| Why do we assume... on 16:38 - Jul 21 with 1478 views | Catullus |
| Why do we assume... on 16:25 - Jul 21 by Drizzle |
Common ancestry is how evolution was best explained to me. Apes didn't evolve into us. A common ancestor of both us and apes existed at some point in the past. Out of that common ancestor came both apes and humans and maybe other things. |
Which even makes sense to a dunce like me!! |  |
|  |
| Why do we assume... on 16:39 - Jul 21 with 1470 views | Drizzy |
Christ.
Lay off the shrooms, Sham. |  |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 21:09 - Jul 21 with 1449 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 16:38 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
Which even makes sense to a dunce like me!! |
Here we go again. And where did the "common ancestor" come from?
And don't accuse me of going to religion.
Just answer the question if you want to go with the theory of evolution to explain different species. I'm not asking for an alternative explanation.
And if you want to cut to the very beginning -- "the 'singularity'" -- you still have to answer the question, plus at least two more. Where did 'the singularity' come from? What did i consist of? How did it 'evolve' into anything different, let alone life forms?
Face it, the thread "subject" says it all.
And I say, we should always start our theories and guesses with he words, "I don' know but I believe, think, guess, suggest . . ." or fill in the last word with your choice indicating lack of knowledge. |  |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 21:27 - Jul 21 with 1445 views | Catullus |
| Why do we assume... on 21:09 - Jul 21 by Davillin |
Here we go again. And where did the "common ancestor" come from?
And don't accuse me of going to religion.
Just answer the question if you want to go with the theory of evolution to explain different species. I'm not asking for an alternative explanation.
And if you want to cut to the very beginning -- "the 'singularity'" -- you still have to answer the question, plus at least two more. Where did 'the singularity' come from? What did i consist of? How did it 'evolve' into anything different, let alone life forms?
Face it, the thread "subject" says it all.
And I say, we should always start our theories and guesses with he words, "I don' know but I believe, think, guess, suggest . . ." or fill in the last word with your choice indicating lack of knowledge. |
I can only give you one word to show a lack of knowledge, scratch that, three words........me, myself, I. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 23:32 - Jul 21 with 1417 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 21:09 - Jul 21 by Davillin |
Here we go again. And where did the "common ancestor" come from?
And don't accuse me of going to religion.
Just answer the question if you want to go with the theory of evolution to explain different species. I'm not asking for an alternative explanation.
And if you want to cut to the very beginning -- "the 'singularity'" -- you still have to answer the question, plus at least two more. Where did 'the singularity' come from? What did i consist of? How did it 'evolve' into anything different, let alone life forms?
Face it, the thread "subject" says it all.
And I say, we should always start our theories and guesses with he words, "I don' know but I believe, think, guess, suggest . . ." or fill in the last word with your choice indicating lack of knowledge. |
And there's Professor Davillin once again confusing evolution with the origin of life and somehow clumsily shoehorning the big bang theory in to his argument.
Perhaps try finding out what the theory of evolution actually is rather than arguing against what you think it is. |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 23:38 - Jul 21 with 1415 views | trampie |
Are the Welsh more intelligent than others ? |  |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 00:26 - Jul 22 with 1400 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
| Why do we assume... on 04:30 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
I thought evolution happened in jumps, not smoothly over time?
And on time, obviously it's a human concept. But if time doesn't exist then I cannot age, so I am immortal? Unless ageing and dying really don't happen and our bodies are just biological hosts for a life force that evolves into something else? Like ice becomes water becomes steam but can then become water and ice again? Perhaps we never really die?
And some said something about smooth time. Well time runs differently in space, depending on your speed. If you could travel fast enough, you'd Age less quickly than on earth. Or so I thought. In which case, if you could go fast enough, for long enough, ten years in space could equal one thousand years on earth. I think???? Or maybe I misunderstood that bit?
But on how much we understand, there I'd so much we cannot see, or touch/examine. So how can we understand it?
Ps, who can explain black holes to me? If we know so much, surely someone can. How are they formed and where does stuff go after its sucked in? Why do they keep growing and will they one day all merge and eat the universe? And where will it all go?
Questions, always questions!! [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 4:35]
|
Black Holes are leftovers from Stars that have used up all their fuel, so to speak, because stars are essentially a battle between the gravity pulling them in to the centre, and the radiation created from the fusion processes being thrown outwards, they stay stable like that until all the hydrogen is used up, it then tries to fuse heavier elements together until it gets to the elements where no energy is released from fusing the atoms together such as Iron. When this happens, the star collapses under it's own gravity and all the matter is compressed into a very small area at the centre, and this becomes so dense that nothing can escape it's pull, not even light, and that is why it appears black. As for where stuff goes when it goes in, no one can answer that with any certainty, but when things go into it this increases the mass of the black hole and this is why they grow, eventually all the big stars will become black holes, suck in all the matter in the universe, until there is nothing left, and then they will decay, as they release Hawking radiation (This is a complex process to do with virtual particles, if you want to read more into it), until the universe is a cold dark place. But there are several different possible outcomes for the universe that depend on certain constants. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 01:09 - Jul 22 with 1378 views | JackoBoostardo |
| Why do we assume... on 23:32 - Jul 21 by Cottsy |
And there's Professor Davillin once again confusing evolution with the origin of life and somehow clumsily shoehorning the big bang theory in to his argument.
Perhaps try finding out what the theory of evolution actually is rather than arguing against what you think it is. |
Careful now. Prove him wrong on a subject he's started, and he'll block you so he never has to witness this again, as he did with me.
There is so much evidence to corroborate evolution and the big bang, that it can no virtuallylonger be denied. Yet Davillin, a person who comes across as all knowing, isn't. He will however deny his fallibility. He will continue to ask questions, and will not accept any answers other than his own. His posts are riddled with sarcasm, artificial prescient terms and phrases, and subtle personal attacks inorder to appear somewhat of a forum alpha male.
I can't quite figure out whether he's trolling or not. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why do we assume... on 02:26 - Jul 22 with 1375 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 21:27 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
I can only give you one word to show a lack of knowledge, scratch that, three words........me, myself, I. |
You see, Catullus, I don't know the answers either. Perhaps the O.P. was right after all.  | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 02:37 - Jul 22 with 1369 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 00:26 - Jul 22 by Feynmans_Bongos |
Black Holes are leftovers from Stars that have used up all their fuel, so to speak, because stars are essentially a battle between the gravity pulling them in to the centre, and the radiation created from the fusion processes being thrown outwards, they stay stable like that until all the hydrogen is used up, it then tries to fuse heavier elements together until it gets to the elements where no energy is released from fusing the atoms together such as Iron. When this happens, the star collapses under it's own gravity and all the matter is compressed into a very small area at the centre, and this becomes so dense that nothing can escape it's pull, not even light, and that is why it appears black. As for where stuff goes when it goes in, no one can answer that with any certainty, but when things go into it this increases the mass of the black hole and this is why they grow, eventually all the big stars will become black holes, suck in all the matter in the universe, until there is nothing left, and then they will decay, as they release Hawking radiation (This is a complex process to do with virtual particles, if you want to read more into it), until the universe is a cold dark place. But there are several different possible outcomes for the universe that depend on certain constants. |
Of course, this is all theoretical, or, to be a bit ungenerous, guesswork. Especially the final cold darkness.
I'm not saying that I know that it's wrong. Even theories and guesswork sometimes turn out to b4 correct, but I want to be accurate.
Steven Hawking is a theoretical physicist. That's not to be interpreted as "negative" in the least, because in matters of interstellar physics, "theoretical" is all one can be. I am unwilling to accept any of it because it's unverifiable, just as I don't accept any "bible"'s myths and other fiction. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 02:58 - Jul 22 with 1363 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
I agree, we can only come up with ideas based on educated guesses when it comes to these sort of things unfortunately, the best thing for everyone to do is keep an open mind. Even Stephen Hawking has recently gone back on his previous theory about Black Holes having Event Horizons, and most people who accepted his original theory are unwilling to change their minds. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 10:34 - Jul 22 with 1333 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 01:09 - Jul 22 by JackoBoostardo |
Careful now. Prove him wrong on a subject he's started, and he'll block you so he never has to witness this again, as he did with me.
There is so much evidence to corroborate evolution and the big bang, that it can no virtuallylonger be denied. Yet Davillin, a person who comes across as all knowing, isn't. He will however deny his fallibility. He will continue to ask questions, and will not accept any answers other than his own. His posts are riddled with sarcasm, artificial prescient terms and phrases, and subtle personal attacks inorder to appear somewhat of a forum alpha male.
I can't quite figure out whether he's trolling or not. |
He blocked me a long time ago for that very reason I just find it cathartic to reply to him. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 11:43 - Jul 22 with 1319 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 02:58 - Jul 22 by Feynmans_Bongos |
I agree, we can only come up with ideas based on educated guesses when it comes to these sort of things unfortunately, the best thing for everyone to do is keep an open mind. Even Stephen Hawking has recently gone back on his previous theory about Black Holes having Event Horizons, and most people who accepted his original theory are unwilling to change their minds. |
I think guess is a bit of a derogatory term to use particularly when we have so many real world applications for what Davillin is claiming to be guesses.
One I keep on banging on about is GPS, if Einstein's theory of relativity was just a guess how could it be applied in GPS to make it so accurate. GPS can't work without relativity so surely we have to say its more than a guess and if it is more than a guess then surely we have to accept the wider impact of the theory? | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 17:17 - Jul 22 with 1288 views | SkipTheJack |
| Why do we assume... on 14:23 - Jul 19 by Davillin |
Sad to inform some of you, but "science" is not now, and never has been, infallible. Nor, to be blunt, will it ever be. There are two major mega-problems with science/academia, especially in regard to "knowing the universe":
1. There's no way to double-check, let alone confirm, many of their theories and conclusions, yet they pass them off as irrefutable facts.
2. [I'm telling you this from personal experience] The worlds of science and higher education [in more ways than one, they are one and the same] are rife with cliques and power structures which give their blessings to certain theories and do not allow publication -- or even discussion -- of anything even mildly contradictory. If you believe that you can believe them, you're mad.
p.s. The only poster[s] who can offer a valid opinion on point #2 are those who are in the world of science and/or academia. The rest of you won't know enough to opine. Roster. Oops, "Sorry." |
I can't agree at all with point 2.
In my experience, physicists are willing to listen to any argument - however bonkers it may initially seem - if it is presented in a well-written, open-minded and self-critical way.
The theories that are rejected are the ones that are presented with no evidence or without a plausible defence, often by overly agressive pseudo-scientists who expect everyone to immediately embrace their theory. The adademic community has little time for such people, and they are therefore often driven to arguing their case to the public instead of the academic community, usually complaining about 'global conspiracies' and 'cover ups'. |  | | |
| Why do we assume... on 18:43 - Jul 22 with 1279 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 17:17 - Jul 22 by SkipTheJack |
I can't agree at all with point 2.
In my experience, physicists are willing to listen to any argument - however bonkers it may initially seem - if it is presented in a well-written, open-minded and self-critical way.
The theories that are rejected are the ones that are presented with no evidence or without a plausible defence, often by overly agressive pseudo-scientists who expect everyone to immediately embrace their theory. The adademic community has little time for such people, and they are therefore often driven to arguing their case to the public instead of the academic community, usually complaining about 'global conspiracies' and 'cover ups'. |
Do you "agree" with my "p.x."? I am absolutely not being crude by asking this, but are you a physicist, or an academic in another field?
"The theories that are rejected" are those which do not fit the presently accepted viewpoints, or "conventional wisdo," as they say, of the power cliques.
p.s. Have you studied Velikovsky, by the way? [No wikipedia or google, now.] I've read all but one of his books and articles, as well as his daughter's biographical and other bios. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 20:09 - Jul 22 with 1274 views | swansRus |
| Why do we assume... on 18:43 - Jul 22 by Davillin |
Do you "agree" with my "p.x."? I am absolutely not being crude by asking this, but are you a physicist, or an academic in another field?
"The theories that are rejected" are those which do not fit the presently accepted viewpoints, or "conventional wisdo," as they say, of the power cliques.
p.s. Have you studied Velikovsky, by the way? [No wikipedia or google, now.] I've read all but one of his books and articles, as well as his daughter's biographical and other bios. |
what is your opinion on the soul Davillin? Do you believe than humans are uniquely possessed of this? Or like myself, do you believe that the lifeforce that keeps a fly buzzing around or a dog wagging its tail, is the same as the one that enables us to post on internet forums?
As you're a literary fellow (no pun intended) here's a poem of mine that expresses my viewpoint.
I've never been into Religion - all prayer and worshop and hymns
I've never thought much about Jesus - or worried too much about sins;
And whether there is a hereafter has not been an item of musing,
as for Heaven and Hell, can anyone tell
if they're different from what we'd be losing?
Don't worry about your salvation - don't make paradise your concern,
We're just one form of life on this planet
On the stage of the Earth we're a turn
We don't have a particular spotlight - and we're not the stars of the show
Like a dog or a cat or a flea or a gnat -
when it's your time to go you just go. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 20:24 - Jul 22 with 1269 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
| Why do we assume... on 11:43 - Jul 22 by Cottsy |
I think guess is a bit of a derogatory term to use particularly when we have so many real world applications for what Davillin is claiming to be guesses.
One I keep on banging on about is GPS, if Einstein's theory of relativity was just a guess how could it be applied in GPS to make it so accurate. GPS can't work without relativity so surely we have to say its more than a guess and if it is more than a guess then surely we have to accept the wider impact of the theory? |
I was only saying that the theories we can't test are educated guesses, like what happens near a Black Hole. General Relativity can and has been tested. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 20:49 - Jul 22 with 1259 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 20:24 - Jul 22 by Feynmans_Bongos |
I was only saying that the theories we can't test are educated guesses, like what happens near a Black Hole. General Relativity can and has been tested. |
I absolutely agree with you but I think Relativity is something that Davillin would call a guess along with a lot of other well tested theories. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
