heckofajobbrownie Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 No, no. Don't go back there. We know that already. That's simple reality. Or look at it this way: for the sake of argument, say it isn't unilateral. Say we've all signed on to bringing emissions back to 1995 levels - China, India, Europe, etc. How are you going to get there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 heckbunker doesn't "believe" much. He just rolls with the left, and defends the most stupid aspects of the left... with all vigor. No matter how many times he contradicks himself, no matter how many times he changes the subject, no matter how many times he has to redefine terms.... same old nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 heckbunker doesn't "believe" much. He just rolls with the left, and defends the most stupid aspects of the left... with all vigor. No matter how many times he contradicks himself, no matter how many times he changes the subject, no matter how many times he has to redefine terms.... same old nonsense. Yes yes and you are a beacon of all that is right and true... Now answer my 3 questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 You didn't say "please", so ..... . @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 You didn't say "please", so ..... . @@ Bummer. I really wanted to read what you would come up with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Also, for Cal (anyone else can chime in if they'd like) I just have a few other science related questions for you, if you don't mind answering. 1) What do you believe the origin of the universe was and/or how old do you think the Earth is? 2) Do you recognize evolution and the process of natural selection? 3) Do you think there is life on other planets? Intelligent life? Care to start us off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Geez... my B.... guy can't get away with not posting here for one day... 1) Big Bang, or something along those lines. A lot of theoretical competing theories for pre big bang that all seem somewhat similar. At this level there may be a higher power out there, who knows. But it probably doesn't care about Earth let alone anyones lives. I also don't think a higher power would be necessary for the start of the universe. I would wager there more likely isn't any higher power. You can actually get something from nothing in the Big Bang because positive and negative energy can add together for a net nothing. There is a lot here I do not understand fully but I always enjoy learning about it. The point is this is a question, like most, we can look to science for and to help build our knowledge. I do not think Earth is 6000 years old. It is much, much older. I do not think a magic man with a white beard made everything in 6 days. I do not think the entirety of the human race came from hundreds of years of incest (well, Biblically speaking. I think at one point in homo saipien history there was a heavy genetic bottleneck from the population dropping a ton.) 2) Of course I do. There is overwhelming evidence to support both as well as documented cases of evolution going on before our eyes. Any argument against these principles I'm guessing falls back to "Well the Bible says..." which isn't any evidence at all. 3) Yes and yes. As large as the universe is it would be pretty astounding that Earth was the only planet suitable for life. I'm pretty sure we have gathered evidence of microscopic life outside of our planet. As far as intelligent life, this is probably out there as well. But when you think how old the universe is there must be a very slim chance that human's and another intelligent life could even communicate with each other. I mean, in the grand scheme of things we haven't been around that long. Another intelligent species on another planet may have evolved past the point of even wishing to communicate with us. We could just be ants to them. Or maybe they are just so far away it is impossible to communicate with them. If you want me to expand on anything, please let me know. Your turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Geez... my B.... guy can't get away with not posting here for one day... 1) Big Bang, or something along those lines. A lot of theoretical competing theories for pre big bang that all seem somewhat similar. At this level there may be a higher power out there, who knows. But it probably doesn't care about Earth let alone anyones lives. I also don't think a higher power would be necessary for the start of the universe. I would wager there more likely isn't any higher power. You can actually get something from nothing in the Big Bang because positive and negative energy can add together for a net nothing. There is a lot here I do not understand fully but I always enjoy learning about it. The point is this is a question, like most, we can look to science for and to help build our knowledge. I do not think Earth is 6000 years old. It is much, much older. I do not think a magic man with a white beard made everything in 6 days. I do not think the entirety of the human race came from hundreds of years of incest (well, Biblically speaking. I think at one point in homo saipien history there was a heavy genetic bottleneck from the population dropping a ton.) 2) Of course I do. There is overwhelming evidence to support both as well as documented cases of evolution going on before our eyes. Any argument against these principles I'm guessing falls back to "Well the Bible says..." which isn't any evidence at all. 3) Yes and yes. As large as the universe is it would be pretty astounding that Earth was the only planet suitable for life. I'm pretty sure we have gathered evidence of microscopic life outside of our planet. As far as intelligent life, this is probably out there as well. But when you think how old the universe is there must be a very slim chance that human's and another intelligent life could even communicate with each other. I mean, in the grand scheme of things we haven't been around that long. Another intelligent species on another planet may have evolved past the point of even wishing to communicate with us. We could just be ants to them. Or maybe they are just so far away it is impossible to communicate with them. If you want me to expand on anything, please let me know. Your turn I find it hard to believe you're majoring in Engineering at the University of Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Frankly Woodrow, this may be the first time you've expanded on anything but fair enough. Origin of the universe? I have no idea, we are not able to think in terms of infinity. We just cant. The age of the earth? My guess is more than 6000 years. Upwards toward 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kajillion. Evolution? Why not? Seems rational. It doesn't make sense to me that there aren't any examples of the missing links between stages of mankind but... And still no matter how far back you can go protozoa amoeba bacteria it cetera sooner or later you have to answer, " And where did that come from?" And we are left with shrug I don't know. life on other planets? Sure, why not? given that the universe is infinite, and we cannot think in terms of that, I would assume there's a hell of a lot of stuff out there we have absolutely no clue about. Our knowledge of the universe would be like the knowledge of the world that a monkey would have being born in a laboratory cage and never leaving that spot. and again they evolved from.....? But I accept your concept of the Supreme Being, or beings. There's no reason to think there's not something much more advanced than we are that we can't conceptualize. for instance cats and dogs don't really know what we want but they realize if they do certain things they are rewarded or punished. Maybe the next species up the chain keeps us as pets? And that in itself is almost biblical. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Steve, my point is there isn't anything where we should simple say "We'll never get that, let's not try". Think of how much more we know now than a few hundred years ago. As far as where life originated from there has been research on that. I can't remember all of the details but I think some of the basic proteins for life have been found in asteroids and such. I do expand on things FYI. It just usually gets followed by Cal posting "Heck bunker Woodpecker translation: 'I'm a stupid liberal '" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I find it hard to believe you're majoring in Engineering at the University of Michigan. Oh please, do tell me why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Steve, my point is there isn't anything where we should simple say "We'll never get that, let's not try". Think of how much more we know now than a few hundred years ago. As far as where life originated from there has been research on that. I can't remember all of the details but I think some of the basic proteins for life have been found in asteroids and such. To your first point: yes look how much more we know now than 200 years ago. And we look back at what was accepted scientific knowledge then and laugh. Probably just like the consensus 200 years from today will make us look silly. As for the second point? Sure, might be from an asteroid. Maybe interstellar travelers dumped beer trash here, who knows? A prehistoric version of Dave Matthews tour bus. There has to be an origin. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 There has to be an origin. WSS That is not true. "What came before the big bang" is not a scientific question because time, as we define it, didn't exist before the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 That is not true. "What came before the big bang" is not a scientific question because time, as we define it, didn't exist before the big bang. That, sir, is as big a crock of horse shit as anybody from any cult could imagine saying. Folderol and Fiddle dee dee. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Steve, define time. What is time? And dont use something relating back to time in the definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Time is no more then movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Time is no more then movement. Yeah its a fantastical theory you have there. Yet you can't believe woody is studying engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yeah its a fantastical theory you have there. Yet you can't believe woody is studying engineering. Prove to me that time is more then movement then. I made a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 That, sir, is as big a crock of horse shit as anybody from any cult could imagine saying. Folderol and Fiddle dee dee. WSS Except, if you actually bothered to study it, you'd see that this is the case. Time, as we know it, did not exist until some point after the big bang. Claiming that time did exist before the big bang relies on evidence that doesn't exist. What you propose is not scientific, rather a metaphysical theory, and not a very good one, in my opinion. If there was a prime mover, then what created it? Since arguing metaphysics is pointless, I'm just going to stick with the scientific explanations and tell you that you're wrong. Prove to me that time is more then movement then. I made a statement. Actually that's not a terrible description of what time is. Time is movement in a single dimension that isn't one of the three spatial dimensions. As it is, we are only capable of traversing this dimension in one direction. Why that's the case is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Prove to me that time is more then movement then. I made a statement. No sir. You did indeed make a statement. The burden of proof is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 http://science.yourdictionary.com/time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 The truth is we don't understand exactly what time is or how it works any more than we understand God. Note that I didn't dispute your theory. What I did was take a shot at you because you took one at woody for having perfectly logical opinions. But all we know for sure is that were born. We grow up and we die. How that happens for sure or why is anybody's guess. Things in the universe tend to revolve in a very consistent circular or elliptical manner and this is the basis of our understanding of time. So while movement is a large part of it, its at the very least movement relevant to distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I find it hard to believe you're majoring in Engineering at the University of Michigan. I'm still dying to know why, I really am. I can't wait to see what you come up with here. Also, I'm waiting for Cal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 1) What do you believe the origin of the universe was and/or how old do you think the Earth is? 2) Do you recognize evolution and the process of natural selection? 3) Do you think there is life on other planets? Intelligent life? ************************** 1. When you consider that the universe and beyond, is infinate, as far as I can imagine, the origin of this incredible, infinite, space of planets, etc etc etc out there - how can it just have been created by accident? So, I believe, in the very beginning - that it was not created by accident. Far too many incredible, simultaneous and fascinating forces hold it all together. That doesn't exclude the big bang biz, but a big bang resulting in at least one planet teeming with life, including human life - isn't just an explosion. Attribute it to God, and define God as that infinite, universal and beyond intelligent existence...whatever. All that exists in infinite space, especially earth, is far too fantastic to have just occured from a big bang. How old the earth is? I don't know. I wasn't there when it was created. It seems silly to me, that the earth is deemed to be as old as the rock is scientifically deemed in age. IOW's, how do we know that the earth wasn't formed from ancient planets created eons and eons ago? Mega eons ago ? So, the earth could be much younger - just coming into existence with old materials clashing together. 2. Evolution - sure. Life, with all it's complicated DNA - of course it evolves, and in that evolving there is also the thriving of certain lifeforms in different enviornments. That doesn't explain the miracle of life coming into existence in the beginning though. The trouble with relying on science to dispute religion - is that the more we learn about the miracle of life's existence, it's all the more incredible to attribute that existence to a quirk in premordial slime or something. 3. Regardless how life came into existence on this planet, yes - life surely exists elsewhere. Different forms of life, sure. But the idea that humans exist on other planets? I imagine that it is very possible. It just seems that God .... @@ ....could have created human beings elsewhere in the universe. From the mountains and valleys to all life on this planet - I think any scientist would consider it an incredible stretch to decide that every bit of plant and animal life on this planet, the millions of lists of them - became existence due to some freak lightning stike into some slime. It's miraculous far, far beyond that. That's all. I do "know' that God is there. Defining God, well, that is way out of my imagination. But, it's good to elaborate on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Time is the duration of existence. It has always existed, but obviously man took to define it in numerical terms, to account for it. Before life on this planet - time existed. Time is as eternal as the universes that go on forever past our universe. Like, whoa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Your turn I'll kind of put all 3 together. I dont think we are very accurate in determining the age of the earth/universe. Probability gets way misused in determining evolutionary patterns and therefore time frames. I think to start from a single celled organism and evolve into a human being (assuming we are the top of the evolutionary food chain) that 6 billion years or whatever is entirely too short. Scientists look back with the top of the chain and develop patterns that suggest "hey, this could happen". I'll add that they do that very well, meaning their principles and science behind the assumptions they make is very, very air-tight. Where they fail, imo, is the math. e.g. the probability of a "mutation X" being successful - meaning the gene/AA/Protein/DNA/base-pair/nucleotide (whatever) mutates is passed along is say 1 in 50 (not even close to being large enough). Well, the mutation occurs, the next probable mutation IS NOT 1 in 49. This is the way these populations are sampled working backwards. Again the science (mechanism of actions) is very sound detailing how this mutation could possibly occur, it just assumes that it will. I have a problem with that. I can't remember where I read that the chance that a genetic mutation is a positive one that is actually passed along is the probability of finding a gold coin in a 2 foot pile of silver dollars that covers the state of Texas. Entirely possible. Not easy or plausible. Again, science is working backwards. Next, are we alone? Unlikely. I really struggle with this one because I do believe in some facets of evolution etc. Based on evolutionary theory, natural selection, etc. when you break down the two most basic form of metabolism - aerobic vs anaerobic - scientifically O2 is a much better electron acceptor than a metal and thus the greater yield of energy in the form of ATP. The problem I have with this is why did this "evolve" this way? Chemically, Nitrogen is nearly equivalent to Oxygen in electron affinity (even more so in their divalent O2/N2 forms). Why would natural selection/evolution allow this on a planet that has nearly 2x the amount of N2 in the atmosphere as there is O2. This goes against evolution. Despite being an overly simple viewpoint - it defies evolution, plain and simple. Wouldn't it be more efficient for the hemoglobin in your blood to carry Nitrogen? (Yes, it would). We have examples on our planet of "life" in inhospitable environments. Organisms at the H2S gas vents at the bottom of the ocean. Teaming with "life" So surely their has to be somewhere in the universe where evolution has thrived in an enviroment/atmosphere different from ours, making use of different chemicals/elements the same way we do ("we" meaning all species on earth). Finding other life elsewhere that demonstrates this ability to live in their own environment. That's they only way you're going to be able to "prove" evolution - prove the process is the same with different variables. Not this backtracking bullshit the scientific community has accepted. It's really lazy. "Well, we're here - had to come from somewhere!" No shit, Sherlock. Not sure I said everything I wanted to, but it's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 1) What do you believe the origin of the universe was and/or how old do you think the Earth is? 2) Do you recognize evolution and the process of natural selection? 3) Do you think there is life on other planets? Intelligent life? ************************** 1. When you consider that the universe and beyond, is infinate, as far as I can imagine, the origin of this incredible, infinite, space of planets, etc etc etc out there - how can it just have been created by accident? So, I believe, in the very beginning - that it was not created by accident. Far too many incredible, simultaneous and fascinating forces hold it all together. That doesn't exclude the big bang biz, but a big bang resulting in at least one planet teeming with life, including human life - isn't just an explosion. Attribute it to God, and define God as that infinite, universal and beyond intelligent existence...whatever. All that exists in infinite space, especially earth, is far too fantastic to have just occured from a big bang. How old the earth is? I don't know. I wasn't there when it was created. It seems silly to me, that the earth is deemed to be as old as the rock is scientifically deemed in age. IOW's, how do we know that the earth wasn't formed from ancient planets created eons and eons ago? Mega eons ago ? So, the earth could be much younger - just coming into existence with old materials clashing together. 2. Evolution - sure. Life, with all it's complicated DNA - of course it evolves, and in that evolving there is also the thriving of certain lifeforms in different enviornments. That doesn't explain the miracle of life coming into existence in the beginning though. The trouble with relying on science to dispute religion - is that the more we learn about the miracle of life's existence, it's all the more incredible to attribute that existence to a quirk in premordial slime or something. 3. Regardless how life came into existence on this planet, yes - life surely exists elsewhere. Different forms of life, sure. But the idea that humans exist on other planets? I imagine that it is very possible. It just seems that God .... @@ ....could have created human beings elsewhere in the universe. From the mountains and valleys to all life on this planet - I think any scientist would consider it an incredible stretch to decide that every bit of plant and animal life on this planet, the millions of lists of them - became existence due to some freak lightning stike into some slime. It's miraculous far, far beyond that. That's all. I do "know' that God is there. Defining God, well, that is way out of my imagination. But, it's good to elaborate on. So, you kinda are on the scientific side, but you think that God set everything in motion. Do you think your God actually made Earth and then started life on Earth? Or are you saying it just started the universe and everything went on from there. When you say the Earth could be much younger, what are you getting at? Are you leaving the door open for a biblical answer or are you just stating you think they dated it wrong? From the mountains and valleys to all life on this planet - I think any scientist would consider it an incredible stretch to decide that every bit of plant and animal life on this planet, the millions of lists of them - became existence due to some freak lightning stike into some slime. What do you think actually scientists consider it then? Do think actual evolutionary scientists would say "This is too random, God did it" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 How old the earth is? I don't know. I wasn't there when it was created. It seems silly to me, that the earth is deemed to be as old as the rock is scientifically deemed in age. IOW's, how do we know that the earth wasn't formed from ancient planets created eons and eons ago? Mega eons ago ? So, the earth could be much younger - just coming into existence with old materials clashing together. ******************** Relatively speaking, the earth could have come into existence, with materials that were created eons before. That would mean that the earth was not as old, per creation, as the materials used in that creation. And, yes, I believe God created what He created. That explains the infinity and the incredible complexity and profound correation of all aspects of life on this planet. The big bang jobbie does not explain the infinity of the universes, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, fellas. Geologists are pretty sure about this. That one we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.