neither will the non believers be moved  Soooooooooooooooooooo

John Titor had some good comments on the subject of CERN and blackholes and time travel.

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

Quote from: theUBS on September 06, 2008, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: DoD#i on September 06, 2008, 12:58:52 PM

Quote from: theUBS on September 05, 2008, 09:52:32 PM
I don't buy the "big bang" story to begin with! ...or for that matter, evolution or anything else man has dreamed up to explain away creation.

So when you get an infection, you instruct your doctor to prescribe only penicillin, because it kills all bugs that were around in 1950, and of course those were all created 6000 years ago and have been unchanged in the time since? Or you avoid all medicine, since your death is G-d's will, and "science" won't affect it? Or am you a hypocrite?

"Drug resistant bacteria are a myth" - We'll put it on your headstone if you are a man of principle.

Bacteria are still bacteria. 

It's not to say that adaptation isn't a very believable part of science or religion.  However, I don't believe the spontaneous occurence of life, as Darwin imagined it, is possible.  (For the record, that involved something along the lines of proteins in a mud puddle being united by a bolt of lightning.)  If Darwin himself had the benefit of the electron microscope, he would have went back to the drawing board.  Even in his own writings, he stated that if the simple cell was more complicated than he believed it to be, then his explanations of the origin of life would have to be tossed.  There are many processes going on inside the "simple" cell involving many essential parts--each part not surviving independently of the others.  It's called irreducible complexity.  For some reason though, the scientific community has taken Darwin's theory--and it is nothing more than theory--and ran with it.  It's NOT proven fact.

For the record though, I don't really trust most doctors.  Most just want to write you a script for something that does more harm than good and send you on your way.  If I die and a headstone is placed above my body, you can put whatever you want on it.  I won't know the difference. 

So what you are saying is that you do believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis. Wish you had said this in the first place. Also, natural selection is the process. Darwin's theories are just a starting point. Darwin's theory is just a theory. Natural selection is just a theory like gravity is just a theory. They each have approximately the same amount of scientific backing. How often do you drop things and not have them fall to earth?

We haven't run across irreducible complexity yet. All of the delightful examples presented by the 'creation scientist' oxymorons have been debunked. However, guess what. If natural selection is disproved scientifically, the scientists will move on. They actually change what they do based on data.

we all have thoughts, and we ALL have opinions. neither one can prove with 100% accuracy/fact. there is faith involved on both sides. pull up the def. of faith, you'll see what i mean

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 07, 2008, 07:53:56 PM
we all have thoughts, and we ALL have opinions. neither one can prove with 100% accuracy/fact. there is faith involved on both sides. pull up the def. of faith, you'll see what i mean

Actually, if you don't have proof, you need faith. As you suggested, I looked up the definition on dictionary.com. Here's the top three, emphasis mine.

1.   confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.   belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.   belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Faith is what you use when you don't have proof. The reason the nasty mean scientists don't want things like 'creation science' (an oxymoron) taught in school, is because science actually requires proof, and most science is based on empirical, observed phenomena. Most people don't understand that to be called a scientific theory, the hypothesis must be supported on a regular basis under controlled circumstances. Simply not understanding something is not adequate to disprove it. It doesn't fly to say 'I don't understand how this could be done, god must have done it' in scientific circles. As the band Suicidal Tendencies said, "Just 'cause you don't understand don't mean it don't make no sense".

Gravity is just a theory? 

Quote from: MattCodder on September 07, 2008, 08:29:26 PM

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 07, 2008, 07:53:56 PM
we all have thoughts, and we ALL have opinions. neither one can prove with 100% accuracy/fact. there is faith involved on both sides. pull up the def. of faith, you'll see what i mean

Actually, if you don't have proof, you need faith. As you suggested, I looked up the definition on dictionary.com. Here's the top three, emphasis mine.

1.   confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.   belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.   belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Faith is what you use when you don't have proof. The reason the nasty mean scientists don't want things like 'creation science' (an oxymoron) taught in school, is because science actually requires proof, and most science is based on empirical, observed phenomena. Most people don't understand that to be called a scientific theory, the hypothesis must be supported on a regular basis under controlled circumstances. Simply not understanding something is not adequate to disprove it. It doesn't fly to say 'I don't understand how this could be done, god must have done it' in scientific circles. As the band Suicidal Tendencies said, "Just 'cause you don't understand don't mean it don't make no sense".

but evolution is still known as a theory . as are a few otehrs, like the big bang,  etc  , so by definition it is still on faith   

I wouldn't be too concerned about the formation of a black hole, I mean everyone was worked into a lather over Y2K and I think that somewhere there is a group of eggheads that laugh their balls off about selling that line of crap to the public and people ate it up. Slamming particles together at nearly the speed of light is cool as hell.

lol the accelerator is old tech, hell its been goin on for two decades now. i cite fermilab, in illinois, i lived VERY near one of these things

I thought Fermilab was pretty cool. I got to visit when I was in highschool. we actually got to see the accelerators.

Quote from: Cal Price on September 07, 2008, 07:28:17 AM
Worth every penny! ...but probably incoclusive...maybe a step forward to understanding the origins of life, the universe and everything.

Whatever it proves, or fails to prove the believers in creationism and talking snakes won't be moved.

Hey now, if you're going to poke fun, don't forget about Balaam's donkey.   

Quote from: MattCodder on September 07, 2008, 04:35:08 PM
So what you are saying is that you do believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis. Wish you had said this in the first place. Also, natural selection is the process. Darwin's theories are just a starting point. Darwin's theory is just a theory. Natural selection is just a theory like gravity is just a theory. They each have approximately the same amount of scientific backing. How often do you drop things and not have them fall to earth?

We haven't run across irreducible complexity yet. All of the delightful examples presented by the 'creation scientist' oxymorons have been debunked. However, guess what. If natural selection is disproved scientifically, the scientists will move on. They actually change what they do based on data.

Evolution on a small scale perhaps.  I believe that intelligent design has allowed for a measure of biodiversity.  If you choose to use call it "natural selection" as it's called in scientific circles, that's fine.  Though believing in creation does indeed require faith, so also does abiogenesis.  There is no evidence truly supporting it.  It's never been duplicated in a labratory.  What data is used to form that hypothesis without taking a major leap of faith?  The rest of evolution on its grander scale requires an assumption of abiogenesis--being unproven, that seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.  Especially if it's going to be taught in schools to the extent that it just becomes accepted as truth, while the concept of creation is either skimmed over or left out completely.

Creation by no means has been debunked.

As for faith, I prefer this definition:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Lets force evolution into action, lets keep leapping off of high things so that our offsrping may slowly develope the ability to fly, or glide at the very least.  Whos first? Who has the faith?

hey we only have a day left to live...i am going to spend all my money on coke and hookers 

Yeah, that worked so well the last time, Frankie. <slap>

good one....don't let me get away with that bull shaZam! 

You guys be careful out there, especially around 11.30pm - all those crazy people will be out celebrating that life will finally end, also all the people too scared to commit suicide incase it fails and they end up not dead but injured will be out throwing themselves off buildings

well if they are too scared to commit suicide i will kill them for $10 if they provide the weapon,  $20 to break their neck and $60 for a family of 4...hey that  is a $20 savings

Quote from: Kasumi on September 09, 2008, 09:45:15 AM
You guys be careful out there, especially around 11.30pm - all those crazy people will be out celebrating that life will finally end.

...that element I did forget to take into consideration.  Gotta watch out for those guys!

Just Hours Away , Steven Hawkings made me feel safe , If this is the end , what a f%$king ride its been