I read about the Russian mission already. There is some controversy with that Russian mission. Something about rules being broken with carrying those bacteria to Mars. I cannot remember the specifics. Rules to prevent our seeding of extraterrestrial bodies.
This is the kind of ID stuff that I find interesting.
mrstickball said:
Mind telling me then, if BB is true, how the matter compressed itself into a singularity? Or how it was even there in the first place? The root of the issue with BB is that no matter how easy it is to say that it happened based on the universe expanding, it fails to answer the root of the problem: How the matter became a singularity, and how it naturally decided to react with an explosion to expand the singularity into the universe we have today.
|
One theoretically possible explaination for the origin of matter is from a vacuum fluctuation. It is common knowledge in the physics community that particles and anti-particles get created out of nothing, exist for a certain time and then collide and destroy each other in a flash of light (emitting a photon). This happens billions of times every second. As long as they obey this formula: E * T = h (where E is energy, T is time and h is Planck's constant) creating particles out of nothing is allowed.
To extend this to the origin of the universe, you could say that as long as the net energy in the universe is close to zero, then the universe can be created out of nothing for a very long time. The positive energy is what causes the universe to expand and the negative energy is what causes the universe to contract (gravity). If the value of the density of the universe is at the critical density, then the net energy is zero and the universe can exist for an infinite amount of time. If it is very close to the critical density then the universe can exists for a very long time but will eventually contract in on itself or tear itself apart.
tombi123 said:
One theoretically possible explaination for the origin of matter is from a vacuum fluctuation. It is common knowledge in the physics community that particles and anti-particles get created out of nothing, exist for a certain time and then collide and destroy each other in a flash of light (emitting a photon). This happens billions of times every second. As long as they obey this formula: E * T = h (where E is energy, T is time and h is Planck's constant) creating particles out of nothing is allowed. To extend this to the origin of the universe, you could say that as long as the net energy in the universe is close to zero, then the universe can be created out of nothing for a very long time. The positive energy is what causes the universe to expand and the negative energy is what causes the universe to contract (gravity). If the value of the density of the universe is at the critical density, then the net energy is zero and the universe can exist for an infinite amount of time. If it is very close to the critical density then the universe can exists for a very long time but will eventually contract in on itself or tear itself apart. |
I think the general consensus now a days is that the universe will continually expand until entropy effectively wipes out all matter. The contraction theory is a good way to explain the singularity though.
| mrstickball said: Did you even read that I mentioned directed panspermia? I apologize that the 1st link was only panspermia. Directed panspermia is a subset of that hypothesis: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dirpans.html |
Just because you call something a "hypothesis" does not mean it is widely accepted, or even accepted by more than a sliver of the scientific community.
And even if it is, its not based on something supernatural. That alone makes it a better scientific model than ID. You can at least test this proposal. You can't test ID.
You are trying to win an argument by avoiding the point. Your grasping at straws rather than just accepting that ID is not science by definition as it relies on something supernatural. I can show you hundreds of scientific hypotheses that are complete BS. But how do you think we ever get any good hypotheses? You think that every hypothesis that scientists came up with was a good one? NO! That's not how science works. Its survival of the fittest. The best ideas are accepted, modified, and often eventually rejected as our knowledge increases, whereas the bad ones barely get out of the gate.
Its like me trying to say that Christianity is full of crap because Mormons have some crazy ideas. You are cherry-picking facts rather than addressing an argument.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
mrstickball said:
Yes they can. The diversification of a subspieces (such as various breeds of dogs) is observable, and rather easy. However, it's a little bit tougher to observe evolution at the species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. The further you go back, the fewer records we have. The issue is that many Darwinists/Evolutionists take is that 'well, since we can see evolution between subspecies of dogs, it must mean that we evolved from inorganic matter!' - despite the fact that such a claim is very, very implausible. Oh, hey, Akuma, if ID is such a waste of time, mind telling me how the universe began? And exactly what theory should we teach in classrooms, then? |
You are not getting my point. Micro-Evolution = evolution at cellular level - i.e. single cells. Macro-Evolution = Micro-evolution compounded. That's all. It doesn't mean anything if you personally don't believe it. All you need is variation (always starts at the micro-levle) and then it builds up to the macro level. It just takes much longer for obvious reasons (mainly the chances that any mutation would avail anything useful).
Watch this video. He's a bit combative. It explains micro vs macro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc
yes. Evolution w/ random mutation just makes sense. As a Muslim I do believe God has orchestrated the rules by which this happens as well as all of the natural laws.
We will probably never now, only time shall tell.
Currently Playing: Mass Effect (360)
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" - Gandhi
| monkeyman40210 said: We will probably never now, only time shall tell. |
Or you could just, you know, look at the facts. Either one really.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot. It is just as much a fact as the theory of gravity. I don't know why there is so much hate towards a scientific theory.
@The_vagabond7
yeah look at the facts, but the word theory comes in mind
Currently Playing: Mass Effect (360)
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" - Gandhi
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
