creatures did. I believe they were called amphibians.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

There is no scientific explanation for the kickstart that I have ever seen.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

There is no scientific explanation for the kickstart that I have ever seen.

There are plausible explanations; we know the whole thing had to be microscopic at the molecular level, and there isn't a fossil record available at that scale under current technology. We may figure out a way at some point to detect chemical reactions from ~4 billion years ago, but currently all we can do is analyze indentations in rocks (which only go down to the scale of microbial cellular life, not molecular structures which could crudely copy themselves).

It would be logically fallacious to assume there is a creator just because we don't have an exact record of the plausible and probable (given our make up) processes that could have occurred.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

There is no scientific explanation for the kickstart that I have ever seen.

There are plausible explanations; we know the whole thing had to be microscopic at the molecular level, and there isn't a fossil record available at that scale under current technology. We may figure out a way at some point to detect chemical reactions from ~4 billion years ago, but currently all we can do is analyze indentations in rocks (which only go down to the scale of microbial cellular life, not molecular structures which could crudely copy themselves).

It would be logically fallacious to assume there is a creator just because we don't have an exact record of the plausible and probable (given our make up) processes that could have occurred.

Right so if it can't be scientifically shown why is lightning striking sludge more likely than energy from GoD?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

The Christian story of creation is a bunch of superstitious hooey designed to give those who believe in it dominion over the Earth and a reason to believe they are chosen by God, and made in 'his' image.

Pretend whatever you want to, but don't expect free-thinking humans to accept it, base laws on it, or foul true education of American children with this claptrap nonsense.

Even though you've been doing it for years from your bully pulpits, and your bully pulp textbooks, the only true precedence to law is it's malleability, thank God, and we who do think freely will eventually hammer your ignorance back from our laws, and our politics, and our schools.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

There is no scientific explanation for the kickstart that I have ever seen.

There are plausible explanations; we know the whole thing had to be microscopic at the molecular level, and there isn't a fossil record available at that scale under current technology. We may figure out a way at some point to detect chemical reactions from ~4 billion years ago, but currently all we can do is analyze indentations in rocks (which only go down to the scale of microbial cellular life, not molecular structures which could crudely copy themselves).

It would be logically fallacious to assume there is a creator just because we don't have an exact record of the plausible and probable (given our make up) processes that could have occurred.

Right so if it can't be scientifically shown why is lightning striking sludge more likely than energy from GoD?

That's a fair question, but with some misnomers. It deserves an answer, but be warned it's a long answer. I hope you read the whole thing.

To begin, the origin of life can be "scientifically shown," it just can't be scientifically proven due to lack of evidence (the reason for which I explained above). Also "lightning striking sludge" is an emotionally-potent over-simplification. I will fully explain the plausibility and debunk the "mathematically impossible" creationist lie here. But first let me say, that if you dismiss "lightning striking sludge" because of lack of evidence, then you must also dismiss "God did it" due to the same lack of evidence. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking your logic to fit preconceived ideas.

But, is "lightning striking sludge" more likely than "God did it?" Yes. Because all we know about physics, quantum physics, and chemistry can fully explain the formation of life on Earth (and the likely probability of life on many other planets in the Universe as well). Much of science is about predictions. Evolution itself was merely a prediction in the beginning, and all the evidence found in the more than 100 years of evolutionary science has confirmed all of Darwin's predictions and beyond. That is because they weren't just cool ideas, there were educated predictions based on observations.

Now, before I get into why a natural cause of life is plausible and probable, let me debunk the claims made by many creationists today (including Dr Piccione, mentioned in the OP). They say that the probability of DNA randomly forming is something like 10 to some astronomically high power; essentially impossible. Well, that's true, but it's based on the lie (straw man) that anyone has ever suggested that DNA formed at random. It didn't, and indeed couldn't have for those very reasons. Rather, less complicated carbon based molecules, subject to random mutation and *natural selection* eventually formed DNA over millions of years of trial and error, and since planets do cross pollinate each other, life may not have originated on Earth itself (another reason evidence might be lacking). Life could have began on Mars, and a meteor impact there could have launched a meteor with microbial life on it to Earth. But now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Life as we know it is mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Three of the most common elements in the Universe. Carbon is really special. It's properties are such that it has 6 slots available to connect to other elements and this makes it a very versatile element in building complex molecular structures, and indeed it does so spontaneously (silicone is the only other element with similar properties, but is much less common in the Universe). Organic material is everywhere in the Universe (organic just means "molecules with carbon"). Inspect any dust cloud or meteor floating around in space and there is likely organic material in it. Keep in mind, I don't mean organic material from life, I just mean molecules formed from carbon bouncing around with other elements. You know how H2O (water) can form beautiful and unique structures when frozen in the right conditions (i.e., snow flakes and the like)? Carbon atoms make that look like a kindergartener's drawing. So, carbon structures are not entirely random, carbon has properties that make it prone to forming complex structures when interacting with other elements.

Now, at some point, whether on Earth or some other planet within reachable distance from Earth, all the right conditions existed that aided in forming new and unique carbon structures -- not entirely random, except the conditions. Lightening, for example, is one force that can cause carbon molecules to separate and and restructure. Given those conditions, at some point a relatively simple structure came along that could produce copies of itself (I say simple because it wouldn't be what we consider "life"). Maybe it made copies by triggering chemical reactions, maybe it made copies by its shape (when the base elements of it pass through they assemble into the same shape, for example), maybe there was a third party structure that make copies of it, etc. Whatever the mechanism, as soon as you have some simple shape that can make copies of itself, the mechanism of evolution can take over. No matter how simple that shape is, if it can copy itself (or there is a simbiotic shape than can make copies of it), given enough time and random mutation, natural selection can cause it to become more and more complex and even branch off into different lines of complexity (i.e. the species). This is verified in software as well, under much less complicated forces than exist in nature. Nano technology has also proven that a simple shape that can make copies of itself will evolve.

And that is why a natural cause of life is more likely than "God did it." Because in the natural hypothesis, all the components and forces that make it possible are empirically proven to exist and behave as the hypothesis predicts whereas in the "God did it" hypothesis you first have the problem of proving God exists (and then proving how God came to exist and so on).

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My goodness-have we run out of topics to have to fall back on this one!

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Here in TN, they have also taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-... with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

dregstudios's picture
dregstudios
Joined:
Jun. 3, 2011 4:59 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

I would like to point out that the two views aren't mutually exclusive I belive that God designed and kickstarted the evolutionary process.

"Believing" is fine, but it's not science. And the guest in question was trying to (con)fuse science with philosophy and pass if off as science.

There is no scientific explanation for the kickstart that I have ever seen.

There are plausible explanations; we know the whole thing had to be microscopic at the molecular level, and there isn't a fossil record available at that scale under current technology. We may figure out a way at some point to detect chemical reactions from ~4 billion years ago, but currently all we can do is analyze indentations in rocks (which only go down to the scale of microbial cellular life, not molecular structures which could crudely copy themselves).

It would be logically fallacious to assume there is a creator just because we don't have an exact record of the plausible and probable (given our make up) processes that could have occurred.

Right so if it can't be scientifically shown why is lightning striking sludge more likely than energy from GoD?

That's a fair question, but with some misnomers. It deserves an answer, but be warned it's a long answer. I hope you read the whole thing.

To begin, the origin of life can be "scientifically shown," it just can't be scientifically proven due to lack of evidence (the reason for which I explained above). Also "lightning striking sludge" is an emotionally-potent over-simplification. I will fully explain the plausibility and debunk the "mathematically impossible" creationist lie here. But first let me say, that if you dismiss "lightning striking sludge" because of lack of evidence, then you must also dismiss "God did it" due to the same lack of evidence. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking your logic to fit preconceived ideas.

But, is "lightning striking sludge" more likely than "God did it?" Yes. Because all we know about physics, quantum physics, and chemistry can fully explain the formation of life on Earth (and the likely probability of life on many other planets in the Universe as well). Much of science is about predictions. Evolution itself was merely a prediction in the beginning, and all the evidence found in the more than 100 years of evolutionary science has confirmed all of Darwin's predictions and beyond. That is because they weren't just cool ideas, there were educated predictions based on observations.

Now, before I get into why a natural cause of life is plausible and probable, let me debunk the claims made by many creationists today (including Dr Piccione, mentioned in the OP). They say that the probability of DNA randomly forming is something like 10 to some astronomically high power; essentially impossible. Well, that's true, but it's based on the lie (straw man) that anyone has ever suggested that DNA formed at random. It didn't, and indeed couldn't have for those very reasons. Rather, less complicated carbon based molecules, subject to random mutation and *natural selection* eventually formed DNA over millions of years of trial and error, and since planets do cross pollinate each other, life may not have originated on Earth itself (another reason evidence might be lacking). Life could have began on Mars, and a meteor impact there could have launched a meteor with microbial life on it to Earth. But now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Life as we know it is mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Three of the most common elements in the Universe. Carbon is really special. It's properties are such that it has 6 slots available to connect to other elements and this makes it a very versatile element in building complex molecular structures, and indeed it does so spontaneously (silicone is the only other element with similar properties, but is much less common in the Universe). Organic material is everywhere in the Universe (organic just means "molecules with carbon"). Inspect any dust cloud or meteor floating around in space and there is likely organic material in it. Keep in mind, I don't mean organic material from life, I just mean molecules formed from carbon bouncing around with other elements. You know how H2O (water) can form beautiful and unique structures when frozen in the right conditions (i.e., snow flakes and the like)? Carbon atoms make that look like a kindergartener's drawing. So, carbon structures are not entirely random, carbon has properties that make it prone to forming complex structures when interacting with other elements.

Now, at some point, whether on Earth or some other planet within reachable distance from Earth, all the right conditions existed that aided in forming new and unique carbon structures -- not entirely random, except the conditions. Lightening, for example, is one force that can cause carbon molecules to separate and and restructure. Given those conditions, at some point a relatively simple structure came along that could produce copies of itself (I say simple because it wouldn't be what we consider "life"). Maybe it made copies by triggering chemical reactions, maybe it made copies by its shape (when the base elements of it pass through they assemble into the same shape, for example), maybe there was a third party structure that make copies of it, etc. Whatever the mechanism, as soon as you have some simple shape that can make copies of itself, the mechanism of evolution can take over. No matter how simple that shape is, if it can copy itself (or there is a simbiotic shape than can make copies of it), given enough time and random mutation, natural selection can cause it to become more and more complex and even branch off into different lines of complexity (i.e. the species). This is verified in software as well, under much less complicated forces than exist in nature. Nano technology has also proven that a simple shape that can make copies of itself will evolve.

And that is why a natural cause of life is more likely than "God did it." Because in the natural hypothesis, all the components and forces that make it possible are empirically proven to exist and behave as the hypothesis predicts whereas in the "God did it" hypothesis you first have the problem of proving God exists (and then proving how God came to exist and so on).

Doesnt the end question come down to where the initial energy to trigger the domino effect of evolutioncable from and I don't know of any real data showing us the origin of the energy which comes back to how can you prove either or.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote DynoDon:

My goodness-have we run out of topics to have to fall back on this one!

Humans are capable of comprehending many topics. Furthermore, this one is hardly the bottom of the barrel. It's an important topic and one that's quite popular in the US. I suggest you just don't click on this one if you don't like it.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

Doesnt the end question come down to where the initial energy to trigger the domino effect of evolutioncable from and I don't know of any real data showing us the origin of the energy which comes back to how can you prove either or.

I'm not quite sure at what stage you're referring to. But all the energy necessary is explainable and accounted for back to the Big Bang.

And cutting edge science is discovering what that might have come from. Lawrence Krauss does a lot of work in this area which he explains in his latest book "A Universe from Nothing."

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote dregstudios:

Here in TN, they have also taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-... with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

It's against Federal law, and so can be challenged pretty easily. Check out Kitzmiller v. Dover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

Doesnt the end question come down to where the initial energy to trigger the domino effect of evolutioncable from and I don't know of any real data showing us the origin of the energy which comes back to how can you prove either or.

I'm not quite sure at what stage you're referring to. But all the energy necessary is explainable and accounted for back to the Big Bang.

And cutting edge science is discovering what that might have come from. Lawrence Krauss does a lot of work in this area which he explains in his latest book "A Universe from Nothing."

I guess it's two stages the energy thatcaused the big bang and the energy that first successfully combined amino-acids into proteins.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:
Quote Commonsense461:

Doesnt the end question come down to where the initial energy to trigger the domino effect of evolutioncable from and I don't know of any real data showing us the origin of the energy which comes back to how can you prove either or.

I'm not quite sure at what stage you're referring to. But all the energy necessary is explainable and accounted for back to the Big Bang.

And cutting edge science is discovering what that might have come from. Lawrence Krauss does a lot of work in this area which he explains in his latest book "A Universe from Nothing."

I guess it's two stages the energy thatcaused the big bang and the energy that first successfully combined amino-acids into proteins.

Well, the Big Bang is mostly a mystery at this point. But like I mentioned, Krauss has demonstrated that something can come from nothing. That is, when you inspect nothingness, particles pop into and out of existence spontaneously. As he says, "nothing is unstable."

The energy to create the mechanism of evolution and/or the original organic molecule comes from the energy that exists on a planet, which comes from its star, in our case the Sun. If you have to ask, perhaps my long post wasn't clear enough. Suffice to say that I way over-simplified it so it can fit into a message board forum. To really explain the whole thing takes more space and time than this medium permits (and requires a lot of requisite knowledge). But I'm happy to answer any questions. If the energy to create life didn't exist, then the energy to sustain it wouldn't exist. It's the Sun then, and it's the Sun now. The energy for the Sun (and all stars) comes from gravity.

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if we accept natural explanations of life from the Big Bang on, we don't don't know what caused the Big Bang and therefore a God must have done it. This is an appropriate question to pose, but it is still illogical to assume anything about it, especially that there is a God behind it. Every new scientific discovery that has come has given us a new and naturalistic explanation to existence. That's not to say that at some point we won't run into a creator, but everything so far is explainable without one and there's no reason to assume we will run into one and there's definitely no need to put that variable into the equation.

"God did it" is just way to say "I don't know so I give up and surrender to my fantasies rather than let the evidence lead me somewhere." If a God did do it, then the evidence will lead there and no one should fear or block science from the inquiry.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Jason, very good posts, and patience! Your last point hits the nail on the head as far as the risks or sadness of creationists. When man does not seek, the species is doomed or reduced to an inconsequential existance. Going back thousands of years man was pondering, developing and improving because it was possible. When all questions are answered what the hell is a purposeful life?

A beautiful tribute to the late Francis Crick in NYBooks.com by Oliver Sacks shows not only the possibilities of the human mind but also goals, purpose, and shear amazement of understanding the building blocks of life.

Dreggs, I posted your Mormon Underwear video on another thread. I didn't know you visited this board.You might take solace that KY is worse than TN when you see them believing in dinosaurs with saddles.

The late great polymath Martin Gardner wrote many books on physics and philosophy. A particularly relevant title, "Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?" is a worthy addition to any seeker's personal library.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why this tired beaten into the ground thread? Nothing more productive to talk about?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote douglaslee:

Jason, very good posts, and patience! Your last point hits the nail on the head as far as the risks or sadness of creationists. When man does not seek, the species is doomed or reduced to an inconsequential existance. Going back thousands of years man was pondering, developing and improving because it was possible. When all questions are answered what the hell is a purposeful life?

Thanks, and good to see you again (remember me?). Of course the other point, as mentioned earlier in this thread by someone else, even if we assume there is a God (or if science finds it), then there's still the question of "where did that being come from?" If one accepts that it came form nothing (or always existed, which is equivalent), then it's possible our own Universe came from nothing as well. In fact, there's either an infinite hierarchy of Gods, or we came from nothing. Not much in between on the possibility list.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I do indeed remember you Jason.The Higgs Bosun is exciting to me.

Then on another thread [I think anti's neoliberal] I was finding the evolution branches and dna chromosonal switch and it was just as fascinating. The normal primate 24 chromosomal pairs had a fusion of 2 making our 23 [except for republicans]. Suppose another two chromosomes conjoined, would that scew things up because it's not a prime number? Does the next evolutionary leap take a pair of conjoined chromosomes to give an improved 21 pair?

I'm a confirmed atheist so that whole line of quandry doesn't concern me. [it's also so much more efficient, and pleasurable]

Steven Jay Gould or another of most interesting physicists posed the question of what was before the big bang? Answer- nothing

A god question, what if god just created for the hell of it? Which is an ironic joke in itself depending on one's mental health.

If it is indeed possible to time travel theoretically, wouldn't there be an advanced level species from a future that solved the problem of light speed be visiting us now? Or did we so screw everything up that there is no human species after another century and that's why none have appeared. Or they do appear but only when it is a last chance.

Did you know that if you are traveling at the speed of light and held a mirror in front of you there would be no image? And of course a flashlight would produce no light either.

Chromosome #2 sounds like a good song title, no?

  1. Chromosome fusionwww.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm - Översätt den här sidanDemonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. ... its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where ... pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion.
  2. Human and Ape Chromosomeswww.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html - Översätt den här sidanYes, there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking. ... two chromosomes will line up perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of ... Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes - from Yunis, J. J., ... Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of ...
douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

chimp chromosome 2p and 2q are where the fusion occured. 2p or not 2p that is the Q or is it mind your Ps and Qs or you will become a yec, not to be confused with yech but both to be avoided

btw yec is young earth christianist

corollary l - disavow science of geology, earth is 5000 yrs

Free book download pdf this also .national academies press

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I disavow the scilence of geology too, since it's been designed to prevent you from knowing the true nature of hydrocarbons, that they are unlimited, abundant, ubiquitous, renewable resources that if used sanely, could provide nearly free energy to the world.

We need separation of science and the state as badly as we need separation of religion and the state.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I hadn't heard of the grand geologist's conspiracy, my bad.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Did you know that if you are traveling at the speed of light and held a mirror in front of you there would be no image? And of course a flashlight would produce no light either.

No, that's not how it works. In fact, no matter how fast you're going, light always moves away and toward you at the same speed. This is what bothered Einstein and what lead to his special theory of relativity. He's the one that figured out that time is relative. The faster you travel, the slower time moves for you, thus allowing the speed of light to be a constant.

There's also the problem that our current understanding of physics wouldn't allow mass, such as the matter we're made of, to travel at the speed of light. The closer you get to it, you need an exponentially higher amount of energy to get a little faster.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote anonymous green:

I disavow the scilence of geology too, since it's been designed to prevent you from knowing the true nature of hydrocarbons, that they are unlimited, abundant, ubiquitous, renewable resources that if used sanely, could provide nearly free energy to the world.

We need separation of science and the state as badly as we need separation of religion and the state.

If you're talking about the Abiotic Oil hypothesis, it's completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Sorry, there is no "free" energy except from the sun. Hydrocarbons are just a storage of energy, the actual energy must come from somewhere else. In nature, the Sun is the only game in town. And even if it weren't rubbish, we'd still have the problem of CO2 concentrations getting higher from burning hydrocarbons.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

If you're talking about the Abiotic Oil hypothesis, it's completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Sorry, there is no "free" energy except from the sun. Hydrocarbons are just a storage of energy, the actual energy must come from somewhere else. In nature, the Sun is the only game in town. And even if it weren't rubbish, we'd still have the problem of CO2 concentrations getting higher from burning hydrocarbons.

The truth about our solar system revolving around the sun was 'unsubstantiated rubbish' once also.

Hydrocarbons are created in our core. How would you explain methane seas in our solar system where no shrimp gumbo ever existed?

You've been hoodwinked by the hoods fixing energy prices, and the Ivory Towers of Scilence that work for them.

The methane burns itself as it exits the planet, why not burn some as it leaks?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

What thread is this again?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

You're right on the mass. I saw one explanation where the subject as it got closer and faster the mass just kept increasing and slowing because of it, relatively of course. Einstein also noted the effect of gravity on light. The sun outside of our atmoshere goes straight and consistant speed. The same sun rays or beams penetrating our atmoshpere are bent and slowed because of it. I loned my book explaining this [that I read a decade ago] to my nephew, so I'm only relating a foggy memory of the concepts I understood then. I suppose it would be fresher and clearer if I used it or discussed it more often. Funny how that works, string theory doesn't come up in my conversations very much either.

The mirror and the flashlight I remember talking to an aeronautics expert about and we agreed. Well the mirror was mine, the flashlight was his. That was also a long time ago. The professor of aeronautical engineering where I went was Neil Armstrong at the time, I thought that was cool. Our senator was John Glen.

Did you see the genetics that purport to explain evolution? They do explain to me. Purport in this is equal to alleged in the Aurora CO slayings.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote anonymous green:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

If you're talking about the Abiotic Oil hypothesis, it's completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Sorry, there is no "free" energy except from the sun. Hydrocarbons are just a storage of energy, the actual energy must come from somewhere else. In nature, the Sun is the only game in town. And even if it weren't rubbish, we'd still have the problem of CO2 concentrations getting higher from burning hydrocarbons.

The truth about our solar system revolving around the sun was 'unsubstantiated rubbish' once also.

Not true. It was based on observation and measurement, and it was those that couldn't accept empiricism that denied it. Science and the scientific method never denied such a thing.

Quote anonymous green:

Hydrocarbons are created in our core. How would you explain methane seas in our solar system where no shrimp gumbo ever existed?

Hydrocarbons, like methane, exist naturally and don't require life to form it (it's a very simple hydrocarbon). It is a molecule and as such doesn't just come out of nothing in endless supply. It requires the presence of carbon and hydrogen (thus making it a hydrocarbon). It is very abundant, to be sure, but to imply there is an endless supply because some mysterious generator that will replenish it as fast as we can burn it has no basis in observed and measured reality.

Quote anonymous green:

You've been hoodwinked by the hoods fixing energy prices, and the Ivory Towers of Scilence that work for them.

The methane burns itself as it exits the planet, why not burn some as it leaks?

My knowledge doesn't come from the oil industry, but abiotic theory of oil does. So who is being hoodwinked here?

Skepticism is healthy, but there must be something more than "feels right and fits my opinions" that you base your acceptance of reality on. Science and the scientific method are open processes that anybody can join and/or inspect the contents of for themselves. It has flaws to be sure, but it is the least flawed process of understanding and agreeing on reality humans have ever devised.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

What thread is this again?

Thanks for bumping it up for me, otherwise I might have missed it. ;)

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

You're right on the mass. I saw one explanation where the subject as it got closer and faster the mass just kept increasing and slowing because of it, relatively of course. Einstein also noted the effect of gravity on light. The sun outside of our atmoshere goes straight and consistant speed. The same sun rays or beams penetrating our atmoshpere are bent and slowed because of it. I loned my book explaining this [that I read a decade ago] to my nephew, so I'm only relating a foggy memory of the concepts I understood then. I suppose it would be fresher and clearer if I used it or discussed it more often. Funny how that works, string theory doesn't come up in my conversations very much either.

Gravity at this point can be thought of as the result of mass bending space and time (although gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces). And so, when light passes through that bending, it is subject to it as well. Einstein rose to fame because of an experiment that proved this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919).

The fact that gravity also bends time is proved by the fact that it must be accounted for in using GPS.

Quote douglaslee:

The mirror and the flashlight I remember talking to an aeronautics expert about and we agreed. Well the mirror was mine, the flashlight was his. That was also a long time ago. The professor of aeronautical engineering where I went was Neil Armstrong at the time, I thought that was cool. Our senator was John Glen.

Well, the aeronautics expert was wrong. Light will always move away from you at the same speed, a flashlight with sufficient power and working bulb will always emit light away from you a the same speed (or to you), and you'll always see yourself in the mirror. This was proven with the Michelson Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) in the 19th century and is how we (Einstein) eventually determined that time is relative.

Quote douglaslee:

Did you see the genetics that purport to explain evolution? They do explain to me. Purport in this is equal to alleged in the Aurora CO slayings.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you clarify?

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The basis for the mirror not producing an image is that image of objects in a state of being are only visible due to reflection of light. The object traveling at the speed of light cannot be slower than the light that reflects off of it thus no reflection in the mirror.

The genetics

Quote:

  1. Chromosome fusionwww.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm - Översätt den här sidanDemonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. ... its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where ... pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion.
  2. Human and Ape Chromosomeswww.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html - Översätt den här sidanYes, there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking. ... two chromosomes will line up perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of ...Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes - from Yunis, J. J., ...Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of ...

Thanks for the gravity reference. The time explanation I remember was based on a train experiment.

Another experiment anyone can do with light and motion is take an old pair of sunglasses without one lense. [The kind you save for when the weatherman says partly sunny]. Anyhow look out of the windows of a moving car and compare the images of the trees on the side of the road from the front and peripheral and see which one of the two is moving faster.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

The basis for the mirror not producing an image is that image of objects in a state of being are only visible due to reflection of light. The object traveling at the speed of light cannot be slower than the light that reflects off of it thus no reflection in the mirror.

I know that seems perfectly logical and it's hard to accept that it isn't true. Because Relativity is named Relativity, people think that Einstein demonstrated that everything is relative. He didn't, that was already the accepted scientific understanding. But there was a problem, light didn't appear to be (and time was assumed not to be). The speed of light, as demonstrated in the Michelson Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) was the same no matter how fast your point of reference was going. That means you'll never catch up to a photon, and you'll never beat it to the mirror. How is this possible? Well, Einstein -- who thought of the mirror example himself and also had a hard time with it -- proposed that time is also relative and the speed of light is where time and space meet. That is, even if you could get to the speed of light, which you can't, time itself would stop for you and wouldn't start back up until you slowed down -- you wouldn't notice the difference even though time on Earth might have passed 100 years. That makes travel into the future possible.

Quote douglaslee:

The genetics

Quote:

  1. Chromosome fusionwww.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm - Översätt den här sidanDemonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. ... its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where ... pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion.
  2. Human and Ape Chromosomeswww.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html - Översätt den här sidanYes, there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking. ... two chromosomes will line up perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of ...Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes - from Yunis, J. J., ...Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of ...

Yes, that is very interesting. It is the final proof of our common ancestor with chimps. It is interesting that less chromosomes seems to have resulted in higher intelligence and communication abilities. Another interesting point is Down Syndrome where an extra chromosome diminishes intelligence and communication (at least the way in which we measure such things).

Quote douglaslee:

Thanks for the gravity reference. The time explanation I remember was based on a train experiment.

Another experiment anyone can do with light and motion is take an old pair of sunglasses without one lense. [The kind you save for when the weatherman says partly sunny]. Anyhow look out of the windows of a moving car and compare the images of the trees on the side of the road from the front and peripheral and see which one of the two is moving faster.

Love the weatherman joke!

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

But what about the particles billions of light years apart that change simultaneously, if the other one changes?

Something is moving faster than light, or finding a short cut.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

But what about the particles billions of light years apart that change simultaneously, if the other one changes?

Something is moving faster than light, or finding a short cut.

I was watching a series on just that concept and thought to have bookmarked it. I've lost it for now but it was a great sequence of shows hosted by Morgan Freeman. In the meantime string theory, Brian Greene, Einstein

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thank you!

I'll watch it, but don't let God slip away through a wormhole before I get back here. You have Him against a wall, and He's got a lot to answer for.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Found it through the wormhole

@ 28:48 they discuss quantum non-locality, I think that's what you're refering to anonymous.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's especially funny that my post came after your last one, but appears first.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

But what about the particles billions of light years apart that change simultaneously, if the other one changes?

Something is moving faster than light, or finding a short cut.

Are you referring to quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)? It should be noted that one of the big challenges of science right now is to find a unified theory. That is, the laws of physics often fall apart at the quantum level. quantum mechanics has a different set of rules than regular physics. Anti-particles, for example, are currently thought to merely be particles moving in the other direction of time, i.e. backwards from our perspective. When we observe completely empty space, we see particles popping into and out of existence.

That doesn't change the rules of relativity, it ironically supports them. But the big problem is that the rules are different, and science has yet to reconcile physics with quantum physics. A working quantum theory of gravity will really help in this area, and that's why the Higgs Boson is so important -- it will prove the existence of a field that causes mass to happen.

But phenomena in quantum physics does not in any way imply that physics is wrong -- nearly a 100 years of observation, measurement, and experimentation have proven the Theory of Relativity reliable. We wouldn't have a space program without it, and we certainly wouldn't have GPS.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
Quote anonymous green:

But what about the particles billions of light years apart that change simultaneously, if the other one changes?

Something is moving faster than light, or finding a short cut.

I was watching a series on just that concept and thought to have bookmarked it. I've lost it for now but it was a great sequence of shows hosted by Morgan Freeman. In the meantime string theory, Brian Greene, Einstein

String theory is interesting but at this point is not based on any real observation, measurement, or experimentation. Instead of giving us any new insights or advancements in science it just keeps getting more and more complex to compensate for that fact that it's not giving us any new insights or advancements in science.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

[quote=anonymous green]

It's especially funny that my post came after your last one, but appears first.

It works! It's true!

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

They said the worm would turn!

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I love this stuff. Now to see there is an 'astro biology ambassador' explaining the goals of the Mars landing gives one sense of awe, and a sense of hope.

Which leads to the 24 to 23 chromosonal leap in evolution question I was pondering above. Is the advance due to less chromosone [though it's not less total, just a fusion of 2], or an odd number since primates below us are 24 an even number. Or is it necessary for the next leap to also pursue a prime number and make 19 the next likely leap in evolution, if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then.

In one of the clips on time travel a physicist said the advances necessary for time travel for us were akin to the advances necessary for an amoeba to achieve space travel. I would say that's long term, a longer term goal than most care to commit to.

The religious sector that thinks god created the universe from the beginning just for us on earth was given an equivalency by Mark Twain. The comparison was the Eiffel Tower, and the part of the Eiffel Tower that compares to us homosapien is the outer coating of paint on the little ball at the peak of the radio antaena. So of course the creators of the Tower built that massive structure over that period of time from the planning and foundation to the end for that coat of paint on that ball at the top, And that is the whole purpose of the Eiffel Tower, exclusively for that coat of paint on that ball Then he finshed with 'They might have, I don't know'. [mind you I think some might consider the paint chips that think so to be a bit arrogant]

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Silly argument ,perhaps both are correct,a divine dichotomy ,two seemingly contradictory truths occupying the same space !

Why do people always have to be right ,leave the mystery of the universe alone and enjoy the journey?

How do you know that the genetic stuff of life was not placed on this planet and there was some plan in place so both evolution and creation are one of the same !!

Namaste

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 4:53 am

God actually did create an Earth in 7 days, way far over on the other side of our Universe.

Simultaneously, according to string worm theory, a second Earth was created here, sort of a Bizarro World where everything goes wrong and nothing comes out right.

Life evolved here, like science says, accidentally.

On the Real Earth, billions of light years from here, it's still only the 8th day, and no one has to suffer the sexual mutilation known as circumcision.

Weird how this all works.

The evil God creates lives after him.

The Good, oft interred with it's bones.

Hey, that's almost Monkey Shakespeare! Maybe we are evolving, after all.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

The above post has nothing to do with creationism ,some creationist don't believe in the fallacies of old books such as the bible ,what I am saying here is you can think to death all this stuff but what good will that do !

The universe is living ,nothing is dead in the universe,we are part of creation ,part of life ,nothing is separate in the universe ,that is why two particles can change similtaneously but be separated by great distances.

The same stuff that was born in stars is now you,you are made up of star stuff.This energy can never die it just changes form,we get to create with this energy participants in a participatory universe ,creators of our own reality.This is not mumbo jumbo but science fact,does it matter the movement of evolution is always towards unity not separation ,infact that is what the word means ,I for one believe in the perfection of life and the sanctity of life,when you look in the mirror what do you see,I see the divine,when humans come from this understanding that life as prime value a new earth and a new species of human will emerge.

Are we not the creators of our own reality,did the people who droped the two atomic bombs not create hell on earth so then why can we not create heaven,on other planets in our universe I,am sure they live close to a state of perfection ,life is not put together haphazardlly you know there must have been a plan ,all you can do is trust the process and live in the now.

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 4:53 am
Quote humanitys team:

Are we not the creators of our own reality...

I think you just made that up.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system