Evolution

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 02 Jul 2007 23:20

Blue_turnip wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote: And to Blue Turnip. If there is nothing, then there is no black, because there's no human mind to create it... Silly.
what the? that has nothing to do with what i said.

my point was that you can imagine nothing - black. of course, that isn't what 'nothing' would objectively appear like, but the fact is that you imagined it, therefore its not impossible

CautionFragile · Post by **CautionFragile** » 04 Jul 2007 08:01

On the subject of "nothing" and whether it exists or not, you should check out "The Tibetan Book of The Dead".... basically, the concept of the term itself proves its own non-existence. Nothing refers to an emptyness, but broken down to the unfathamable, to before the universe was created, there was no nothing, because using that term to describe even an emptyness, a void, would be giving it a name, thus it is no longer "nothing".

Psilocybe · Post by **Psilocybe** » 04 Jul 2007 16:10

^ Sounds like Saint Anselm's "proof of God".

"God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 04 Jul 2007 17:35

CautionFragile wrote:On the subject of "nothing" and whether it exists or not, you should check out "The Tibetan Book of The Dead".... basically, the concept of the term itself proves its own non-existence. Nothing refers to an emptyness, but broken down to the unfathamable, to before the universe was created, there was no nothing, because using that term to describe even an emptyness, a void, would be giving it a name, thus it is no longer "nothing".

Well there wasn't nothing prior to the universe we live in, how can something just randomly occur out of nothing?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 04 Jul 2007 22:12

Whoever it was who asked why the Big Bang couldn't have created the universe... Well, something can't come from nothing, satisfied? The universe has to have always been here, or there has to have always been a God, or creator who created the universe.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 04 Jul 2007 22:58

Switch Kicker wrote:Whoever it was who asked why the Big Bang couldn't have created the universe... Well, something can't come from nothing, satisfied? The universe has to have always been here, or there has to have always been a God, or creator who created the universe.

well there could have been something else prior to the universe that allowed for it's creation. the universe isn't necessarily everything that is or was.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Jul 2007 01:24

I think people misunderstand the big bang theory. The view that there was nothing before the big bang is not a scientifically supported view, but a view that comes predominately from religious people trying to turn people away from science by spreading lies.

The fact of the matter is that if the big bang theory is correct, and there is an enormous amount of corresponding evidence to suggest that it is (like it's the only explanation for why you get static on a tv when it's not tuned to a station), then we can't know what occurred before the big bang. There is a lot of speculation and the details of the big bang theory are being refined all the time. For example it's important to note that today's physicists reject the idea that there was no time before the big bang, and quantum mechanics now supports that view, both in relation to the big bang, but also in relation to the mechanics of black holes.

Stephen Hawking has famously stated that it would be foolish to think of space-time as anything other than round, which would mean that we should assume that there is no beginning or end of the universe, unless we get strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Although counter intuitive, we need to accept that the linear model of time is wrong, just like there are no one dimensional lines in reality (the only object that really has a definable beginning and end).

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 05 Jul 2007 03:45

Jeremy wrote:For example it's important to note that today's physicists reject the idea that there was no time before the big bang, and quantum mechanics now supports that view, both in relation to the big bang, but also in relation to the mechanics of black holes.

could you tell me a bit more about this?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Jul 2007 04:39

Blue_turnip wrote:
Jeremy wrote:For example it's important to note that today's physicists reject the idea that there was no time before the big bang, and quantum mechanics now supports that view, both in relation to the big bang, but also in relation to the mechanics of black holes.
could you tell me a bit more about this?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Jul 2007 05:39

Blue_turnip wrote:
Jeremy wrote:For example it's important to note that today's physicists reject the idea that there was no time before the big bang, and quantum mechanics now supports that view, both in relation to the big bang, but also in relation to the mechanics of black holes.
could you tell me a bit more about this?

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... s-don.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _bang.html

Also see "God; The Failed Hypothesis" by physicists Victor Strenger.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 05 Jul 2007 06:35

i'm surprised by the first article. how could it have previously been thought under any circumstances that black holes have infinite gravity?

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 05 Jul 2007 21:26

You seem to be arguing against evolution-haters a lot. Evolution is absolute common sense and I doubt many people would argue against it if they actually understood it. People do argue against it turning is from one cell organisms into the world we have today, which is a different thing.

Does anyone actually know of someone who thinks evolution is false?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Jul 2007 22:32

james_dean wrote:You seem to be arguing against evolution-haters a lot. Evolution is absolute common sense and I doubt many people would argue against it if they actually understood it. People do argue against it turning is from one cell organisms into the world we have today, which is a different thing.

Does anyone actually know of someone who thinks evolution is false?

*Raises hand*

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 05 Jul 2007 22:56

Oh yeah, I forgot how stupid people are ><

Do they get it, or they won't listen to what evolution actually is? I hate it when christians don't even get their own religion...

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 06 Jul 2007 06:04

james_dean wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot how stupid people are ><

Do they get it, or they won't listen to what evolution actually is? I hate it when christians don't even get their own religion...

I just can't believe like 48% of people in the US reject it. Either footbaggers are simply a cut above the rest or the info I read was false.

sanuke okumatzu · Post by **sanuke okumatzu** » 06 Jul 2007 06:40

Blue_turnip wrote:
james_dean wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot how stupid people are ><

Do they get it, or they won't listen to what evolution actually is? I hate it when christians don't even get their own religion...
I just can't believe like 48% of people in the US reject it. Either footbaggers are simply a cut above the rest or the info I read was false.

Open minded-ness mate. Playing footbag takes an open mind, thus the people who play it are usually in the know...ya' hur' me?

I played for the first time in 2 and a half weeks yesterday

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 06 Jul 2007 07:01

sanuke okumatzu wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote:
james_dean wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot how stupid people are ><

Do they get it, or they won't listen to what evolution actually is? I hate it when christians don't even get their own religion...
I just can't believe like 48% of people in the US reject it. Either footbaggers are simply a cut above the rest or the info I read was false.

Open minded-ness mate. Playing footbag takes an open mind, thus the people who play it are usually in the know...ya' hur' me?

I played for the first time in 2 and a half weeks yesterday

Too true, too true. Didn't think about that. Yeah, everyone who rejects footbag is always closed off and follows the normal things, while footbaggers tend to be more diverse people.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Jul 2007 07:52

james_dean wrote:People do argue against it turning is from one cell organisms into the world we have today, which is a different thing.

Wrong. If things didn't evolve from single celled organisms, the entire theory of evolution, and much of biology is false. The whole point of evolution is that it explains how life came to be, and it relies on the idea that all life is related, and shares a common ancestor.

People who argue that life today hasn't evolved from single celled organisms have basically as poor an understanding of evolution as people who don't believe in it at all.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 06 Jul 2007 14:33

Jeremy.....Your post count is at 6666!

I guess I'll add to the discussion as well......

To half believe in something is to do neither side of the argument justice. Anyone who after doing research on a topic as cut and dry as evolution, still maintains that a specific part of it is false is not only being ignorant of well proven scientific fact, but is turning their back on their religion.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 06 Jul 2007 18:25

Yeah, there's no room for pussies who are scared of offending either party, they're equally disliked.