Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

All You Need To Prove God Exists Is Banana And Peanut Butter


Domarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just happy to see that Kirk Cameron hasn't ruined his career.

Man, I loved that guy on Growing Pains.

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: peanut butter vid - With all the time and money spent to make that video so well produced, they miss the obvious flaw - peanut butter is DEAD.

 

Now, take an un-crushed and un-cooked peanut, put it in the ground - boom, life. They even tell you this on Sesame Street.

 

Religion makes a living off of people who don't bother to scratch the surface one tiny bit.

 

Same with the banana vid - that banana is cultivated to be that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: peanut butter vid - With all the time and money spent to make that video so well produced, they miss the obvious flaw - peanut butter is DEAD.

 

Don't let the fact that evolution has nothing to do with a particular phenomenon get in the way of Cretinists pretending that said phenomenon disproves evolution.

 

The stupidest one I've heard thus far is "Evolution can't explain the orbit of Saturn's moons".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it can. Evolution explains how big and organized structures can be build up over time by tiny changes, and as such, it is straightforward, if organics has been created by simple matter, that not only the evolution of higher order matter is explained, but also before that. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it can.

 

The orbit of Saturn's moons? No it can't. Evolution only explains the origin of complex biological structures, it says nothing about astrology or the origins of celestial bodies, which are dead, non-evolving matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just saw the videos and found the last one the most convincing. Especially the second one was for dummies! Lol the third video had a man expert in biology and yet he had some Delphi books in his bookcase.

 

AS for me I have already stopped bothering who created the world and all such stuff. Experts got confused and even them cant find a solution. I have seen a tv show that showed this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkcvS3tzBLE (for me this is just a monster-born child and nothing more - as are childs who had their flesh for skin) and told us that we were bread from an alien race. I think anyone can tell what he likes and in a way prove it since we dont have clues about that topic. What comes more as reality to me is that all these we see are part of the evolution process. It is true that for some time we have not seen any major changes, but how can we say that in a period of 2 billion years after life apperared? I think noone knows what happened at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a characteristic of evolution that you DON't see it on a day to day basis. After all, evolution means changes over time, where each step is stable. If the environment doesn't change (or other parameters), why should there be an evolutionary change? And another aspect of cours is, that each species, was close enough to another one, when it split off, otherwise the interbreeding wouldn't have worked, until the new species became sufficiently evolved to become incompatible. And if the rate of changes is to high, then the species will simply get extinct, as millions already did.

You don't really expect a computer program to work, by constantly modifying random bits. Some of this changes might have no visible effect, most will cause the machine to crash, and only a very small number of changes will actually improve it. With evolution it's not really that different.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS for me I have already stopped bothering who created the world and all such stuff. Experts got confused and even them cant find a solution.

 

Experts know in great detail how the world was created, and the concept of "who" does not come into it. I guess you are in fact referring to the origin of the universe, which certainly is an unsolved problem although the notion that it was "created" by a sentient being is not scientifically useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, we could get into a philosophical debate about what 'knowing' Vs 'believing' something really is, and whether you can actually 'know' anything that happened billions of years before humans existed, whether it was the formation of the sun or it's planets or the universe itself.

Maximius would love that for a start.

Saying 'I know' is different from saying 'I believe I know', and the difference between the two always leaves a window open for the gods.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experts know in great detail how the world was created, and the concept of "who" does not come into it. I guess you are in fact referring to the origin of the universe, which certainly is an unsolved problem although the notion that it was "created" by a sentient being is not scientifically useful.

 

I am afraid the dont. New theories about universe creation are up and running (at last one university in greece is examining about such a theory - cant imagine how many in the world are conducting similar experiments) and even high-class scientists are mind-boggled about what is really happening. As for the "who", it was an idiom for those who believe that there is a god. If still there is one, then certainly is not like the way religion describes him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The orbit of Saturn's moons? No it can't. Evolution only explains the origin of complex biological structures, it says nothing about astrology or the origins of celestial bodies, which are dead, non-evolving matter.

 

For the record, there actually is a theory of cosmological natural selection where evolutionary processes determine basic properties of the universe, including whether and how stars and planets form, actually the main point of the theory.

 

Basically, the selection mechanism is daughter systems (universes) being created through black hole singularities bouncing into new systems in their own right, but tweaking the basic universal constants. So new systems (or rather, the constants of those systems, like the DNA of a universe) creating more blackholes are going to be selected over time. Blackholes need stars to form. So those systems with universal constants condusive to the creation of matter and stars (and the possibility of life coattailing) are going to be more likely to appear than not over time. If the constants can't create matter as we know it; then they can't create stars; then those constants are selected against because no new blackholes form and the line ends there.

 

It doesn't seem very probable to me, but at least it's a naturalist hypothesis. It's not the stupidist thing once you're already on board with blackholes actually existing and creating singularities and the Big Bang/inflationary theory that our universe comes from a singularity, and some of the math of general relativity which suggests that blackholes really do bounce into new big bangs through 4D tubes (wormholes). And it answers the anthropic principle (and the standard model's arbitrariness problem) in a more scientific way than any other running theory out there. There's just no way to theorize/test it until at the very least they get a working theory for quantum gravity to understand what's really going on inside blackholes ... until then it's just speculation. It's intereting to think about, though.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, quantum gravity, that's that we need to focus on understanding, not some mooty-poop. I really can't believe the topic of evolution is actually discussed right now. What, am I suddenly back in goold old 1860s? What next? A series of major corporate growth-spurts and globalization, threaded with several stock-crashes, and culminating in a War to end all Wars?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can't imagine the shitstorm that will come up if religious fundamentalists try to challenge teaching quantum mechanics in the high school chemistry classroom or something. :)

 

"That's not a superposition of eigenstates that randomly resolves into one when you measure it, the LORD had planned that eigenstate all along and chose to keep it a mystery from you until you measured it!"

 

I know they've talked about it, and quacks use quantum to justify a myriad of junk science theories, but it never gets the media same attention, probably because people don't understand quantum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A*lambda = v*lambda where A is a matrix, lambda is an eigenvalue of the matrix, and v is an eigenvector corresponding to that eigenvalue. I think.

 

That's about all I remember, and I did them in maths last year... I guess it's true that we repress memories of unpleasant experiences, which explains why I can never remember anything I learn in maths classes. :P

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember anything learned over two years ago either. I think I repressed all of Thermo, and I didn't even have the hard Physics thermo, just the wimpy one for Materials Science. The net effect of all the school seems to be that I know where to look things up in books now. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me they just make for interesting stories, sort of like reading novels. I read some equation and what it's supposed to mean, try to do some of the math, smile at how clever it seems to be, and then carry on with the plot. I don't seem any more anxious to memorize or "learn" it than I would Hemingway. But I like pretending I know what they're talking about and that the plot really means something deep down.

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia has a good explanation of eigenvectors.

 

Why my A-level maths teacher could not explain it in terms of a vector whose direction remains unchanged after a given transformation, rather than just "learn this formula", I will never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recent Status Updates

    • peter_spy

      What a lovely game, perfect way to relax before sleep.
      · 3 replies
    • STiFU

      Anyone here clocking in some times in Neon Light?
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      Boris Johnson's resignation does not change the fact that Australia is home to 29 million kangaroos and Wales has a population of just over three million.

      If the Australian kangaroos were to invade Wales, one resident would have to fight almost ten kangaroos at a time.
      · 8 replies
    • peter_spy

      Deathloop – what a mess of a game. I'd love to see a post-mortem on it some day. I hope Arkane is doing okay though.
      · 27 replies
    • OrbWeaver

      I like house-cleaning and taking out the trash.
      · 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...