Jump to content

Pumices

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Retained

  • Quark

Pumices's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

10

Reputation

  1. So are you saying in infinte space there is an infinate probablity of things happening, if that is the case following your reasoning, somewhere in the infinite reaches of space the parts to a bomb so large that it could destroy all matter in the universe spontaneous appered and assembled and then detonated... well we are still here so unless I am misunderstanding your statement that is has at least one hole in it. That is not what I am saying, because I can go outside and observe the law of gravity which means it takes no faith to believe in it. However unless you personally have preformed every experiment and collection of data for the theory of evolution, you have to have faith in those results. But if evolution has so much data pointing towards it, wouldn't that data be able to negate these "loaded" questions. But instead of taking the data and negating it you point fingers and yell about how I lying to myself and asking "loaded" questions. I would somewhat dissagree, if science did not have public support, it wouldn't, mean nearly as much at least in a social stand point. One of the main things that public support gets science is funding which i am sure we can all agree that science takes money. I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species. I would also hate for you to fall prey to the "fallacy of equivocation", because again it doens't take faith to believe in gravity I personally can test it and observe it, have you personally tested evolution? Furthermore religious faith is believing in what the holy text related to the religion says or what the leader of the religion says. Religion requires you to have faith that what they say is true. Again unless you have personally preformed every experiment or collection of data for evolution you have to have faith that what the people who preformed those results said is true. You have to have faith that they followed the scientific method and that they did not tamper the data. You have to have faith that they interpreted the data correctly. Now yes, most of the time everything they do including the data they collected is documented but then you have to have faith that it was documented correctly. Again, unless you personally collect that data, you have to have faith that the data was collected correctly. Now I am not entirely sure on this with out doing research on it I seem to recall that Quantum fluctuations occur in a stream of quantum particles which means that they did not come out of nothing. If this is not the case no need to correct me because I will admit I am probably wrong there. Regardless lets say that the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here and there particles are spontaneously appering. This only covers the first part (i know i left the second part out in the middle of my post but I restated the whole thing at the end) so lets say they spontaneously come into existence but do they ever randomly fall into order? if that is the case why don't we have random horses poping up or random tables. And back to an early example if it was all based on a this happening over an infinite amount of time wouldn't eventually a bomb so large it could destroy all of the known universe spontaneously apper and detonate. Further more there particles can only remain stable for a very short peroid of time meaning they have no time to "evolve" So are you saying that evolution is just as provable as gravity. But when studying how life changes over time you clearly are going back in time. Well eventually you have to reach the beginning don't you?
  2. I think i understand what you are saying, you are saying that people who believe in creation have faith in it and nothing else, they don't have that "scientific evidence" whereas evolution is based on science. But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done. So since evolution cannot be proved to an absolute, that means that it also takes faith. Scientist may not want to call it that but regardless if evolution cannot be proved absolutely with evidence the only way to believe in it as strong as I feel some of you do, is with faith. Which I find somewhat ironic because most people I have talked to who are big evolutionist despise the idea of having faith in something instead of proving it. Now I also understand that there is evidence pointing towards evolution so it is possible to take that evidence and make and educated guess but, it still takes faith to believe that you came to the right conclusions. However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence. The old example of if I see a clock there has to be a clock maker, the hundereds of carefully timed gears did not just spontaneous come into existence and then randomly fall into working order. If someone were to suggest this they would be considered a fool. But yet we look at the universe and we say exactly that, only this time there are billion maybe trillions of carefully timed units and yet scientist say that there is no maker, that it all just spontaneously appeared and ramdomly fell into order. Again i challenge anyone to give an documented, scientifically proven case where something spontaneously came into existance on its own with no help and then ramdomly fell into order. If someone can do that I will stop asking questions and agree that science is onto something.
  3. So are you saying the evolution can no more be proved then evolution disproved? Furthermore, I would have to disagree with you, you said, "showing creationism to be false (or unscientific) does not advance evolution at all" statistics have shown that up to 50% of america claims to believe in a form of creation, so if I were a evolutionist I think it would be very benefitial to my cause to disprove the other leading theory. Isn't science suppose to test all areas not just the ones that benefit their theory. So, "scientists involved with evolution, by and large, completely ignore the question of creationism" doesn't make any sense, why would they ignore a topic that is directly related to their field of study. Sounds like they are avoiding it to me. Once again I am an "Untrained individual" and all i have to rely on is common sense so could someone clarify this for me.
  4. I am one of those "individuals who are not trained in the scientific method" so I am going to need some help on this. So those of you who are "trained in the scientific method" first define what the scientific method is and then use the scientific method to prove evolution and disprove creation or vise versa.
  5. Hey, thanks for all the replies and sorry i haven't been around for a while but the question came about when me and my friend were talking about data compression. Basically if the above problem were in someway true it would be possible to take the bits of a file numbers 0-255 and compress them but then be able to do it again. Basically you would be able to compress a given file to nearly any size you want.
  6. Ok let me throw this out to you guys. What if those numbers 0-999(to make it easier) were able to represent any given set of numbers (ex. 1 = 1200, 7 = 9000 etc.) and you could have any number of fixed points for instance you could have A, B, C, D, E, and F and come out with A, Z, D, E, and F or something along that line. Pretty much anything goes. The only stipulation is that all the numbers have to be in the same range. Is this possible in anyway no matter how extreme or if you have any ideas how if could possibly be done please share. Thanks again for all the help.
  7. So basically it is impossible. So in theory for any given set of numbers n long where all numbers in the set fall in the same range. That set of numbers can not be converted to a set of numbers n-1 long with all numbers in the set having the same range as the numbers in the first set and then be converted back to created the original sequence. Hum... I don't like impossibilities
  8. There is no order, A,B,C,D, and Z can be any given number 0-1000
  9. I forgot to mention that z also has to be a integer 0-1000 thanks again
  10. I am really stumped on this one, I have been working on it for nearly 2 weeks now and I am beginning to wonder if it is even possible. So I though I might throw it out there because there are a whole lot of people that are alot smarter than me that might be able to figure it out. So lets say you have A,B,C, and D all integers 0 - 1000. Now I am trying to find an equation that will allow me to take A,B,C and D and come out with A,Z, and D. But the hard part is I have to be able to take A, Z, and D and come out with the original B and C. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.