Scientists Re-Create Big Bang in Lab

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like hearing the news about the LHC. However, why are we having a 7-page discussion on God? If you believe in Aqua Buddha, Robot Jesus, Mohammedallah, or whatever, take that some where else. No one wants to hear it, religion and science should stay seperate. I'd also say the same for church and state...

Religion and science should stay separate but it's impossible. Back before we had modern science everything was explained by god, including the creation of the current state of the universe. Religious folk are losing arguments on all fronts, and feel intimidated when big bad science threatens it with its god displacing power.
 
Religion and science should stay separate but it's impossible. Back before we had modern science everything was explained by god, including the creation of the current state of the universe. Religious folk are losing arguments on all fronts, and feel intimidated when big bad science threatens it with its god displacing power.

lol you would think but the more complex things get the more non-random it gets which goes against evolution that much more as it depends on random chance. The chances are getting more slimmer every year with more new discoveries. There's different ways you can look at it.
 
lol you would think but the more complex things get the more non-random it gets which goes against evolution that much more as it depends on random chance. The chances are getting more slimmer every year with more new discoveries. There's different ways you can look at it.

Evolution does not happen randomly or by chance.

Here are 5 misconceptions that are explained, that you have fallen prey to.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
 
Ok, new talking point for Conker and Parmineides: I formally theorize that a one eyed invisible potato monster was created by the LHC and.. two minutes ago... reformed the universe with it's invisible telepathic powers to make Lady Gaga's next dress the sign of the coming potatocalypse. Disprove please.

Oh.. and there haven't been a "few people over 1800 years" working with science. There have been millions and billions of people ranging from patent office employees (Einstein) to Hollywood starlets (Hedy Lamarr - the co-creator of spread spectrum communications you likely use in cell phones and wifi) to possibly psychotic (Alhazen) to outright murderers (Josef Mengele). The literal breadth of humanity over time. Whereas, sadly, the entirety of christendom can herald their book coming from 300 or so slightly religious farmers in a large room 1800 years ago. None of those people even remotely knew who Jesus was or any of his followers but they are the one's that decided the religion. And, what's worse, it took 1100 years for someone to argue the next points of the religion(Martin Luther) and the words haven't changed since except to try and improve on translations. Even worse, much of the original writings of the era relating to christendom were thrown away or discarded by the council.. possibly even destroyed as was the case with the Book of Judas.

It's not that I don't believe in God or anything but 99% of the time, people that are religious and want to argue learn more ridiculous facts and far right leaning talking points while at the same time, they are completely unable to explain why it took 300 years of blood, fires, burning and pillaging of the Romans to make a book about peace for a person that died 250 years before the book was compiled by people who were barely able to read. That's like getting a classroom of 3rd graders to write a book about General John Manners great exploits in 1760 based on pure hearsay and hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, incomplete texts and vague recountings from 7 generations of storytelling. Yet somehow, people who follow this book now use the all powerful 'faith' excuse to explain how these marauding idiots created the Bible by saying "God guided their hand". You can't argue that but at the same time, the Roman Emperor Constantine I was the one that united them to talk. So yes, at the time, a perceived 'god' guided their hand. Then, on top of that, there were 800 years of Dark Ages and biblical rewriting to skew and corrupt the words and language. Yet people still follow it. Ugh. Sorry.. had to rant that out.

Btw, I thought the LHC wasn't supposed to be ramped up until the middle of next year?
 
lol you would think but the more complex things get the more non-random it gets which goes against evolution that much more as it depends on random chance. The chances are getting more slimmer every year with more new discoveries. There's different ways you can look at it.

More proof that evolution isn't random. Natural selection dictates ALOT and sometimes very quickly.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43067/story.htm

You are absolutely correct in thinking that "chances are getting slimmer". The only problem with your way of looking at it is, it's getting slimmer for you. At what point do you, at the very least, say that God pushes evolution. That's just a small step to take and you wouldn't sound ignorant at all. You still give whatever creator reverence for his work AND you appease the argument for evolution. It's not like it would change anything for you or your beliefs. Maybe it did take 7 days to make the planet, but nothing said it was finished or that the intent wasn't to spawn life and watch it grow. A tree doesn't start as a tree, it becomes one over time. If God made the tree as it was always intended, why does it start as a seed? Why doesn't it just *POOF* become a tree? Things grow and change. To consider stagnation and creationism's hard limits is downright heretical against even the Bible. If God was so mighty and wanted things to always stagnate, why make Jesus a baby at all? Why not just *POOF* make him a man? He had to grow into it through trials and tribulations.. just like Moses.. just like David. All of that SCREAMS that God is for evolution of character and maturation. So why not take into account that perhaps God really does push evolution so that all things mature as a species over time. It only makes sense.. in a twisted Christian way. Can you at least make that step? Plenty of .. what you would call.. evidence.
 
Ok, new talking point for Conker and Parmineides: I formally theorize that a one eyed invisible potato monster was created by the LHC and.. two minutes ago... reformed the universe with it's invisible telepathic powers to make Lady Gaga's next dress the sign of the coming potatocalypse. Disprove please.

Oh.. and there haven't been a "few people over 1800 years" working with science. There have been millions and billions of people ranging from patent office employees (Einstein) to Hollywood starlets (Hedy Lamarr - the co-creator of spread spectrum communications you likely use in cell phones and wifi) to possibly psychotic (Alhazen) to outright murderers (Josef Mengele). The literal breadth of humanity over time. Whereas, sadly, the entirety of christendom can herald their book coming from 300 or so slightly religious farmers in a large room 1800 years ago. None of those people even remotely knew who Jesus was or any of his followers but they are the one's that decided the religion. And, what's worse, it took 1100 years for someone to argue the next points of the religion(Martin Luther) and the words haven't changed since except to try and improve on translations. Even worse, much of the original writings of the era relating to christendom were thrown away or discarded by the council.. possibly even destroyed as was the case with the Book of Judas.

It's not that I don't believe in God or anything but 99% of the time, people that are religious and want to argue learn more ridiculous facts and far right leaning talking points while at the same time, they are completely unable to explain why it took 300 years of blood, fires, burning and pillaging of the Romans to make a book about peace for a person that died 250 years before the book was compiled by people who were barely able to read. That's like getting a classroom of 3rd graders to write a book about General John Manners great exploits in 1760 based on pure hearsay and hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, incomplete texts and vague recountings from 7 generations of storytelling. Yet somehow, people who follow this book now use the all powerful 'faith' excuse to explain how these marauding idiots created the Bible by saying "God guided their hand". You can't argue that but at the same time, the Roman Emperor Constantine I was the one that united them to talk. So yes, at the time, a perceived 'god' guided their hand. Then, on top of that, there were 800 years of Dark Ages and biblical rewriting to skew and corrupt the words and language. Yet people still follow it. Ugh. Sorry.. had to rant that out.

Btw, I thought the LHC wasn't supposed to be ramped up until the middle of next year?

For first question.
I thought the LHC was going to be delayed until 2012 also.

As for broccolli it will always be random chance. Cells don't magically come about perfect out of nowhere with different macro variations. There's going to be some excuse or some irrational illogical answer coming from evolution camp. If you understand evolution it is all based on a random pile of sewage that life came from. There was no schematic or pattern or blue print it had if you believe in evolution. If you want to use your one sided site heres one for the other side.
 
For first question.
I thought the LHC was going to be delayed until 2012 also.

As for broccolli it will always be random chance. Cells don't magically come about perfect out of nowhere with different macro variations. There's going to be some excuse or some irrational illogical answer coming from evolution camp. If you understand evolution it is all based on a random pile of sewage that life came from. There was no schematic or pattern or blue print it had if you believe in evolution. If you want to use your one sided site heres one for the other side.

Evolution has nothing to do with 'Primordial Soup' or creation of cells. That is abiogenesis, but you can believe whatever you want, even if it is wrong.

Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time."
 
And cells aren't perfect that's why there is evolution...

Every time I read what you write I find something new wrong with it.
 

Nice.. i look up ONE NAME off that list of scientists and find he's both misstated as to what field he's in and a member of OPUS DEI. I can't even make that crap up.

As for the group who made the list of scientists, here's the wiki on em, with decent info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

And the groups own website so you can form your own concluse ( or set up DDoS attacks)

http://www.discovery.org/

And another wiki for the actual list itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

As for the "fixed earth" stuff.. are you f'ing kidding me? I thought it was bad when I read that 1 in 5 americans believe the sun orbits the earth ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1183780800&en=e3760aa7d1b5022a&ei=5070 ) I didn't know there were actually "champions" of this completely preposterous cause.
 
Its obvious none of you guys read any of my links. Many people are now questioning evolution more than ever before due to its flaws and discrepancies. What you think is fact is littered with scientists still questioning it as it is not fact. There's no way to change your mind lol. Seems you are forcing yourself to stay with evolution even if there are scientists saying otherwise. You don't see that happening with law of gravity or with other well known fact laws.
 

They claim to be chimp-like, but they sound more like parrots, parroting that "a theory is not a guess" without any intellectual engagement behind their speech. This Wikipedia entry is especially poor (anyone can edit it). Under the entry for "theory" it says a theory is "speculation." Under the entry for "scientific theory" it comes up with convoluted and vague nonsense. "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts... [That] could be expressed within some formal system of logic". Like anyone in denial of reality, the Darwinian editors of the article fall right on their faces as soon they take their second step. "Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—'arbitrary elements' as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as 'assumptions'." Arbitrary assumptions = guess. Duh.
 
For first question.
I thought the LHC was going to be delayed until 2012 also.

As for broccolli it will always be random chance. Cells don't magically come about perfect out of nowhere with different macro variations. There's going to be some excuse or some irrational illogical answer coming from evolution camp. If you understand evolution it is all based on a random pile of sewage that life came from. There was no schematic or pattern or blue print it had if you believe in evolution. If you want to use your one sided site heres one for the other side.

Wow.. you choose to argue my statement that Christendom is built on misconceptions by pointing out ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA but are wildly dismissive of all other ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA regarding evolution. Secondly, the guy who wrote that ignored entirely how the Bible was initially assembled and constructed and even he admitted that "the word of the time" and "accounts by witnesses" were included 50-100 YEARS after the events that unfolded with Jesus. That's 2 or 3 full lifetimes in those days. If anything, he further proves my point by pointing out that half the events were compiled from 2nd generation hearsay.. so my 3rd graders point is still valid. Also, you aren't allowed to use archaeology to argue FOR something when you disavow it's use for something else.

I wasn't saying the LHC was going to be delayed, merely that I thought they had scheduled the power increases to be slower than what I'm seeing coming out of there. I didn't think it'd be at this point in the research when it still has much higher power aims.

Also, stop using micro and macro variations. It's all micro variations built over time. That's just how it is. Things evolve out of necessity and through natural selection are chosen as the strength or need of the species to grow. Why did mammoths lose their fur? It got hot. Mammoths with less fur lived longer and hence, bred mammoths with less fur and so on. It's not hard to figure out. I'd back your link if it weren't full of lies. We give you scientific papers, studies, formalized arguments, you strike back with christian theories and wacky conservative ideals. Science has no left and right.. only solution and problem. Stop trying to make it sound otherwise. If you are a creationist, you shouldn't use science to argue your side because science has already decided OVERWHELMINGLY that evolution is the most correct answer. Until God comes down from heaven and explains things himself, creationists have NO PROOF.
 
They claim to be chimp-like, but they sound more like parrots, parroting that "a theory is not a guess" without any intellectual engagement behind their speech. This Wikipedia entry is especially poor (anyone can edit it). Under the entry for "theory" it says a theory is "speculation." Under the entry for "scientific theory" it comes up with convoluted and vague nonsense. "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts... [That] could be expressed within some formal system of logic". Like anyone in denial of reality, the Darwinian editors of the article fall right on their faces as soon they take their second step. "Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—'arbitrary elements' as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as 'assumptions'." Arbitrary assumptions = guess. Duh.

Ugh.. arguing the definition of the word theory. The most pathetic attempt at disproving anything. It makes you sound like Bill Clinton when he was wanting to know the definition of "is". I have no idea what reality you are coming from. I really don't. It's like arguing that we're talking in a 'forum' but choosing to argue that because it's not a "public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business" that we're full of crap and it's not a forum.
 
There are multiple ways to find the age of something besides carbon dating (radiometric for example) and they all support each other and yield similar results when determining the age of a specimen.

Radiometric dating is not something besides carbon dating. Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. And, clean consistency of various dating techniques exists only in the fantasy world of Darwinists. In reality, they all rely on a number of assumptions and are often cross calibrated, and they still often disagree.

Common ancestry between human and chimp has been determined 100x over, how can you say that it's not. DNA, fossils, etc etc, which one is made up?

Everything a Darwinist says.

Although there may be some problems with the Miller Urey experiment, it shows that organic compounds can arise from inorganic precursors.

Wow, you are easy to impress. Miller-Urey didn't create a single digit of DNA, no protein, no sugar, etc. But they did get carbon atoms to combine with other atoms in their ad hoc experiment. If they put into their experiment organic molecules that are more complex than what they already produced, those more complex molecules would have been destroyed as the chemical mixture reverted to equilibrium.
 
Explain why any type of radiometric dating is unreliable other than you say so.
Prove the sources here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html wrong.

Show me how all the evidence for the ancestry between humans and chimps have been falsified.

Amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiment. Amino acids are considered the building blocks of life. When you believe god made everything up it's easy to ignore that....
 
Internet_argument.jpg
 
Show me how all the evidence for the ancestry between humans and chimps have been falsified.

I don't see anything to falsify. I noticed that you posted an image of a sequence of skulls. What have you, or anyone, done to test the validity of that sequence? Nothing? Chimps and humans are physically similar so it should be expected that in extreme cases that there would be superficial overlap in the morphology of their skulls. You are committing the error of circular reasoning. You choose chimps as our closest relative because of their similarity and then you point to their similarity as proof that they are our closest relative.

I'm afraid you don't understand how science works. It is your job, not mine, to explain how your skull sequence can be falsified. This is how you test the validity of your sequence. For example, you could say that you would be proven wrong if carbon dating does not confirm your sequence. The more testing, and the more other people reach the same conclusions with other skulls, the more confident we can be in your claim. (Carbon dating is a hypothetical example.)
 
I don't see anything to falsify. I noticed that you posted an image of a sequence of skulls. What have you, or anyone, done to test the validity of that sequence? Nothing? Chimps and humans are physically similar so it should be expected that in extreme cases that there would be superficial overlap in the morphology of their skulls. You are committing the error of circular reasoning. You choose chimps as our closest relative because of their similarity and then you point to their similarity as proof that they are our closest relative.

I'm afraid you don't understand how science works. It is your job, not mine, to explain how your skull sequence can be falsified. This is how you test the validity of your sequence. For example, you could say that you would be proven wrong if carbon dating does not confirm your sequence. The more testing, and the more other people reach the same conclusions with other skulls, the more confident we can be in your claim. (Carbon dating is a hypothetical example.)

Yes, I'm sure that chimps and humans sharing over 98% of their genetic code has nothing to do with why it is believed we share a common ancestor. Different individuals in yeast strains can display higher genetic variation than that, and they are considered the same species.
 
I'm really excited about this research. I feel that there is no more important pursuit for our future than physics. If we can find a better understanding of the laws of physics and how the universe works, we can become the masters of our environment, well beyond this speck of dust we live on.
 
I don't see anything to falsify. I noticed that you posted an image of a sequence of skulls. What have you, or anyone, done to test the validity of that sequence? Nothing? Chimps and humans are physically similar so it should be expected that in extreme cases that there would be superficial overlap in the morphology of their skulls. You are committing the error of circular reasoning. You choose chimps as our closest relative because of their similarity and then you point to their similarity as proof that they are our closest relative.

I'm afraid you don't understand how science works. It is your job, not mine, to explain how your skull sequence can be falsified. This is how you test the validity of your sequence. For example, you could say that you would be proven wrong if carbon dating does not confirm your sequence. The more testing, and the more other people reach the same conclusions with other skulls, the more confident we can be in your claim. (Carbon dating is a hypothetical example.)

You really are ridiculous aren't you. The proof has been listed 50x in this thread, yet you seem to ignore it every time it comes up. We share the same genes, if our DNA wasn't 99% the same then it could be falsified. You make some bunk claim that some creator made everything with genetic blue print, which you have no proof of. It just doesn't make any sense given all of the transitional species and intermediary fossils there are. You have no evidence of your view point yet expect everybody else to (which they do).

Ya know what man, I'm sorry, I'm wrong. Scientists like to just pull shit out of their ass without reason or peer testing to prove that god isn't real, yup that's the ticket... :rolleyes:
 
Explain why any type of radiometric dating is unreliable other than you say so.
Prove the sources here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html wrong.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm

http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm

http://evolutionfacts.com/New-material/frozen_planes.htm

Amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiment. Amino acids are considered the building blocks of life. When you believe god made everything up it's easy to ignore that....

http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/millerurey.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-24.htm
 
Wow, I have some catching up to do. Let me respond to one post at least.

The museums and universities are full of transitional forms. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."
- Stephen J Gould

And let's say there are a few transitional forms out there. The overwhelming vast morjority of fossils have no links for all the nodes. Even though Gould is dead, I doubt there are many (if any) landmark discoveries that put nails to his coffin. Organizing fossil morphs takes a little creativity. And sometimes a supposed transitional form gets corrected as not being one.

He wrote several books, which did you read? Have you read anything more current? The new research has pointed out where he was wrong. It has also filled in a lot of the details he expected to come later.

There is natural selection based in adapting better to the environment. Often punctuated by changes in the environment or being introduced to a new one. There is also sexual selection. Read up on the Red Queen.

I try reading the arguments for design, but I often get annoyed that they don't actually say anything. I actually finished Darwin's Black Box. They set up a straw man of what they think evolution is and than fail to debunk it. Then they say, things are complicated, they must have been designed.

I have "On the Origin of Species." I haven't read any new books beyond a few articles here and there. I admit I haven' read more than a few paragraphs of Darwin's Black box. I figured the IDers have moved on to other books.

Darwinists put too much faith in "Natural selection" as the mechanism that destroys Intelligent Design. If a human cell is worth hundred's of thousands of volumes of information in an encyclopaedia, Darwinists would say that it's natural selection. If the cell is worth millions of volumes of information, the answer is "natural selection." If the cell had billions of volumes worth of information, the answer is "natural selection." Natural selection is given far more credit than it has earned. Science is about observation, yet science has not observed any past really minor adjustments due to natural selection. That's faith in natural selection as the sufficient mechanism to evolve a single cell into a full grown human.

Um... No. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't say that there are no gods, but there is also no evidence for there being a god. So I don't believe in one.

If you know what the words mean then you might know how to use them. It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

I didn't say you couldn't be both. I was just saying they are two different things. So you know that we can't know about God?


Um... You don't really know how science works. Researchers are always looking to upset their peers and if they can upset an entire theory they are ecstatic. They prod and probe every idea seeing if the data fits, and if it doesn't they fix the theory.

And no THE FLOOD CAN NOT BE EVIDENCE FOR THE FOSSILS AND HOW THEY ARE LAID OUT IN THE STRATA! Why, because it doesn't fit. You would have jumbles of different forms rather than the relatively clean progression of forms in the strata. You also wouldn't have the evidence for the huge number of extinction events that also impacted the ocean. You are ill informed and don't know what you're talking about.

True arrogance is not on the side of the scientists. It is on the side that claims in the face of all of the evidence and all the billions of people with different beliefs on the formation of the earth, that they are right.

They are allowed to upset their peers as long as they think within the box.

As for the flood idea, the bigger animals can run up the hills faster. Why doesn't that make sense? Fossilization can occur under cataclysmic events with great pressure. The Oceans serve no problem.
 


Seriously, stop posting bible links, they are incredibly biased. Science starts out with a hypothesis that is either proved true or false. When you are using the bible as your science, they do anything they can to twist facts to make fit their end game. That data is not peer reviewed and only believed by tin foil hatted religious people. That stuff has been proven wrong again and again and it takes a 2 second google search to prove it's wrong. You posted links before that the earth is the center of the universe, if you truly believe that, well, lol, good luck in life.

And if you believe in flood geology, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bigger animals can run up hill faster? I guess that explains how the fish drown and fossilized in the flood and hippos run faster than cheetahs :rolleyes:. Have you ever seen a flood (aka Katrina?) everything gets mixed together, it doesn't create nice even layers... I'm not even responding to this thread anymore, because you people are so ridiculous and will believe anything that's written on a geocities website as long as it meshes with a constantly falsified book that was written 1800 years ago...

Do you really think the scientific community is some great conspiracy to prove god wrong? You guys truly are mental midgets. Feel free to PM me, but I'm not wasting my time in this tread any more.

2d2amnm.gif
 
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."
- Stephen J Gould

Way to quote out of context. You're aware that in that quote Gould is not arguing against evolution, but rather in favor of punctuated equilibrium as opposed to more gradual change, right? If you weren't, you are now. Stop misrepresenting the man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top