Alien Existence?

[ilikeballs]

The deposition of layers varies according to terrain and natural events - sure, some dinosaur fossils are found closer to the surface than others. Are you suggesting that the observation that ALL dinosaur fossils are not found in the exact same layer (and presumably at the same depth) is evidence against fossil dating techniques?

The most accurate form of dating fossils relies on radioisotopic measurements. The ratio of radioactive isotopes (such as rubidium/strontium and potassium/argon). Due to radioactive decay, the ratios of these two isoforms varies depending on the age of the rock. Such rocks that form around fossils can be accurately dated by comparing their ratios with those from newly formed rocks. Over the last 80 or 90 years, scientists have made tens of thousands of measurements, refining these values to such an extent that determining the age of fossils is now very accurate.

what are you talking about man. if you find a dinosaur fossil on the surface of the earth, wouldnt you question the geologic time scale? i mean if dinosaurs lived millions of years ago why are they found at the surface? did you know if you get a jar off mud add water and shake it up, it will settle into layers? did you now that they have found petrafied tries going thru multiple layers? if layers did form thru millions of years, then where are all the corrosion marks? it must have rained sometime during those millions of years. did you know that stars exhust all of their energy and die out in about 55,000 years? did you know scientist have never seen a star form. if thats true then all the stars in the universe should have cooled and died out if the universe is truly billions of years old. so why are we still here. and finally how do you get living things out of non living matter? because if you believe in evolution you must also believe that man derived from a rock thru millions of years of slow evolution? have you ever witnessed an explosion create and orderly system nearly as comlex as the universe is. because thats what your telling me happened if you believe in the big bang. big bangs dont create order they create chaos.

 

[ilikeballs]

thank jesus, go read a book



read something please, anything



This is where i start to see you must just be someone fucking with me and this is all a joke, seriously, im embarrassed that i fell for the bait, but you got me, well done.

i dont see how its a joke. if an animal has a mutation, it's a scrambling or loss of dna information, not a gain. so if the animal has no new information how would that make it better fit to survive? and even if it did survive, it would still be the same kind of animal if its to reproduce with the unmutated animals of its kind. if its a total different species it would not be able to mate. because you cant crossbreed two different species. can you show me an example of a benificial mutation? and like i said if you believe in evolution you also have to belive that living things derived from non living things. how do you know it can happen if its never been witnessed. and if you cant witness it then that my friend is not science its philosophy.

 

[Hutch]

if the system worked ideally for us why would they choose to change it when they themselves dont know complex mathmatics since they are young after all. arent laws of the universe expressed through numbers that have clear definition of value? if its a fact that 2 + 2 equal 4 why would you change it knowing that you have limited knowledge of mathmatics? and if you did change the values then you better go back and check all the master equation of the universe, because you must now start from scratch if you choose to set different values to the numbers.

I am using this example with the childrens absence of mathematical knowledge as a prerequisite. If the children knew from textbooks that 2+2=4, then they would not have to change the values designated to such numbers. If the children don't know what values are represented by 2 and 4, then how do you suppose they go back and 'check all the master equation of the universe'. If these children knew what the 'master equation of the universe' was, why would they be concerned with 2 and 4?

Laws of the universe can be expressed through numbers, but it's the value of the number, not the symbol which represents the number, that has meaning. Even if you decide to impart a specific value to the symbols 2 and 4, is it NOT impossible that the 'laws of the universe' (as we know them) are false?

 

[Hutch]

what are you talking about man. if you find a dinosaur fossil on the surface of the earth, wouldnt you question the geologic time scale? i mean if dinosaurs lived millions of years ago why are they found at the surface? did you know if you get a jar off mud add water and shake it up, it will settle into layers? did you now that they have found petrafied tries going thru multiple layers? if layers did form thru millions of years, then where are all the corrosion marks? it must have rained sometime during those millions of years. did you know that stars exhust all of their energy and die out in about 55,000 years? did you know scientist have never seen a star form. if thats true then all the stars in the universe should have cooled and died out if the universe is truly billions of years old. so why are we still here. and finally how do you get living things out of non living matter? because if you believe in evolution you must also believe that man derived from a rock thru millions of years of slow evolution? have you ever witnessed an explosion create and orderly system nearly as comlex as the universe is. because thats what your telling me happened if you believe in the big bang. big bangs dont create order they create chaos.

Wow, what supreme logic. You are truly a retard. I apologise for using such language, but seriously - listen to the shit that's coming out of your mouth.

(a) Did you know that stars exhaust all of their energy and die out in about 55,000 years? - You then say - if that's true. It's not true. I don't know where you got that source of information from, but they should be reprimanded for teaching complete bullshit.
(b) Scientists have never seen a star form - Wrong, we see stars form every day. We don't 'see' diffuse gas come together to form a full star because that takes hundreds of thousands of years. How long do you think 'scientists' have been around for?
(c) How do you get living things out of non living matter? - Specifically, no-one knows. However, every single atom in your body was derived from non living matter. There is nothing unique about the particles in our body except for the extreme organisation of such particles.
(d) Because if you believe in evolution you must also believe that man derived from a rock thru millions of years of slow evolution? - You're on drugs. Where the hell does this statement come from?
(e) Big bands don't create order, they create chaos. That is true on the whole. If you've studied thermodynamics, you'll know that chaos, or entropy, must always increase - however, there are no rules excluding the creation of pockets of negative entropy (what we call information, or order). Just like your refrigerator - it keeps your food cool (which is a greater state of order, as heat is the most pure form of 'chaos'), but it only does this by creating more heat than is required to cool the fridge. There is a net gain of entropy, even though the fridge is experiencing a temporary state of negative entropy. I know you probably don't understand what I just said, the comments in your last post suggest that I am correct.

 

[Hutch]

i dont see how its a joke. if an animal has a mutation, it's a scrambling or loss of dna information, not a gain. so if the animal has no new information how would that make it better fit to survive? and even if it did survive, it would still be the same kind of animal if its to reproduce with the unmutated animals of its kind. if its a total different species it would not be able to mate. because you cant crossbreed two different species. can you show me an example of a benificial mutation? and like i said if you believe in evolution you also have to belive that living things derived from non living things. how do you know it can happen if its never been witnessed. and if you cant witness it then that my friend is not science its philosophy.

Again, you are wrong. If an animal has a mutation, it is not necessarily a scrambling or loss of DNA - there are often gains. Gene replication occurs often, and occasionally having two copies of a specific gene benefits the host animal.

Mutations are small - I guarantee that between your mother and father, there were several hundred mutations before they conceived you. If you are thinking about mutations like those found in comics like X-men, then it may result in the inability to breed with other 'species'. Sometimes it may take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to produce two similar species that are unable to interbreed - definitely not a single generation!!!

A beneficial mutation? How about wheat? When the human species was in it's infancy, wheat was uniploid - i.e. it had one copy of each chromosome. This wheat was very small and didn't produce much grain. After humans 'directed evolution' of wheat, it is now hexaploid (has six copies of each chromosome), and as a result it is much larger.

Evolution has been witnessed before. In England, where willow trees were predominant, there existed a white moth. This moth survived by blending in to it's surroundings and thus avoided birds. However, when the industrial revolution gripped England, Factories produced soot to such an extend as to turn the trees from white to black. Spontaneous mutations in some moths resulted in the production of a black pigment. These moths could now blend in to their surroundings and thus avoid being eaten whilst the white moths were easy prey. Because the white moths were easier to spot, they soon died out and black moths became the norm.

Pick up a text book and have a good read. You sound like you have a lot of facts, but not one of them (that I've heard thus far), are actually true!

 

[ilikeballs]

(a) Did you know that stars exhaust all of their energy and die out in about 55,000 years? - You then say - if that's true. It's not true. I don't know where you got that source of information from, but they should be reprimanded for teaching complete bullshit.

if the stars are still cooling down, and it only takes them 55,000 years to completely do it, doesnt that lead you to believe that the universe is not billions of years old? that it is still relitively young?

(b) Scientists have never seen a star form - Wrong, we see stars form every day. We don't 'see' diffuse gas come together to form a full star because that takes hundreds of thousands of years. How long do you think 'scientists' have been around for?

how do you know that stars will form? [

(c) How do you get living things out of non living matter? - Specifically, no-one knows. However, every single atom in your body was derived from non living matter. There is nothing unique about the particles in our body except for the extreme organisation of such particles.

ok your telling me you dont know how life comes to be from non living material, but you still claim its possible.

(d) Because if you believe in evolution you must also believe that man derived from a rock thru millions of years of slow evolution? - You're on drugs. Where the hell does this statement come from?

this "fact" comes straight from textbooks that you claim i should read.

(e) Big bands don't create order, they create chaos. That is true on the whole. If you've studied thermodynamics, you'll know that chaos, or entropy, must always increase - however, there are no rules excluding the creation of pockets of negative entropy (what we call information, or order). Just like your refrigerator - it keeps your food cool (which is a greater state of order, as heat is the most pure form of 'chaos'), but it only does this by creating more heat than is required to cool the fridge. There is a net gain of entropy, even though the fridge is experiencing a temporary state of negative entropy. I know you probably don't understand what I just said, the comments in your last post suggest that I am correct.

heat is chaotic and destructive only when there is nothing to use its energy. if you can stop that chaos or slow it down by cooling it, that still does not prove there is order, only less chaos. you can stop chaos altogether but without energy how are things able to go as they were without energy. so how did we come into be out of chaos because there is no order from chaos.

 

[ilikeballs]

Again, you are wrong. If an animal has a mutation, it is not necessarily a scrambling or loss of DNA - there are often gains. Gene replication occurs often, and occasionally having two copies of a specific gene benefits the host animal.

again thats not a gain of information because that information was still there. there is only more copies of it.

Mutations are small - I guarantee that between your mother and father, there were several hundred mutations before they conceived you. If you are thinking about mutations like those found in comics like X-men, then it may result in the inability to breed with other 'species'. Sometimes it may take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to produce two similar species that are unable to interbreed - definitely not a single generation!!!

no i dont think of mutation as those in x men. altough i think someone else does.

A beneficial mutation? How about wheat? When the human species was in it's infancy, wheat was uniploid - i.e. it had one copy of each chromosome. This wheat was very small and didn't produce much grain. After humans 'directed evolution' of wheat, it is now hexaploid (has six copies of each chromosome), and as a result it is much larger.

so what does this prove, that overall its better. but again that information was still in that plant, the fact that you made copies of that info doesnt mean you created new info. that plant was still a wheat plant. its not any other species.

Evolution has been witnessed before. In England, where willow trees were predominant, there existed a white moth. This moth survived by blending in to it's surroundings and thus avoided birds. However, when the industrial revolution gripped England, Factories produced soot to such an extend as to turn the trees from white to black. Spontaneous mutations in some moths resulted in the production of a black pigment. These moths could now blend in to their surroundings and thus avoid being eaten whilst the white moths were easy prey. Because the white moths were easier to spot, they soon died out and black moths became the norm.

i will answer this later cause i have to get ready for work

 

[2-0-Sixx]

It's always entertaining to watch Hutch serve the lightweights.

 

[enserio]

Are you guys still talking about aliens or what?

 

[ilikeballs]

It's always entertaining to watch Hutch serve the lightweights.

so are the cheerleader

 

[Hemp]

It's always entertaining to watch Hutch serve the lightweights.

cosign

 

[Hutch]

if the stars are still cooling down, and it only takes them 55,000 years to completely do it, doesnt that lead you to believe that the universe is not billions of years old? that it is still relitively young?

Question: where did you get your information stating that stars only take 55,000 years to 'cool down'? A star the size of our sun will take approximately 10 billion years to 'cool down' whereas a star 10 times the size of our sun will take only 31 million years. Therefore, even if you consider a star ten times the size of our sun, it will still take over 550 times longer than your 'estimate' to 'cool down'.

how do you know that stars will form? [

Look at any nebulae - they are the remains of large stars which had once existed and had gone 'supernova'. Nebulae are giant clouds of interstellar gas, sometimes light years across and are the breeding grounds for stars. and planets. Check wikepedia or something, do your own research.

ok your telling me you dont know how life comes to be from non living material, but you still claim its possible....this "fact" comes straight from textbooks that you claim i should read.

So you're telling me that you read a 'textbook' which made the claim that 'man derived from a rock through millions of years of evolution'? Well, I highly recommend that you throw that textbook away - and I sure as hell hope that you didn't pay for it because if you did, you were ripped off!

There is a big difference between life coming from non-living material and life coming from a 'rock'. Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material, if we did then the argument for evolution would be so strong that it would be a knock-out blow against creationists - and yes, I do claim that it is 'possible'. Are you claiming that it is impossible?

heat is chaotic and destructive only when there is nothing to use its energy. if you can stop that chaos or slow it down by cooling it, that still does not prove there is order, only less chaos. you can stop chaos altogether but without energy how are things able to go as they were without energy. so how did we come into be out of chaos because there is no order from chaos.

Wrong again. Heat is chaotic, through and through. When there is no matter left in the universe, all that will remain is heat. When matter dissolves, it produces energy, and the lowest possible form of energy in the universe is heat. Sure, you can burn coal, produce heat and use this heat to power a machine of some sort (creating 'order' from heat), but the amount of 'chaos' that the burning of such coal produces far outweights the resulting order.

 

[2-0-NINE]

TELL HIM MATE!

 

[Hutch]

no i dont think of mutation as those in x men. altough i think someone else does.

I hope you're not implying that I think evolutionary mutations produce X-men. I don't think they would have given me a degree with honours in plant biochemistry and genetics if I did believe that...

again thats not a gain of information because that information was still there. there is only more copies of it... so what does this prove, that overall its better. but again that information was still in that plant, the fact that you made copies of that info doesnt mean you created new info. that plant was still a wheat plant. its not any other species...

OK, I was lazy - your bold statements don't merit an in depth response, you do enough to dismantle your own argument by coming at me with unproven and completely false 'facts'.

How is this. Have you heard of sickle-cell anemia? It is a disease which results from two defective copies of a gene which is involved in the shape of red blood cells. The normal 'sickle-cell' gene produces round globular red blood cells, whereas the mutated version produces a jagged, sickle shaped red blood cell (hence the name sickle-cell anemia).

If both loci contain mutated alleles (you have two copies of the gene), then you suffer from the disease. However, if you only contain one copy, then you are resistant to malaria. Guess where the disease is most prevalent? Africa, the 'home' of malaria. There are far more Africans with a single copy than with two copies, and possessing this mutation within an African population is advantageous, evolutionarily speaking.

i will answer this later cause i have to get ready for work

whenever your'e ready.

 

[Hutch]

so what does this prove, that overall its better. but again that information was still in that plant, the fact that you made copies of that info doesnt mean you created new info. that plant was still a wheat plant. its not any other species.

Another perfect example of gain-of-function mutations. I'm sure you're aware that pathogenic bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Where do you think this resistance comes from? Well, there are two primary sources;

(1) Spontaneous mutation. In every cell, there are random mutations taking place. Most of them are either harmless or disadvantageous to the host organism and could even result in its death. However, if you have billions and billions of cells, the odds of one of these mutations resulting in the increased survival of the organism is very high.

(2) In bacteria, there are processes called conjugation and transduction. In conjugation, a bacteria containing a plasmid (small, circular peices of DNA) forms a 'conjugation bridge', connecting it with another bacterial cell. The plasmid is then replicated and sent through the bridge to the other cell, resulting in both cells containing the plasmid. Many such plasmids contain genes for antibiotic resistance. In transduction, a bacteriophage, or 'virus' injects DNA into a bacterium. This DNA contains information which hijacks the bacteria's replication machinery, causing it to become a 'virus factory'. Often though, the virus contains DNA from other bacteria, and this is incorporated into the bacterial chromosome.

 

[HERESY]

Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material,

With that single statement you destroyed your entire argument. Think about EVERYTHING you have been trying to convey for the last several pages and look at that.

 

[ilikeballs]

Laws of the universe can be expressed through numbers, but it's the value of the number, not the symbol which represents the number, that has meaning. Even if you decide to impart a specific value to the symbols 2 and 4, is it NOT impossible that the 'laws of the universe' (as we know them) are false?

yes i think it is impossible for the laws to be false, since we can make accurate predictions using mathmatics.

 

[ilikeballs]

Question: where did you get your information stating that stars only take 55,000 years to 'cool down'? A star the size of our sun will take approximately 10 billion years to 'cool down' whereas a star 10 times the size of our sun will take only 31 million years. Therefore, even if you consider a star ten times the size of our sun, it will still take over 550 times longer than your 'estimate' to 'cool down'.

ok, that i can understand

So you're telling me that you read a 'textbook' which made the claim that 'man derived from a rock through millions of years of evolution'? Well, I highly recommend that you throw that textbook away - and I sure as hell hope that you didn't pay for it because if you did, you were ripped off!

There is a big difference between life coming from non-living material and life coming from a 'rock'. Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material, if we did then the argument for evolution would be so strong that it would be a knock-out blow against creationists - and yes, I do claim that it is 'possible'. Are you claiming that it is impossible?

i wish i could throw these books away, but there school property. im not saying it's impossible, but what are the odds of evolution? it's possible but the possibitity is so small it is absurd to think such complexity came to be out of a chance so small and out of chaos. and this has to happen time and time again for complex systems to form. would you be willing to risk your life on a possibility that small, no matter how absurd it sounds. some people are too smart for their own good. and ok tell me then, what was the first living thing on earth? and were did that come from? and where did that come from?

Wrong again. Heat is chaotic, through and through. When there is no matter left in the universe, all that will remain is heat. When matter dissolves, it produces energy, and the lowest possible form of energy in the universe is heat. Sure, you can burn coal, produce heat and use this heat to power a machine of some sort (creating 'order' from heat), but the amount of 'chaos' that the burning of such coal produces far outweights the resulting order.

ok i agree, all that will remain is heat. but you still didnt tell me how you get order from heat. the machine example just proves that there had to be a creator for that machine. can you give and example of a elegant explosion. because isnt that what the universe is, elegant.

 

[ilikeballs]

I hope you're not implying that I think evolutionary mutations produce X-men. I don't think they would have given me a degree with honours in plant biochemistry and genetics if I did believe that...

im not doubting your credentials. you can be the smartest guy in the universe but your still susceptable to mistakes just like the rest of the population. i would question your pride.

How is this. Have you heard of sickle-cell anemia? It is a disease which results from two defective copies of a gene which is involved in the shape of red blood cells. The normal 'sickle-cell' gene produces round globular red blood cells, whereas the mutated version produces a jagged, sickle shaped red blood cell (hence the name sickle-cell anemia).

If both loci contain mutated alleles (you have two copies of the gene), then you suffer from the disease. However, if you only contain one copy, then you are resistant to malaria. Guess where the disease is most prevalent? Africa, the 'home' of malaria. There are far more Africans with a single copy than with two copies, and possessing this mutation within an African population is advantageous, evolutionarily speaking.

ok read this "Sickle-cell anemia is an inherited blood disorder, occurring almost exclusively in black people, in which the normally round red blood cells are transformed into crescentic, or sickle-shaped, cells that are less able to transport needed oxygen. The disease is chronic, marked by fatigue, breathing difficulty on exertion, swollen joints, attacks of extreme illness, complications from other diseases, and shortened life. In the past, half of all victims died by the age of 20 and few survived past 40. With new technology and forms of treatment, the outlook is much better, but sickle-cell anemia remains a chronic debilitating disease" so how is having sickle cell anemia outweight having normal bloodcells. thats not evolution. i dont think you would want sickle cell anemia. the consequences outweight the rewards.

 

[ilikeballs]

(1) Spontaneous mutation. In every cell, there are random mutations taking place. Most of them are either harmless or disadvantageous to the host organism and could even result in its death. However, if you have billions and billions of cells, the odds of one of these mutations resulting in the increased survival of the organism is very high.

i wouldnt doubt increase survival. but, how would you get a total different species. its still a cell and not anything else. it may be better off but its still a cell. it will never evolve to antother species for you. theres limits.

(2) In bacteria, there are processes called conjugation and transduction. In conjugation, a bacteria containing a plasmid (small, circular peices of DNA) forms a 'conjugation bridge', connecting it with another bacterial cell. The plasmid is then replicated and sent through the bridge to the other cell, resulting in both cells containing the plasmid. Many such plasmids contain genes for antibiotic resistance. In transduction, a bacteriophage, or 'virus' injects DNA into a bacterium. This DNA contains information which hijacks the bacteria's replication machinery, causing it to become a 'virus factory'. Often though, the virus contains DNA from other bacteria, and this is incorporated into the bacterial chromosome.

see above anwser