The Mana World Forums

evolutionist or creationist

Who cares, the true question is are you team Leno or team Conan?

Len wrote:evolutionist or creationist

Who cares, the true question is are you team Leno or team Conan?

I am team "put them on an island. Lets see who eat who first."

*shakes head*

I'm with crush...evolution is a fact, but the significant question that remains to be solved is how/why the universe came into existance. This is where the existance of god *can* come into play (the old clockmaker argument): as creator of the universe (and not necessarily on day 1, per the bible). But since I can't pic both, I'll use my rights as an american to abstain from voting and complain about the results.

Dude wrote:I'll use my rights as an american to abstain from voting and complain about the results.

Now THAT is a proper American stereotype.


The "how" and the "why" are apples and oranges, science being the "how" and philosophy being the "why". When religions have ever dictated the "how", it was almost always to relate a comprehensible version of "why" (or to appease/attract Pagans).

I don't have much lernin', but didn't Darwin's books refer to a God creator? If not only to avoid being shunned?

I simply didnt vote. We are certain that we had evolution & we are undergoing. I think due to technology we are undergoing some serious evolutional change (mutation) right now.

But we are not certain of the creation. Our perception is limited. Either the nature itself created us or by some higher being. So far we know there's a chance of our life being started by the collision with "Oort cloud" (some comets).

Well, what if our situation is like that of the matrix movie ? Like I said our perception is limited. We never know.

Btw, I am not against any religion, it helps some ppl live in peace. Things could be worse without it. Try to get out of the box & be li'l open minded.

And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

(& i m not a biologist. a computer science & engr. student. so i brought techs & matrix )

iceslice wrote:And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

This theory isn't uncontested either. There are multiple theories about the past and future history of our universe.
None of them are completely backed by evidence.

And this will most likely stay this way until we understood some fundamental concepts of physics like the nature of dark matter and dark energy or the grand unified theory.

Crush wrote:

iceslice wrote:And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

And this will most likely stay this way until we understood some fundamental concepts of physics like the nature of dark matter and dark energy or the grand unified theory.

You forgot Dark Water.

dayve wrote:You forgot Dark Water.

When you have no idea what we are talking about you should just shut up.

dayve wrote:

Crush wrote:

iceslice wrote:And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

And this will most likely stay this way until we understood some fundamental concepts of physics like the nature of dark matter and dark energy or the grand unified theory.

You forgot Dark Water.

love you too sweety.

Crush relax. Even if we do discover dark matter, dark energy,(and me) , graviton, and unified theory. The only valid way to test them would be from outside the structure of the universe.

You can not test unified theory from inside the universe. To do so would require all the energy in the universe, outside the universe you are dealing with our own mass to displace. You would need to test string/m/super theory from outside of the universe.

Now about shutting up.

What the is hell is wrong with you people. Some one make a joke, and you guys are cursing and screaming about it. Relax, you will live longer. IT WAS A JOKE, DARK WATER, DARK ENERGY, DARK MATTER- get it joke.

Crush because you do not know the fundamentals of unified theory, nor how to properly test it, you are not and expert.

But I will leave you with a quote.

hawking wrote:If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God.

So go ahead and tell people to shut up.

hawkings wrote:For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.

DarkWater wrote:

Platyna wrote:Looks like you know about biology more than I do then...*sigh* Then maybe I should get back to my studies, to become so smart like you one day.

Regards.

Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1183218

Darwinian Evolution of Prions in Cell Culture-Science
Jiali Li, Shawn Browning, Sukhvir P. Mahal, Anja M. Oelschlegel, Charles Weissmann*

little study material

This is the Internet, direct link or tits or GTFO. ;-)

So true Bertram, my brain is exploding already. ;-)

Regards.

iceslice wrote: And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

Actually the bigcrunch theory is most likely wrong, because observation has shown us the universe is accelerating its expansion.

ic..... wrote:And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

BigBounce =

the real theorie wrote:_x=10;
_y=200;
xspeed=Math.random()*60-30;
yspeed=Math.random()*60-30;
rightedge=550;
leftedge=0;
topedge=0;
bottomedge=400;
gravity=2;
drag=.98;
bounce=.9;
_x=_x+xspeed;
if(_x+_width/2>rightedge) {
_x=rightedge-_width/2;
xspeed=-xspeed*bounce;
}
if(_x-_width/2<leftedge) {
_x=leftedge+_width/2;
xspeed=-xspeed*bounce;
}
_y=_y+yspeed;
if(_y+_height/2>bottomedge) {
_y=bottomedge-_height/2;
yspeed=-yspeed*bounce;
}
if(_y-_height/2<topedge) {
_y=topedge+_height/2;
yspeed=-yspeed*bounce;
}
yspeed=yspeed*drag+gravity;
xspeed=xspeed*drag;

this is the true

Kage wrote:

iceslice wrote: And to all, BigBang theory is superseded by a new BigBounce theory. BigBounce = repetition of (bigbang+bigcrunch)

Actually the bigcrunch theory is most likely wrong, because observation has shown us the universe is accelerating its expansion.

If I could show you the time-expansion curve of the universe.
Well, universe itself has a mass. Can you tell me why is it accelerating ? As long as it has a mass it should crunch today or tomorrow. But now it's accelerating its expansion, afaik it's due to dark energy. But one day mass may overcome dark-energy.

Scientific American Magazine wrote:Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects

It showed the reasons of likelihood clearly through graphs.

How about the scientific option for the poll: I do not think anyone has yet arrived at the exact model which would represent the absolute truth, but there are rather good and proven approximations out there already.

Platyna wrote:

DarkWater wrote:

Platyna wrote:Looks like you know about biology more than I do then...*sigh* Then maybe I should get back to my studies, to become so smart like you one day.

Regards.

Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1183218

Darwinian Evolution of Prions in Cell Culture-Science
Jiali Li, Shawn Browning, Sukhvir P. Mahal, Anja M. Oelschlegel, Charles Weissmann*

little study material

This is the Internet, direct link or tits or GTFO.

So true Bertram, my brain is exploding already.

Regards.

Platyna, In regards to DarkWater's article attachment. I'm making two assumptions here, I don't know what your level of access is to on-line journal articles, or if your university(I'm also assuming your in a university/research level) would grant you full access.

Direct link to the abstract of the article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... ce.1183218
there's a link on the left side for the full article, but again you'll need some sort of university/or paid access.

To work around that, this article has been peer reviewed:
http://www.dddmag.com/news-Infectious-P ... 10410.aspx
so you can get an ideal of what the article was about.

This was a very recent discovery, Dec 31, 2009. So I wouldn't know much about it, nor would a majority of the scientific community except those maybe into this research field.