(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

(12-10-2015 09:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:49 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

You should go back and retake them....a lot has happened since you probably last sat in a science class. It doesn't take a genius to know that the galaxy is expanding. But anyway, you should read or listen to some of the new information that has been discovered. I'm not a scientist, and typing it all out would take a herculean effort.

You mean the universe? I do not believe the universe is finite. As far as the galaxy expanding (I assume milky way?), that would fly in the face of centripetal force. If true, the variables are infinate and any attempt and explaining it is futile.

Yes, the universe is expanding. I don't think there is any debate on this lol. As far as it being finite or infinite, that's just something we can really know seeing as how we've (humans) have measured what, 13.8 billion light years in all directions and have not found evidence that features on one side of the sky are connected to features on the other side of the sky.

There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

(12-10-2015 09:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:49 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

You should go back and retake them....a lot has happened since you probably last sat in a science class. It doesn't take a genius to know that the galaxy is expanding. But anyway, you should read or listen to some of the new information that has been discovered. I'm not a scientist, and typing it all out would take a herculean effort.

You mean the universe? I do not believe the universe is finite. As far as the galaxy expanding (I assume milky way?), that would fly in the face of centripetal force. If true, the variables are infinate and any attempt and explaining it is futile.

Have you looked much at the latest theories about dark energy and matter? Because scientists have been baffled by what appears to be a universe expanding at an accelerated rate.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/

(12-10-2015 09:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:49 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

You should go back and retake them....a lot has happened since you probably last sat in a science class. It doesn't take a genius to know that the galaxy is expanding. But anyway, you should read or listen to some of the new information that has been discovered. I'm not a scientist, and typing it all out would take a herculean effort.

You mean the universe? I do not believe the universe is finite. As far as the galaxy expanding (I assume milky way?), that would fly in the face of centripetal force. If true, the variables are infinate and any attempt and explaining it is futile.

The universe is expanding, but not the individual galaxies. Not at this point anyway, gravity is too strong. Even the galactic clusters that are gravitationally bound are not expanding, as far as we can tell.

(12-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

Sure, all things are possible. But given evidence that we have now, it's kind of hard to look at the big bang and think "that's a total load of crap." But, as you stated, that's the beauty of science, the entire idea of it is based on proving theories wrong. The non stop search for knowledge. I'm sure there are dozens of scientist questioning the big bang, and I've heard other theories such as numerous big bangs taking place which could certainly be the case as well. Time will tell and do it's thing. Assuming humans are even around in 200 years lol.

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

Sure, all things are possible. But given evidence that we have now, it's kind of hard to look at the big bang and think "that's a total load of crap." But, as you stated, that's the beauty of science, the entire idea of it is based on proving theories wrong. The non stop search for knowledge. I'm sure there are dozens of scientist questioning the big bang, and I've heard other theories such as numerous big bangs taking place which could certainly be the case as well. Time will tell and do it's thing. Assuming humans are even around in 200 years lol.

No doubt. I feel humans are a long way off from even chipping the tip of proverbial iceberg though. We may kill ourselves before even grasping a bit of understanding.

(12-10-2015 10:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

Sure, all things are possible. But given evidence that we have now, it's kind of hard to look at the big bang and think "that's a total load of crap." But, as you stated, that's the beauty of science, the entire idea of it is based on proving theories wrong. The non stop search for knowledge. I'm sure there are dozens of scientist questioning the big bang, and I've heard other theories such as numerous big bangs taking place which could certainly be the case as well. Time will tell and do it's thing. Assuming humans are even around in 200 years lol.

No doubt. I feel humans are a long way off from even chipping the tip of proverbial iceberg though. We may kill ourselves before even grasping a bit of understanding.

I'd be very surprised if the big bang theory was overturned given the evidence, though it could be tweaked. Though there could be multiple big bangs, or something like that. And there could be some major discoveries regarding what they're calling dark matter and energy that could change a lot. I'm still not convinced there's actual dark matter that we just can't detect except through gravity.

(12-10-2015 10:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

Sure, all things are possible. But given evidence that we have now, it's kind of hard to look at the big bang and think "that's a total load of crap." But, as you stated, that's the beauty of science, the entire idea of it is based on proving theories wrong. The non stop search for knowledge. I'm sure there are dozens of scientist questioning the big bang, and I've heard other theories such as numerous big bangs taking place which could certainly be the case as well. Time will tell and do it's thing. Assuming humans are even around in 200 years lol.

No doubt. I feel humans are a long way off from even chipping the tip of proverbial iceberg though. We may kill ourselves before even grasping a bit of understanding.

The interesting aspects of science is that it's a self correcting endeavor when the scientific method is adhered to. What is fascinating is sometimes the ideas are so brilliant that the math used to show the phenomena being observed doesn't balance out, and that later discoveries come about in order to balance an equation. I think this is how the Higgs boson was discovered and that it's inclusion helped balance one of the quantum mechanics equations.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-front-lines...boson.html

Quote:Prof. Butterworth explained that there was a problem in balancing the energies and masses involved in a scattering experiment such as the annihilation of an electron and positron, which results in the production of a massless photon before decay back to an electron and positron. Richard Feynman proposed that photons produced in such experiments should be allowed to have the "wrong" mass and there was a small but non-zero probability that some of them would be detected that have the required mass to make the equations balance. A particle, the z boson, had been detected in this way.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-front-lines...n.html#jCp

(12-10-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The scientific theories we have now (most of them) have been built on centuries of meticulous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. Any theory worth the name involved experiments and those theories that did not match observations got discarded over time. I think they have a fair idea of the general timeline over 4.5 billion years. There's a lot they still don't know but there's a lot that has tons of good evidence behind it.

No they don't have a fair idea of a general timeline, they have a theory that groupthink in the academic establishment requires them to subscribe to.

Compare to the pyramids in a field, Egyptology, whereas anthropology is not as much of an exercise of groupthink. Not that it doesn't exist, but it is a field where alternative theories can get out there. With regard to the pyramids, you also have centuries of meticilous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. There is tons of evidence and much of it is historical (written) evidence. However, you have hundreds of theories on how the pyramids were built ALL supported by the evidence.

So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The scientific theories we have now (most of them) have been built on centuries of meticulous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. Any theory worth the name involved experiments and those theories that did not match observations got discarded over time. I think they have a fair idea of the general timeline over 4.5 billion years. There's a lot they still don't know but there's a lot that has tons of good evidence behind it.

No they don't have a fair idea of a general timeline, they have a theory that groupthink in the academic establishment requires them to subscribe to.

Compare to the pyramids in a field, Egyptology, whereas anthropology is not as much of an exercise of groupthink. Not that it doesn't exist, but it is a field where alternative theories can get out there. With regard to the pyramids, you also have centuries of meticilous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. There is tons of evidence and much of it is historical (written) evidence. However, you have hundreds of theories on how the pyramids were built ALL supported by the evidence.

So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

That's absurd. First there are alternative theories out there that compete in the hard sciences all the time. Particle physics had different theories competing at the same time and the string theory within this area of physics has different theories within it as well that "compete". What you think is group think in the hard sciences is in reality a process that is defined by mathematics. Mathematics only cares about the correct solution, and the correct solution is a tangible thing. The softer sciences, OTOH appear to have more theories because there are much weaker frameworks to work with, and as a result more diversity of theories are possible. In reality, it only appears that way to an outsider because the hard sciences have a lot of competing theories too, it's just that you tend to not see them broadly published because people don't understand the math.

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The scientific theories we have now (most of them) have been built on centuries of meticulous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. Any theory worth the name involved experiments and those theories that did not match observations got discarded over time. I think they have a fair idea of the general timeline over 4.5 billion years. There's a lot they still don't know but there's a lot that has tons of good evidence behind it.

No they don't have a fair idea of a general timeline, they have a theory that groupthink in the academic establishment requires them to subscribe to.

Compare to the pyramids in a field, Egyptology, whereas anthropology is not as much of an exercise of groupthink. Not that it doesn't exist, but it is a field where alternative theories can get out there. With regard to the pyramids, you also have centuries of meticilous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. There is tons of evidence and much of it is historical (written) evidence. However, you have hundreds of theories on how the pyramids were built ALL supported by the evidence.

So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

They've looked at other theories as well, like the steady-state theory, but the evidence didn't support it. We used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That went by the wayside due to the evidence as well. There have been LOTS of theories regarding physics and the vast majority have been discarded. If a scientist came up with a plausible competing theory, and compiled observational evidence that supported it, he'd win a Nobel Prize.

To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

(12-10-2015 10:37 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The scientific theories we have now (most of them) have been built on centuries of meticulous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. Any theory worth the name involved experiments and those theories that did not match observations got discarded over time. I think they have a fair idea of the general timeline over 4.5 billion years. There's a lot they still don't know but there's a lot that has tons of good evidence behind it.

No they don't have a fair idea of a general timeline, they have a theory that groupthink in the academic establishment requires them to subscribe to.

Compare to the pyramids in a field, Egyptology, whereas anthropology is not as much of an exercise of groupthink. Not that it doesn't exist, but it is a field where alternative theories can get out there. With regard to the pyramids, you also have centuries of meticilous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. There is tons of evidence and much of it is historical (written) evidence. However, you have hundreds of theories on how the pyramids were built ALL supported by the evidence.

So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

They've looked at other theories as well, like the steady-state theory, but the evidence didn't support it. We used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That went by the wayside due to the evidence as well. There have been LOTS of theories regarding physics and the vast majority have been discarded. If a scientist came up with a plausible competing theory, and compiled observational evidence that supported it, he'd win a Nobel Prize.

He would never get a dime of funding.

(12-10-2015 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

Specifically, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is only violated if you look at the earth as being a closed system. That's not the case. The sun provides the energy needed to allow less ordered things to become more ordered.

(12-10-2015 10:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There is certainly no scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory, so it's a bit irresponsible to see it is as a flawless, universally (hehe)-accepted concept.

I'm not saying that is or isn't how the universe came to be in its current form, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years the theory is looked at the same way as the flat Earth theory is now.

Sure, all things are possible. But given evidence that we have now, it's kind of hard to look at the big bang and think "that's a total load of crap." But, as you stated, that's the beauty of science, the entire idea of it is based on proving theories wrong. The non stop search for knowledge. I'm sure there are dozens of scientist questioning the big bang, and I've heard other theories such as numerous big bangs taking place which could certainly be the case as well. Time will tell and do it's thing. Assuming humans are even around in 200 years lol.

No doubt. I feel humans are a long way off from even chipping the tip of proverbial iceberg though. We may kill ourselves before even grasping a bit of understanding.

The interesting aspects of science is that it's a self correcting endeavor when the scientific method is adhered to. What is fascinating is sometimes the ideas are so brilliant that the math used to show the phenomena being observed doesn't balance out, and that later discoveries come about in order to balance an equation. I think this is how the Higgs boson was discovered and that it's inclusion helped balance one of the quantum mechanics equations.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-front-lines...boson.html

Quote:Prof. Butterworth explained that there was a problem in balancing the energies and masses involved in a scattering experiment such as the annihilation of an electron and positron, which results in the production of a massless photon before decay back to an electron and positron. Richard Feynman proposed that photons produced in such experiments should be allowed to have the "wrong" mass and there was a small but non-zero probability that some of them would be detected that have the required mass to make the equations balance. A particle, the z boson, had been detected in this way.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-front-lines...n.html#jCp

I took Astrophysics 101 in college as a science elective and my brain nearly exploded.

(12-10-2015 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

Not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. For every mutation that led to a higher-order creature, there are lots of mutations that were complete dead ends. I doubt that entropy decreases from that process, for the whole system.

Like you said, a higher power could have set up evolution to take place, but it sure seems like a violent, cruel way of doing things.

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.