# ephys88 and other IM evolutionists, please explain the origin of the universe



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

my understanding of evolution is very limited.





please, if you have the time, enlighten us creationists as to how existence came about


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Evolution is irrelevant to the beginning of the universe.  You don't need an explanation of how the universe started to see all the incredible amount of proof of evolution.

Now, could you explain how god created the universe?  

You demand so much evidence, yet completely dismiss that you have zero of your own.

I think the universe was created by a spaghetti monster who loves pirates.  Prove me wrong.  I even have gospels written by man detailing exactly how he did it.  I challenge you to prove me wrong.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

You should read a junior high biology book.  Or an anthropology, zoology, paleontology, archaeology, or geology book.

You see, every area of the biological sciences on every civilized nation all agree that evolution is the unifying theory for all of them.  

Do you not believe in atomic or germ theory either?  Do you know that it's never been proven that matter is made up of atoms?  That viruses and bacteria have never been proven to actually exist?

You should start a thread challenging the periodic table of elements or the existence of bacteria.

Lmao at creationists!


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Evolution is irrelevant to the beginning of the universe.  You don't need an explanation of how the universe started to see all the incredible amount of proof of evolution.
> 
> Now, could you explain how god created the universe?
> 
> ...




that was disappointing... but not unanticipated ..

I was however, hoping for something less juvenile.. as i was sincere in making this thread.

though this thread is about evolution and what you evolutionists believe regarding the creation of the universe.. i suppose ill answer your question. We christians are aware, and readily and shamelessly admit that we have absolutely zero evidence that everything was created by god (though for some reason.. you have a hard time remembering this).

we operate on faith, which is of course, belief despite the absence of evidence. We believe that just because we cant sense god with our natural human senses, doesnt mean he isnt there (he is supposed to be supernatural isnt he?)




i wasnt asking you to prove me wrong.. i was asking for your perspective, but alright


----------



## chucky1 (Nov 24, 2012)

I believe in the spaghetti monster theory


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Faith is a license that religious people give each other to believe stupid shit.

Ill repeat, if you want answers, a mere study of any of the biological sciences will do much better than any of us.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

chucky1 said:


> I believe in the spaghetti monster theory



Chucky and I have faith in the correct god.

In our heaven, we get a stripper factory and a beer volcano.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You should read a junior high biology book.  Or an anthropology, zoology, paleontology, archaeology, or geology book.
> 
> You see, every area of the biological sciences on every civilized nation all agree that evolution is the unifying theory for all of them.
> 
> ...




are you going to explain your belief regarding the origin of the universe or not..? and i have read all of the texts you mentioned, except for zoology. 

please explain your points.. ambiguity isnt helping at all


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Faith is a license that religious people give each other to believe stupid shit.
> 
> Ill repeat, if you want answers, *a mere study of any of the biological sciences will do much better than any of us.*




possibly.. but i wanted your perspective, as you are almost always the first to sling the mud 

i figured u would be well-versed in this subject and would basically have the answers to my questions memorized..


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> are you going to explain your belief regarding the origin of the universe or not..? and i have read all of the texts you mentioned, except for zoology.
> 
> please explain your points.. ambiguity isnt helping at all



I don't have a clue how it started.  Honestly, it's irrelevant because ill never know.
I do know that life on earth evolved though.  It's not even debatable among scientists, just a few crazy creationists in America and not really in any other nation.

I'm fine admitting that I don't know, I don't need to convince myself of something crazy.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

There is a book by Bill Bryson which, to me, is the best layman's guide to understanding so much of the science behind evolution and the universe. Bill Bryson is an author, not a physicist, paleontologist or archaeologist...just a man who set out to learn and understand and then explain what he learned in a way that most others can understand.
As a physicist myself I avoid "conversations" with "creationists" or anyone else whose scientific beliefs are based in or trumped by their religions beliefs or upbringing as the "conversations" are more or less arguments and pointless. I did not become a physicist in order to try and change anyone else's mind.
I have respect for the beliefs and points of view of others even if I don't share those beliefs.

If you're truly serious about wanting to understand evolution this book is a great place to start.
The book, in it's entirety is available in pdf form here: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

It's just under 300 pages and is worth the read...by anyone, layman and scientist alike.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Nov 24, 2012)

no one knows
why argue


----------



## Vibrant (Nov 24, 2012)

chucky1 said:


> I believe in the spaghetti monster theory





exphys88 said:


> Chucky and I have faith in the correct god.
> 
> In our heaven, we get a stripper factory and a beer volcano.



How DARE YOU mock the being known as the spaghetti monster???


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> possibly.. but i wanted your perspective, as you are almost always the first to sling the mud
> 
> i figured u would be well-versed in this subject and would basically have the answers to my questions memorized..



Evolution is my area if expertise, not astronomy, sorry.

I do know that I trust the conclusions of the most educated astronomers and physicists rather than men from 2000 years ago who were pretty stupid about the world and universe.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't have a clue how it started.  Honestly, it's irrelevant because ill never know.
> I do know that life on earth evolved though.  It's not even debatable among scientists, just a few crazy creationists in America and not really in any other nation.
> 
> I'm fine admitting that I don't know, I don't need to convince myself of something crazy.




i agree that life evolved as well.. however im willing to bet that the degrees to which we believe that life evolved differ greatly.


do you believe that all life evolved from a single-celled organism? or some sort of organic slime-type substance?

these are sincere questions, im not attempting to insult your beliefs or act petty, though you seem to be wanting to take things in that direction


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

KILLEROFSAINTS said:


> no one knows
> why argue



precisely.

however, the evolutionists among us seem more than willing to mock creationist beliefs regarding the origin of the universe whereas exphys just admitted that he himself has no idea regarding the subject.

which would seem to make my belief as valid as his, yet he is willing to insult mine


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i agree that life evolved as well.. however im willing to bet that the degrees to which we believe that life evolved differ greatly.
> 
> 
> do you believe that all life evolved from a single-celled organism? or some sort of organic slime-type substance?
> ...



I apologize for my tone, but your reputation warranted that type of response, as I assumed you were trying to argue.  I can have a regular conversation.

They're not beliefs btw.

Organic material must've come before a single cell organism.  But, the beauty of science is that the more we learn, the more we exact the explanation of what happened.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> precisely.
> 
> however, the evolutionists among us seem more than willing to mock creationist beliefs regarding the origin of the universe whereas exphys just admitted that he himself has no idea regarding the subject.
> 
> which would seem to make my belief as valid as his, yet he is willing to insult mine



Wrong!  We do know that evolution is real, just like we know material is made up of atoms and viruses and bacteria cause disease.  Don't get caught up on the wording of theory.

There is a huge difference between a belief and a scientific theory that has withstood scrutiny for over 150 years.

Creationism, especially the young earth creationists that think the earth is 6000 years old and an entire race was bred by 2 humans is just FUCKING STUPID and warrants ridicule.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Nov 24, 2012)

i guess i beleive in evolution aided by something

so many things in my life are tiny miracles...i could have been dead a hundred different ways by now...i could call a ditch with a newspaper for a blanket home like i used to
i have no idea why some people rise up and others never can or do but i am so grateful for my blessings...i never thought i would belong anywhere


end scene


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I apologize for my tone, but your reputation warranted that type of response, as I assumed you were trying to argue.  I can have a regular conversation.
> 
> They're not beliefs btw.
> 
> Organic material must've come before a single cell organism.  But, the beauty of science is that the more we learn, the more we exact the explanation of what happened.




i have an evolutionist friend who believes that existence originated from a "superior being".. he just refuses to call it "god".. lol, has to be some other being other than the christian deity. 

so did all life eventually evolve from the same organic substance? if this is the case, then why is there so much different shit? 

also, did plants evolve? if so, from what?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Wrong!  We do know that evolution is real, just like we know material is made up of atoms and viruses and bacteria cause disease.  Don't get caught up on the wording of theory.
> 
> There is a huge difference between a belief and a scientific theory that has withstood scrutiny for over 150 years.
> 
> Creationism, especially the young earth creationists that think the earth is 6000 years old and* an entire race was bred by 2 humans* is just FUCKING STUPID and warrants ridicule.




christians don't actually belief that.. it seems as though non-christians like to create an enormous strawman of the bible


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i have an evolutionist friend who believes that existence originated from a "superior being".. he just refuses to call it "god".. lol, has to be some other being other than the christian deity.
> 
> so did all life eventually evolve from the same organic substance? if this is the case, then why is there so much different shit?
> 
> also, did plants evolve? if so, from what?



Yes, it all originated from the same cell, including plants.  You'd be surprised how big of a percentage of our DNA is exactly the same as a plants.

Different shit is due to a lot if factors, some if which we have not discovered and some that we know like natural selection.  And billions of years.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> christians don't actually belief that.. it seems as though non-christians like to create an enormous strawman of the bible



Are you sure?  Every single creationist ive talked to believe that.  The leaders of the creationist movement believe that.  The creationism museum in Kentucky actually has dinosaurs w saddles on them lol.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana:

*Human DNA similarities to chimps and bananas, what does it mean?*


  When I was a child I remember hearing humans came from monkeys.  I asked  myself, "Then why are monkeys still around?" A valid question.  The  problem with the initial statement though is that we did not come from  monkeys, but rather we share a common ancestor.  When it comes to common  ancestors and evolution, genetic sequencing has provided a great  understanding.

I'm sure you've heard it before; humans and chimpanzees are about 98.8%  similar.  What does that really mean though? This number refers to  comparing single nucleotide changes in the DNA, or changes in the  sequence of the A,C,G,T code.



Comparing genetic duplications in genes, the number lowers to 96%.  What's a duplication? As Even Eichler of University of Washington says,  if we consider the genetic code as a book, entire pages will be  repeated in one species but not the other.  So conservatively, we are  96% alike with out closest cousin.  Here's some other common animals and  our genetic similarites (these numbers are consistent across all  reliable sources):

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%




 Interesting to look at.  What I find most fascinating is the 50% match  to bananas! Animal and plant life share so much ancient DNA coding from  way back when plant and animal life diverged approximately 1.5 billion years ago. 

The sequencing technology allowing for genetic comparison has been huge  for anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.  Anthropologists have  used comparisons of genes between humans and our closest cousins to  better understand when and how genetic variations occurred.  Evolution  was already well established before this technology existed with fossil  records, embryology, comparisons of skeletal systems, study of vestigal  appendages, and finally the understanding of the driver of evolution:  natural selection.  Genetic sequencing confirmed our understanding of  species divergence and evolution, and also allowed scientists to better  understand and build the the fascinating "tree of life."

Originally posted *3/4/2011*: Posted by Michael Musso at: Gene Cuisine: Human DNA similarities to chimps and bananas, what does it mean?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Are you sure?  Every single creationist ive talked to believe that.  The leaders of the creationist movement believe that.  The creationism museum in Kentucky actually has dinosaurs w saddles on them lol.





the bible implies that god had created other people, or that other people existed on earth.. for example, god marked cain after he killed his brother, so that "no one" would kill him.. etc.

i doubt your assertions.. but if they are correct, the people you mentioned should read the bible, but also take much of it with a grain of salt as it is highly symbolic and material has been lost in translation


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

Paranoid Fitness said:


> We share 50% of our DNA with a banana:
> 
> *Human DNA similarities to chimps and bananas, what does it mean?*
> 
> ...





your post is not saying that we evolved from a banana, rather.. we were once the same substance, and some of that substance evolved into a banana, and some of that substance evolved into a human?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> the bible implies that god had created other people, or that other people existed on earth.. for example, god marked cain after he killed his brother, so that "no one" would kill him.. etc.
> 
> i doubt your assertions.. but if they are correct, the people you mentioned should read the bible, but also take much of it with a grain of salt as it is highly symbolic and material has been lost in translation



It's nice to think that but most Americans believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.  You are among a minority.

Do you believe that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> your post is not saying that we evolved from a banana, rather.. we were once the same substance, and some of that substance evolved into a banana, and some of that substance evolved into a human?



No, it's saying we share a common ancestor.
At some point, cells broke off into their different classifications: plants, mammals, Protozoa etc.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> your post is not saying that we evolved from a banana, rather.. we were once the same substance, and some of that substance evolved into a banana, and some of that substance evolved into a human?



Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I was not the original author of that article.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> No, it's saying we share a common ancestor.
> At some point, cells broke off into their different classifications: plants, mammals, Protozoa etc.



i thought evolutionists believed that humans did in fact, evolve from chimps? is this a new development.. like.. evolution of the theory of evolution?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's nice to think that but most Americans believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.  You are among a minority.
> 
> *Do you believe that humans lived alongside dinosaurs*?



i mean.. i guess.. havent put much thought into it, but i dont see why not


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

Humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from chimps.


*Where We Came From*




 



 *1. Did we evolve from monkeys?*



                  Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern                  apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a                  common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists                  believe this common ancestor existed                 
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the                  species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into                  gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.                  

 *Learn More* 
Human Evolution 
 



 *2. How did humans evolve?*



                  Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor                  we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there                  have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures.                  Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors.                  Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids                  known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of _Homo sapiens_.                   While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them                   is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans                   evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life                   on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How                   do organisms evolve?"                  





 *Learn More* 
Origins of Humankind 
 



 *3. Is culture the result of evolution?*



                  A society's culture consists of its accumulated learned  behavior.                  Human culture is based at least partly on social living  and language,                   although the ability of a species to invent and use  language and engage in                   complex social behaviors has a biological basis. Some  scientists hypothesize that                   language developed as a means of establishing lasting  social relationships. Even a                    form of communication as casual as gossip provides an  ingenious social tool: Suddenly,                     we become aware of crucial information that we never  would have known otherwise. We                     know who needs a favor; who's available; who's  already taken; and who's looking for someone --                     information that, from an evolutionary perspective,  can mean the difference between failure and success.                     So, it is certainly possible that evolutionary forces  have influenced the development of human capacities                     for social interaction and the development of  culture. While scientists tend to agree about the general role                      of evolution in culture, there is still great  disagreement about its specific contributions.                     





 *Learn More* 
Is Love in Our DNA? 
 



 *4.  How are modern humans and Neanderthals related?*



                  There is great debate about how we are related to Neanderthals,                  close hominid relatives who coexisted with our species from more than                  100,000 years ago to about 28,000 years ago. Some data suggest that                  when anatomically modern humans dispersed into areas beyond Africa,                  they did so in small bands, across many different regions. As they did so,                  according to this hypothesis, humans merged with and interbred with Neanderthals,                  meaning that there is a little Neanderthal in all modern Europeans.                 

                Scientific opinion based on other sets of data, however, suggests that the                  movement of anatomically modern humans out of Africa happened on a larger scale.                  These movements by the much more culturally and technologically advanced modern humans,                  the hypothesis states, would have been difficult for the Neanderthals to accommodate; the modern                  humans would have out-competed the Neanderthals for resources and driven them to extinction.                 





 *Learn More* 
Origins of Humankind 




 *5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?*



                     Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single                     common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch                     represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest                     of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent                     the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness                     of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one                     starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled                     organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common                     ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross                     countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of                     evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another --                     that all life is interconnected.                         





 *Learn More* 
Deep Time 




 *6. What happened in the Cambrian explosion?*



                 Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually                 diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end                 of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms                 began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges                 and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began,                 most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They                 emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These                 Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major                 groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear                 until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.                





 *Learn More* 
Deep Time 




 
From: Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i thought evolutionists believed that humans did in fact, evolve from chimps? is this a new development.. like.. evolution of the theory of evolution?



No, that statement is what creationists say that highlights their ignorance on the matter.
Chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and they're our closest species.

And, science is always evolving, that's the beauty, not a flaw.  Evolution may see changes in particular areas, but it will never go away.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i mean.. i guess.. havent put much thought into it, but i dont see why not



Omg are you serious?  
First, don't you think there would be some stories about the horrors if living alongside them?

Secondly, the geological record is a perfect match in terms of the timeline.  There has never been human fossils found alongside species of another time period that they did not live with.


----------



## troubador (Nov 24, 2012)

The origin of the universe was the big bang, before that is speculation. Not sure why you lumped evolution in with that.


----------



## OMEGAx (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I think the universe was created by a spaghetti monster who loves pirates.  Prove me wrong.  I even have gospels written by man detailing exactly how he did it.  I challenge you to prove me wrong.




Im scratching you off  my Rep list lol


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

OMEGAx said:


> Im scratching you off  my Rep list lol



http://www.venganza.org/


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> No, that statement is what creationists say that highlights their ignorance on the matter.
> Chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and they're our closest species.
> 
> And, science is always evolving, that's the beauty, not a flaw.  Evolution may see changes in particular areas, but it will never go away.



interesting


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

troubador said:


> The origin of the universe was the big bang, before that is speculation. Not sure why you lumped evolution in with that.




im not sure why either.. for some reason i thought the two were related.. as i said in my original post, my knowledge on the topic is very limited.


what exactly was the big bang?.. and what caused it?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

please fill in the holes if there are any-


so, it is unknown where the earth came from, but it did come from somewhere, and on earth, organic material appeared. This organic material then evolved into single-celled organisms which then differentiated into more complex organisms over billions of years. Then, roughly .5 billion years ago, an explosion of radiation occurred which caused the process of evolution to accelerate greatly, and the simple organisms evolved into plans, animals, and humans based on envioronmental conditions and natural selection over hundreds of millions of years.

i understand that this is likely a gross oversimplifcation, and for that i apologize... but how far off am i?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Sounds pretty accurate to me.  I'm unfamiliar w the radiation thing though.


----------



## troubador (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> im not sure why either.. for some reason i thought the two were related.. as i said in my original post, my knowledge on the topic is very limited.
> 
> 
> what exactly was the big bang?.. and what caused it?



We don't know. I mean everything that happened before the big bang occurred is speculation and that includes what caused it. The big bang theory starts a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Sounds pretty accurate to me.  I'm unfamiliar w the radiation thing though.




Cambrian explosion apparently


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> Cambrian explosion apparently



I've just never heard radiation was the cause, not refuting it, just saying I'm ignorant to it.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

troubador said:


> We don't know. I mean everything that happened before the big bang occurred is speculation and that includes what caused it. The big bang theory starts a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.




so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.

so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.
> 
> so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?



Yes, kinda like god came from nothing.  Or, maybe god was created from a super god, since everything has to have been created?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes, kinda like god came from nothing.  Or, maybe god was created from a super god, since everything has to have been created?




im not sure why it's only when christians believe that something came from nothing... that it's absurd


----------



## troubador (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.
> 
> so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?



No, the universe didn't exist before the big bang. It's the origin of the universe but we don't know the origin of the big bang. There are hypotheses though. 

No, the big bang theory does not posit that something came from nothing.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> im not sure why it's only when christians believe that something came from nothing... that it's absurd



I'm merely pointing out the flaw in arguing that because the earth is here, it had to have been created by god.  The argument by christians is that it's not possible, yet that's exactly what they suggest about god.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

Another point of view from Wired magazine:

[h=1]Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning[/h]                                                                                                                                                                        By Brandon Keim                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    02.19.08                                                                 


 

 
                                                                                                                      The Big Bang was big, but it wasn't the  beginning, Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok says.  He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of  expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there  will be many more.
_Cambridge University_ 


                                                                                            For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe  started with the Big Bang, an explosive event at the literal beginning  of time. Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that  model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously. 
   According to Turok, who teaches at Cambridge University,  the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle  of universal expansion and contraction. Turok theorizes that neither  time nor the universe has a beginning or end.  
   It's a strange idea, though Turok would say it's no stranger than the  standard explanation of the Big Bang: a singular point that defies our  laws of physics, where all equations go to infinity and "all the  properties we normally use to describe the universe and its contents  just fail." That inconsistency led Turok to see if the Big Bang could be  explained within the framework of string theory,  a controversial and so-far untested explanation of the universe as  existing in at least 10 dimensions and being formed from one-dimensional  building blocks called strings. Within a school of string theory known as m-theory,  Turok said, "the seventh extra dimension of space is the gap between  two parallel objects called branes. It's like the gap between two  parallel mirrors. We thought, What happens if these two mirrors collide?  Maybe that was the Big Bang."  
   Turok's proposition has drawn condemnation from string theory's many  critics and even opposition from the Catholic Church. But it's provoked  acclaim and wonder, too: He and Princeton University physicist Paul Steinhardt published Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang last year, and Turok -- also the founder of the South Africa-based African Institute for Mathematical Sciences -- won 2008's first annual TED Prize, awarded to the world's most innovative thinkers.  
   Turok spoke with Wired.com about the Big Bang, the intellectual benefits of cosmology and his bet with Stephen Hawking. 


*Wired:* In a nutshell, what are you proposing?  
*Neil Turok: *In our picture, there was a universe before  the Big Bang, very much like our universe today: a low density of  matter and some stuff called dark energy. If you postulate a universe  like this, but the dark energy within is actually unstable, then the  decay of this dark energy drives the two branes together. These two  branes clash and then, having filled with radiation, separate and expand  to form galaxies and stars.  
   Then the dark energy takes over again. It's the energy of attraction  between the two branes: It pulls them back together. You have bang  followed by bang followed by bang. You have no beginning of time. It's  always been there. 


*Wired: *But isn't there still a beginning? 
*Turok: *Imagine you have a room full of air, with all  these molecules banging around. The vast majority of time, these  molecules spread uniformly -- but once in a trillion trillion years,  they all end up in the corner of the room. If you look at the room and  run the clock forward, they'll eventually make themselves uniform: But  it would reverse, and you'd watch them flying into the corner. Then  they'd fly out again.  
   If this is right, it means that time runs forward for a while. Then  there's a random state without an arrow of time, then time runs  backwards, and then time runs forward again. That's the bigger picture:  We're still very far away from understanding it, but that would be my  bet. 
   But my main interest is the problem of the singularity. If we can't  understand what happened at the singularity we came out of, then we  don't seem to have any understanding of the laws of particle physics.  I'd be very happy just to understand the last singularity and leave the  other ones to future generations.  


*Wired: *How do you test this theory? 
*Turok: *If the universe sprung into existence and then  expanded exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through  space-time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the  inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes  doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could  see which theory is right. 
   Stephen Hawking bet me that we'll see the signal from inflation. I said  that we won't, and he can take it for any amount of money at even odds.  So far he hasn't named an amount. He's richer than me, so he's being  nice.  


*Wired: *You've said the standard explanation of the Big Bang is Rube Goldberg-ian, but this seems like quite the convoluted contraption, too.  
*Turok: *The structure of the sandwich was forced on  theorists by mathematicians: It's basically the only way you can make  the equations consistent and avoid infinity. The extent to which we  believe it derives from the mathematics. We're not smoking something and  making it up.  
   However, I feel that the main role for these scenarios of the early  universe is to stimulate our thinking. I don't necessarily believe any  of them. The most important thing is that the only intellectually honest  way to study such questions of cosmology is to make the most precise  model you can. I think of the whole thing as a giant intellectual  exercise, a stimulating exercise, to make us better appreciate the  universe.  


*Wired: *It's stirred a lot of emotion for an intellectual. When Alan Guth criticized you and your theory at a conference, he showed a picture of a monkey. Is this sort of vitriol normal?  
*Turok: *The monkey was maybe a bit exaggerated. But I'm  actually good friends with Guth, and I'm sure he did it as a joke. I  meet him regularly at conferences, and he's a reasonable guy. The field  is driven by reason. The inevitably human things that come into it don't  matter in the long run.  
   In the end, bad ideas will not survive. If you have a good, clean idea  that's elegant and precise and agrees with observations, it'll get  through. 


*Wired: *The Catholic Church hasn't been very receptive to your ideas, either. 
*Turok: *I think they like the Big Bang for obvious  reasons. It's a creation event, and they find that appealing. Whereas if  you talk to most physicists, they'd prefer that there was not a  creation event, because there are no laws of physics that indicate how  time could begin.  
   I'm not motivated by [theological considerations]. I'd be perfectly  happy with a mathematically precise description of how time began. I see  science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't  see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.   
   If the world is cyclical, in a sense you still need a policeman to  enforce the laws of physics. If you need a God to do that, fine -- but I  think that's a belief in why the world is the way it is. Science studies how the world operates, not why it's here. 


*Wired: *To many people, science is valuable because of  the metaphors it gives us -- a poetry of the natural world. Does your  work resonate that way with you?  
*Turok: *We need poetry as well as science, but it's  completely irrelevant to the science. That doesn't motivate me either. I  just feel incredibly lucky and honored to think about these problems  and try to make models that may or may not be relevant. It's a fantastic  privilege to ponder these questions -- even if we don't succeed, even  if all we do is appreciate how hard the problem is, it brings us  together. The world is an incredible miracle, and we have to do whatever  we can to appreciate it.  


*Wired: *Whatever you find, though, it's not going to have much everyday importance.  
*Turok: *No, but one of the extraordinary things about  the field is that whatever culture people come from, they all love this  stuff. The popularity Hawking has achieved is due in part to him being  an exceptional individual, but it's also because the questions and the  science are inherently fascinating.  
   It's been amazing to see students from all over Africa, from countries  that have been disaster areas for 30 years, come to the African  Institute for Mathematical Sciences and try to best Einstein.  
   The side effects are quite good, too. I teach math to hundreds of  students every year, and because the stuff we work on is high-powered  and rigorous, we add to the intellectual environment. Many of the  brightest students love to do this. It's like the Apollo moon program,  which had a huge spinoff in technology. So even though this kind of  science and thinking has no intrinsic economic value, it's hugely  motivating and quite cheap.  


*Wired: *With all your work with students from Africa, what do you think of James Watson's remarks on Africans evolving to possess less intelligence than other racial groups?  
*Turok: *I think he's nuts. My students are highly  motivated and have a very high success rate. If he really believes  they're inferior, he should just come to the institute. I guarantee that  if he spends an afternoon with these students, he'll revise his  opinion.


----------



## Curt James (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Now, could you explain how god created the universe?



Magic, of course. _Duh._


----------



## Curt James (Nov 24, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You should read a junior high biology book.  Or an anthropology, zoology, paleontology, archaeology, or geology book.



All tools of Satan!

Have you ever even _seen _a bible?


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 24, 2012)

[h=1]The Origin of the Universe[/h][h=2]The Big Bang[/h]From John P. Millis, Ph.D

In 1959 a survey was conducted of scientists across America  concerning their understanding of the physical sciences. One particular  question asked ?What is your concept of the age of the Universe?? More  than two thirds of the scientists polled responded that there was no  origin of the Universe. They believed that the Universe was eternal.

  Then five years later, in 1964, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and  Robert Wilson discovered a microwave signal buried in their data. They  attempted to filter out the signal, assuming that it was merely unwanted  noise. However, they soon realized what the signal actually was; they  had inadvertently discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background  (CMB). The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the  time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the  Universe had a beginning.
  [h=3]The Big Bang[/h]  Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask ?_how_ did it come into existence, and _what_ existed before it??
    Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the  question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity  -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws  of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe  that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.
  The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big  Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to  the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For  instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the  singularity to be created in the first place?
  Once the singularity was created (however it happened), it began to  expand through a process called inflation. The Universe went from very  small, very dense, and very hot to the cool expanse that we see today.  This theory is now referred to as the Big Bang, a term first coined by  Sir Fred Hoyle during a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) radio  broadcast in 1950.
  Interestingly, there really wasn?t any sort of explosion (or bang) as  the name suggests, but rather the rapid expansion of space and time. It  is like blowing up a balloon, as you blow air in, the exterior of the  balloon expands outward.
  [h=3]The Moments after the Big Bang[/h]  The early Universe was not bound by the laws of physics as we know  them today. Consequently, we cannot predict with great accuracy what the  Universe looked like during the first minutes of creation. In spite of  this, scientists have been able to construct an approximate  representation of how the Universe evolved.
  Scientists believe that the Universe was initially so hot and dense,  that even elementary particles like protons and neutrons could not  exist. Instead, different types of matter   (called matter and anti-matter) collided together, creating pure  energy. But as the Universe began to cool during the first few minutes,  protons and neutrons began to form. Then slowly over time these protons,  neutrons and electrons came together to form Hydrogen and small amounts  of Helium. During the billions of years that followed, stars, planets  and galaxies formed to create the Universe as we see it today.
  [h=3]Evidence for the Big Bang[/h]  The CMB signal detected by Penzias and Wilson, a discovery for which  they later won a Nobel Prize, is often described as the ?echo? of the  Big Bang. Because if the Universe had an origin, it would leave behind a  signature of the event, just like an echo heard in a canyon represents a  ?signature? of the original sound. The difference is that instead of an  audible echo, the Big Bang left behind a heat signature throughout all  of space.
  Another prediction of the Big Bang theory is that the Universe should  be receding from us. Specifically, any direction we look out into  space, we should see objects moving away from us with a velocity  proportional to their distance away from us, a phenomenon known as the  red shift.
Edwin Hubble, in 1929, was able to correlate the distance to objects in the universe with their velocities -- a relation known as Hubble's Law.  Big Bang theorists later used this information to approximate the age  of the Universe at about 15 billion years old, which is consistent with  other measurements of the age of the Universe.
  [h=3]Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory[/h]  While the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory about  the origins of the Universe, and is supported by all the observational  evidence, there are other models that explain the evidence equally well.
   Some of the other theories argue that the Big Bang theory is based on  a false premise -- that the Universe is built on an ever expanding  space-time. Some, instead, prefer to build theories on a static  Universe, which is what was originally predicted by Einstein?s theory of  general relativity. Einstein?s theory was only later modified to accommodate the way the Universe appears to be expanding.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 24, 2012)

I know the secret, but for me to tell you you'll need to drop a megadose of lsd to understand, then I will explain how the infinity symbol (the sleepy 8) fits in along with the yin/yang sign and how we are in the murky end of that pool and that there is a light on the other side of those devourer of stars, an ever present light, and the black stars feed the planets, and the dark matter is matter.  How in the end there can be only one and then the yin yang starts a reversal. That is why we are just an agave worm at the bottom of the great mezcal bottle that is this universe...selah!


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 24, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I know the secret, but for me to tell you you'll need to drop a megadose of lsd to understand, then I will explain how the infinity symbol (the sleepy 8) fits in along with the yin/yang sign and how we are in the murky end of that pool and that there is a light on the other side of those devourer of stars, an ever present light, and the black stars feed the planets, and the dark matter is matter.  How in the end there can be only one and then the yin yang starts a reversal. That is why we are just an agave worm at the bottom of the great mezcal bottle that is this universe...selah!



I get it!  But it took a mixture of acid and ecstasy.


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 25, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm merely pointing out the flaw in arguing that because the earth is here, it had to have been created by god.  The argument by christians is that it's not possible, yet that's exactly what they suggest about god.



I can understand primitive humans seeing aliens as a God. That would nearly draw the two theories together.


Sent from my jewPhone


----------



## Robalo (Nov 25, 2012)

What i don't understand is why is so difficult to understand that some of us, humans, need to believe in a god, a deity that  we can reach for peace of mind, that we can see as an answer for the inexplicable, the big bang, the evolution, life itself. Are we right? We may be or we might not be, who knows? 
Cristians, muslims, jews, indus, budists, whatever. All of us look for answers, some of us just find diferent answers for the same questions. I believe that this is called being Human. 

peace


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 25, 2012)

The issue is when religious arseholes start selling their beliefs as facts. 


Sent from my jewPhone


----------



## Watson (Nov 25, 2012)

I find it ironic how all people who believe in god think they will get into heaven.

I also think jesus would have liked the tranny pics we post on here.....they are gods special miracles also


----------



## Watson (Nov 25, 2012)

I want to join the church of no maam

NO MA'AM Church - YouTube


----------



## LAM (Nov 25, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> The issue is when religious arseholes start selling their beliefs as facts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my jewPhone



ideologues just don't get it.  just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so, that's not the way things work in reality.  facts are objective, not subjective.


----------



## LAM (Nov 25, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Evolution is irrelevant to the beginning of the universe.  You don't need an explanation of how the universe started to see all the incredible amount of proof of evolution.
> 
> Now, could you explain how god created the universe?
> 
> ...



a fellow pastafarian, love it!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg


----------



## LAM (Nov 25, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> christians don't actually belief that.. it seems as though non-christians like to create an enormous strawman of the bible



yes they do.  there are many that take the words in the bible literally such as the Catholics and other types of fundamentalists.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 25, 2012)

Robalo said:


> What i don't understand is why is so difficult to understand that some of us, humans, need to believe in a god, a deity that  we can reach for peace of mind, that we can see as an answer for the inexplicable, the big bang, the evolution, life itself. Are we right? We may be or we might not be, who knows?
> Cristians, muslims, jews, indus, budists, whatever. All of us look for answers, some of us just find diferent answers for the same questions. I believe that this is called being Human.
> 
> peace



That "need" to believe in something comes from a primitive understanding of the universe.  

No religion has ever found answers to the questions of the universe, they just made them up and then added a shit load of rules, many of which are pointless and allow them to control women and other religious people who made up their own retarded shit.


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 25, 2012)

The don't call religion the Opiate for the Masses for nothing. It's a system for controlling the population.


----------



## Robalo (Nov 25, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> That "need" to believe in something comes from a primitive understanding of the universe.
> 
> No religion has ever found answers to the questions of the universe, they just made them up and then added a shit load of rules, many of which are pointless and allow them to control women and other religious people who made up their own retarded shit.



Yes, i understand what you're saying. But that's how it is, primitive understanding or not, there are beliefs and people feel good with it. You don't believe in religions, some people do just because they want too, because they don't want to believe that death is the end of it. The rest of that mambo jambo are just excuses to keep it real...


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 25, 2012)

Robalo said:


> Yes, i understand what you're saying. But that's how it is, primitive understanding or not, there are beliefs and people feel good with it. You don't believe in religions, some people do just because they want too, because they don't want to believe that death is the end of it. The rest of that mambo jambo are just excuses to keep it real...



Agreed


----------



## BP2000 (Nov 25, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't have a clue how it started. Honestly, it's irrelevant because ill never know.
> I do know that life on earth evolved though. It's not even debatable among scientists, just a few crazy creationists in America and not really in any other nation.
> 
> I'm fine admitting that I don't know, I don't need to convince myself of something crazy.




why retort with so much distain for creationism?  If you don't know a simple two word response would suffice.  "not sure"

The truth is creation was created by a higher being.  That is why it's called Creation.  Because that is what we do, create shit.  We are the top dogs on this planet.  We are spiritual beings in a human body.  So it is "crazy" to think there could be a more advanced spiritual being who is capable of creating a world?   The truth is that spiritual beings created this world (7 to be exact) and god wants us to finish the job.  It is part of our growth to a higher state of consciousness or evolution.  Evolution is a built in principle of God's network of law's.  They are physical laws and spiritual laws.  We know not of most the higher spiritual law and we still don't know all the physical law's.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 25, 2012)

BP2000 said:


> why retort with so much distain for creationism?  If you don't know a simple two word response would suffice.  "not sure"
> 
> The truth is creation was created by a higher being.  That is why it's called Creation.  Because that is what we do, create shit.  We are the top dogs on this planet.  We are spiritual beings in a human body.  So it is "crazy" to think there could be a more advanced spiritual being who is capable of creating a world?   The truth is that spiritual beings created this world (7 to be exact) and god wants us to finish the job.  It is part of our growth to a higher state of consciousness or evolution.  Evolution is a built in principle of God's network of law's.  They are physical laws and spiritual laws.  We know not of most the higher spiritual law and we still don't know all the physical law's.



Lol.  Your post is gibberish, w a mixture of different religions, spirituality and a bit of new age.  

Btw, evolution does not need god to work, neither does the universe.  The world works perfectly w/o supernatural intervention.


----------



## charley (Nov 25, 2012)

Seems to me all 'organized religion' is fear based, [be good now to avoid eternal pain] & I for one don't like the idea of a punishing god.....my god would be a mercy full god......I believe man invented god....but I agree that evolution is a normal process.....as far as the Big-Bang theory goes....I could use one...and I don't mean 'Gang-Bang'......


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 25, 2012)

well this was a very enlightening thread. Now i know what the other side believes when they insult my beliefs lol..


----------



## suprfast (Nov 25, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> well this was a very enlightening thread. Now i know what the other side believes when they insult my beliefs lol..



Need a hug?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 25, 2012)

suprfast said:


> Need a hug?




i need more gear


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 25, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> well this was a very enlightening thread. Now i know what the other side believes when they insult my beliefs lol..



Not trying to insult but it was taught in 8th grade science.   Pay attention in school damn it!


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 25, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Not trying to insult but it was taught in 8th grade science.   Pay attention in school damn it!




i went to a christian middle school


----------



## LAM (Nov 25, 2012)

charley said:


> Seems to me all 'organized religion' is fear based, [be good now to avoid eternal pain] & I for one don't like the idea of a punishing god.....my god would be a mercy full god......I believe man invented god....but I agree that evolution is a normal process.....as far as the Big-Bang theory goes....I could use one...and I don't mean 'Gang-Bang'......



it's painfully obviously that it's nothing more than an allegory written over many years (by many authors) with not even many original story's contained.  even the Church has admitted that many of the works contained in it were backdated...LMAO!


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 25, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i went to a christian middle school



Is that why you keep calling it a "belief?"

Do you believe that viruses and bacteria are real, or do you know they are and have been proven so?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 25, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that why you keep calling it a "belief?"
> 
> Do you believe that viruses and bacteria are real, or do you know they are and have been proven so?



You realize this isn't going anywhere right?

On the bright side the evidence is so overwhelming that quite a few denominations have come out for evolution.   The Catholic Church being one of them.   It's progress at least.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 25, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> You realize this isn't going anywhere right?
> 
> On the bright side the evidence is so overwhelming that quite a few denominations have come out for evolution.   The Catholic Church being one of them.   It's progress at least.



Lol, yes I do, it's just amusing to make fun of creationists, especially hateful, racist, angry Christians.  You know, the kind of Christian that Jesus envisioned.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm one of those guys who believes in a higher power.
I don't know what it is, I just pretend to.

I believe in the possibility of evolution. In fact, I grew up believing it was "just known".
I had no idea growing up that there were some people who refuted Evolution.

I can understand why some atheist like to use science as a counter to religion.

But Science and Ancient religion really go hand and hand. Everything I've read about hinduist beliefs, and well as many Philosophers, points out things in our universe that we've only recently uncovered with science. Also, Science seems to point to a God of some sort. Whether it be a giant process, or force, or personality, I haven't yet determined.

But I do give thanks to the sun, the universe, my friends and family, and this feeling deep inside myself, that there is more out there.


----------



## troubador (Nov 26, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Also, Science seems to point to a God of some sort.



No, it doesn't. If you define god to mean any powerful force you don't understand then you might be right but nowhere does science point to a supreme being.


----------



## LAM (Nov 26, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> I believe in the possibility of evolution. In fact, I grew up believing it was "just known".
> I had no idea growing up that there were some people who refuted Evolution.
> 
> I can understand why some atheist like to use science as a counter to religion.



your belief system in terms of religion stems from your upbringing, it was all around you at the beginning of your life.  "your mind" has turned this belief of a higher power into "fact" which it indeed is not.  belief is the corner stone of all religions.

had you grown up in India you would be Hindu, Iraq a Muslim, etc.

there is no proof of a higher power, only words written in texts.  facts are objective, they exist whether or not a person knows them or acknowledges them they are mind independent.  religion is subjective as is all language regardless if it's written or spoken falls, it falls victim to the korzybski principle.  which is why words should never be taken literally unless a specific meaning is noted as is seen in some scientific texts and papers.


----------



## heckler7 (Nov 26, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't have a clue how it started.  Honestly, it's irrelevant because ill never know.
> I do know that life on earth evolved though.  It's not even debatable among scientists, just a few crazy creationists in America and not really in any other nation.
> 
> I'm fine admitting that I don't know, I don't need to convince myself of something crazy.


evolved from what its only a theory just like god exist there is no proof of the origin of man, but science and archelogist have proven that passages in the bible happened. The recently found the garden of eden, and they also found the arch. The bible is history but its not perfect



KILLEROFSAINTS said:


> i guess i beleive in evolution aided by something
> 
> so many things in my life are tiny miracles...i could have been dead a hundred different ways by now...i could call a ditch with a newspaper for a blanket home like i used to
> i have no idea why some people rise up and others never can or do but i am so grateful for my blessings...i never thought i would belong anywhere
> ...





exphys88 said:


> Yes, it all originated from the same cell, including plants.  You'd be surprised how big of a percentage of our DNA is exactly the same as a plants.
> 
> Different shit is due to a lot if factors, some if which we have not discovered and some that we know like natural selection.  And billions of years.





Standard Donkey said:


> so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.
> 
> so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?





Robalo said:


> Yes, i understand what you're saying. But that's how it is, primitive understanding or not, there are beliefs and people feel good with it. You don't believe in religions, some people do just because they want too, because they don't want to believe that death is the end of it. The rest of that mambo jambo are just excuses to keep it real...





LAM said:


> it's painfully obviously that it's nothing more than an allegory written over many years (by many authors) with not even many original story's contained.  even the Church has admitted that many of the works contained in it were backdated...LMAO!





troubador said:


> No, it doesn't. If you define god to mean any powerful force you don't understand then you might be right but nowhere does science point to a supreme being.


if it didnt why would scientist spend so much time and money looking for the god particle


----------



## kamiwazi (Nov 26, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You should read a junior high biology book.  Or an anthropology, zoology, paleontology, archaeology, or geology book.
> 
> You see, every area of the biological sciences on every civilized nation all agree that evolution is the unifying theory for all of them.
> 
> ...




I believe in GOD.... but not the fat guy on a cloud GOD.. GOD the energy force in and around all things.... and of course there  was AND STILL IS evolution!  i mean WTF its seen EVERYWHERE! 

  I am with you.
Just silly to think other wise... in my op anyway


----------



## LAM (Nov 26, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> evolved from what its only a theory just like god exist there is no proof of the origin of man, but science and archelogist have proven that passages in the bible happened. The recently found the garden of eden, and they also found the arch. The bible is history but its not perfect
> 
> if it didnt why would scientist spend so much time and money looking for the god particle



the name "god particle" is a misnomer as was stated by Leon Lederman who coined the phrase.  it was done intentionally to basically stir the pot and it has worked quite well at doing so.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 26, 2012)

Neither the Ark nor garden of Eden have been found


----------



## troubador (Nov 26, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> evolved from what its only a theory just like god exist there is no proof of the origin of man
> 
> if it didnt why would scientist spend so much time and money looking for the god particle



I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in the first sentence. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of how it works. Before you respond, make sure you understand the definition of "scientific theory" and how it's different than the word theory used casually. Don't dumb everything down by not being able to get past the word theory. 

The god particle? That's not a scientific term.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 26, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in the first sentence. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of how it works. Before you respond, make sure you understand the definition of "scientific theory" and how it's different than the word theory used casually. Don't dumb everything down by not being able to get past the word theory.
> 
> The god particle? That's not a scientific term.



Lol


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 26, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Neither the Ark nor garden of Eden have been found



Mount Ararat, some bits of wood were discovered by an Armenian goat herder while he was didling his flick don't you know


----------



## ckcrown84 (Nov 26, 2012)

I normally do not chime in on these types of discussions. Now my argument I am going to outline is very dense and can be elaborated on by many and fleshed out a lot more but I shall give a few problems with the creationist argument against evolution.

1) Evolution is a simple outcome of the struggle for existence, reproduction, and competition for scarce resources.
2) "Ultimate" questions, where did the universe come from, who created the "laws" of the universe etc, have no bearing on the functionality of those laws.

Now speaking of ultimates...
How is positing the existence of an infinitely more complex entity solve the problem of explaining the complexity of another entity.
In other words, God by necessity is more complex than that which he is used to explain. If God can exist without a creator, and (s)he/ it is more complex than the universe itself then how is it intellectually acceptable or fulfilling to say that God can exist without being created but the universe can not?





Standard Donkey said:


> my understanding of evolution is very limited.
> 
> 
> please, if you have the time, enlighten us creationists as to how existence came about


----------



## ckcrown84 (Nov 26, 2012)

"I don't understand xyz and cant intellectualy coneive of how abc came about, therefore it had to be the work of an omnipotent being--whom I also can't really explain, I therefore posit he always was. "​ This  offers a fully satisfying explanation (well no it doesn't) of any phenomena leaving no need to peel back the veil of ignorance we have on our universe...we can just point to god​


----------



## LAM (Nov 26, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Neither the Ark nor garden of Eden have been found



still doesn't matter if "everything" talked about in the bible was found to exist or have existed.  authenticating persons, places and things in the bible still isn't proof of a higher power.

any of us could write a book full of stories of events that occurred with ourselves and others.  since there are records of where we where from cell phones, credit card transactions, work records, etc.  times and places can be authenticated.  but the actions and conversations that may or may not have taken place could never be proved or disproved.

it's the beauty of religion events either took place long time ago in the past or will occur post mortem.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 26, 2012)

ckcrown84 said:


> I normally do not chime in on these types of discussions. Now my argument I am going to outline is very dense and can be elaborated on by many and fleshed out a lot more but I shall give a few problems with the creationist argument against evolution.
> 
> 1) Evolution is a simple outcome of the struggle for existence, reproduction, and competition for scarce resources.
> 2) "Ultimate" questions, where did the universe come from, who created the "laws" of the universe etc, have no bearing on the functionality of those laws.
> ...




you cant squat 3 plates or DL 4 plates while abusing gears why would i take anything you say seriously?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 26, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> you cant squat 3 plates or DL 4 plates while abusing gears why would i take anything you say seriously?



Obviously you're incapable of actually refuting anything he said.  Does he need to dumb it down for you?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 26, 2012)

Just sayin.


----------



## ckcrown84 (Nov 26, 2012)

Curious how many great thinkers can squat 3 plates...
Go read some Hawkins, Dawkins, Dennett, and Sagan. 

One must separate intellectual capacity and lifting capacity, there is no correlation between the two I regret to inform you. However, I do have several lifting logs if you want to bash my squat and deadlift that is the proper venue, not here. 

Furthermore, picking on ones weaknesses only reveals your own. I have never bragged nor claimed to be able to do more than I actually can. I recognize my weaknesses and am working towards fixing them, which has been a painful process. I trained nothing but upper body for years and years, stupid yes, but nonetheless the result is now an extremely weak lower body. 

Please recall the purpose of this thread, it was to delve into the topic of evolution and creationism / Intelligent Design. Why not contribute to the topic at hand?


----------



## heckler7 (Nov 26, 2012)

I was gonna say a bunch of shit in my multi post but I got called into work. I guess you guys got saved a long ass boring worthless post.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 26, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, it doesn't. If you define god to mean any powerful force you don't understand then you might be right but nowhere does science point to a supreme being.



Sure it does. Light and Dark, yin and yang.

Check out particle physics, quantum physics, string theory, m-theory, holographic universe theory.

It's obvious that consciousnesses is woven throughout the universe, and the best scientists are just beginning to figure out things that have been stated in spiritual teachings, books and disciplines, etc throughout history.

Thousands of years ago, the idea of the atom was theorized. Atomism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were way off track buddy.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 26, 2012)

LAM said:


> your belief system in terms of religion stems from your upbringing, it was all around you at the beginning of your life.  "your mind" has turned this belief of a higher power into "fact" which it indeed is not.  belief is the corner stone of all religions.
> 
> had you grown up in India you would be Hindu, Iraq a Muslim, etc.
> 
> there is no proof of a higher power, only words written in texts.  facts are objective, they exist whether or not a person knows them or acknowledges them they are mind independent.  religion is subjective as is all language regardless if it's written or spoken falls, it falls victim to the korzybski principle.  which is why words should never be taken literally unless a specific meaning is noted as is seen in some scientific texts and papers.



lol. Nice try at a psychology lesson there, professor.
But actually, I was raised religilous, thank you very much.

My experiences are my own, as well as my studies and my own disciplines.
Just because you are not learned, practiced, or experiences in these matters, doesn't mean others are not.

It's funny, how you use psychology to back up your claims, but being someone who has studied psychology as a major, I can tell you a few things.

No system is closed. You and your nervous system interact with the exterior world. Much is lost in the translation. We are evolving so rapidly, and it's not just our bodies but our minds as well. Grow your mind with something other than the trash of temporary information. You sit around all day reading up on useless facts about our economics system, try reading something more intriguing than the basest of human interaction.

You realize that we had no idea radio waves existed before we found a way to measure them right?
Radiation?

You have no purpose? cool, maybe others can find a reason to live.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 26, 2012)

ckcrown84 said:


> "I don't understand xyz and cant intellectualy coneive of how abc came about, therefore it had to be the work of an omnipotent being--whom I also can't really explain, I therefore posit he always was. "​ This  offers a fully satisfying explanation (well no it doesn't) of any phenomena leaving no need to peel back the veil of ignorance we have on our universe...we can just point to god​




Belief in a greater consciousness does not require us to sit around being lazy saying, "Oh well we've got the 'answer', nothing left to do but twiddle our thumbs".

Dumbass.


----------



## troubador (Nov 26, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Sure it does. Light and Dark, yin and yang.
> 
> Check out particle physics, quantum physics, string theory, m-theory, holographic universe theory.
> 
> ...







You have said nothing whatsoever to back up your unscientific beliefs. I doubt you have basic knowledge of classical mechanics much less anything else you mentioned.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 26, 2012)

ckcrown84 said:


> Curious how many great thinkers can squat 3 plates...
> Go read some Hawkins, Dawkins, Dennett, and Sagan.
> 
> One must separate intellectual capacity and lifting capacity, there is no correlation between the two I regret to inform you. However, I do have several lifting logs if you want to bash my squat and deadlift that is the proper venue, not here.
> ...




are you seriously comparing yourself to "Hawkins, Dawkins, Dennett, and Sagan"?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 26, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Obviously you're incapable of actually refuting anything he said.  Does he need to dumb it down for you?




u tight bro?


----------



## ckcrown84 (Nov 27, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> are you seriously comparing yourself to "Hawkins, Dawkins, Dennett, and Sagan"?



Obviously not,
I am saying read those authors, who also can not squat or deadlift anything, and educate yourself on the topic at hand. Then make a post with some merit.


----------



## ckcrown84 (Nov 27, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Belief in a greater consciousness does not require us to sit around being lazy saying, "Oh well we've got the 'answer', nothing left to do but twiddle our thumbs".
> 
> Dumbass.



Excuse me dumbass,

I never said it REQUIRES anything. I am merely stating what is historically true across the vast majority of religious thought throughout history. 

This is exactly why I do not post in these type of threads.

So far I have been called "dumb" and that my deadlift isn't adequate. You gents astound me.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 27, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> u tight bro?



Lol
You still think humans rode on dinosaurs w saddles?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 27, 2012)

ckcrown84 said:


> Obviously not,
> I am saying read those authors, who also can not squat or deadlift anything, and educate yourself on the topic at hand. Then make a post with some merit.




they probably were'nt manlets either


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 27, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Lol
> You still think humans rode on dinosaurs w saddles?




what is this i dont even???


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 27, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> what is this i dont even???



the creation museum claims that humans used to ride triceratops with saddles on them.  I wonder what kind of pets T-rex made.  The good ol days of pollution free transportation; you could ride a brontosaurus for miles and only leave behind a few piles of dinosaur dung.  

It's a shame that the great flood wiped all of them out, even the ones that lived in the seas.  Good thing all the other animals swam across the oceans to get on noah's ark so they wouldn't drown.    

Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 27, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> the creation museum claims that humans used to ride triceratops with saddles on them.  I wonder what kind of pets T-rex made.  The good ol days of pollution free transportation; you could ride a brontosaurus for miles and only leave behind a few piles of dinosaur dung.
> 
> It's a shame that the great flood wiped all of them out, even the ones that lived in the seas.  Good thing all the other animals swam across the oceans to get on noah's ark so they wouldn't drown.
> 
> Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum




lol ive never seen that before, interesting


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 27, 2012)

troubador said:


> You have said nothing whatsoever to back up your unscientific beliefs. I doubt you have basic knowledge of classical mechanics much less anything else you mentioned.




I gave a synopsis of my beliefs, and you have tried to refute that which is unconscionable to you.

I know more about classical mechanics than you, I bet.
If you knew physics, you'd probably be agreeing with me, which is how I know that you are nothing more than a keyboard warrior with "Bro science".

Step off, with your gibberish, you've accomplished nothing here but say "you don't knoooooow"


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 27, 2012)

ckcrown84 said:


> Excuse me dumbass,
> 
> I never said it REQUIRES anything. I am merely stating what is historically true across the vast majority of religious thought throughout history.
> 
> ...



You didn't have to SAY, you IMPLIED quite sardonically.

Don't try that bait and switch bullshit here sir.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 27, 2012)

*IT HAPPENED BRO! ;p*



exphys88 said:


> the creation museum claims that humans used to ride triceratops with saddles on them.  I wonder what kind of pets T-rex made.  The good ol days of pollution free transportation; you could ride a brontosaurus for miles and only leave behind a few piles of dinosaur dung.
> 
> It's a shame that the great flood wiped all of them out, even the ones that lived in the seas.  Good thing all the other animals swam across the oceans to get on noah's ark so they wouldn't drown.
> 
> Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum


----------



## troubador (Nov 27, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> I gave a synopsis of my beliefs, and you have tried to refute that which is unconscionable to you.
> 
> I know more about classical mechanics than you, I bet.
> If you knew physics, you'd probably be agreeing with me, which is how I know that you are nothing more than a keyboard warrior with "Bro science".
> ...



No, I haven't bothered to refute anything since you gave zero evidence.

Oh good, here's your opportunity to not look like you are nothing more than a keyboard warrior with "Bro science".
Shopping cart A has a mass of 8.7kg and moves with a speed of 5.6m/s in the positive-x direction. Shopping cart B has a mass of 7.4kg and moves with a speed of 7.2m/s so that the velocity vector of B makes an angle of 41 degrees with vector A. The two carts collide; after the collision cart A has a speed of 5.5m/s and has been deflected 31 degrees from its original direction. Find the velocity of cart B after the collision. This should take you less than 5 minutes.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 27, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, I haven't bothered to refute anything since you gave zero evidence.
> 
> Oh good, here's your opportunity to not look like you are nothing more than a keyboard warrior with "Bro science".
> Shopping cart A has a mass of 8.7kg and moves with a speed of 5.6m/s in the positive-x direction. Shopping cart B has a mass of 7.4kg and moves with a speed of 7.2m/s so that the velocity vector of B makes an angle of 41 degrees with vector A. The two carts collide; after the collision cart A has a speed of 5.5m/s and has been deflected 31 degrees from its original direction. Find the velocity of cart B after the collision. This should take you less than 5 minutes.




my brain is so full of fuck


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 28, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, I haven't bothered to refute anything since you gave zero evidence.
> 
> Oh good, here's your opportunity to not look like you are nothing more than a keyboard warrior with "Bro science".
> Shopping cart A has a mass of 8.7kg and moves with a speed of 5.6m/s in the positive-x direction. Shopping cart B has a mass of 7.4kg and moves with a speed of 7.2m/s so that the velocity vector of B makes an angle of 41 degrees with vector A. The two carts collide; after the collision cart A has a speed of 5.5m/s and has been deflected 31 degrees from its original direction. Find the velocity of cart B after the collision. This should take you less than 5 minutes.




I've got real homework to do, I'm not going to complete your physics 101 question. I took 4 physics classes numb nuts, and your question is elementary.
I don't owe you that.

That took a lot of work for you didn't it? Did you copy/paste that from a website or did you actually go to the trouble of thinking it up yourself?

In either case, you're a big dummy.

And you're just throwing shit in this thread. You've said nothing of value still.
You haven't even posited your own beliefs.

You're a coward with no thoughts of your own.


EDIT - Here's a good analogy for you.
If I told you that my head hurt, and would you believe me, despite having no evidence? Or would you call me a liar?


----------



## troubador (Nov 28, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> And you're just throwing shit in this thread. You've said nothing of value still.



I clarified that no scientific evidence exists for a supreme being. Btw, some troll on the internet saying the words "light and dark yin and yang" is actually not scientific evidence.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 28, 2012)

troubador said:


> I clarified that no scientific evidence exists for a supreme being. Btw, some troll on the internet saying the words "light and dark yin and yang" is actually not scientific evidence.



Haven't you ever seen star wars?


----------



## troubador (Nov 28, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Haven't you ever seen star wars?



Yeah, that's not science.

...now pretend you're too busy to back up any of your bullshit but instead write a few long posts of insults.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 28, 2012)

troubador said:


> Yeah, that's not science.
> 
> ...now pretend you're too busy to back up any of your bullshit but instead write a few long posts of insults.



lol, the darkside has taken you over...


----------



## troubador (Nov 28, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> lol, the darkside has taken you over...



You're probably right.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 28, 2012)

troubador said:


> I clarified that no scientific evidence exists for a supreme being.



So your position is: No machine has been invented that will tell us in absolute clarity and purpose, that " There's a 'God' " ?

Damn, you're like one of those people who wants everything done for them.

Tell me oh wise one, is it your limited point of view of "God" that denotes your admission that evidence must exsist solely in the physical realm, and only in such a way that our known senses (touch, sight, smell, hearing, "taste")?

I already disproved that with my mentioning of waves, radio, etc.

Things which we do not perceive and yet are there.

And machines to read these only invented in the last couple of centuries.

You've got no imagination. You have nothing but HEAVILY dated knowledge of the world and that's "it" for you.
Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge, and that's how he was able to develop the scientific systems for which YOU love so dearly.

You are a real backwards person bro. Lay off the cheetohs and mountain dew.


----------



## troubador (Nov 28, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> So your position is: No machine has been invented that will tell us in absolute clarity and purpose, that " There's a 'God' " ?
> 
> Damn, you're like one of those people who wants everything done for them.
> 
> ...



Still no scientific evidence for god. My position is that there is no scientific evidence for a supreme being and will remain that way until there is.  At this point it's clear you're just a troll.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> Still no scientific evidence for god. My position is that there is no scientific evidence for a supreme being and will remain that way until there is.  At this point it's clear you're just a troll.



Sadly, you wouldn't understand the evidence, even if it were a snake and bit you in the ass.

It's clear that you're a feebleminded fool. May God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Sadly, you wouldn't understand the evidence, even if it were a snake and bit you in the ass.
> 
> It's clear that you're a feebleminded fool. May God have mercy on your soul.



So, you're a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 30, 2012)

one thing ive been wondering about..


why after the big bang, did the protons electrons and neutrons whatever.. form planets? i mean.. why planets? and why so many... why not just one giant one? and why did others form asteroids and comets? 


and why/how are the planets so different from one another..like why does earth support life while none other the others in the milky way do even tho they were made out of the sameish shit? and why are they different sizes?

keep in mind i decided to study accounting/finance in university so i could avoid biology and chemistry..


----------



## troubador (Nov 30, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> one thing ive been wondering about..
> 
> 
> why after the big bang, did the protons electrons and neutrons whatever.. form planets? i mean.. why planets? and why so many... why not just one giant one? and why did others form asteroids and comets?
> ...



Wow, that's a few billion years of history you've asked about. Stars are what actually form heavier elements through fusion. The stars eventually explode scattering these heavier elements which eventually are pulled together by gravity and in the orbit of a star form a planet. Which is why planets are basically spherical. Why not just one giant one? Because the big bang caused an expansion of space, in other words, it caused particles to move away from each other and it took about a billion years before gravity pulled them together to form stars.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> Wow, that's a few billion years of history you've asked about. Stars are what actually form heavier elements through fusion. The stars eventually explode scattering these heavier elements which eventually are pulled together by gravity and in the orbit of a star form a planet. Which is why planets are basically spherical. Why not just one giant one? Because the big bang caused an expansion of space, in other words, it caused particles to move away from each other and it took about a billion years before gravity pulled them together to form stars.





alright that works.


but how did the earth get so many different layers? was top soil somehow the last of the "heavy elements" that is pulled together by the gravity of a star? lol..


also this should be a very easy question which i could just google but im too lazy.. how the fuck did the earth get an atmosphere?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> So, you're a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



Nah, that's for pseudo-intellectualist, whiney bitches.
I understand the gig, I've read that entire website.
It's poor satire concerning the poorest parts of religion.

There's better arguments to be made than the spaghetti monster.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> Wow, that's a few billion years of history you've asked about. Stars are what actually form heavier elements through fusion. The stars eventually explode scattering these heavier elements which eventually are pulled together by gravity and in the orbit of a star form a planet. Which is why planets are basically spherical. Why not just one giant one? Because the big bang caused an expansion of space, in other words, it caused particles to move away from each other and it took about a billion years before gravity pulled them together to form stars.



Excuse me, professor.
What causes gravity?


----------



## CrazyTod (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Excuse me, professor. What causes gravity?


  planets have THERE OWN gravity from the spinning and inner workings of each given planet. was there a "big bang" yes i believe so, but thats got nothing to do with gravity.  now a VACUUM is another thing .. professor? ;-)


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Excuse me, professor.
> What causes gravity?



Newton and Einstein had their theories. 

.... It's beyond belief that Creationists exist outside of mental asylums. 

Just goes to show the length organizations will go to control people's minds, and how fucking gullible and naive some people are


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 30, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> Newton and Einstein had their theories.
> 
> .... It's beyond belief that Creationists exist outside of mental asylums.
> 
> Just goes to show the length organizations will go to control people's minds, and how fucking gullible and naive some people are




lol.. u can answer the question whenever u want bro


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Nah, that's for pseudo-intellectualist, whiney bitches.
> I understand the gig, I've read that entire website.
> It's poor satire concerning the poorest parts of religion.
> 
> There's better arguments to be made than the spaghetti monster.



All of the arguments for the existence of a Christian god can be made for the FSM.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> All of the arguments for the existence of a Christian god can be made for the FSM.



This proves nothing.

You really mean, the biblical God.
The bible has been edited numerous times by monarchs and other enslavers, to control their people.

It's obvious isn't it?

And that's why you must be childish to cling to such parody.
There's much more thoughtful arguments against religion, than the FSM.

Slow down on the mountain dew breh.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

CrazyTod said:


> planets have THERE OWN gravity from the spinning and inner workings of each given planet. was there a "big bang" yes i believe so, but thats got nothing to do with gravity.  now a VACUUM is another thing .. professor? ;-)



No shit retod. Anyone who's graduated elementary knows that.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> Newton and Einstein had their theories.
> 
> .... It's beyond belief that Creationists exist outside of mental asylums.
> 
> Just goes to show the length organizations will go to control people's minds, and how fucking gullible and naive some people are



Two men had a theory.
Here's a theory for you: Use your mind to come up with your OWN theories.

It's beyond belief that you've not yet considered this idea.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 30, 2012)

You guys don't even know enough science to support your borrowed ideas. Pathetic.

God have mercy on your souls.


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Two men had a theory.
> Here's a theory for you: Use your mind to come up with your OWN theories.
> 
> It's beyond belief that you've not yet considered this idea.



I have certainly considered this idea, but  in just not the Jim Jones type


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> You guys don't even know enough science to support your borrowed ideas. Pathetic.
> 
> God have mercy on your souls.



which god, and how do you know he will have mercy on yours?  because you argue with atheists?  Maybe there are 1000 gods?  Maybe god is really an alien?  You've provided nothing but insults in this thread.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 30, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> one thing ive been wondering about..
> 
> 
> why after the big bang, did the protons electrons and neutrons whatever.. form planets? i mean.. why planets? and why so many... why not just one giant one? and why did others form asteroids and comets?
> ...



Why do you get many dingleberries instead of just one big one?


----------



## troubador (Nov 30, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> Newton and Einstein had their theories.



Those theories are about explaining how gravity works more so than the root cause/origin. Remember, scientific theories are "well substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world" not just hunches on where something came from.


----------



## troubador (Nov 30, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Excuse me, professor.
> What causes gravity?



We don't entirely know. My guess is Shrivel - God of the Gaps created it.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> Those theories are about explaining how gravity works more so than the root cause/origin. Remember, scientific theories are "well substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world" not just hunches on where something came from.



If we don't know the root cause of something, it's interesting how religious folks automatically declare a victory, as if us not knowing how something works gives them the win by default.

Are you familiar w "god of the gaps?"


----------



## troubador (Nov 30, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> If we don't know the root cause of something, it's interesting how religious folks automatically declare a victory, as if us not knowing how something works gives them the win by default.
> 
> Are you familiar w "god of the gaps?"



 I beat you to it.


----------



## Digitalash (Nov 30, 2012)

This thread is dumb 

evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe, nor the origin of life even. Only how the very first simple life forms evolved in complexity and diversified to fill every available food niche in the environment. Thats all it is. There is an unutilized food source somewhere, an animal will eventually evolve to fill that gap. Predator and prey provide evolutionary stimulus to eachother via natural selection, the weakest prey and predators do not survive. The most "fit" for that environment, and the one whose genes lead him to be successful in reproduction the most times wins. His genes spread, and eventually the entire species carries the beneficial genes of its strongest and most promiscuous members. Its that simple for the most part. You don't have to believe, read some books, it is all explained already. 

Disclaimer: There is nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves god, and they need not be mutually exclusive. Believe god was the cause if you so choose, but evolution is the "how" no matter what way you want to look at it. You can believe in both. 


Also the big bang doesn't explain and is not supposed to, the cause of the expansion, only what happened afterwards that lead the universe to be what it is today. There was a tremendous release of energy, that we know. This energy formed the simplest, lightest elements on the table, hydrogen and helium. These two gases condensed in various places due to their own gravity, and formed stars. In the core of stars, heavy elements were born due to the tremendous heat and pressure crushing elementary particles together. Further down the period table, even heavier elements were created when these stars went supernova, the explosion cast these heavy elements, carbon, iron, nitrogen etc. etc. out into the universe. This "star dust" collected to form rocky planets, earth, and eventually You. We are all made of elemental particles created in a supernova, probably many billions of years ago. Thats kinda cool if you ask me


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

troubador said:


> I beat you to it.



Lol, of course you're aware of "god of gaps!"


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 30, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> This thread is dumb
> 
> evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe, nor the origin of life even. Only how the very first simple life forms evolved in complexity and diversified to fill every available food niche in the environment. Thats all it is. There is an unutilized food source somewhere, an animal will eventually evolve to fill that gap. Predator and prey provide evolutionary stimulus to eachother via natural selection, the weakest prey and predators do not survive. The most "fit" for that environment, and the one whose genes lead him to be successful in reproduction the most times wins. His genes spread, and eventually the entire species carries the beneficial genes of its strongest and most promiscuous members. Its that simple for the most part. You don't have to believe, read some books, it is all explained already.
> 
> ...



Great post!


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 1, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> which god, and how do you know he will have mercy on yours?  because you argue with atheists?  Maybe there are 1000 gods?  Maybe god is really an alien?



Any. I don't know just hope. maybe. probably. define alien, and also maybe.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 1, 2012)

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

-Einstein

Just sayin' brehs.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 1, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> This thread is dumb
> 
> evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe, nor the origin of life even. Only how the very first simple life forms evolved in complexity and diversified to fill every available food niche in the environment. Thats all it is. There is an unutilized food source somewhere, an animal will eventually evolve to fill that gap. Predator and prey provide evolutionary stimulus to eachother via natural selection, the weakest prey and predators do not survive. The most "fit" for that environment, and the one whose genes lead him to be successful in reproduction the most times wins. His genes spread, and eventually the entire species carries the beneficial genes of its strongest and most promiscuous members. Its that simple for the most part. You don't have to believe, read some books, it is all explained already.
> 
> ...



FINALLY, someone gets it.


----------



## Robalo (Dec 2, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> This thread is dumb
> 
> evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe, nor the origin of life even. Only how the very first simple life forms evolved in complexity and diversified to fill every available food niche in the environment. Thats all it is. There is an unutilized food source somewhere, an animal will eventually evolve to fill that gap. Predator and prey provide evolutionary stimulus to eachother via natural selection, the weakest prey and predators do not survive. The most "fit" for that environment, and the one whose genes lead him to be successful in reproduction the most times wins. His genes spread, and eventually the entire species carries the beneficial genes of its strongest and most promiscuous members. Its that simple for the most part. You don't have to believe, read some books, it is all explained already.
> 
> ...



/end thread


----------



## BlueJayMuscle (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm shocked. I didn't know any rational people still denied evolution... Haha


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

BlueJayMuscle said:


> I'm shocked. I didn't know any rational people still denied evolution... Haha



It's primarily a US phenomenon, and shockingly nearly half of the population is that stupid.


----------



## Digitalash (Dec 2, 2012)

While we're having a deep discussion, as per the questions "what came before the big bang?" and "If the universe is expanding, whats outside of it?"


Well first of all you have to understand that "time" and "space" are properties of the universe. They were created at the moment of the big bang, along with all energy in the universe (and matter, as matter is just energy "trapped" or "condensed" in a sense). So you can not say what was "before" the big bang, because time literally did not exist "before", there was no "when" for anything to have happened in (or space either for that matter). Also you can not say what is outside the universe because there literally is no such thing as "space" outside of the universe. It's believed the universe (according to string theory) is actually a hyperdimensional space, or Calabi-Yau space consisting of many dimensions that fold back on themselves. The picture below is a cross section of a 3d representation of such a space, but remember your brain is not equipped to percieve more than those dimensions, there is no way to represent what such a shape would actually look like from a picture, or even to imagine it in your own brain. 







Essentially what this means is that if you travel far enough in one direction in the universe, you will always end up back where you started. There is no way to escape, and no space to escape to. You will follow the curves of spacetime and eventually end up back where you started, even though the universe is expanding and NOT infinite.

Now to give you some understanding at least of how we are expanding yet there is no outside space to expand to, the theory is that the universe is almost like a pocket between two higher dimensional membranes or "branes". Think two sheets laying together, a bubble begins expanding between them. The bubble can continue to expand, even though there is actually no outside space for it to expand into, the branes warp and stretch and allow this bubble to grow. Furthermore there is a theory that the big bang was the collision of these two membranes, which ripple and fluctuate, and occasionally collide. This massive amount of energy literally creates space, time, matter etc. and  a universe is born. Its possible this has happened an infinite number of times before and is right now. These other universes may literally be right next to use, and yet there is no way to reach them, as there is no "space" between them for us to travel across. It's possible you could enter a black hole, punch through space time, and exit in one of these other universes, but I think we should stop there for today


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

You can also ask, "what created god?"


----------



## Digitalash (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm not a theist but I would answer, god created time and space, he didn't have a beginning because the concept of time itself is his creation. He exists outside of time and space, and is thus not subject to the physical laws of our universe. 


What came first the chicken or the egg? 10 points to whoever can answer that, if you understand evolution then its not a paradox


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> I'm not a theist but I would answer, god created time and space, he didn't have a beginning because the concept of time itself is his creation. He exists outside of time and space, and is thus not subject to the physical laws of our universe.
> 
> 
> What came first the chicken or the egg? 10 points to whoever can answer that, if you understand evolution then its not a paradox



I call that a cop out answer that allows the theist to avoid having to address the problems w their belief in god and their claim that everything had to have been created.
It's not much more of an answer than "god works in mysterious ways."


----------



## Digitalash (Dec 2, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I call that a cop out answer that allows the theist to avoid having to address the problems w their belief in god and their claim that everything had to have been created.
> It's not much more of an answer than "god works in mysterious ways."




Well its essentially what scientists believe, with a supernatural being added at the center. Occams razor of course says it works perfectly fine without him, but since by subscribing to the big bang theory you believe that time and space were created at the moment of the big bang, then "whatever" caused the big bang must therefore exist outside of time and space, since they are "its" creations. Scientists believe it was just a natural event, a consequence of the mechanics of the universe essentially, theists believe it was a conscious act of creation. At this point its a matter of choice in which you want to believe, since neither can be proven or disproven. Nothing about the theory indicates there was a supernatural and all powerful being masterminding this event, but it does leave the possibility open IMO. No sense in arguing beyond that, people will choose to believe whichever they like. If we can at least get theists to acknowledge the science of the big bang, evolution etc. I don't think it matters what they choose to believe caused it. Let people believe what they want, as long as it doesn't go against the actual known facts and scientific theories that we know to be true. If they want to expand beyond these theories that's fine with me, as long as they don't deny the facts. Just my .02


----------



## fit26 (Dec 2, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> I'm not a theist but I would answer, god created time and space, he didn't have a beginning because the concept of time itself is his creation. He exists outside of time and space, and is thus not subject to the physical laws of our universe.
> 
> 
> *What came first the chicken or the egg?* 10 points to whoever can answer that, if you understand evolution then its not a paradox


The answer to your question is not the answer to how everything exist.  The question itself is the answer.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> Well its essentially what scientists believe, with a supernatural being added at the center. Occams razor of course says it works perfectly fine without him, but since by subscribing to the big bang theory you believe that time and space were created at the moment of the big bang, then "whatever" caused the big bang must therefore exist outside of time and space, since they are "its" creations. Scientists believe it was just a natural event, a consequence of the mechanics of the universe essentially, theists believe it was a conscious act of creation. At this point its a matter of choice in which you want to believe, since neither can be proven or disproven. Nothing about the theory indicates there was a supernatural and all powerful being masterminding this event, but it does leave the possibility open IMO. No sense in arguing beyond that, people will choose to believe whichever they like. If we can at least get theists to acknowledge the science of the big bang, evolution etc. I don't think it matters what they choose to believe caused it. Let people believe what they want, as long as it doesn't go against the actual known facts and scientific theories that we know to be true. If they want to expand beyond these theories that's fine with me, as long as they don't deny the facts. Just my .02



I don't disagree w anything here, I'm just pointing out that if a theist is convinced that everything needs a creator, they run into the problem of god needing a creator too-and so on and so on.  But, these kinds of problems don't phase someone w strong faith; much like a Muslim who is convinced that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.


----------



## Digitalash (Dec 2, 2012)

Creationists: Evolution happened and still is happening, the big bang started the universe, whether you like it or not these things are true and they aren't going anywhere. Neither of these theories says anything about god not existing. In fact if there were a god, and he had to create a universe and an intelligent species, these are ingenious ways of doing so. If I had to invent life and make sure it survived and continued to become more complex, and eventually self-aware, I would certainly choose evolution/natural selection as the process. Perhaps god did not intend to make "humans", but only to create an intelligent and fully conscious species. What they looked like didn't matter so much, it was their consciousness that mattered, so that they may understand that they are creations of god and fully appreciate their relationship with him. So it was only required to set in motion a spark of life on a habitable planet, with dna as its blueprint, survival and reproduction its only prime directives. Given enough time and some fortuitous events intelligent life would eventually evolve in one form or another. I'm not saying this is what I believe, just offering a different perspective. Either way evolution especially is an incredibly important theory to understanding so many things. From the mutation of viruses, to human emotions and instinct, to the structure and behaviors of every living thing on the planet. It would be foolish to completely ignore such an important part of science because you think it conflicts with your religion. I would just like to stress that you CAN believe in both, not many "evolutionists" are out to disprove your god and tell you your beliefs are wrong. We simply want to show you that it is true, the facts are all there and its too much to deny. It explains too many things, and has stood the test of time. Evolution is not a fad and it WILL not be going anywhere anytime soon. Please just educate yourselves on it, it is an invaluable tool to understanding the world we live in, the people you interact with every day, their emotions and motives, as well as your own. Evolution happened, just accept that please, maybe God started it. I don't know. I will never say he didn't because I can not know that, it is certainly possible I guess. God isn't necessary to explain how everything evolved as it did, but if you would like to include him that is your choice and I will accept that. We can come to an agreement I believe, everyone should understand the theory of evolution. Those who choose to believe god started and guided it will be free to do so, those that believe it was a natural process can do that as well.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> Creationists: Evolution happened and still is happening



The problem is that once you accept evolution as fact, you have to accept that the biblical god is a myth and Jesus was nothing more than a man w good ideas.  This is why they deny it, it means their entire life has been wasted reading a stupid book.

There are some Christians that try to make the 2 ideas compatible, but they're just grasping at straws.

The entire premise of Christianity rests on the fall of man-Adam and eve eating the fruit and therefore creating a life of sin and needing forgiveness from Jesus for all humans.  If you accept evolution, you have to accept that the story of Adam and Eve is made up, Jesus is not divine and the entire christian religion becomes just a fairy tale.


----------



## BlueJayMuscle (Dec 2, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The problem is that once you accept evolution as fact, you have to accept that the biblical god is a myth and Jesus was nothing more than a man w good ideas.  This is why they deny it, it means their entire life has been wasted reading a stupid book.
> 
> There are some Christians that try to make the 2 ideas compatible, but they're just grasping at straws.
> 
> The entire premise of Christianity rests on the fall of man-Adam and eve eating the fruit and therefore creating a life of sin and needing forgiveness from Jesus for all humans.  If you accept evolution, you have to accept that the story of Adam and Eve is made up, Jesus is not divine and the entire christian religion becomes just a fairy tale.



I'm a Jew (yep that's right haha) and I have a definitive belief in god and evolution... Not the same type of god described in the bible (more of a philosophical intuitive god). But I don't believe the bible recounts factual history as well. I believe it as more of a guidelines on how to live worded in allegories. 

There is a healthy balance of faith and science. No need to be towards either extreme


Qualifications: I'm a phd student in biochemistry and a faithful Jew 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 2, 2012)

Why this need to make theology and science continually at war? It's not one or the other, and while we are in mortality it's not likely to be resolved. Mankind in mortality doesn't understand God, or his workings, but on a basic level. Our understanding of God, and his doings is like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. On the flip side science is the same way. If anyone has read Origin of the Species and compared that to our understanding of evolution now it would be easy to recognize that. We are constantly learning new things in science and because of this it's constantly changing. Each has it's place in our lives. and they aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## theCaptn' (Dec 2, 2012)

Theologists ('the church') was so threatened by science it murdered 100000's of 'heretics' over the ages.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 2, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> Theologists ('the church') was so threatened by science it murdered 100000's of 'heretics' over the ages.



I'm talking about today. 2012 in the United States. Why the need to fight?


----------



## theCaptn' (Dec 2, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> I'm talking about today. 2012 in the United States. Why the need to fight?



I guess when creationism is creeping into schools as a legit alternative to Darwinism ... There's something worth fighting for


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

BlueJayMuscle said:


> I'm a Jew (yep that's right haha) and I have a definitive belief in god and evolution... Not the same type of god described in the bible (more of a philosophical intuitive god). But I don't believe the bible recounts factual history as well. I believe it as more of a guidelines on how to live worded in allegories.
> 
> There is a healthy balance of faith and science. No need to be towards either extreme
> 
> ...



If you use the bible as a guideline on how to live, then you're one sick and horrible person.

Explain why faith is a good thing.  Why should people be encouraged to believe things that couldn't possibly be true or go against every bit of rational thinking. It's crazy to me how we've come to think that faith is a positive thing.  

Faith is why Jim jones and his 900 followers are dead, why the twin towers were destroyed and why some people allow their children to die instead of seeking medical care.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 2, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> Why this need to make theology and science continually at war? It's not one or the other, and while we are in mortality it's not likely to be resolved. Mankind in mortality doesn't understand God, or his workings, but on a basic level. Our understanding of God, and his doings is like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. On the flip side science is the same way. If anyone has read Origin of the Species and compared that to our understanding of evolution now it would be easy to recognize that. We are constantly learning new things in science and because of this it's constantly changing. Each has it's place in our lives. and they aren't mutually exclusive.



I have actually read "On the origin of species."

Christianity and science will always be at war because science had been proving that Christianity is a lie for 2000 years.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 3, 2012)

Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1 - YouTube


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 3, 2012)

Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 2 - YouTube


----------



## KelJu (Dec 3, 2012)

KILLEROFSAINTS said:


> no one knows
> why argue




Because lunatics want fantasy taught in science classrooms. Also, I don't care what crazy people believe, but they always end up trying to control my life based on their ridiculous shit. Laws are based on tall tales written by sand niggers.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 3, 2012)

if only everyone just minded there own buisness


----------



## troubador (Dec 3, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> Why this need to make theology and science continually at war?



People tend to politicize everything. For the most part science isn't really concerned with theology. The actual battles mostly come from religious people pushing their ideology. When 46% of people in the U.S. still believes in creationism we have a huge problem with education in this country. Science wouldn't be at war with religion if it wasn't continually trying to fuck up science. I wouldn't have a problem with religion if they kept it out of education and politics.


----------



## Digitalash (Dec 4, 2012)

My littlest sister lives with my grandparents and goes to a private school, I almost fucking lost it when they told me her school doesn't teach anything at all about evolution. I would be ok with her church teaching her "creationism" if her school at least made it clear that evolution has been proven and is accepted amongst all first world countries as the explanation for life on earth, instead she's taught that evolution is "just a theory" by her science teacher who almost definitely does not understand evolution one bit.... 


I'm all for accepting people's religion, but when my six year old sister is being raised completely ignorant of one of the most important scientific discoveries in human history I have a problem with that. Her science teacher I'm sure tells them "some people actually believe we came from monkeys! Can you believe that LOL!" I find it completely absurd that America is letting this happen in some schools. In this day and age not understanding/believing in evolution will be a hugeee handicap if she ever decides she wants to pursue a career in science.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 4, 2012)

Bill Nye the science guy made the point recently that creationism makes our kids stupid and creates mistrust in science.


----------



## ebn2002 (Dec 4, 2012)

Using "faith" as your rebuttal means you can stand for anything.  I could claim the smurfs started the world and will save me one day, and I have the same amount of proof as you religious people.  Doesn't that dissuade you at all?  Fukin stupid people with their inability to think for themselves.  Sorry but religion is the worst thing man ever created.


----------



## theCaptn' (Dec 4, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> Using "faith" as your rebuttal means you can stand for anything.  I could claim the smurfs started the world and will save me one day, and I have the same amount of proof as you religious people.  Doesn't that dissuade you at all?  Fukin stupid people with their inability to think for themselves.  Sorry but religion is the worst thing man ever created.



Or the smartest thing created. It's a method for controlling the masses. It's like an evolution of slavery


----------



## LAM (Dec 4, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> Sorry but religion is the worst thing man ever created.



it's insidious


----------



## troubador (Dec 4, 2012)

theCaptn' said:


> Or the smartest thing created. It's a method for controlling the masses. It's like an evolution of slavery



Religion was created to control the elite. Better put - religion was the creation of an enforcer(god) of the natural self interests of the weak(altruism). The guiding principles are always that of altruism, giving to the poor,humility, the meek shall inherit the earth,etc; in other words "herd morality" or "slave morality".  The elite does not need to manipulate the masses in the absence of these values. After a religion becomes popular with the masses the elite pander to the masses and might use religion to manipulate them. But the elite creating an altruistic morality and supernatural almighty enforcer of such morality to control the masses is creating more of a problem than a solution. 

Most people not knowing the history of morality don't realize the values they inherit. Altruism plus some enforcer equals religion. There are even atheists who are religious minded, the enforcer need not be supernatural.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 5, 2012)

troubador said:


> Religion was created to control the elite. Better put - religion was the creation of an enforcer(god) of the natural self interests of the weak(altruism). The guiding principles are always that of altruism, giving to the poor,humility, the meek shall inherit the earth,etc; in other words "herd morality" or "slave morality".  The elite does not need to manipulate the masses in the absence of these values. After a religion becomes popular with the masses the elite pander to the masses and might use religion to manipulate them. But the elite creating an altruistic morality and supernatural almighty enforcer of such morality to control the masses is creating more of a problem than a solution.
> 
> Most people not knowing the history of morality don't realize the values they inherit. Altruism plus some enforcer equals religion. There are even atheists who are religious minded, the enforcer need not be supernatural.



Lol, you read Nietzsche and think you know everything.

What you guys fail to realize, is that there religion =/= spirituality.


The problem is that when monkeys get a hold of something they tend to abuse it.

The idea of "God" is just one of these manifestations.


----------



## troubador (Dec 5, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Lol, you read Nietzsche and think you know everything.
> 
> What you guys fail to realize, is that there religion =/= spirituality.



Didn't say I know everything or mention spirituality but nice trolling attempt.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 5, 2012)

God see all


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 5, 2012)




----------



## exphys88 (Dec 5, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> View attachment 48309



Correction:
First, we tell them to rape and murder women and children, then we send my son, who is actually me and he tells them how to behave.


----------



## LAM (Dec 5, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Correction:
> First, we tell them to rape and murder women and children, then we send my son, who is actually me and he tells them how to behave.



http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/havetouched.jpg


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 5, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Correction:
> First, we tell them to murder and rape, women and children, then I spirit rape a virgin disguised as a dove, we send my son, who is actually me and he tells them how to behave.


fixed


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

Ok, here is what I ask my medical students:

What scientific principle explains and predicts why chimps,like humans lack the 1,3 galactose epitope on surface molecules of their cells, ( important in acute rejection of xenotransplanted tissues), which is why we have to knock out the gene in transgenic pigs when we use their tissue for organ xenotransplantation? ( we use a lot of pig tissue for skin grafts in wound care). All other vertebral mammals put the 1,3 galactose epitope on their surface antigens except chimps and old world monkeys ( closest to us on the evolutionary tree).   Logistically we don't use chimp skin because they are too expensive to raise and ethics of slaughtering chimps for tissue grafts is less distasteful than pigs, since we already use them for food.....

2nd. What scientific principle explains and predicts why we start with mice for clinical trials and not spiders or birds? ( the latter are descendents from the same line as dinosaurs)?  Hint: common descent allows animals to be substituted for humans in clinical drug trials.  

3rd. what scientific principle explains why the pax6 gene that codes for eye formation is almost exactly the same in mice as it is in humans?  Hint: field of evo devo.

4th.  Hox gene, which is pleiotropic and codes for vertebral axis formation as well as cell division is an evolutionary constraint *that mandates that all vertebral animals have exactly 7 cervical vertebrae ( 7 neck bones).  Yes, the giraffe, the whale, the human, the mice, the chimp, the cat , the elephant all, I mean all have exactly 7 cervical vertebrae*. ( the excetion is manatee and sloths, but that is it) Birds don't have such a constraint ( swans have 25 cervical vertebrae)... oh but wait, birds are not mammals.............By the way, the hox gene is also why all vertebral animals  do not have more than five digits for the last 350 million years......The Hox gene is preserved throughout the animal kingdom through evolution ( evolution uses old parts for new tricks) because it is deadly ( cancers arise) if it is not preserved.

For example, some humans have a 7th cervical rib ( hox defect) where a rib arises from the 7th cervical rib.  55% of spontaneously aborted fetuses have 7th cervical rib, 25% of all childhood cancers ( ewing sarcoma, childhood leukemias etc.) these kids have a 7th cervical rib.  This is an evolutionary principle called antagonisitc pleiotropy which may explain a lot of childhood cancers..

and the list goes on.......in other words, what other scientific principle comes even close to predicting and finding the above? Nothing, but evolution predicts and explains the above. Intelligent design doesn't, irreducible complexity doesn't..


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

Digitalash said:


> My littlest sister lives with my grandparents and goes to a private school, I almost fucking lost it when they told me her school doesn't teach anything at all about evolution. I would be ok with her church teaching her "creationism" if her school at least made it clear that evolution has been proven and is accepted amongst all first world countries as the explanation for life on earth, instead she's taught that evolution is "just a theory" by her science teacher who almost definitely does not understand evolution one bit....
> 
> 
> I'm all for accepting people's religion, but when my six year old sister is being raised completely ignorant of one of the most important scientific discoveries in human history I have a problem with that. Her science teacher I'm sure tells them "some people actually believe we came from monkeys! Can you believe that LOL!" I find it completely absurd that America is letting this happen in some schools. In this day and age not understanding/believing in evolution will be a hugeee handicap if she ever decides she wants to pursue a career in science.



What gets my goat is creationism and intelligent design aren't scientific theories, yet they are taught as "alternative" scientific theories.  

You can't design a single, falsifiable, reproducible experiment , and therefore, it is not a scientific theory.  The criteria, is that it can be tested.  Of course that leaves something like String Theory, technically not a scientific theory, ( since we don't have the technological tools to design an experiment) but it has internal rigorous mathmatical testing.  If experiments have been done, then my apologies, I am not a theoretical physicist. 

Second, teaching creationism is intellectually and scientifically lazy.  You don't try to devise new ways of answering difficult problems and searching for novel ways of explaining the findings around you.  You just have to throw up your hands and say "god created it",, oh well!

Third, the Theory of evolution has hundreds and thousands of lines of data  and inquiry that are internally and externally consistent  and provide proof.  The whole field of molecular biology, Evo devo, population genetics, paleoentology, comparative anatomy and phylogenics, embryology, geology, radiometric dating etc. all converge to prove evolution over and over again.  Hell, it has more "proof" by sheer volume than say the current theory of gravity , general relativity. The latter has experimental proof using gravitional red shift, gravity lenses, atomic clock experiments etc. ( I know there is more but forgive my simpleton views) but you get the gist.

Evolution doesn't negate religiosity.  WHen I was working at COld SPring Harbor Laboratory I worked with a jesuit priest who was a superb molecular biologist and a Turkish muslim molecular biologist.  Both said something that I still remember to this day and I will paraphrase them.  "Intelligent design resonates with them but it is absolutely useless for designing their experiments...only evolutionary helps them design their experiments".


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> What gets my goat is creationism and intelligent design aren't scientific theories, yet they are taught as "alternative" scientific theories.
> 
> You can't design a single, falsifiable, reproducible experiment , and therefore, it is not a scientific theory.  The criteria, is that it can be tested.  Of course that leaves something like String Theory, technically not a scientific theory, ( since we don't have the technological tools to design an experiment) but it has internal rigorous mathmatical testing.  If experiments have been done, then my apologies, I am not a theoretical physicist.
> 
> ...



I have a problem w Muslims or Christians who accept evolution.  Their religions are not compatible w evolution.  Once you accept evolution, the entire concept of the fall of man becomes a lie, and therefore the entire premise that the religions is built upon is gone.
They're just lying to themselves.


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Second, teaching creationism is intellectually and scientifically lazy.  You don't try to devise new ways of answering difficult problems and searching for novel ways of explaining the findings around you.  You just have to throw up your hands and say "god created it",, oh well!



couldn't be stated any better than that.  a nation of lazy thinkers that don't question and just accept things as they are is exactly what they want.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I have a problem w Muslims or Christians who accept evolution.  Their religions are not compatible w evolution.  Once you accept evolution, the entire concept of the fall of man becomes a lie, and therefore the entire premise that the religions is built upon is gone.
> They're just lying to themselves.




Even scientists are capable of cognitive dissonance.

  However, some christians, like the quakers, don't accept the literal meaning of the bible, which is why , if you ever go to a quaker meeting ( my american dad and grandparents are quakers) many are scientists.  Of course, quakers also believe in feminine equality, abolition of slaverly long before anyone did so they were so radical and subversive they were thrown out of europe.  THey also have been marrying gays in civil ceremonies since at least 1985 ( I went to one between two lesbians at my quaker meeting house).  They also don't think christians have a monopoly into heaven, hence, another reason they were pesecuted in europe. Thank goodness for the 1st amendment.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 7, 2012)

why wont you all except my god, must I kill you to prove he is great!


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Even scientists are capable of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> However, some christians, like the quakers, don't accept the literal meaning of the bible, which is why , if you ever go to a quaker meeting ( my american dad and grandparents are quakers) many are scientists.  Of course, quakers also believe in feminine equality, abolition of slaverly long before anyone did so they were so radical and subversive they were thrown out of europe.  THey also have been marrying gays in civil ceremonies since at least 1985 ( I went to one between two lesbians at my quaker meeting house).  They also don't think christians have a monopoly into heaven, hence, another reason they were pesecuted in europe. Thank goodness for the 1st amendment.



Once you say that you don't accept the literal interpretation of the bible, the bible becomes pointless.  Just a book of stories and allegory w both horrendous and positive messages that one must arbitrarily decide which ones to listen to.  It's no longer the word of god and the entire religion becomes pointless.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Once you say that you don't accept the literal interpretation of the bible, the bible becomes pointless.  Just a book of stories and allegory w both horrendous and positive messages that one must arbitrarily decide which ones to listen to.  It's no longer the word of god and the entire religion becomes pointless.


bible has alot of good messages, like eating shrimp is a sin, its ok to beat your slaves as long as they can get up after 3 days, and for Azza if you lay with another man as you lay with a woman you will burn in hell.


----------



## Glycomann (Dec 7, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> your post is not saying that we evolved from a banana, rather.. we were once the same substance, and some of that substance evolved into a banana, and some of that substance evolved into a human?


That solves it Donkey. The inescapable logic is that you are a banana.


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Even scientists are capable of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> However, some christians, like the quakers, don't accept the literal meaning of the bible, which is why , if you ever go to a quaker meeting ( my american dad and grandparents are quakers) many are scientists.  Of course, quakers also believe in feminine equality, abolition of slaverly long before anyone did so they were so radical and subversive they were thrown out of europe.  THey also have been marrying gays in civil ceremonies since at least 1985 ( I went to one between two lesbians at my quaker meeting house).  They also don't think christians have a monopoly into heaven, hence, another reason they were pesecuted in europe. Thank goodness for the 1st amendment.



I went to a Quaker school when my family lived in the city in Philly before we moved out to the suburbs in the mid 70's.  it was nothing at all like the public school that I went to after that.

wasn't Ben Franklin a Quaker?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

LAM said:


> I went to a Quaker school when my family lived in the city in Philly before we moved out to the suburbs in the mid 70's.  it was nothing at all like the public school that I went to after that.
> 
> wasn't Ben Franklin a Quaker?




Not sure, but susan b anthony started off as a quaker then became an athiest.The latter is quite common among quakers, not sure why.  My grandparents, both chemical engineers, became athiests. My dad is still a theist quaker.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Once you say that you don't accept the literal interpretation of the bible, the bible becomes pointless.  Just a book of stories and allegory w both horrendous and positive messages that one must arbitrarily decide which ones to listen to.  It's no longer the word of god and the entire religion becomes pointless.



true, but I learned malay by reading the quaran in Malaysia and Singapore, read the bible to learn english at a baptist missionary school, both are literary masterpieces, like homer's iliad.  Unfortunately, most religious folks ( outside quakers) , just don't seem to realize how arbitrary they are with picking and choosing from their religious books, but then, cognitive dissonance is a common psycological protective mechanism for most humans...


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Standard Donkey View Post
> your post is not saying that we evolved from a banana, rather.. we were once the same substance, and some of that substance evolved into a banana, and some of that substance evolved into a human?



My answer is drier but it's because evolution involves using old genes to develop new tricks. ( It's why we all inhabit an imperfect bodies).  It's not the number of genes that count , it is how it is expressed or turned on and off. (* Corn has almost 1 1/2 more genes than humans).  *No matter how divergent our forms , we share specific gene families that regulate major aspects of body patterning.  *Small set of gene complexes, like the HOX and PAX genes are expressed in novel ways that generate large scale changes in a non-incremental pattern.* THe HOX gene that generates the whale fin is strikingly similar to the human's hox gene that generates fingers... the difference... the amount of time that gene is turned on!! *IN  other words, evolution almost always build on existing scaffolding, old parts and genes get co-opted for new roles,  it does not dismantle a variant conferring fitness!*!!

sorry, just gave this talk to my med students so it's at the tip of my fingers.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I have a problem w Muslims and Christians.



fixed


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> fixed



You are correct, especially Muslims in current times.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You are correct, especially Muslims in current times.




i agree with you about  the cluster fuck in the middle east.  but believe it or not, the muslims in the united states have less of a problem with evolution than traditional christians.  For one, many muslims regard Adam, not as the first human on earth but the first to recieve a revelation from god.  I work with many, many muslims. ( especially from Turkey and egypt and Iran).  Dr. Ehab Abouheif - Department of Biology, McGill University  This guy spoke at Cold Spring harbor so I just wanted to put a muslim name to pioneering evolutionist biologist. The fundamentalist christians and muslims all put such a bad taste in everybody's mouth, if only people like abouheif and christian evolutionists could be more vocal.  ( other than in publications)


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2012)

Extremists get the most attention unfortunately.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Extremists get the most attention unfortunately.



Unfortumately, here in the south, i have to argue with the christian medical students when I teach this stuff about evolution. Remember, medical students come from a huge array of backgrounds and skills... the jews, muslims, hindis and buddists never argue with me, it's always the christians,... but I am in the south...


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Unfortumately, here in the south, i have to argue with the christian medical students when I teach this stuff about evolution. Remember, medical students come from a huge array of backgrounds and skills... the jews, muslims, hindis and buddists never argue with me, it's always the christians,... but I am in the south...



I work for a seventh day Adventist hospital  and deal w it all the time too.  They start every staff meeting w a prayer regardless of the faith of who is present.  Nepotism is rampant which leads to complete incompetence in administration.
I wear an atheist pin on my lab coat lol.


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Once you say that you don't accept the literal interpretation of the bible, the bible becomes pointless.



and considering how the bible was written (by what 60-70 different authors over 1500-2000 years) how could anyone ever accept the literal interpretation of it and that's with out even adding in what is known today about linguistics, general semantics (korzybski principle) and the things that we know know are indeed factual vs "facts" made up by belief systems.


* I remember being young like 6-7 and sitting in church and saying to myself "this is so boring and I don't believe anything these people are talking about" and "if this is so good for us why do mom and dad drop us off, why don't they ever come to church?".


----------



## maniclion (Dec 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I have a problem w Muslims or Christians who accept evolution.  Their religions are not compatible w evolution.  Once you accept evolution, the entire concept of the fall of man becomes a lie, and therefore the entire premise that the religions is built upon is gone.
> They're just lying to themselves.



They can still be of their faiths, not every religious person is a fundamentalist.  Like how Bruce Lee began mixing the better parts of martial arts and pissed off the Kung-Fu and Karate purists.  Adaptation is my faith, it's the only way we will evolve as a species, to one day become universal beings.  If anything I like to think we are all god trying to pull itself back together again and our evolution is us working our way back up to god status until one day we are all on that wavelength where it all just clicks and there comes the universal A-HA!  moment...


----------



## longworthb (Dec 7, 2012)

There's always going to be people to the far right and left. I believe in god but can't stand people running around preaching about it and pretending there perfect. I do go to church. Not as often as I should though. I guess I'm kind of up In the air on the subject like many many people are. I believe there is a higher power but I also believe we have evolved through many centuries to become what we are


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2012)

maniclion said:


> They can still be of their faiths, not every religious person is a fundamentalist.  Like how Bruce Lee began mixing the better parts of martial arts and pissed off the Kung-Fu and Karate purists.  Adaptation is my faith, it's the only way we will evolve as a species, to one day become universal beings.  If anything I like to think we are all god trying to pull itself back together again and our evolution is us working our way back up to god status until one day we are all on that wavelength where it all just clicks and there comes the universal A-HA!  moment...



I understand people wanting to believe that "we" as humans have to have another purpose then just life here in these current forms but there simply is no proof of that other than belief systems.  personally it puts me at ease to think some day all of this will come to an end.

it really fucking bothers me when religious people happen to be some of the biggest hypocrites as is the entire history of Christianity as when the popes ordered the killing of people in the 1300's CE, etc.

in terms of history and "proof" every bad thing that has occurred to humans on planet earth has been done by other humans.  we are the ones that make things good or bad events occur and not "the devil", etc. 

the "need" to be worshiped sounds rather petty for a creator of worlds and the universe.  a supreme being has no need of such, it's humans that need their egos to get stroked and some more than others. 

as time goes by we learn more and more about life on earth and science.  I mean who would have ever thought that a person could die from drinking too much water 15-20 years ago? I certainly didn't.  but we have seen people do it in recent years during contests, etc.

there have been thousands of religions over the lifetime of humans on this planet and they all come and go.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 10, 2012)

LAM said:


> I understand people wanting to believe that "we" as humans have to have another purpose then just life here in these current forms but there simply is no proof of that other than belief systems.  personally it puts me at ease to think some day all of this will come to an end.
> 
> it really fucking bothers me when religious people happen to be some of the biggest hypocrites as is the entire history of Christianity as when the popes ordered the killing of people in the 1300's CE, etc.
> 
> ...



Humans like trends.

The root, however, is the same.

Sorry LAM, but your mind is your universe.

As long as you continue to be a sadist, you will continue to feel alone.


----------



## LAM (Dec 10, 2012)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Humans like trends.
> 
> The root, however, is the same.
> 
> ...



I don't feel alone at all many of my friends are in the same boat. I've never felt the need to believe in a higher power.  My parents dropped my sister and I off to church but never ever talked about god in our home nor did any of my friends or their parents.  most of my friends back in Philly are Irish or Italian Catholics but it's as if nobody really bought into it or tried to sell it anymore.

I just have a really hard time grasping that grown up adults in this day and age believe in such things simply because they are written in a book.  take away all those books and scriptures from all the religions and what's left? nothing, not a single one of them more or less credible or "factual" than the other.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 10, 2012)

LAM said:


> I understand people wanting to believe that "we" as humans have to have another purpose then just life here in these current forms but there simply is no proof of that other than belief systems.  personally it puts me at ease to think some day all of this will come to an end.
> 
> it really fucking bothers me when religious people happen to be some of the biggest hypocrites as is the entire history of Christianity as when the popes ordered the killing of people in the 1300's CE, etc.
> 
> ...



As long as these beliefs don't stifle imagination I am fine with them, it's when they try to lock us into the past and kill all future knowledge that they irk me and need to shut the fuck up and leave people be....


----------



## LAM (Dec 10, 2012)

maniclion said:


> As long as these beliefs don't stifle imagination I am fine with them, it's when they try to lock us into the past and kill all future knowledge that they irk me and need to shut the fuck up and leave people be....



any ideology is based on abstract thought which makes them insufficiently factual.

the very definition of a fact is that it is mind independent and objective and stands to be true whether or not a person knows of it or acknowledges it as such.  religious beliefs are subjective and the exact opposite of that therefore not factual simply because a person "believes" them to be.


----------

