30-11-2001 04:17									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo The paper won't fly out of my pocket, and it is all numbers.

All numbers? Is that very smart?
There are 10 digits. It's much better to have all letters (in random order), or best to have a combination of both.

	30-11-2001 04:21									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher All numbers? Is that very smart? There are 10 digits. It's much better to have all letters (in random order), or best to have a combination of both.

They are random numbers. Contact me on ICQ, I swear it is secure, with the security I have now.

Back to evolution versus creation now....

	30-11-2001 04:28									#153
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo They are random numbers. Contact me on ICQ, I swear it is secure, with the security I have now.

Random numbers is still 10 possible numbers. Random characters means 26 possible characters. Combination of them both means you can have 36 possible letters per space. Which is more secure?
10 or 36?

And I would contact you on ICQ, but we tried that and it didn't work out very well.

	30-11-2001 05:50									#154
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

There must be a law which says something like the following: failed theories (like Creationism) continue to exist because, while they rant continually against good evidentiary theories (like Evolution), the majority of those who hold the good theory don't even bother with the failed theory.

(BTW, I've heard pretty damning evidence about the Earth rotating once a day -- seems we'd all fall off.

Take some Science, kid. Fiat lux.

	30-11-2001 06:38									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Mark L Many scientists are backing away from the String theory now. Apparantly it wasn't as good as they hoped it would be, so they are busily working on a replacement.

Try telling that to Ed Witten! String theory is very much alive and kicking! I am thinking about doing a little research that way myself next year.

It has been somewhat superceeded by a 'higher' theory called M-Theory in which the string theory is embedded but there are lots of people still working on strings.

	30-11-2001 09:13									#156
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, what would life be life without peers

God created us 10 minutes ago in a game of SDTWQERTSDA (god language for sim-WECXGASDRE (the god world) and is now hacking the code to do a population growth and technology cheat.

	30-11-2001 09:52									#157
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh But if that were true, then all men would have 14 inch penises by now

Surely?

Penis size has very little to do with the survival of a species, though Genetically I am more incline to believe women pick their mates based on things such as health, strength, speed, intelligence, and similar factors.

	30-11-2001 10:14									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Newtonian mechanics will give wrong predictions of physics at high speeds. It is wrong for describing this, but is a reasonable approximation to reality for low speeds. Likewise GR will give wrong predictions for small distance effects. It is wrong for describing this, but is a reasonable approximation at large distances scales.

So we both agreed that theories are just approximations of nature, and they'll be progressively refined. Therefore, more descriptive theories - ones that can explain nature better, will replace older, less accurate ones.

IIRC though Newtonian physics was accurately enough at the turn of last century. No observations of physics at extreme speeds, enormous pressure, or infinitesimal distances were made - or even possible then.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh This is evidence for microevolution - not the evolution of man.

Not direct evidence of speciation, but it clearly shows natural selection at work.When we don't have direct evidence of something, we look for indirect ones. Fossils of transitional species, for example, are very strong evidence for evolution and very strong evidence against creationism.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh The best tested theory we have is Quantum ElectroDynamics. This is an interesting point though. There are certainly different standards in different branches of science as to what constitutes 'well supported'.

Mathematics doesn't work very well with evolution Statistics and such are used to as tools for data collection and analysis, not for direct derivation.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh I agree. Creationism isn't a nice theory from a scientific point of view (I certainly don't believe in it), because it is not predictive. But non-predictivity does not preclude something from being true. For example, look at the quantum mechanics. There are many interpretations of QM, two of which are The Copenhagen Interpretation and Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. There is no experiment we can do to prove of disprove either of them, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Some scientists are eager to point out that philosophical interpretations shouldn't be imposed on scientific theories

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Also, although creation cannot be proven wrong - it could be proven right. God could descend with His Host of Angles tomorrow morning, and then we would all know for sure.

Then I'd in deep trouble

	30-11-2001 10:36									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Creationism have less evidence than macroevolution.

Since no micro-creation has yet been seen.

	30-11-2001 11:31									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

SR? GR? English, please!

quote: Since no micro-creation has yet been seen.

quote: God created us 10 minutes ago in a game of SDTWQERTSDA (god language for sim-WECXGASDRE (the god world) and is now hacking the code to do a population growth and technology cheat.

	30-11-2001 11:39									#161
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I stated earlier ; I dont believe in Creation or Evolution. You fools who claim to know it all are wrong. They will prove both of these theorys bogus!

Wait a few years when the Scientific community gets there head outta there arse.....


Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old!

Now thats been pushed back


As well as everything to do with evolution.

	30-11-2001 14:17									#162
	Support Apolyton

"When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old! "

You must be older than I thought...the 4 billion year age must be some 30 years old by now.

	30-11-2001 15:19									#163
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Faded, I think you are confusing the age of the Earth and the time that it has been estimated life was presennt on Earth.

	30-11-2001 17:28									#164
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MORON Creationism have less evidence than macroevolution. Since no micro-creation has yet been seen.

Funnily enough, this highlights one of the problems I have with evolution (although I stress that I still believe it is a better theory than creation).

We have never observed a creation of life event which was necessary in the primordial soup to set off evolution in the first place. Presumably it would have to be rather common-place since the chance of one tiny single celled organism turning into life on Earth without being killed off must be fairly high. There are always anthropic principles to fall back on I suppose....

	30-11-2001 17:59									#165
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by faded glory I stated earlier ; I dont believe in Creation or Evolution. You fools who claim to know it all are wrong. They will prove both of these theorys bogus! Wait a few years when the Scientific community gets there head outta there arse..... Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old! Now thats been pushed back As well as everything to do with evolution.

]

Then what theory will they use? Evolution is obviously the one supported by facts, and you cannot disprove it.

	30-11-2001 18:52									#166
	Support Apolyton

It takes awhile to think these things through. Its like an invention...everybody says "damn why didnt I think of that". Its sort of like that.


As for evolution...it has its flaws.

	30-11-2001 23:26									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Funnily enough, this highlights one of the problems I have with evolution (although I stress that I still believe it is a better theory than creation). We have never observed a creation of life event which was necessary in the primordial soup to set off evolution in the first place. Presumably it would have to be rather common-place since the chance of one tiny single celled organism turning into life on Earth without being killed off must be fairly high. There are always anthropic principles to fall back on I suppose....

On the other hand, there's aren't too many "primordial soup" like locales on the Earth anymore. Also, even if a life-creation event took place somewhere on Earth today (lets say around thermal vents), said organism would likely be outcompeted/eaten/destroyed/what-have-you by our established organisms.

In that regard, it was likely easier for the first lifeform to establish itself than it would be for a new one today. It wouldn't have had any competition.

	01-12-2001 00:06									#168
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by aaglo Inevitably this kind of height increase will affect on the genetics of humans - the bone and muscular structure will adapt to the "new height standards".

Incorrect. This theory, which is known as Lysenkoism, was disprroved with a rather simple experiment. Generations of mice had their tails cut off, but at no point did mice ever evolve into hamsters.

The only place where changes in the body can affect future generations are in the germ cells in the testes/ovaries. No matter how much I exercise, I will not pass on good muscle tone to my kids.

	01-12-2001 02:25									#169
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Rogan, no one claims that a single cell organism was created out of the primordial soup.

What was created out of the soup was propably a selfreplicating molecule, such as a strand of RNA.

And while we haven't observed the creation of RNA from random chemicals (a process that statistically would take several million years), we have observed the synthesis of the the RNA starting materials though electric discharge in an artificial primordeal soup.

So, while the origin of life isn't proven, there is nothing to suggest that the current model is flawed.

	01-12-2001 03:46									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Correct me if I am wrong, but most christians these days will believe whatever scientific "proof" is produced. That is to say, that the laws of nature/science were set-up in a state condusive to intelligent life*. If evolution was a part of His plan then so be it, if God chose another way then thats fine and Dandy too.

Some would say this is a cop-out, but for me I have never held that religon is here to provide "scientific" explanations. That is not the purpose of Christianity.

*This is obviously the case - we are here, the main difference of opinion for most people is whether it was a deliberate design or fluke.

	01-12-2001 04:06									#171
	Put an end to popups!

How in the hell did this argument last for 6 pages? Some people have a little too much time on their hands, obviously.

	01-12-2001 15:38									#172
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by faded glory I stated earlier ; I dont believe in Creation or Evolution. You fools who claim to know it all are wrong. They will prove both of these theorys bogus!

Nobody alleged knowing everything. We have just said evolution is way better than creationism, which isn't even a scientific theory.

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Wait a few years when the Scientific community gets there head outta there arse.....

Funny you know more about biology than the scientific community

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old!

It's not the job of biologists to determine the age of the earth, but how old are you? IIRC age of the earth had been agreed upon for a very long time - at least several decades.

quote: Originally posted by faded glory As well as everything to do with evolution.

	01-12-2001 15:49									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh We have never observed a creation of life event which was necessary in the primordial soup to set off evolution in the first place. Presumably it would have to be rather common-place since the chance of one tiny single celled organism turning into life on Earth without being killed off must be fairly high. There are always anthropic principles to fall back on I suppose....

That's a common misconception most people hold, that somehow a one-celled organism got "created" out of scratch from the primordial soup. Creationists have been attacking this point in a futile attempt to "disprove" evolution. The mistakes here are:

• Evolution is not concerned about the origin of life on earth. It is concerned with how one lifeform gives rises to another (this is a rather imprecise way of putting it).
• Life didn't begin at a single-celled organism. It began when something could replicate itself. Reproduction, afterall, is the hallmark of life.

	01-12-2001 21:13									#174
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old! Now thats been pushed back

far from showing what's wrong with evolution, this shows what's right. It's flexible, constantly adapting to new evidence. If some new evidence pops up that proves that the earth is in fact 10 billion years old, the scientists are fully willing to not only accept it, but to applaud it as a great new discovery.

Creationism doesn't. Sometimes I get the feeling that creation is adapting the evidence to the theory, not the theory to the evidence. That's exactly what's wrong. It's a theory that increasingly departs from evidence.

quote: As for evolution...it has its flaws.

Of course it has flaws. Try naming a theory that doesn't have flaws. Even the theory of gravity has flaws, and is constantly being revised.

Now, name me a theory that has nothing but flaws. Umm, let's see. The flat earth theory is one. So is creation.

	01-12-2001 21:48									#175
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Incorrect. This theory, which is known as Lysenkoism, was disprroved with a rather simple experiment. Generations of mice had their tails cut off, but at no point did mice ever evolve into hamsters. The only place where changes in the body can affect future generations are in the germ cells in the testes/ovaries. No matter how much I exercise, I will not pass on good muscle tone to my kids.

This is not quite true. If you exercise, it will change the level of methylation of the relevant genes. Up till very recently, it was thought that the level of gene methylation is reset in germ cells, but new studies indicate that some of this methylation does in fact get passed on to the next generation (though not very much). Methylation controls to what degree a gene manifests itself, so your behaviour will effect the characteristics of your children to some, very limited degree. Nevertheless, you are right that the genetic code itself is not affected.

	01-12-2001 22:26									#176
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's a common misconception most people hold, that somehow a one-celled organism got "created" out of scratch from the primordial soup. Creationists have been attacking this point in a futile attempt to "disprove" evolution. The mistakes here are: Evolution is not concerned about the origin of life on earth. It is concerned with how one lifeform gives rises to another (this is a rather imprecise way of putting it). Life didn't begin at a single-celled organism. It began when something could replicate itself. Reproduction, afterall, is the hallmark of life. Since large numbers of large molecules can replicate itself, it is a lot easier for life to be formed from this primordial soup than Creationists put it. For example, polypetides can deplicate itself under suitable conditions, such as when the building blocks (peptides and amino acids) are available, the first life on earth could easily be some polypetide strands.

Fascinating. I suppose I had heard this before, but it just sort of dawned on me... in a sense, we are all evolved from... prions. Gadzooks! Amazing that they are so toxic and deadly to us today.

	02-12-2001 03:35									#177
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Yes......I just told you humans could not have been on earth for 3 million years. The present day population would NOT reflect what it should be!

OK, so this mathematician proved what has already been known? I seem to recall that homo sapiens (that's us) appeared around 60,000 years ago, not 3 million. You know, it's ok if you don't agree with evolution, but you should at least try to find out what it truly is that you're disagreeing with, instead of just what you are told it is that you're disagreeing with.

Marc

	02-12-2001 03:53									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo There is also evidence that the earth is nearly 6 billion years old (was it not?), the bible on the other hand concludes that it is 6,000 years old.

Just a minor nitpick. The bible itself doesn't conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old-a man named Bishop Usher did using the geneologies in the Old Testament. Back when the geneologies were written, it was common to #1) skip the names of people in geneologies-especially those that you didn't really want to admit belonged in the family tree, and #2) believe that people lived much longer than they actually did.

What many people seem to forget is that the bible was never meant to be the history of the world. It's the collected stories, beliefs and traditions of a specific group of people ( at least in the Old Testament).

For fundamentalists to accept it as one hundred percent accurate is understandable, for non-fundamentalists to believe that the writers intended to be one hudred percent accurate is wrong.

Marc

	02-12-2001 04:07									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Are you saying evolution is stupid? Creation is wrong. Geocentrism and a flat earth was proven wrong, they are elements of the bible.

****, I must've been reading the wrong bible. Certainly geocentrism and flat earth were elements of belief back when the bible was written, but I'm almost completely positive that the beliefs didn't originate with the bible itself.

Marc

	02-12-2001 05:19									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Okay, first of all , all you are morons who believe this. Population is not a lineat growth, and there is no way to factor in everything that effects population growth. The more people that are born, the more that die. Now it would be fine if people didn't die of accidents, disease, and everything else. Remember Hunger also kills people.
Actually I heard that some people have calculated the rate of popuation growth as a natural log(LN) expression, but one look at this and I know its wrong, you can't factor everything in.

I remember a math dude once predicted that it is "possible" to produce so many bushels of grain per acre, but the actual production is only 1/500 of that rate.