Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 09/03/12 12:48 PM
All action comes from thought of some kind. It is either unconscious or conscious. In your mind set, you call unconscious actions "reaction." You separate it completely from "decision." But that is the reason I put "decision" in quotations. Because I knew that you are set in this kind of thinking that a decision must be a conscious one and anything else is simply "reaction." This is simply not true. Do we have to think about making our heart beat? No. It does that automatically. And yet there are people who can slow down their heart beat consciously. I had a longer response to this post but it somehow disappeared into cyberspace.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 09/03/12 12:51 PM
You stated that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible. I disagree. The universe itself is alive and intelligent. It is very compatible with itself.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Tue 09/04/12 10:14 AM
Guess what? Evolution needs huge time-frames for it to work. Evolution only has the radioactive decay rates of rocks as evidence for these long time-frames. But recent studies have shown that these decay rates are not constant, they are effected by the solar wind. There are a new set of laws: Old Law: Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay rates The age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates. Failure of the Old Law: Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates: 1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere). 2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares. 2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates: Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.html Law 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weaker The electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws: Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay. Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated.

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Tue 09/04/12 11:00 AM
You stated that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible. I disagree. The universe itself is alive and intelligent. It is very compatible with itself. Nothing off on your conclusions, HOWEVER, one must remember the conclusions of the SCOTUS: the term Intelligent Design is code for the creation story of the Old Testament and that only, not some deeper spiritual meaning. Intelligent Design, as is, is not considered science per se. Once they can bring the theory up to the level of acceptable science then it should be taught as such, otherwise it should remain in the philosophy class.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Tue 09/04/12 12:16 PM
Discussing science with the anti-scientifically minded among us: The pursuit of unobtanium!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 09/04/12 12:20 PM
Discussing science with the anti-scientifically minded among us: The pursuit of unobtanium! if you replace 'religion' for science, the statement will still hold just as true/false some people can consider other possibilities, others cannot consider it some people can consider it but still not be swayed its really not a question of whether those people are 'scientific' or 'religious'

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 09/04/12 01:58 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 09/04/12 02:00 PM
You stated that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible. I disagree. The universe itself is alive and intelligent. It is very compatible with itself. Nothing off on your conclusions, HOWEVER, one must remember the conclusions of the SCOTUS: the term Intelligent Design is code for the creation story of the Old Testament and that only, not some deeper spiritual meaning. Intelligent Design, as is, is not considered science per se. Once they can bring the theory up to the level of acceptable science then it should be taught as such, otherwise it should remain in the philosophy class. Yes, and for the record, the creation story out of the Bible is not what I am talking about. Most religious creation stories are written so children can understand them because people 2000 years ago were not so bright. My view is that science and religion as we know them today are both missing the boat.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Tue 09/04/12 03:41 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 09/04/12 03:41 PM
Discussing science with the anti-scientifically minded among us: The pursuit of unobtanium! if you replace 'religion' for science, the statement will still hold just as true/false some people can consider other possibilities, others cannot consider it some people can consider it but still not be swayed its really not a question of whether those people are 'scientific' or 'religious' See this is where you could not be more wrong. Religion is not objective. Science is, that places them in completely different realms. Comparing them in the way you have is exactly what I am talking about. Obtaining a consensus when half the party is making it up as they go is impossible.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 09/04/12 05:32 PM
Discussing science with the anti-scientifically minded among us: The pursuit of unobtanium! That is the wrong attitude to have if you are a scientist. All to often, scientists dismiss things that they should not because it does not fit into their "objective" reality. All to often they completely ignore things they can't explain, or they dismiss them with some explanation that is acceptable to them and look no further.

ru469 Joined Mon 08/27/12 Posts: 4	Wed 09/05/12 12:22 AM
Hello,my name is Tom. It would be completely silly to think we came from two only.After the two,where did the rest come from? If it may be through incest,then right there it blows the possibility of only two out of the water. It has been proven with royalty that interbreeding creates retardation.Not in all cases but many after generations of doing so.This is why they had to seek out other royalty to breed and kepp their so called blue blood. If we came from only two,the gene pool would have been split so many times by todays standards,that we would all be a bunch of drivelling fools.Yet,as time goes forward,we in theory are getting more intelligent.Impossible with so much gene pool degeneration over time. A theory for thought! Many eons ago,an alien lifeform close to our own species of now,crash landed here and was stranded.After years of being alone and realizing there was no search party launched,they were stuck here.He or she being of a sexual nature and having to procreate just like humans,decided that the apes weren't looking so bad afterall.Up popped intelligent man. We can date mankind back to Australopithicus Aferensus,the first known upright human.Yet we are still missing that link.Maybe it is frozen in a glacier somewhere or maybe the alien life form,being of a much higher intelligence,decimated all evidence of themselves upon death.Maybe we are not to know at all. Our galaxy is such a small speck in the known universe.Are we actually to think we are the only intelligent species in the universe? I won't even go into different dimensions and chemistry theories as of yet.I would be here all night.lol I am definately open to opinions and feedback.This is just one theory in many different possibilities. Sincerely,Tom

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Wed 09/05/12 08:55 AM
Guess what? Evolution needs huge time-frames for it to work. Evolution only has the radioactive decay rates of rocks as evidence for these long time-frames. But recent studies have shown that these decay rates are not constant, they are effected by the solar wind. There are a new set of laws: Old Law: Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay rates The age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates. Failure of the Old Law: Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates: 1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere). 2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares. 2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates: Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.html Law 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weaker The electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws: Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay. Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated. Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. "The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one." Jenkins and Fischbach suggest that the changes in the decay rates are due to interactions with solar neutrinos, nearly weightless particles created by nuclear reactions within the sun's core that travel almost at the speed of light. Read more at: http://phys.org/news202456660.html#jCp

Jtevans Joined Fri 08/10/07 Posts: 30654	Wed 09/05/12 01:45 PM
Evolution is only a theory.as smart people know,a theory is only an opinion.it is not proven Holla!!!

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Wed 09/05/12 09:06 PM
Guess what? Evolution needs huge time-frames for it to work. Evolution only has the radioactive decay rates of rocks as evidence for these long time-frames. But recent studies have shown that these decay rates are not constant, they are effected by the solar wind. There are a new set of laws: Old Law: Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay rates The age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates. Failure of the Old Law: Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates: 1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere). 2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares. 2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates: Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.html Law 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weaker The electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws: Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay. Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated. Ah but you did not carry your reasoning out to its probable conclusion... Knowing that the earths magnetic field was 300% stronger in the past we can apply reason and chart the corresponding increase in the rate of Evolution between that point and now. The stronger the Earths EM Field the slower the rate of Evolution. When the field gets weaker over time the rate of evolution would increase when the solar wind is stronger and decrease when it was weaker. Evolution would follow the same cycles as the Star we orbit. Increased radiation creates an increase in evolutionary mutation.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Wed 09/12/12 11:29 AM
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 09/12/12 04:25 PM Edited by RKISIT on Wed 09/12/12 04:30 PM
Wait till the James Webb telescope goes up and sends back info.In 20 years the big bang will fade away cause astronomers will realize matter and energy have always existed and the CMB is nothing but left over radiation over infinite time of explosions of type2 supernovaes and hypernovaes.(Maybe just maybe Hawkins radiation of blackholes creating their own thermal energy that can burn themselves up can be added to the CMB.) Even if you're a big bang theory junkie astrophysicist believe the universe was hot and dense.Hot(energy) dense as in smaller than a grain of sand(matter).What caused inflation to occur in the quantum fluctuation is what is stumping them. In other words energy and matter never had a beginning,it has always existed.There are galaxy clusters that show more of mass using it's gravitational pull than of space streching.Also there is millions of light year voids with maybe 1 galaxy hanging around in them between these galaxy clusters. Plus the particle horizon is not the entire universe it's the end of the "observable universe"

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Wed 09/12/12 05:32 PM
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. You apparently missed the point about magnetic fields having nothing to do with it. Solar neutrinos from the Sun's core do not interact this way at all. All of the statements in your post are incorrect.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Wed 09/12/12 06:41 PM
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. You apparently missed the point about magnetic fields having nothing to do with it. Solar neutrinos from the Sun's core do not interact this way at all. All of the statements in your post are incorrect. Solar nutrinos do not. However the solar wind does interact with the magnetic fields. That wind contains many individual atomic nuclei that do interact with the surface of the planet based upon the waxing and waning of the solar constant.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Wed 09/12/12 07:35 PM
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. You apparently missed the point about magnetic fields having nothing to do with it. Solar neutrinos from the Sun's core do not interact this way at all. All of the statements in your post are incorrect. Solar nutrinos do not. However the solar wind does interact with the magnetic fields. That wind contains many individual atomic nuclei that do interact with the surface of the planet based upon the waxing and waning of the solar constant. It is the neutrinos that affect the rate of radiation slightly. Neutrinos are not affected by electromagnetic fields.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 09/12/12 07:48 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Wed 09/12/12 07:49 PM
I don't think there was enough time for the evolution of mankind. I think there was probably some advanced race of aliens or angels or scientists tinkering with some earth primate's or some cave dwelling prehistoric human's DNA to create us modern humans. That's why the angels still call us "monkeys."

JustDukkyMkII Joined Fri 11/12/10 Posts: 1462	Thu 09/13/12 01:36 AM
That's why the angels still call us "monkeys." Isn't that what we still are? Frankly, considering our behaviour as a species, I think we've DEvolved from monkeys. Highly evolved monkeys would probably use their technology to improve their lot. We don't do that; we use it to kill each other off. I'd rather be a "lower" primate...There's more honour in it. Our very existence disproves intelligent design.