http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/06/02/evolution-as-mythology-part-5-of-5-conclusion/ (http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/06/02/evolution-as-mythology-part-5-of-5-conclusion/)
This is a somewhat neutral look at creation theory vs. evolution. It explains that both share something in common: faith. It sucks that that has to be true, but, somehow, I believe it (I have faith that it takes faith for our 2 current theories of the origin of life).
I do believe there is a strong element of chance involved in the origin of mankind, but it is not as simple as Lord Boldemort building atoms out of wood in his workshop and creating the world's first humans (where did the animals come from?). So, there literally needs to be some grand explanation (even if it's simple) for how we (and they, the furry woodland creatures) got here. It could be aliens (please, Aliens, let it be aliens!), it could be God (in that some Universe or galaxy is God... or perhaps even the laws of Nature) or it could be totally, completely, undeniably random chance (even though 100% randomness is, and always will be, just an idea). So, whatever your bias is will most likely lead you to whatever theory you believe in (I go for the mathematical/scientific kinds). But, it is not an arbitrary belief, this belief in the Origin of the Species. No, it affects you and everyone else, like it or not. So (I use the word 'so' alot), choose, but choose wisely. The real grail, er.. Theory will bring you life. The false one will take it from you... (just like Diet Coke).
Why should it take faith to think evolution is correct? I've seen some of the damned fossils myself, seen replicas of others, have entire books filled with pictures of hominid skulls, spent time studying these things, and know enough math to understand how its all possible. From all this I've determined that, short of massive conspiracy (which I'm not paranoid enough for) and/or god fucking with us (Decent chance of this), evolution fits the evidence, and nothing else does (though there are a lot of parts of evolution which are still in question of course).
Intelligent Design does pose a slight chance of corresponding to reality (its arguments that evolution is not possible are pure fallacy of course), but there is no evidence of this at the moment, and nobody will run the experiments that are necessary to find out.
Evolution does not need faith whatsoever. It does, however, require an ability to understand how small things can be huge things over a huge span of time. It also requires not ignoring obvious evidence. (Like that recent experiment where a group of bacteria spontaneously evolved a trait that would normally set them apart from their species - after thousands of generations. There's a thread about it somewhere here, called "evolution proven once again" or something.)
Evolution in its totality requires faith. Why? Because the "missing links" are still missing. Evolution in its simplest elements is an obvious truth.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Explanation/evidence of my claim (on the missing links).
Let me clarify for a second: a lot of the components of Evolution are absolutely "true" (in a scientific sense). We have ample evidence for them (drug resistant bacteria being one example). However, the totality of evolution has never been demonstrated to be "true." My guess is that it never will be - seeing as how it is (to me anyway) against common sense (species changing at constant rates despite environmental changes?), and, therefore, is less likely to be valid.
Quote from: BootyBay on July 07, 2008, 12:33:56 AM
Evolution in its totality requires faith. Why? Because the "missing links" are still missing. Evolution in its simplest elements is an obvious truth.
Name a single missing link, anywhere in human evolution path (I don't know non human paths well enough to provide counter examples).
Fossilization is incredibaly rare so your always going to have gaps in the fossil record
and you could only make conclusions on fossils you found, not on fossils you didn't find
IMHO, believing in evolution doesn't require faith, believing that big bang, randomness or whatever is not a got is at thestarting point does.
I too have seen the fossils, and artificial selection, survival of the fittest and so on.I've not seen the trigger of it, so that trigger requires faith just like God does, one could say it plays God's role in my system.
Missing links? Fossilization requires some special condition, it's not like every single corpse becomes a fossil, so missing links still missing doesn't ask for my faith, actually they are logically implied by nature and geology.
Also, a creationist theory is that man is not "fittest" so it could not survive.If it does is only because of its intelligence (soul) but since you can't develop thought if you extinct, man must have appeared alredy intelligent. Made in the image of God.Well, we think at "man" as at ourselves, metopolitans, but man is in no way inferior to apes if developed that way, if we were primitives we'd be all like this guy, or dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVQNt64PxfE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVQNt64PxfE)
So I don't need faith to believe Darwin, and for what started it all, and what was before Time and Being I'll answer with Ozzy Osbourne:
"Don't ask me, I don't know"
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on July 07, 2008, 01:28:31 AM
Missing links? Fossilization requires some special condition, it's not like every single corpse becomes a fossil, so missing links still missing doesn't ask for my faith, actually they are logically implied by nature and geology.
also don't disregard that there aren't the number Paleontologists that doing field work right now as people give credit for... less then archeologist for example...
field work is expensive and long (some expeditions last for months)
gaps in the record *is* what you would expect
actually we're lucky we have as much information as we have
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on July 07, 2008, 01:28:31 AM
Also, a creationist theory is that man is not "fittest" so it could not survive.If it does is only because of its intelligence (soul) but since you can't develop thought if you extinct, man must have appeared alredy intelligent. Made in the image of God.Well, we think at "man" as at ourselves, metopolitans, but man is in no way inferior to apes if developed that way, if we were primitives we'd be all like this guy, or dead.
its not so much our intelligence that gave primates an early edge (intelligence gave homo Sapiens and edge over primates) it was the adaptability they had during when times were rough and food was scarce
the ability to eat meat, roots, plants, use hands to make devices to peal apart bone for marrow, sticks for ants, scavage... plus we're pretty inquisitive... and being inquisitive helps us find all sorts of crap... like you could image our primate ancestors probably figured out that vultures fly over dead animals (food), that if we stuck together we could scare off other preditors, and that its probably not the best idea to go down to river bed for a drink without scoping it out first
As for the big bang I remember reading something that they found some evidence for it
but i dont remember much about that article and i dont think i understood it at the time
:?
They have found evidence that galaxyies stars etc. are moving the way they would if big bang actually occurred..
So big bang is almost surely happened, if and how it started Being and Matter and Time and .. is still unproven.
It's not like I believe that everithing can be found out anyway, and before the bang pressure and gravitation and temperature were so different from the ones we know that most likely phisics as we know it didn't apply..no surprise if we'll never find out what "creation" really means...
that's far from a bug in the system though, it's again logically implied in the system that creation is hard (maybe impossible) to explain
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on July 07, 2008, 01:55:53 AM
They have found evidence that galaxyies stars etc. are moving the way they would if big bang actually occurred..
So big bang is almost surely happened, if and how it started Being and Matter and Time and .. is still unproven.
Yah that could have been it
i have a recent astronomy book that discuses the big bang
but its under a pile of science books that i have to get to first
to be honest astronomy intrests me cause for its "coolness" factor but if i get another geology or paleontology book in the near future unfortunately that book goes further down the list
Quote from: Requiem on July 06, 2008, 11:31:02 PM
Intelligent Design does pose a slight chance of corresponding to reality (its arguments that evolution is not possible are pure fallacy of course), but there is no evidence of this at the moment, and nobody will run the experiments that are necessary to find out.
What experiments are these?
I'll lend a hand or resources, if of course we aren't proving a negative.
My only issue with evolution and humans evolving from monkeys is.....
1. Why are there still monkeys?
2. Why are there no goups still evolving from said monkeys?
They finally wised up?
evolved from primates not monkeys
there is a difference
1) there is no room in evolution to have the entire population of a species to evolve to a new species
only a small groups change as the enviromental factors indicate, or they go extinct, it only works through the passage of genes. its not a force that says this species will turn into this species... you can see this in snakes for instance... allthough Garter snakes in northern canada and the US are the same species... Canadian Garter Snakes are much smaller... you can see this in people as well... think of the small differences in genetics between people of different cultural backgrounds.. although they are the same species there are differences in size, colour and resistance to disease, depending on the enviromental factors their ancenstors came from
2) monkeys still are evolving... even if its not into new species... you see this in people.. people are generally taller then they were just say 100 years ago... go back to the medieval times and someone like me, whos only 5 foot 6, would be considered tall
different chimpanzees for instance have slight differences from each other depending on the their enviroment
i dont think there will be a major shift in species till the extinction of humans
evolution works better with large isolated pockets, while now most species have to live in one area due to human interferences... those that are seperated from each other in reserves or in the wild due to human civilization probably already show small differences from each other
but you need lots of small differences to create a new species... and thousands of years.. put it this way those that came over to north america thousands of years ago did develop slight differences from those from Europe and Asia, but not even close enough to prevent breeding
The owner of reasons.org is Dr Hugh Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)
Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.
Also some very good methodological criticism of Ross and his theories can be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IHowitworks.shtml (This is a kids site I know, one my students showed me it during a lesson and I really liked it... don't ask me how this came up during a guitar lesson but I noticed the topic seems to be coming up in daily life more and more and I don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing, which actually maybe topic for discussion in its self)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01
Quote from: Cain on July 08, 2008, 05:04:50 PM
The owner of reasons.org is Dr Hugh Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)
Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.
Also some very good methodological criticism of Ross and his theories can be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm
holy shit
thanks
I totally missed that
i should have picked up on that
Im totally ashamed
:oops:
Quote from: Evil Bitch Khara on July 08, 2008, 04:16:04 PM
My only issue with evolution and humans evolving from monkeys is.....
1. Why are there still monkeys?
2. Why are there no goups still evolving from said monkeys?
Speaking as a biologist:
1. There is a process called divergent evolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution) It's where a population of sexually reproducing individuals is separated. They then go on different evolutionary paths. Or, to use an analogy: If Americans came from the British, why are there still British?
2. They are still evolving. Although not a monkey, our closest living relative (the chimpanzee) has actually undergone more evolution than us (link (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7489.abstract)).
As for missing links, what missing links? Multiple hominid fossils. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)
By the way, the strongest evidence of evolution and common descent is molecular. One of my favorite is endogenous retroviruses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus)
Interesting, I would not have thought Chimpanzee genes would have changed as much given the fairly small morphological differences between Chimpanzees and our last point of common decent.
Do they have any idea what these genetic changes did yet?
Thorny, your student's website is excellent, bravo!
Quote from: Verbatim on July 09, 2008, 01:07:06 AM
Thorny, your student's website is excellent, bravo!
I must say i do like it
its not his website obviously
but he was a young lad and i was telling him how i was going back to school for paleobiology and I was amazed how absolutely knowledgable this kid was so he wrote this site down
Quote from: Vene on July 08, 2008, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Evil Bitch Khara on July 08, 2008, 04:16:04 PM
My only issue with evolution and humans evolving from monkeys is.....
1. Why are there still monkeys?
2. Why are there no goups still evolving from said monkeys?
Speaking as a biologist:
1. There is a process called divergent evolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution) It's where a population of sexually reproducing individuals is separated. They then go on different evolutionary paths. Or, to use an analogy: If Americans came from the British, why are there still British?
2. They are still evolving. Although not a monkey, our closest living relative (the chimpanzee) has actually undergone more evolution than us (link (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7489.abstract)).
As for missing links, what missing links? Multiple hominid fossils. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)
By the way, the strongest evidence of evolution and common descent is molecular. One of my favorite is endogenous retroviruses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus)
:mittens:
Quote from: Requiem on July 08, 2008, 07:58:49 PM
Interesting, I would not have thought Chimpanzee genes would have changed as much given the fairly small morphological differences between Chimpanzees and our last point of common decent.
Do they have any idea what these genetic changes did yet?
From the paper I linked to previously:
(http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7489/F2.medium.gif)]
It looks like immunity to me (by the way, PSG stands for positively selected gene).
Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 08, 2008, 04:20:50 PM
They finally wised up?
:lulz:
Also, big-bang wise, last time I checked it hasn't really been proven, at least not to the extent of evolution, but it is the best theory we have at the moment. Of course singularities have always been fucked up.
Quote from: Rumckle on July 09, 2008, 09:07:32 AM
Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 08, 2008, 04:20:50 PM
They finally wised up?
:lulz:
Also, big-bang wise, last time I checked it hasn't really been proven, at least not to the extent of evolution, but it is the best theory we have at the moment. Of course singularities have always been fucked up.
Gravity hasn't been as proven as evolution, so that's not really saying much.
Thank you Cain, Isa and Vene!!
I am off to read more!
Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 09, 2008, 05:21:54 PM
Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
Creationists have evidence God created Humans?
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 09, 2008, 05:21:54 PM
Creationism and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
[/b]
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
:cn:
When did Creationist finally get some evidence?
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 09, 2008, 05:21:54 PM
Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
but evolution is
based upon the evidence that its given, and will the evolve with the evidence
creationism is the opposite
its
evidence is based on the already asumed theory and could only evolve itself within the boundries of their religious views
so its apples and oranges
like i said before "facts" and "evidence" in creationism don't matter
to them its the idea that is important
even if their own evidence debunk their asumption then the idea remains intact
science doesn't work like that
like i said apples and oranges
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 05:31:23 PM
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 09, 2008, 05:21:54 PM
Creationism and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
[/b]
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
:cn:
When did Creationist finally get some evidence?
its shit that like the Grande Canyon was created by Noaha's flood
and that some fossiles are found in the same proximidy though they come from different time frames
or some footprints are faded with time so look like human footprints next to dinosaur ones
:lulz:
unfortunately im not joking
Ooh.. Don't forget the one about moon dust and bullfrog proteins. I can't believe that people actually buy that shit.
BTW, Intelligent Design is pure shit too. It can basically be boiled down to "Everything looks really really complicated. Therefore, God did it!"
concidering 99 percent of all species went extinct
god really sucks
and why did he put so many fucking species in the first place
like didnt he want to leave us room to move
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 05:38:23 PM
Ooh.. Don't forget the one about moon dust and bullfrog proteins. I can't believe that people actually buy that shit.
BTW, Intelligent Design is pure shit too. It can basically be boiled down to "Everything looks really really complicated. Therefore, God did it!"
plus ID and creationist are two different things
ID are trying to sneak religious views through the backdoor trying to make it look more legit
Creationists (who I actually have more respect for since they have more balls) are basically saying science is wrong and should concider the bible itself as "evidence"
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 09, 2008, 05:40:42 PM
considering 99 percent of all species went extinct
god really sucks
and why did he put so many fucking species in the first place
like didn't he want to leave us room to move
As I always say, "God's aim fucking sucks."
Ya know, I keep meaning to do a anti-ID/Discordian rant. Maybe I'll actually get my shit together and write it later tonight. I need to learn how to motivate myself better.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 09, 2008, 05:47:16 PM
plus ID and creationist are two different things
ID are trying to sneak religious views through the backdoor trying to make it look more legit
True. The movement was nothing more than a political Trojan Horse. Most people didn't actually subscribe to the Behe/Dembski version of ID (evolution is mostly true but there are certain points where God stepped in to give it a nudge). The Creationists just jumped on the bandwagon because they want their religious beliefs taught at all costs. And they are more than willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 05:48:01 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 09, 2008, 05:40:42 PM
considering 99 percent of all species went extinct
god really sucks
and why did he put so many fucking species in the first place
like didn't he want to leave us room to move
As I always say, "God's aim fucking sucks."
Ya know, I keep meaning to do a anti-ID/Discordian rant. Maybe I'll actually get my shit together and write it later tonight. I need to learn how to motivate myself better.
here get the juices going
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 09, 2008, 05:54:34 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 05:48:01 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 09, 2008, 05:40:42 PM
considering 99 percent of all species went extinct
god really sucks
and why did he put so many fucking species in the first place
like didn't he want to leave us room to move
As I always say, "God's aim fucking sucks."
Ya know, I keep meaning to do a anti-ID/Discordian rant. Maybe I'll actually get my shit together and write it later tonight. I need to learn how to motivate myself better.
here get the juices going
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Ah, yes. The Wedge Document. Exhibit A in why Creationists are lying sacks of shit who would destroy all of science if they were given a chance. I haven't read the whole thing in a few years. Maybe rereading it will produce just the right amount of bile in my system.
I think everyone should read it
its the shape of things to come
yes i know the discovery institute recanted the wedge doc after its leakage but thats like a lion saying its going on an all fibre diet
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 05:27:37 PM
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 09, 2008, 05:21:54 PM
Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that
- Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
- Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk
Creationists have evidence God created Humans?
duh, it's called the BIBLE
Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.
Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.
However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.
I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.
This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.
Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.
I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.
So basically, y'all are talking about two packs of monkeys, each with dogmatic beliefs; rather than talking to the humans who realize that evolution is a scientific model that may change if given new evidence, and the humans who realize that religion is a series of archetype stories and resonant metaphors.
It's too easy to pit monkeys against monkeys; start writing things for humans to use, kthnxbye.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:13:18 PM
So basically, y'all are talking about two packs of monkeys, each with dogmatic beliefs; rather than talking to the humans who realize that evolution is a scientific model that may change if given new evidence, and the humans who realize that religion is a series of archetype stories and resonant metaphors.
It's too easy to pit monkeys against monkeys; start writing things for humans to use, kthnxbye.
*ding*
Give that monkey a banana!
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus).
Actually, the platypus does fit. It's a perfect transitional between reptiles and mammals.
QuoteHowever, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith.
Proven is too strong of a word. Nothing in science is EVER proven. It's all models, be it evolution, Newton's Laws, or pi bonds. Every single one of these can be disproven. Actually, there is a huge incentive to disprove theories. That's what Einstein did.
QuoteIt requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.
Please don't get all post-modern with me when I can point to the evidence. Especially when there are transitionals for every fucking system and when new species have been observed in both the lab and in nature
1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10200079?dopt=Abstract)[/url].
QuoteI often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.
That's probably because the people doing the field work are the ones who are at the heart of science.
QuoteNow, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.
Especially when the theory of evolution is used, very successfully, to explain biological concepts and leads to medical techniques far beyond what was around before Darwin.
QuoteI see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.
Now, I will agree that knowing the theory of evolution is useless to most people. But, there are people that use it and use it very successfully. Actually, there's a great example of when evolution was rejected and it completely fucked up a nation's agriculture. It's called Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) and was employed by the USSR.
Not all ideas are created equal and evolution is a much stronger and more useful idea than any other explanation so far.
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Quote from: Vene on July 09, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma. It can get frustrating.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on July 09, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma. It can get frustrating.
I was talking about people that make conclusions. Not people that say "Here's the best model I've found thusfar", but the people that say "THIS IS TRUE!!!" Some scientists may fall in that area, but as I stated this seems most common among professors, students and philosophy majors... not biologists and anthropologists.
That is, I was talking about the OP, not science in general.
Oh, really?
The OP talked about Creation Theory vs Evolution.
Not "people who conclude CT is better" vs "people who conclude Evol is better".
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 07:54:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on July 09, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma. It can get frustrating.
I was talking about people that make conclusions. Not people that say "Here's the best model I've found thusfar", but the people that say "THIS IS TRUE!!!" Some scientists may fall in that area, but as I stated this seems most common among professors, students and philosophy majors... not biologists and anthropologists.
That is, I was talking about the OP, not science in general.
Well, I hate to disappoint, but now I believe in evolution in its totality (more or less). It's kinda hard for me to argue with a real biologist (kinda like the Karate Kid taking on Jackie Chan..), but I do want to say, I am the kind of person who (generally) accepts a new theory when it comes along IF it is "better" (more precise and useful). Thx for all the input, guys.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.
Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.
However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.
I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.
This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.
Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.
I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.
:mittens: (forgive me if the mittens didn't work lol I'm still new!)
Quote from: BootyBay on July 09, 2008, 08:20:55 PM
Well, I hate to disappoint, but now I believe in evolution in its totality (more or less). It's kinda hard for me to argue with a real biologist (kinda like the Karate Kid taking on Jackie Chan..), but I do want to say, I am the kind of person who (generally) accepts a new theory when it comes along IF it is "better" (more precise and useful). Thx for all the input, guys.
Don't believe things, think about them instead.
Also, this is totally not supposed to happen.
For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.
And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.
Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.
The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.
Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.
However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.
I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.
This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.
Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.
I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.
Vene covered most of the things I wanted to say especially about the platypus. They sequenced some platypus DNA not too long ago and it showed that monotremes are good evidence of how mammals evolved from reptiles. Vene or I could point you to the study if you like.
I would like to point out though that you are equivocating about faith though. In a religious context faith means "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Or as Twain said, faith is "believing what you know ain't so." It's a belief in something without evidence (or usually, in direct opposition to the evidence). In a scienctific sense faith could mean "complete confidence" or "a strong trust". I will admit to having a strong trust in the scientific method being the best way to learn things about the universe around us. Because there is tangible evidence that the scientific method works. It produces solid objective and repeatable results and has a process for self-correction. Religion can't say the same thing.
I will also point out that there is no way for evolution to be proven 100% wrong at this point. For a scientific theory to replace evolution it would need to explain everything we already know. A good example of this is how relativity superceded Newtonian physics. Relativity didn't prove Newtonian physics completely wrong, just that it was wrong under certain conditions.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 10:53:20 PM
For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.
And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.
Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.
The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much. :lulz:
I read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) attached to it. It made me laugh more than it should have.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 11:00:06 PMI read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) attached to it. It made me laugh more than it should have.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on July 09, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma. It can get frustrating.
i repeat what LMNO said
don't worry Vene when i start school in september ill be willing to talk a ton of science
its earth science mind you with paleobiology
BUT IT STILL HAS BIOLOGY IN THE TITLE
:argh!:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 11:00:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 09, 2008, 10:53:20 PM
For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.
And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.
Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.
The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much. :lulz:
I read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) attached to it. It made me laugh more than it should have.
Your comment has a P-value of 47!! (out of who knows)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 10, 2008, 01:07:10 AM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on July 09, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 07:40:32 PM
Don't bother, Vene. They're not talking about scientists. Or science, even.
But, I like talking about science. It's one of the few things I know well.
Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma. It can get frustrating.
i repeat what LMNO said
don't worry Vene when i start school in september ill be willing to talk a ton of science
its earth science mind you with paleobiology
BUT IT STILL HAS BIOLOGY IN THE TITLE
:argh!:
But, but I like the molecular stuff. You know, like ATP, epinephrine, acetyl-CoA, nitrogenous bases and all that shit.
Quote from: Vene on July 10, 2008, 12:32:50 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 11:00:06 PMI read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) attached to it. It made me laugh more than it should have.
:lulz:
Found it! It was Sagan (Demon Haunted World, to be exact):
Quote
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science - by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans - teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.
We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge. You often see error bars in public opinion polls ('an uncertainty of plus or minus three per cent', say). Imagine a society in which every speech in the Congressional Record, every television commercial, every sermon had an accompanying error bar or its equivalent.
That is a very very awesome book, btw. It should be required reading for every high school science student.
Quote
Found it! It was Sagan (Demon Haunted World, to be exact):
It is. I read it when I was 18. I loved it - although it was a shock to the system at first (in that it made me psycho).
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on July 07, 2008, 01:55:53 AM
They have found evidence that galaxyies stars etc. are moving the way they would if big bang actually occurred..
So big bang is almost surely happened, if and how it started Being and Matter and Time and .. is still unproven.
It's not like I believe that everithing can be found out anyway, and before the bang pressure and gravitation and temperature were so different from the ones we know that most likely phisics as we know it didn't apply..no surprise if we'll never find out what "creation" really means...
that's far from a bug in the system though, it's again logically implied in the system that creation is hard (maybe impossible) to explain
I'm gonna do another thread on this (the Origin of the Universe).
I have my own Big Bang theory
No, it has nothing to do with what you're thinking, SHUT UP.
The universe is a big cone, you see, and all of the matter settled in the point. Matter is always trying to achieve an equilibrium, but it can't, for reasons that are complicated, like relationships.
So the matter all settles in the point of the cone, and then it's all too close together and repels everything from itself, so it starts to "expand", ie migrate away from other matter. It expands and expands, and as it expands, the cone flattens, until it can flatten no more, and the matter all freaks out by how far away it all is from the other matter, and starts to contract, on the other plane of the cone. It contracts and contracts and the cone gets conier and conier, until all the matter is too close together in the tip of the cone, and then...
It's basically the same as the doughnut model, but way more fun.
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2008, 10:24:44 AM
I have my own Big Bang theory
No, it has nothing to do with what you're thinking, SHUT UP.
The universe is a big cone, you see, and all of the matter settled in the point. Matter is always trying to achieve an equilibrium, but it can't, for reasons that are complicated, like relationships.
So the matter all settles in the point of the cone, and then it's all too close together and repels everything from itself, so it starts to "expand", ie migrate away from other matter. It expands and expands, and as it expands, the cone flattens, until it can flatten no more, and the matter all freaks out by how far away it all is from the other matter, and starts to contract, on the other plane of the cone. It contracts and contracts and the cone gets conier and conier, until all the matter is too close together in the tip of the cone, and then...
It's basically the same as the doughnut model, but way more fun.
:potd:
I actually laughed my ass off, and have to stand up to type this.
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2008, 10:24:44 AM
I have my own Big Bang theory
No, it has nothing to do with what you're thinking, SHUT UP.
The universe is a big cone, you see, and all of the matter settled in the point. Matter is always trying to achieve an equilibrium, but it can't, for reasons that are complicated, like relationships.
So the matter all settles in the point of the cone, and then it's all too close together and repels everything from itself, so it starts to "expand", ie migrate away from other matter. It expands and expands, and as it expands, the cone flattens, until it can flatten no more, and the matter all freaks out by how far away it all is from the other matter, and starts to contract, on the other plane of the cone. It contracts and contracts and the cone gets conier and conier, until all the matter is too close together in the tip of the cone, and then...
It's basically the same as the doughnut model, but way more fun.
It needs bacon dammit! All the good theories have bacon it them.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 10, 2008, 04:07:56 AM
Quote from: Vene on July 10, 2008, 12:32:50 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 11:00:06 PMI read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) attached to it. It made me laugh more than it should have.
:lulz:
Found it! It was Sagan (Demon Haunted World, to be exact):
Quote
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science - by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans - teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.
We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge. You often see error bars in public opinion polls ('an uncertainty of plus or minus three per cent', say). Imagine a society in which every speech in the Congressional Record, every television commercial, every sermon had an accompanying error bar or its equivalent.
That is a very very awesome book, btw. It should be required reading for every high school science student.
Damn stoners! :lulz:
I agree with him, we're so far from truth that believing anything to be true seems silly to me. Considering something to be a current best guess, or a good idea or a useful idea, well thats great and its how I consider the current theories about the history of the Universe. But, I don't believe them, just like I don't believe the Bible, but some of the stories are interesting and some of the morals aren't terrible (though I think a lot of them are quite teh suck). RAW used Sagan as an example of a Model Agnostic in a class a few years back, and I think it was that book he referenced... I'll have to read it now that its appeared again.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 10:53:59 PM
I would like to point out though that you are equivocating about faith though. In a religious context faith means "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Or as Twain said, faith is "believing what you know ain't so." It's a belief in something without evidence (or usually, in direct opposition to the evidence). In a scienctific sense faith could mean "complete confidence" or "a strong trust". I will admit to having a strong trust in the scientific method being the best way to learn things about the universe around us. Because there is tangible evidence that the scientific method works. It produces solid objective and repeatable results and has a process for self-correction. Religion can't say the same thing.
This is a very good point, one often overlooked because many people think that "semantics" is a dirty word.
Religious Faith often has a very different definition than Scientific Faith.
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2008, 04:45:16 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 09, 2008, 10:53:59 PM
I would like to point out though that you are equivocating about faith though. In a religious context faith means "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Or as Twain said, faith is "believing what you know ain't so." It's a belief in something without evidence (or usually, in direct opposition to the evidence). In a scienctific sense faith could mean "complete confidence" or "a strong trust". I will admit to having a strong trust in the scientific method being the best way to learn things about the universe around us. Because there is tangible evidence that the scientific method works. It produces solid objective and repeatable results and has a process for self-correction. Religion can't say the same thing.
This is a very good point, one often overlooked because many people think that "semantics" is a dirty word.
Religious Faith often has a very different definition than Scientific Faith.
Both can be accepted by thinking individuals and both can also be dogmatically held as Truth by individuals.
It seems to me, as the difference between Joseph Campbell and Richard Dawkins ;)
Rat, while your statement is true, it also seems to have little application in regards to my overall comment.
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2008, 05:12:38 PM
Rat, while your statement is true, it also seems to have little application in regards to my overall comment.
Hrmmm, let me rephrase it then:
I agree, but I would say that instead of saying "Religious Faith" we can say "Dogmatic Faith" and apply it to the mindset of the individual, irregardless of his particular brand. Your comment seemed to limit "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" to religion only, yet sombunal individuals apply that same kind of faith to science. It's not science's fault, it's just the monkey mind at work.
Guys like Campbell seemed to have "Scientific Faith" in religion, he saw it as useful if applied correctly. Mosbunal scientists would seem to show that sort of faith in their experimentation, evidence and models.
Guys like Dawkins, seem to have a "Religious Faith" in science, demanding that it is the One True Way, much like *insert crazy religious fuckers here*
So, maybe the difference is between 'trust in observation and methods applied to the model" vs. "Faith/Belief in the model as True", no matter if the model is spiritual or scientific.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2008, 06:03:31 PM
Guys like Dawkins, seem to have a "Religious Faith" in science, demanding that it is the One True Way, much like *insert crazy religious fuckers here*
to be honest from reading his books i never got that impression
I did a bit from one of docs... but you can never really take docs as serious as most people do
the one thing he talks about that i disagree with
in one his books he promotes an idea that without religious thinking people would be less prone to stupidity
i kind of disagree with that
i think some else will just replace it
Right now I seem to view religion melting into other aspects of our biological nature and doesnt really seem to be a root cause, but sort of a player among other psychological aspects
but these are just personal observations and should be reguarded as such
Dawkins is most certainly a religious nutjob, his regular attacks on agnosticism bring this to light fairly well. I doubt his internal process is much better when it comes to evolution.
*Has a hard time respecting anyone who uses the argument from evil as a basis for Atheism
You all make me so proud. :fap:
Quote from: Requiem on July 10, 2008, 07:33:57 PM
Dawkins is most certainly a religious nutjob, his regular attacks on agnosticism bring this to light fairly well. I doubt his internal process is much better when it comes to evolution.
*Has a hard time respecting anyone who uses the argument from evil as a basis for Atheism
That's what I've gotten from him as well... Science can tell us a lot about what can be observed (which surely can reduce the number of "God Did It" solutions) but it cannot tell us much about what cannot be observed. Saying "The available evidence indicates strong support for Evolution", seems, to me, a far cry from "God doesn't exist"... One seems to fit LMNO's "Science Faith" and the latter seems closer to "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2008, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: Requiem on July 10, 2008, 07:33:57 PM
Dawkins is most certainly a religious nutjob, his regular attacks on agnosticism bring this to light fairly well. I doubt his internal process is much better when it comes to evolution.
*Has a hard time respecting anyone who uses the argument from evil as a basis for Atheism
That's what I've gotten from him as well... Science can tell us a lot about what can be observed (which surely can reduce the number of "God Did It" solutions) but it cannot tell us much about what cannot be observed. Saying "The available evidence indicates strong support for Evolution", seems, to me, a far cry from "God doesn't exist"... One seems to fit LMNO's "Science Faith" and the latter seems closer to "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." :wink:
if everything is going along quite steadily without god
then really what use is he?
other then keeping our stupid little monkey brains from exploded cause of the thought there maybe no justice in the world
Quote from: Payne on July 10, 2008, 02:04:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2008, 10:24:44 AM
I have my own Big Bang theory
No, it has nothing to do with what you're thinking, SHUT UP.
The universe is a big cone, you see, and all of the matter settled in the point. Matter is always trying to achieve an equilibrium, but it can't, for reasons that are complicated, like relationships.
So the matter all settles in the point of the cone, and then it's all too close together and repels everything from itself, so it starts to "expand", ie migrate away from other matter. It expands and expands, and as it expands, the cone flattens, until it can flatten no more, and the matter all freaks out by how far away it all is from the other matter, and starts to contract, on the other plane of the cone. It contracts and contracts and the cone gets conier and conier, until all the matter is too close together in the tip of the cone, and then...
It's basically the same as the doughnut model, but way more fun.
:potd:
I actually laughed my ass off, and have to stand up to type this.
Is this what Hawking would call a "light cone?"
Oops lol. That was what I was thinking. (lol - I'm stoopid today)
I don't believe in monkeys.
/runs
This thread is made of fucking win. I love you guise.