Oddworld Forums > Zulag Two > Off-Topic Discussion


 
Thread Tools
 
  #91  
12-31-2001, 04:44 PM
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR's Avatar
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR
Outlaw Hunter
 
: Apr 2001
: Rochester, New York
: 2,810
Rep Power: 26
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR  (11)

I do that in almost every topic. Your not clever if you never noticed that.

Reply With Quote
  #92  
12-31-2001, 05:03 PM
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR's Avatar
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR
Outlaw Hunter
 
: Apr 2001
: Rochester, New York
: 2,810
Rep Power: 26
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR  (11)

Here's some evidence that evolution is false. I have more pointing on the bible. Here's what Creationist scientist stated:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Reply With Quote
  #93  
12-31-2001, 05:58 PM
Steve
Super Stingbee
 
: Nov 2001
: 456
Rep Power: 24
Steve  (32)

:
Originally posted by PinkHaired Mudokon CWR:
Here's some evidence that evolution is false. I have more pointing on the bible. Here's what Creationist scientist stated:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

1.yes there are there are several known members of the genus homo(latin for man you sicko's)

2. there is no such thing as a "higher organism" we are exactly as high as an ameoba or any other animal plant protista fungus or bacteria

3. life can result from non life seeing as life is non life there is nothing that seperates us from the animals and matter was there it was just in something really really small

4.what do you mean inconclusive tell me one reason why they are inconclusive

5. news flash were apes that walk on two legs and like to build stuff you can't just say their just say their apes and call that an argument

6. I cannot be called "fully human" because there is no defining point and there is no such thing as fully (I asume your talking about cro magnum man neandrathal man and homo erectus which are different (we are cro magnum I believe))

7. what social inconcistancys they aren't different from everyone else if thats what you mean because everyone else is dead.

8.what logic inconcistancies? are there more then a supreme being apeard and started making things?

9. no because if there was a flood most of the fossils would be ruined.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Steve ]
Reply With Quote
  #94  
12-31-2001, 06:07 PM
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR's Avatar
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR
Outlaw Hunter
 
: Apr 2001
: Rochester, New York
: 2,810
Rep Power: 26
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR  (11)

Explain that to an evolution scientist who thought of those Theories to begin with.

About Fossil's being destroyed by floods, that's not always true either. They found some dinosaur bones that were older than the creation of Adam and Eve. Why did'nt they destroy then? There was a flood before Adam and Eve were created. I will have more what I mean by that if ya like. It pfoves how dinosaurs died and who made them and the creation.

Reply With Quote
  #95  
12-31-2001, 06:15 PM
Steve
Super Stingbee
 
: Nov 2001
: 456
Rep Power: 24
Steve  (32)

I guess I worded it wrong the floods wouldn't destroy the fossils but they would be so jubmled up there would be animals with bones spread across the world. also I believe according to the bible the earth is about 4000 years old or something like that.

edit: my mistake acording to the bible the earth was mad 9:00 AM October 26 4004 B.C. and no I am not making that up

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Steve ]
Reply With Quote
  #96  
12-31-2001, 06:19 PM
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR's Avatar
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR
Outlaw Hunter
 
: Apr 2001
: Rochester, New York
: 2,810
Rep Power: 26
PinkHaired Mudokon CWR  (11)

:
Originally posted by Steve:
I guess I worded it wrong the floods wouldn't destroy the fossils but they would be so jubmled up there would be animals with bones spread across the world. also I believe according to the bible the earth is about 4000 years old or something like that.

I'm thinking, when the floods ended, the dinosaurs just died and decayed at that spot. ]

You know the verses "God created the Heavens and the Earth." Want me to go to depth on that and how dinos and creation was process. I jsut want to share what the bible stated on it. I'm not trying to force people to believe or anything though

Reply With Quote
  #97  
12-31-2001, 11:14 PM
Gluk Schmuck's Avatar
Gluk Schmuck
Not living with Max any more
 
: Jul 2001
: Sheffield, UK
: 2,874
Rep Power: 26
Gluk Schmuck  (11)

:
Originally posted by PinkHaired Mudokon CWR:
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
2. What do you mean by 'higher-order'
3. So you don't think humans ARE animals?
7. Could you expand on that?
8. Could you expand on that?


Yes, please go into depth about the creation, as long as it's relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
01-01-2002, 02:07 AM
Disgruntled Intern's Avatar
Disgruntled Intern
Faerie-Digesting Tachyon
 
: Dec 2001
: Port Orchard, Washington
: 3,506
Blog Entries: 41
Rep Power: 28
Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)Disgruntled Intern  (4322)

I only have a few quick things to say...
Okay, here goes:
I am for nor against organized relgiion, if it makes you feel as though you belong, or your life serves a purpose, then more power to 'ya.
What i am disgusted by is religous people
(christian, jew catholic, mormon, whatever!) that seem to take great offense to anyone voicing an opinion that is sort of...out shining the idea of God.
To me, it doesn't matter either way. I personally believe in the big bang, and i probably always will.
Has anyone else noticed the change is Pinks attitude as more and more people posted in favor of the big bang?
at first, Pink's comments seemed fairly intelligent, and well thought out..sorta.
But then Pink became angrier and angrier, because he/she couldn't really do or say anything to sway anyone's opinions.
Pink, i think it's wonderful that you believe so strongly in 'God' BUT i think you have been promoting your ideas in the wrong fashion-
by simply scratching out the POSSIBILITY of the big bang. When you think about it, you have really made very few good/logical points, and really, by throwing out all these inconclusive factoids, have made the big bang theory seem more likely.
okay, so that was not too quick, but i said my piece, and i'm off my soap box now.


[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Disgruntled Intern ]
__________________




Buy my T-shirts. People will like you more and I will hate you less.

Reply With Quote
  #99  
01-01-2002, 04:20 AM
Sydney
Oddworld Forums Founder
Queen of the Damned
 
: May 2000
: Australia
: 1,408
Rep Power: 26
Sydney  (32)

:
Originally posted by PinkHaired Mudokon CWR:
If you read the bible very carefully, then you would see how everything was created.
We're not talking about the bible's "answers", we're talking about the bible's questions.

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

That is false science. There are transitional forms in the fossil record, whoever composed this was dishonest. For example, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form showing the link between bird and reptile.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Poor use of terminology to communicate an erroneous concept. Natural selection combined with mutations are precisely what drives evolution.

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

No they are not.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

The lineage of man and the apes is not complete, with many fossilised subspecies of human breaking off into myriads of branches. At present we don't know for sure if many were new groups branching off the same line we descended from (Neanderthal for example) whom we share a common ancestor with, or if they sit directly in our lineage (Australopithecus Afarensis, Lucy I believe). But there is no doubt about it that many of these fossils show the transition between man and ape.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

This statement needs elaboration as well as back-up.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

What a load of bullshit. As with the previous statement, it needs elaboration as well as back-up.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Errmmm, no. Social inconsistencies? Please explain. Practical inconsistencies?

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

List them. There are no logical inconsistencies in evolution. It obeys natural law.

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Nonsense.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to this "evidence." To call these statements evidence is hysterical. I'm embarassed.

By the way, creation "science" is flawed as it approaches a problem with a result already determined.
__________________
The Glass Asylum

Reply With Quote
  #100  
01-01-2002, 05:53 PM
General Grakkus
Stunk
 
: Nov 2001
: 47
Rep Power: 0
General Grakkus  (10)

k, someone may have already pointed this out but Im too lazy to read all 3 pages, if This "evolution" and "Big Bang" THEORIES are actually true, why cant we find any fossils of the "missing links"? I wouldnt even want to believe we came from monkeys I think thats degrading.So Ill take living in paradise for eternity than evolving from primitive creatures and dying and ceasing to exist.
EDIT:theorys arent facts theyre reasonable ideas. And dont give me: well, God isnt a reasonable explanation.We have faith that god is real and we trust what the bible is saying is true.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: General Grakkus ]
Reply With Quote
  #101  
01-01-2002, 06:31 PM
Sl'askia's Avatar
Sl'askia
Outlaw Bomber
 
: Apr 2001
: No I am not telling you so :P
: 2,236
Rep Power: 26
Sl'askia  (10)

who says you would cease to exist if you died? Your conscience(sp) goes somewhere...that's where reincarnation comes in in my book.
I believe in a higher form of life (make that...higher life forms...hey..even a god would have limitations!) 'assisting' in the creation of the universe and all life. But not like 'poof' you exist...that is just silly. A god needs something to work with IMO (for life in general it would need 'organic matter' not clay). Even the greatest builders need matterial to work with.
__________________

My Site | My Board | My RolePlay

Reply With Quote
  #102  
01-01-2002, 08:10 PM
Danny's Avatar
Danny
Wolvark Sloghandler
 
: Apr 2001
: York, England
: 3,961
Rep Power: 27
Danny  (11)

:
Originally posted by General Grakkus:
k, someone may have already pointed this out but Im too lazy to read all 3 pages, if This "evolution" and "Big Bang" THEORIES are actually true, why cant we find any fossils of the "missing links"?(1) I wouldnt even want to believe we came from monkeys I think thats degrading.So Ill take living in paradise for eternity than evolving from primitive creatures and dying and ceasing to exist.(2)
EDIT:theorys arent facts theyre reasonable ideas.(3) And dont give me: well, God isnt a reasonable explanation.We have faith that god is real and we trust what the bible is saying is true.
1. We can. We have. Read Sydney's most recent post, it's not difficult.

2. So say if you didn't like the idea that Wars happen, would you choose to believe that they didn't, despite all the evidence that they do? You can't just choose not to believe something just because you don't like it.

3. Beliefs aren't Facts either. They're much further away from facts than theories...
__________________

Guns don't kill people, People kill people! Using Guns.

Reply With Quote
  #103  
01-02-2002, 02:30 PM
One, Two, Middlesboogie's Avatar
One, Two, Middlesboogie
Outlaw Sniper
 
: Dec 2000
: upside down in a toilet bowl
: 1,552
Rep Power: 26
One, Two, Middlesboogie  (10)

:
Originally posted by PinkHaired Mudokon CWR:
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Richrd Dawkins explains this excellently in Climbing Mount Improbable.
Scientists classify every fossil they find as either one species or another. We have foundmany intermediates, but because our animalian classification system leaes no room for them, they are thrust on one side or another of a line. To this day, scientists are arguing about whether to classify certain creatures as an X or a Y.

Also, dead animals rarely fossilise. Our fossil record is extremely incomplete, so there could have been many intermediates that have existed and will never be discovered. Soft tissues of animals often rot or are eaten by other animals, and so fail to get preserved. Also, you have to die in the right kind of environment to get fossilised, ususally in a silty or muddy place.

And as for the skull, as Stattik pointed out, carbon dating is more inaccurate than we think, and carbon decomposition and presence is not constant. There is also the possibility of forgery. I'd like to add another theory; it is possible that the skull fell or was washed into a crevice in a rockface, thus ending up in older rocks.
__________________
Hand me my flamethrower... it's the one that says 'Bad Motherfucker'.

Reply With Quote
  #104  
01-03-2002, 07:11 PM
Statikk HDM's Avatar
Statikk HDM
Outlaw Flamer
 
: Jul 2001
: Two Rivers
: 2,519
Rep Power: 26
Statikk HDM  (40)

I now thisisn't exactly a fact based on the cheerleading of ideas, but Sydney, the liter translation of the bible is the best one. What I mean is, if it is a parable God will go"Hey, this here is a story to teach a lesson. here goes..." Creationism isn't religious prose, God is saying quite clearly"Hey, this isn't just a story, it's the real deal." Saying all he saw was Good, the telling of his presence, Gen:1:2 ...And the holy spirit was hovering over the water...God means this as truth not storytime.
__________________
R.I.P. H.S.T.

I wanna have El Scrabino's man babies.

Reply With Quote
  #105  
01-03-2002, 08:17 PM
Danny's Avatar
Danny
Wolvark Sloghandler
 
: Apr 2001
: York, England
: 3,961
Rep Power: 27
Danny  (11)

:
Originally posted by Statikk HDM:
I now thisisn't exactly a fact based on the cheerleading of ideas,(1) but Sydney, the liter translation of the bible is the best one.(2) What I mean is, if it is a parable God will go"Hey, this here is a story to teach a lesson. here goes..."(3) Creationism isn't religious prose, God is saying quite clearly"Hey, this isn't just a story, it's the real deal."(4) Saying all he saw was Good, the telling of his presence, Gen:1:2 ...And the holy spirit was hovering over the water...God means this as truth not storytime.(5)[/B]
1. What?

2. No it isn't. That's like taking Aesop's Fables literally.

3. No, because then it wouldn't be a parable. A parable is a story with a moral, not just a moral on its own...

4. What makes you think that?

5. Truth? *sigh* Gullible just isn't strong enough...
__________________

Guns don't kill people, People kill people! Using Guns.

Reply With Quote
  #106  
01-03-2002, 08:52 PM
abe22's Avatar
abe22
Sleg
 
: May 2001
: South/Eastern Victoria, Australia
: 680
Rep Power: 25
abe22  (10)

"If nothing bad was meant to be in the world why did he make the bad apple tree?"
Could you please answer my question now Pinky.
__________________
The trouble with real life is that there's no danger music.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
If I ever get real rich, I hope I'm not real mean to poor people, like now.
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff. -- Jack Handy
That stuff only happens in the movies. -- Famous Last Words

Reply With Quote
  #107  
01-04-2002, 03:21 PM
Phen
Stunk
 
: Jan 2002
: 40
Rep Power: 0
Phen  (10)

just observing, but i've noticed pinky STILL has stated his answer for why the bad apple tree was put in Eden
(I myself am agaist creationism)
Reply With Quote
  #108  
01-05-2002, 07:30 PM
Wil's Avatar
Wil
Oddworld Administrator
Oddworld Inhabitant
 
: Apr 2001
: UK
: 13,534
Blog Entries: 39
Rep Power: 40
Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)

I'm staggered at the ammount of usage the words 'proof' and 'fact' have suffered. Reading through this entire 3-page topic (well, most of it) I have found absolutely no facts about the Universe's creation, and no proof about it, either.

My two pence (until the Euro arrives), for all they're worth:

The Universe exists, and it exists in 11 dimensions. The first three of these deal with space, the fourth deals with time, and all the others deal with the dimensions of sub-atomics. Therefore, our plane of existance is a physical one that actually exists. That is a fact (real basics here).

I've heard, here in fact, 'theory' described as an offered proof to a fact. Well...sort of. A theory is an idea offered that has not yet been prooven (prooved?), whether it be to describe facts, or whether it just be a cool idea you have.

So, here we are, we have a Universe (ours, coincidently enough) which exists. This is the 'fact' of the arguement. It is not actually a fact because a fact operates on an abstract level. More on stuff like that later.

So, here we are, we have a Universe which exists. This is the 'fact', and we are assuming that it was created somehow. Remember that that too is just an assumtion. I could branch out into the ouroboral existance of God here, and use offered proof for his existance to disproove him, but then I'd never finish this paragraph.

So, here we are (still, if you've lasted this long) in our Universe that exists. We assume our Universe was created. But, being the curious creatures we are, we want to know how, and so we start offering ideas.

"I am offering the idea that God created the Universe in six days and rested on the seventh day".

"I am offering the idea that the Universe was formed by a process dubbed 'The Big Bang', which means the Universe 'burst' out from a central point."

"I am offering the idea that the Universe is simply a mental realm where spirits create physical visions." Well, you're wrong for a start, mate.

Now, these two ideas are theories - offered ideas that have not been proven, yet. The first thing we do from now on is sort out the difference between evidence and proof.

Proof shows that the theory is definite - it is true and can never be disprooven, unless Mr Smart Git Egghead waltzes along and points out where we forgot to carry the five. It is entirely acceptable not to believe something that has been prooved. An example would be a person not believing in civilisation. An obvious load of meta-denying monkey vomit (reference to ape-human aggenda intended), but, hey, it's a free world (the stuff that's on it is often not, however).

Evidence, on the other hand, is offered to lean the proposed and accepted answer to one of the theories. An example, which ties in rather nicely: Background Microwave Radiation. Sure, it seems to 'prove' (hey that's the right spelling, isn't it? Oh well, too late to correct the past) The Big Bang Theory, but does it? Is there some other explanation? Is there some other cause for it? God created it? Aliens like plastic food bought cheap from Tesco that doesn't taste as good as the cardboard container it comes in, and endulge themselves in the pasttime exesively. Well, it's a theory, and since there could possibly be another reason, it cannot be taken as 'proof' - it is only 'evidence'.

Now, just to really complicate the matter, we have to differenciate(sp? cffee?) between 'explanation' and 'cause'. And I know how much you've all been enjoying this entralling read, which I hope I've managed to keep neutral. Please don't complain if it isn't, but without wanting to become a prime member of the attention-drawing hitlist, my poor overdosed mind just can't cope with it, and I think it might burst. Part two must come tomorrow morning.

Urg, I'm so tired. Oh well. For to wish the good night me from.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #109  
01-05-2002, 09:05 PM
Danny's Avatar
Danny
Wolvark Sloghandler
 
: Apr 2001
: York, England
: 3,961
Rep Power: 27
Danny  (11)

Well, that was a lot of writing. There were a few facts in there, a few suppositions, a few theories, and a few blatant lies... I will now attempt to sift through it and separate them...

:
I have found absolutely no facts about the Universe's creation, and no proof about it, either.
The second part of this statement is true. The first part isn't: It is a fact that Microwave Background Radiation exists. It is a fact that the observed concentration of elements in the Universe matches that predicted by the theory of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It is a fact that other galaxies can be observed to be moving away from ours, a la Hubble Expansion. Whereas none of these can be accepted as Proof of the Big Bang, they are undeniably Evidence. These two terms have become muddled throughout this topic, and I have to thank you for unpicking them...

:
The Universe exists, and it exists in 11 dimensions. The first three of these deal with space, the fourth deals with time, and all the others deal with the dimensions of sub-atomics. Therefore, our plane of existance is a physical one that actually exists. That is a fact (real basics here).
I'm not sure what word to assign this. 'Bullshit' doesn't quite fit, but it'll have to do. The fact is that there are only 5 dimensions that have been proven to exist: 4 of Space, 1 of Time. Further Dimensions have been postulated, but then some scientists have counted up to 124, so there is no real reason to choose any figure between 6 and 124... It's generally adequate to stick to the proven 5...

:
I've heard, here in fact, 'theory' described as an offered proof to a fact. Well...sort of. A theory is an idea offered that has not yet been prooven (prooved?), whether it be to describe facts, or whether it just be a cool idea you have.
What?

:
So, here we are, we have a Universe (ours, coincidently enough) which exists. This is the 'fact' of the arguement. It is not actually a fact because a fact operates on an abstract level. More on stuff like that later.
Not only is this nonsensical, but you did not give us "more on this later"...

:
So, here we are, we have a Universe which exists. This is the 'fact', and we are assuming that it was created somehow. Remember that that too is just an assumtion. I could branch out into the ouroboral existance of God here, and use offered proof for his existance to disproove him, but then I'd never finish this paragraph.
The old 'Babel Fish' Conundrum, eh? Personally, I suspect that the use of a posh word like "ouroboral" here was an attempt to seem knowledgeable...

The rest of what you said was true, but could have been said in a much less longwinded way. Like this:

We have no proof of the Big Bang theory, but we have a lot of evidence.

I can't wait for part two... *rubs his hands*
__________________

Guns don't kill people, People kill people! Using Guns.

Reply With Quote
  #110  
01-06-2002, 08:38 AM
abe22's Avatar
abe22
Sleg
 
: May 2001
: South/Eastern Victoria, Australia
: 680
Rep Power: 25
abe22  (10)

This Might intrest some people I got it from encarta but I warn you it's a bit of reading but it's interesting and some of it has been said but it has been expanded.

Early Cosmological Theories
The earliest cosmological theories known-from about 4000 BC-are from the Mesopotamians, who believed that the earth is the center of the universe and that the other heavenly bodies move around it. The nightly motion of stars across the sky was explained by some ancients, such as Aristotle and the Greek astronomer Ptolemy, as the result of stars being fixed on rotating crystalline spheres. The Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos maintained, about 270 BC, that the earth revolves around the sun. Mainly because of Aristotle's authority, however, the concept of the earth as the center of the universe remained generally unchallenged until 1543, when the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published his theories in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres). Copernicus proposed a system in which the planets revolve in circular orbits around the sun, which he defined as the center of the universe. He attributed the rising and setting of the stars to the rotation of the earth on its axis. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler adopted the Copernican system and discovered that the planets move in elliptical orbits at varying speeds, according to three well-defined laws (since called Kepler's laws). Galileo, who first observed planets with a telescope, also rejected Aristotle's idea of the earth as the center of the universe and became a champion of the Copernican world view. The English mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton showed that Kepler's laws of planetary motion could be derived from the general laws of motion and gravitation that Newton had discovered, thus indicating that these physical laws were valid in the heavens as well as on the earth.

Interstellar Distances
An idea of the scale of the distances between stars was given in the early 19th century by the German astronomer Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel. He found that the nearby star 61 Cygni was at a distance of about 3 parsecs, or about 600,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun. In 1917 the American astronomer Harlow Shapley estimated that the earth's galaxy, the Milky Way, was about 100,000 parsecs in diameter, thus providing the first indication of the Milky Way's size. Unfortunately, Shapley neglected to consider the absorption of light from distant stars by dust particles in the Milky Way, which makes objects appear dimmer, and hence farther away than they really are. The modern value for the size of the earth's visible galaxy is roughly 30,000 parsecs (100,000 light-years) in diameter. The Dutch astronomer Jan Hendrik Oort found that the sun takes approximately 250 million years to travel once around the center of our galaxy, and he thus was able to calculate that the mass of the Milky Way is roughly 100 billion times the mass of the sun.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, astronomers were still uncertain about the nature of the spiral and elliptical nebulas. In particular, they could not determine whether such nebulas were inside or outside the Galaxy. In 1924 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble succeeded in resolving individual stars in several nearby nebulas, including the Andromeda nebula. Several of these stars were pulsating stars called Cepheid variables. By measuring their period of pulsation, astronomers can determine the intrinsic brightness of these stars. By comparing the apparent brightnesses of these Cepheids with the known brightnesses of nearby Cepheids, Hubble proved that these nebulas lie far outside the Galaxy. This meant that the thousands of spiral and elliptical nebulas were galaxies in their own right-external to the Milky Way galaxy with each containing hundreds of billions of stars. Hubble estimated that the distance to the Andromeda galaxy was 900,000 light-years, a figure later corrected to 2.2 million light-years when astronomers discovered that the Cepheids were more distant than was first thought.

Hubble's Law
The American astronomer Vesto M. Slipher, who studied the spectra (see Spectrum) of galaxies, had already noticed in 1912 that, except for a few nearby systems such as the Andromeda galaxy, the spectral lines were shifted toward longer (red) wavelengths (see Red Shift). This shift in wavelength, caused by the Doppler effect, showed that most galaxies were receding from the Milky Way at several hundred kilometers per second.
In 1929 Hubble compared the distances he had estimated for various galaxies with the red shifts determined by Slipher for the same galaxies. He found that the more remote the galaxy, the higher was its recession velocity. This important relationship has become known as the law of the red shifts, or Hubble's law; it states that the recession velocity of a galaxy is proportional to its distance. The ratio of the recession velocity of a galaxy to its distance (the Hubble constant) is now estimated to be between 50 and 100 km/sec per megaparsec (1 megaparsec equals 1 million parsecs).
Because galaxies in all directions seem to recede from the Milky Way, it might appear that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe. This is not the case, however. One can imagine a balloon with evenly spaced dots painted on it. As the balloon is blown up, an observer on each spot would see all the other spots expanding away from it, just as observers see all the galaxies receding from the Milky Way. The analogy also provides a simple explanation for Hubble's law; the universe is expanding like a balloon.

Static and Expanding Models of the Universe
In 1917 Albert Einstein proposed a model of the universe based on his new theory of general relativity. By considering time as a fourth dimension, he showed that gravitation was equivalent to a curvature of this four-dimensional space. His solution indicated that the universe was not static but must be expanding or contracting. The expansion of the universe had not yet been discovered, so Einstein postulated the existence of a force of repulsion between galaxies that counterbalanced the gravitational force of attraction. This introduced a "cosmological constant" in his equations, resulting in a static universe. He therefore missed a chance to predict the expansion of the universe by introducing an arbitrary constant. Einstein later called this the "biggest mistake of my life."
Nonstatic models of the universe were developed in 1917 by the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, in 1922 by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann, and in 1927 by the Belgian abbé, Georges Lemaître. The de Sitter universe solved Einstein's relativistic equations for an empty universe, so that gravitational forces were not important. Friedmann's solution depended directly on the density of matter in the universe and is the currently accepted model of the universe. Lemaître also worked out a solution to Einstein's equation, but he is better known for having introduced the idea of the "primeval atom." He stated that galaxies are fragments that have been ejected by the explosion of this atom, resulting in the expansion of the universe. This was the beginning of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe (see below).
The fate of the Friedmann universe is determined by the average density of matter in the universe. If there is relatively little matter in the universe, the mutual gravitational attraction among the galaxies will slow the recessional velocities only slightly, and the universe will expand forever. This would result in a so-called open universe that is infinite in extent. If, however, the density of matter is above a critical value, now estimated at 5 × 10-30 g/cu cm, the expansion will slow to a halt and reverse to contraction, ending in the total gravitational collapse of the entire universe. This would be a "closed" universe that is finite in extent. The fate of this collapsed universe is uncertain, but one theory is that it would explode again, producing a new expanding universe, which would again collapse, and so on ad infinitum. This model is called the pulsating, or oscillating, universe.

The Age of the Universe
If the present rate of expansion of the universe is known, its age can be estimated by determining the length of time required for the universe to reach its present size. This will actually be an upper limit, as the present expansion has already been slowed by the mutual gravitational attraction among the galaxies. The first calculations of the age of the universe yielded a value of only 2 billion years. This age was considerably less than the 5-billion-year age of the earth that had been derived from the abundances of certain radioactive isotopes and their decay products in rocks (see Dating Methods). Subsequent corrections in the distance scale have removed this discrepancy. It was found, for example, that there are two types of Cepheid variables, each with a different intrinsic brightness. This confusion had caused Hubble to underestimate the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. At the present time estimates of the age of the universe range between 7 and 20 billion years, and thus they do not conflict with the age of the earth. Lower estimates in this range, however, seem to conflict with the age of the oldest stars, which are believed to be about 16 billion years old.

The Steady-State Theory
In 1948 the British astronomers Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle presented an entirely different model of the universe called the steady-state theory. They found the idea of a sudden beginning to the universe philosophically unsatisfactory. Their model was derived from an extension of the "cosmological principle" that had been used for previous theories such as Friedmann's model. It stated that the universe appeared the same from any location, but not necessarily for all times. They proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe. The steady-state theory is no longer accepted by most cosmologists, particularly after the incompatible discovery of cosmic background radiation see Background Radiation in 1965.
The discovery of quasars (see Quasar) also provided evidence contradicting the steady-state theory. Quasars are very small but brilliantly luminous extragalactic systems, found only at great distances. Their light has taken several billion years to reach the earth. Quasars are therefore objects from the remote past, which indicates that a few billion years ago the constitution of the universe was very different than it is today.

The Big Bang Theory
In 1948 the Russian-American physicist George Gamow modified Lemaître's theory of the primeval atom into the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a gigantic explosion and that the various elements observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the big bang, when the extremely high temperature and density of the universe would fuse subatomic particles into the chemical elements. More recent calculations indicate that hydrogen and helium would have been the primary products of the big bang, with heavier elements being produced later within stars. This theory, however, provided a basis for understanding the earliest stages of the universe and its subsequent evolution. The extremely high density within the primeval atom would cause the universe to expand rapidly. As it expanded, the hydrogen and helium would cool and condense into stars and galaxies. This explains the expansion of the universe and the physical basis of Hubble's law.
As the universe expanded, the residual radiation from the big bang would continue to cool, until now it should be a temperature of about 3 K (about -270° C/-454° F). This relic radiation was detected by radio astronomy in 1965, thereby providing what most astronomers consider to be confirmation of the big bang theory.

Evolution of the Universe
One of the unresolved problems in the expanding universe model is whether the universe is open (that is, whether it will expand forever) or closed (whether the universe will contract again).
One approach to solving this problem is to determine whether the mean density of matter in the universe is more than the critical value in Friedmann's model. The mass of a galaxy can be measured by observing the motion of its stars. If the mass density of the universe is estimated by multiplying the mass of each galaxy by the number of galaxies, the density is found to be only 5 to 10 percent of the critical value. The mass of a cluster of galaxies can be determined in an analogous way by measuring the motion of the galaxies within it. Multiplying this mass by the number of clusters of galaxies results in a much higher mean density, one approaching the critical limit that would indicate the universe is closed. The discrepancy between these two methods suggests the presence of substantial invisible matter, the so-called dark matter, inside the cluster but outside the visible galaxies. Until the missing-mass phenomenon is understood, this method of determining the fate of the universe will be inconclusive.
Because light from the most remote galaxies has been traveling for billions of years, the universe can be observed as it appeared in the distant past. Using new, highly sensitive infrared detectors called large-format arrays, astronomers at Mauna Kea Observatory have recorded hundreds of the faintest galaxies ever observed, most of them clustered at a distance of 6 billion light-years. An anomaly in this view of the universe of 6 billion years ago is that instead of a mixture of galactic types, only one type predominates; a class of small, compact galaxies containing far fewer stars than the Milky Way or others of its kind. The young spiral and elliptical galaxies observed today may thus have formed from the merging of low-mass galactic fragments relatively late in the history of the universe, long after the big bang, and represent just one of a series of stages in the evolution of the universe.
Much current work in theoretical cosmology is centered on developing a better understanding of the processes that must have shaped the big bang. Inflationary theory, formulated in the 1980s, resolves major difficulties in Gamow's original formulation by incorporating recent advances in particle physics. Such theories have also led to such daring speculation as the possibility of an infinity of universes produced according to the inflationary model. Mainstream cosmologists, however, are more intent on locating the whereabouts of dark matter, while a minority, following the lead of the Swedish Nobel physicist Hannes Alfvén, are pursuing the idea that plasma phenomena-not just gravity-hold the key to understanding the structure and evolution of the universe.
__________________
The trouble with real life is that there's no danger music.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
If I ever get real rich, I hope I'm not real mean to poor people, like now.
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff. -- Jack Handy
That stuff only happens in the movies. -- Famous Last Words

Reply With Quote
  #111  
01-06-2002, 09:05 AM
Wil's Avatar
Wil
Oddworld Administrator
Oddworld Inhabitant
 
: Apr 2001
: UK
: 13,534
Blog Entries: 39
Rep Power: 40
Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)Wil  (9443)

:
I have found absolutely no facts about the Universe's creation, and no proof about it, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of this statement is true. The first part isn't: It is a fact that Microwave Background Radiation exists. It is a fact that the observed concentration of elements in the Universe matches that predicted by the theory of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It is a fact that other galaxies can be observed to be moving away from ours, a la Hubble Expansion. Whereas none of these can be accepted as Proof of the Big Bang, they are undeniably Evidence. These two terms have become muddled throughout this topic, and I have to thank you for unpicking them...
Well, that's what I was trying to say...they are facts in that they exist, but they are not neccessarily a result of the Big Bang.

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Universe exists, and it exists in 11 dimensions. The first three of these deal with space, the fourth deals with time, and all the others deal with the dimensions of sub-atomics. Therefore, our plane of existance is a physical one that actually exists. That is a fact (real basics here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what word to assign this. 'Bullshit' doesn't quite fit, but it'll have to do. The fact is that there are only 5 dimensions that have been proven to exist: 4 of Space, 1 of Time. Further Dimensions have been postulated, but then some scientists have counted up to 124, so there is no real reason to choose any figure between 6 and 124... It's generally adequate to stick to the proven 5...
Duh! Silly me, I forgot that fourth of space. No, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, girth I seem to remember it as. Anyway, beyond time, dimensions are dealt with on a sub-atomic level. I was just trying to get across the point that the Universe does exist, and it's not the imagination of some divine computer.

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard, here in fact, 'theory' described as an offered proof to a fact. Well...sort of. A theory is an idea offered that has not yet been prooven (prooved?), whether it be to describe facts, or whether it just be a cool idea you have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?
I'm just saying a theory is an idea. I needn't try to explain a fact.

:
So, here we are, we have a Universe (ours, coincidently enough) which exists. This is the 'fact' of the arguement. It is not actually a fact because a fact operates on an abstract level. More on stuff like that later.
Here I'm going into English language. The Universe is not a fact, but it existing is a fact. Also, a fact is a noun, but it is not an item. You can't pick a fact up. It is abstract, like a dream, or happiness.

When I said 'more on stuff like that later', it turned out that later would be in part 2, or even much later than that. I would basically go on that the Universe has to exist beyond its dimensions, because there is thought, which cannot be 'measured'. But, like I said, later.

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here we are, we have a Universe which exists. This is the 'fact', and we are assuming that it was created somehow. Remember that that too is just an assumtion. I could branch out into the ouroboral existance of God here, and use offered proof for his existance to disproove him, but then I'd never finish this paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The old 'Babel Fish' Conundrum, eh? Personally, I suspect that the use of a posh word like "ouroboral" here was an attempt to seem knowledgeable...
Of course it was done intentionally...eternal is such an over-used wrd, I thought I'd coin a new synonymn.

What I meant by that sentance was that we asume that the Universe hasn't always been around. Some people believe that the Universe was created by God who is eternal. But if that's the case, it's logically possible for the Universe to have existed long before the proposed creation of it, and that some super-galactic disaster mearly wiped out whatever was in this Universe before now. I'm long-winded.

The basis for that is the anti-arguement of some argument proving God's existance. I'd have to get my RS textbook to explain it, and that's at school. Urg, school tomorrow.

I've just noticed Abe22's post, and it's put me off. What was I going to say?

Oh well. I can say that the response I recieved was much brighter than the intense flamming that came to me in my nightmares.



Oh well. Look forward to Part 2 in a later post.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #112  
01-06-2002, 12:11 PM
Danny's Avatar
Danny
Wolvark Sloghandler
 
: Apr 2001
: York, England
: 3,961
Rep Power: 27
Danny  (11)

I'm sorry if I seemed confrontational and argumentative when I replied to your last post, Max. I was in quite a bad mood as a result of having quite a blazing 'debate' with Matt [Sal the Mudokon] on MSN at the time...
__________________

Guns don't kill people, People kill people! Using Guns.

Reply With Quote
  #113  
01-07-2002, 05:17 PM
freakyLA
Outlaw Cutter
 
: Apr 2001
: Germany
: 1,042
Rep Power: 25
freakyLA  (11)

:
Originally posted by Fazerina:
[B]freakyLA: I don't know what statistic you've been reading but people really are religious in Finland. Especially the old ones. And many youngsters are as well. I'm really interested.. where did you read that from? Was it like asked from people or was it some statistic made by in wich church they belong to. Because I don't know many people that aint in a some kind of church. The most of the I think are in ev.lut. churches. I don't really know how to say it in english.. evangelic lutheric...? okay.. I really don't know..
B]
The statistic thing was a joke. I read it in some book with informations about every country. Sorry, it was silly from me.
__________________
http://oddworld.nflboards.com/misc/o...s/freakyla.jpg Nur tote Fische schwimmen mit dem Strom

Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 








 
 
- Oddworld Forums - -