Science Disproves Evolution

[psychocat]

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

[Delta9 UK]

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole.

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Its the ID / Creationists who have stopped asking questions - go figure.

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

[Delta9 UK]

I realise that last post came off a bit strong, I don't mean to be so confrontational but I do grow tired of these arguments and "discussions" around evolution which is deeply misunderstood at times.

If I had a joint I would pass it - be sure :thumbsup:

[TurnyBright]

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.

It [the universe] could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present.

Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.



Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.

You and i define infinite VASTLY DIFFERENTLY if you believe that ANYTHING AT ALL can NOT be infinite.


there is only one non-infinite "thing" in my opinion and understanding of infinity, and that is nothing. but even nothingness can be infinite, for it cannot be quantifiable as there are no "things" to occupy the empty nothingness.



how i conceive all things to be infinite:

endless micro/macroscopic "spiral" of "time". the smallest known "building block" of the universe is nothing more than the smallest KNOWN building block. i do not believe there is an ultimately smallest component, that the components are all (always) made up of even smaller components. Likewise, all components are constantly and actively being used to build increasingly larger components, indefinitely.

so how does time play into this? why a spiral?

let's start off simple. what IS time? it is our conception of movement through space, our way of gauging it. it's basis is relative; without another object in motion to compare, there would be no concept of time.

so "time" is merely the rate of movement of objects in space.

why a spiral? because spirals start from the center, as tiny singularities, and warp their way outward until they are eventually behemoth circular pictures. at the center of the spiral is the smallest components, and at the perimeter of the spiral are the largest components.

however, because time is infinite, there are no "smallest" or "largest" components, just gradually smaller and larger ones.


Now, the next bit is more complex. for every action there exists an equal but opposite reaction, however there are also cases of multiple equal-but-opposite possible reactions.
If every possible reaction DOES exist, "spiral" time is multifaceted... in other words, spirals spiraling off of spirals.

If time and space are infinite, then there is no reason not to think that all possible realities co-exist in the same time-space as their counter parts, but on different vibrational frequencies so that even though they overlap and occupy the same space, they will never collide. because the infinite implies no bounds, every infinite possible (alternate) reality is on such an infinitely unique frequency they are incapable of colliding.



if the pattern were two realities, it would be an even reality and an odd reality, both existing in the frame where the other is absent.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


while reality one looks like 13579 and reality 2 looks like 2468, they exist in the same time and space, but on opposite frequencies. like a computer monitor acts in "flashes" of frames, for example 60 frames per second, this theory operates on "frames". we only see and experience the "frames" of our reality's frequencies. when our reality's frequencies are "off" another reality's frequencies are "on".

Infinite, paradoxical, crazy even, but it makes more sense to me than anything else... how can anything NOT be infinite?





and for the sake of bringing this tangent on-topic:

Not all things can stimulate evolution in all other things, but anything that holds influence on anything is ultimately changing the other thing's destiny or fate, is ultimately changing the other thing's experiences, is ultimately changing, ever so subtly, the other thing.


While throwing rocks into the water i'snt going to change the water or the rocks much in the long term, our diets+lifestyles have been changing our physiology since the dawn of time.


i find it impossible to conceive of a fat lethargic neanderthal sitting on his ass all day.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

^'Nothing' is a human concept.

There is no such thing as 'nothing' if you ask me.

"nothing" and infinity occupy the exact same space. hell, they are arguably the same "thing".


i mean... look at it this way: what is absolutely all 100% of all of infinity?

essentially, i would say, that it is nothing at all.




or look at it this way: the void of space is nothing(ness) and all energy and matter are infinity itself, or at least infinite unto themselves as per my weirdo explanation of infinity.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

that's all it really is, all anything really is; what it IS and the human conception thereof.

That said, yeah, there is such a thing as time, but our perceptions and measurements of it are completely artificial.


likewise, i cannot NOT believe in infinity, but i also cannot believe that i KNOW it either. i simply conceive of it in my own human understanding of the idea(s) thereof.

I like my concept of infinity, and it likes me back :jointsmile:



plus it makes getting stoned a much wilder trip to think of everything as infinite; consider the flame and the heat and the bud and the ash, and all of the interactions they exchange between the flick of the bic to the coughing.

THEN to consider all the sub-interactions going on between subatomic particles in the process!


and then, of course, there's the matter of brain cells and neurological activity...




getting high makes infinity much more interesting

[TurnyBright]

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.

i dont know about that, what is to say that the object has borders? what's not to say that we are actually limited in our perceptions of objects "with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape", and they are not actually separated from the higher dimensional planes? perhaps we are the only ones who have borders separating our perceptions from the higher planes?


cant say you're wrong, cant say you're right, but i can say that it's deffenitely one valid and awesome interpretation of infinity :jointsmile:

[the image reaper]

obviously, a 'sativa' sort of thread ... :S2: