Jump to content

The Darwin Spin Off


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 115 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

We are also 98% similar to pigs but noone seems to be talking about that. They are the only other mammal mostly hairless like humans so maybe as one evolutionists preaches, we are a hybrid from them and chimps.

 

 

Pigs aren't even close to being hairless.

https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=wild+pig+photos

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Many philosophers have reflected if there weren't pollution, we'd probably live about 900 years average, same as those ages spoken of in Genesis.

   Funny. Before pollution, the average life expectancy of people tended to be closer to 30 for men and 20 for women. Since then it's been ever increasing!

a91e868412d2c7f41400f7f127a053ca.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Funny. Before pollution, the average life expectancy of people tended to be closer to 30 for men and 20 for women. Since then it's been ever increasing!

a91e868412d2c7f41400f7f127a053ca.png

That has nothing to do with how The Garden of Eden would be.  Those dates above are modern times with pollution much earlier.  Many people died from burning coal, for one, centuries ago.  Maybe you could look up things about the Anthropocene but I do not think it plausible to recreate The Garden of Eden to compare.

 

 

Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution 12,000–15,000 years ago, to as recent as the 1960s. The ratification process is still ongoing, and thus a date remains to be decided definitively, but the peak in radionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s has been more favoured than others

 

When did Pollution start getting bad?
Some would assign it to the start of agriculture 11,000 years ago, while others tie it to the advent of the nuclear era in 1945, but most recognize the Anthropocene as beginning with the industrial revolution (1780s-1830s).
Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still like the story and I really liked the way Russle Crowe told it..

I like hearing and reading on all creation stories I can find..

This was actually a good movie i thought..

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Nor is my neighbor, who insists on mowing his lawn... shirtless.

I was going to say similar...people are hairless?  She'd better Google hairy men.  But, I think Arielle was not being serious anyhow, imo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

There is no "Law of Randomness". Making one up to suit your argument doesn't help you. Nor does ignoring "survival of the fittest", a central tenet of Darwin's theory that prevents your invented law from filling the planet with failures.

809AC25E-E239-4200-966E-88E231EBF016.jpeg.c27968d069fbb18d6cf732eb66bc8615.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Assigning good or bad morality to the creation is beyond the ken of the origins science and starts to delve into the area of philosophy.

Evaluating a scientific theory morally doesn't make any sense because there is no agent behind it. The intelligent design theory is different because there is. To illustrate what I mean imagine a volcano erupting and killing 5 volcanologists nearby. It might be described as bad or a disaster but whilst the cause is the shifting of tectonic plates there is no moral event to consider. But if we then discover some intelligent design to the eruption perhaps a terrorist explosion... then we have a moral event to consider. 

Intelligent design brings with it a moral consideration of the imperfect and often painful perversity of the creation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'm liked this guys channel for a few years now..

 

I like that video, but take issue with some of the claims, as I do.

Scott's criteria for determining the probability of solar eclipses like ours already contains significant selection bias. What's special about sitting on the line between total an annular? Excluding moons that are to small or too close to create total eclipses, or are too large/too far away to create annular eclipses is an arbitrary choice, designed to increase the improbability. That's selection bias. Yes, sitting on that line between total an annular is very cool, but that's because we "think" it's very cool. Might it be cooler to have two moons, one that can create day long total eclipses and one that only produces annulars? How about two moons that eclipse each other?

We think our eclipses are special, but I can imagine other situations that make ours look like... nuthin.

Imagine this for a moment. Of all the civilizations in the universe that enjoy eclipses, our joy might be far below average.

I'd have to do some more thinking and research, but I suspect Scott's fp is an unintentional red herring. Unless a moon's orbit is locked to the planet's orbit, the orbital planes will always cross, eventually. Our moon always shows us the same face because of gravitational locking, but that's a lock between a planet's rotation and a satellite's orbit and is common in our solar system. Locking our moon's orbit to our annual trip around the sun is something I've never heard of, and would be required to ensure that the moon always misses blocking the sun. So, my hunch is that Scott's fp equals one and should be removed from his equation.

What about planets with two suns? How awesome would that be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_binary_star_systems

I love thinking about this stuff!

;-).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I like that video, but take issue with some of the claims, as I do.

Scott's criteria for determining the probability of solar eclipses like ours already contains significant selection bias. What's special about sitting on the line between total an annular? Excluding moons that are to small or too close to create total eclipses, or are too large/too far away to create annular eclipses is an arbitrary choice, designed to increase the improbability. That's selection bias. Yes, sitting on that line between total an annular is very cool, but that's because we "think" it's very cool. Might it be cooler to have two moons, one that can create day long total eclipses and one that only produces annulars? How about two moons that eclipse each other?

We think our eclipses are special, but I can imagine other situations that make ours look like... nuthin.

Imagine this for a moment. Of all the civilizations in the universe that enjoy eclipses, our joy might be far below average.

I'd have to do some more thinking and research, but I suspect Scott's fp is an unintentional red herring. Unless a moon's orbit is locked to the planet's orbit, the orbital planes will always cross, eventually. Our moon always shows us the same face because of gravitational locking, but that's a lock between a planet's rotation and a satellite's orbit and is common in our solar system. Locking our moon's orbit to our annual trip around the sun is something I've never heard of, and would be required to ensure that the moon always misses blocking the sun. So, my hunch is that Scott's fp equals one and should be removed from his equation.

What about planets with two suns? How awesome would that be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_binary_star_systems

I love thinking about this stuff!

;-).

What I took from it was, even though we may think something is rare, in the bigger picture it's probably not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

What I took from it was, even though we may think something is rare, in the bigger picture it's probably not...

Oh, I quite agree, Ceka.

I've often paraphrased a statement from (I think) John Allen Paulos, who wrote "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences"

He was asked if he believed in miracles. He replied (approximately)...

"Yes, given the number of people on Earth, and their propensity to find things miraculous, I think it's a miracle there aren't more miracles."

;-).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Oh, I quite agree, Ceka.

I've often paraphrased a statement from (I think) John Allen Paulos, who wrote "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences"

He was asked if he believed in miracles. He replied (approximately)...

"Yes, given the number of people on Earth, and their propensity to find things miraculous, I think it's a miracle there aren't more miracles."

;-).

The thing I like about some of his videos is, you never really know where he's gonna end up..

Like this one, He goes into how those certain things are rare in our solar system, but will get to that point where he compares it to something and then showed, it is just a matter of perspective of the observer..

I like the part where he say's I'd like to believe in that, when he's talking about the dreams.. But also I like the idea that I'm part of a much bigger machine..

I enjoy his videos..They're pretty relaxing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

The thing I like about some of his videos is, you never really know where he's gonna end up..

Like this one, He goes into how those certain things are rare in our solar system, but will get to that point where he compares it to something and then showed, it is just a matter of perspective of the observer..

I like the part where he say's I'd like to believe in that, when he's talking about the dreams.. But also I like the idea that I'm part of a much bigger machine..

I enjoy his videos..They're pretty relaxing.

I share all those thoughts and feelings about being connected, a part of some grand and glorious plan. They're very pleasant thoughts to have. If I have them because such thinking is evolutionarily advantageous, so be it. It's even more awesome to me to ponder the seeming improbability of it all than to take a shortcut to some kind of design centered around us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I share all those thoughts and feelings about being connected, a part of some grand and glorious plan. They're very pleasant thoughts to have. If I have them because such thinking is evolutionarily advantageous, so be it. It's even more awesome to me to ponder the seeming improbability of it all than to take a shortcut to some kind of design centered around us.

When he's talking about a much bigger machine, i don't believe he was referring to something centered around us. It sounded more like he meant, being part of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hard not to be, for most people at least.

That was in reference to him liking the idea of being part of a bigger machine vs thinking everything circles around us..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 115 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...