This must’ve taken forever (scroll to the right to see the entire thing)
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to David A. McIntee!
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Susan Shwartz!
- “Star Trek: New Frontier: 1 House of Cards” Review by Atboundarysedge.com
- Star Trek Captain’s Table “War Dragons”. For real this time.
- “Star Trek: 49 The Pandora Principle” Review by LiteraryTreks.
- “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Mission Gamma Book 1: Twilight” Review by Atboundarysedge.com
- Reading “A Very Klingon Khristmas”
- New Star Trek Comic Books Announced To Preorder! December 2024 Edition
- Star Trek The Pandora Principle Book Review
- “Book Authors”, “Narrators”, and “Cover Artist” have been removed as custom taxonomies on STBC
- Movie Related Products
- “Love and Monsters” Review
- “Red One” Review
- “Die Hard” Review
- Constantine | Official Trailer 4K Ultra HD | Warner Bros. Entertainment
- “A Nonsense Christmas with Sabrina Carpenter” Review
- “Galaxy Quest” Review
- ‘Subscribers Were Overwhelmed’: How Disney Made Streaming Profitable
- Silo ordered for full four season run
- “The Muppet Christmas Carol” Review
- Alex Garland at the BFI – The VFX in Civil War | Framestore
- Music Video DB
This website brought to you by The Tiki Web Group Unless specifically mentioned, we have no clue where this content came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments and content are the sole possesion of the commenters and members of the community and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS.
Huh, who knew, reptiles turned into mammals.
sarcasm?
although i totally disagree with evolution on this scale (i believe that evolution is real as far as it pertains to things changing & adapting, but impotent when it comes to the origin of life), this art piece kicks ass.
props to the misguided fool.
I’ll regret starting this flamewar later on, but in the mean time. Natedog. How do you propose the origin of life started?
Cosmic Jumbojets?
Of course evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That’s called abiogenesis.
Its something to do with jesus and a goat I think, someone told me.
…and anyone that disagrees with the concept of evolution simply does not understand it. It’s plain fact.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Evolution IS what started life.
Jerkface. 😀
lols dicknose, I can agree that we were talking about different kinds of evolution. 😉
No, just 600 or so million years for multicellular life.
I see a lot of Rule #34 goin on there…
Everyone knows we’re the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel.
Christ…am I the only one who watches Southpark sober?
the Miller-Urey experiment is NOT evolution, idiot. plus also, it FAILS for several reasons:
the oxygen content of the early earth would have fuxored the formation of amino acids
dudes also had to include an amino acid ‘trap’ in their experiment to protect any created amino acids before the other chemicals in the setup suprise buttsexed them before they could join forces to become Voltron
also, the amino acids produced by this experiment are of a roughly equal ratio of right and left handed arrangement, which is actually toxic to life. However, amino acids in living organisms are 100% left handed.
anyone who is not a fucktard knows that the Miller Urey experiment as an interesting but largely unimportant experiment.
and louie pastuer proved empirically and scientifically that life only comes from life; also, someone please link to an article showing an example of cellular life BEING OBSERVED to arise from non-living matter. this is the scientific method in case anyone wasn’t aware.
and yes, Kaze. it was cosmic jumbojets that started it all
you know, the most complex object in all the known universe is the human brain
there is not enough time to make it from pond goo and lightning
and as far as life summoning itself out of non-living material, wouldn’t it be easier for a bike or skateboard or some other simple machine to create it self out of junk parts? why does life not arise out of our landfills and junkdrawers? there is plenty of biological material in landfills. and dont give me that shit about machines not being alive, because it must jump the exact same hurdle that the pond goo had to jump.
THIS PHYSICAL WORLD EXISTS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE CYBER WORLD EXISTS. AN INTELLIGENCE CREATED IT.
I want to play devils assvocate.
Just because no one has been able to recreate it doesn’t mean life can not arise from non living matter. There is more proof that its possible than there is that Jebus and The Talking Walnut made the first man and woman for shits and giggles and then fucked off for the rest of eternity.
Louie Pastuer didn’t prove life can only come from life. He only proved that he couldn’t prove otherwise. I could do that for you. I have Legos.
Per there not being enough time to make a brain from goo. There is one thing the universe has a never ending supply of and that is time. Maybe it took a while and maybe we’ll never be able to paint graffiti that illustrates it but its possible.
Per inorganic materials rising up into new creations. Well to elaborate on that they could. They could rot and decompose over many many years and billions of years later those cells might do something pretty cool.
No intelligence created life. If it did…it would have taken a lot of effort and I dunno…maybe it would have stuck around to say hi? Sorry but you came from nothing and eventually that’s where you end up.
Flare war. Fun.
“the oxygen content of the early earth would have fuxored the formation of amino acids”
Oxygen is NOT a stable molecule, it reacts really quickly with just about everything, including minerals in the ground. Earth’s atmosphere did not have significant amounts of oxygen until organisms started to photosynthesize. In fact, finding significant amounts of molecular oxygen in an atmosphere is one of the way that researchers are looking for other planets that have life.
Right handed amino acid’s are only toxic because of the complexity of current metabolisms. Wouldn’t be a problem for early organisms with simpler metabolisms. Although, hypothetically, early life could have been two separate non-interacting ecosystems, one made of righthanded and the other left, and for some reason lefthanded became dominant.
“someone please link to an article showing an example of cellular life BEING OBSERVED ”
No one has observed an electron, but by inference, we assume they exist. That’s how science works. The simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is assumed to be true until a better explanation is found or evidence if found to contradict the explanation.
“there is not enough time to make it from pond goo and lightning”
Unless you have a better explanation, that’s what we have to assume happened. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.
“why does life not arise out of our landfills and junkdrawers? ”
Because current life is already competing for limited resources at faster rate than potential life could develop.
“THIS PHYSICAL WORLD EXISTS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE CYBER WORLD EXISTS. AN INTELLIGENCE CREATED IT.”
Until you can come up with an EXPERIMENT to tests this, it is not a scientific hypothesis. Also explain to me where this intelligence came from.
And I’ll save you some time by pointing out the fundamental logical fallacy of intelligent design.
You’re saying that life is really, really complicated so the only way it could exist is if something intelligent created it. ok. But something intelligent, must necessarily be complicated. So such an intelligence, must, by your own logic by another intelligence.
So either there is an infinite chain of intelligent creators (which is mathematically possible, but weird) or the is a mechanism by which complexity can arise from simple components, e.g. evolution.
@The Matrix: Rebooted
fuck you for having a better answer than me.
SCIENCE!!!
Scientists > you
@magnus #14:
it’s called the Law of Biogenesis
also, the NT, whether you agree with it or not, was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
Josephus wrote about Jesus in The Antiquities and Testimonium Flavianum; Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also wrote about Jesus. Also, the NT itself contains several biographies of Jesus.
also, the circumstantial evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is abundant. examples:
1. many of the disciples died saying that they had seen jesus alive after he died. Lots of religious fanatics die for their beleifs, but the difference here is that the disciples KNEW for a fact whether or not they had seen him rise. people can die for something false that they think is true, but who gives up their life for something they know is false?
2. The emergence of the early christian church. Within just weeks following the crucifixion, tens of thousands of jews gave up many social institutions that had been practiced the same way for centuries and held their society together. things like Animal sacrifice, the Law given through Moses, the Sabbath (a 1500 year old tradition that was part of daily life), MONOTHEISM, and the image of their messiah as a mighty military conqueror. The fact is that SOMETHING caused tens of thousands of people to drastically change their religious and societal structure. this cannot be disputed.
so if not the resurrection, than what caused the shift? WHAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO GIVE UP BELIEFS THAT YOU TREASURE AND STAKE YOUR SOUL ON?
keep in mind that this is an entire community of people who abandoned treasured beleifs that were passed on for centuries that they beleived were given to them by God himself.
when a major cultural shift takes place, there is ALWAYS an event that can explain it. SUCH AS THE EMERGENCE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
also, magnus, the universe does NOT have “a never ending supply” of time. ever heard of the Big Bang? the heat death of the universe? those are called a beginning and end.
also, do you even know the role of organic life in rotting and decomposition? Billions of years go by while inorganic material rots, and then suddenly you have ‘cells might do something pretty cool’?
WUT
@The Matrix: Rebooted#15
an electron is quite smaller and less complex than a cell, and NOT the same thing. also, CELLS CAN BE OBSERVED EASILY. and my quote was not “someone please link to an article showing an example of cellular life BEING OBSERVED”. you left out the last half of the sentence. someone please link to an article showing an example of cellular life BEING OBSERVED to arise from non-living matter.
also, please tell me how you came to show that creation is “impossible”; in that same sentence you said “whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.” sounds like dogma to me.
also, please tell me what current life is competing for resources in my junk drawer?
and do you really want me to come up with an experiment to prove that an intelligence created the cyber-world?
@The Matrix: Rebooted#16
i never said things don’t evolve. life clearly adapts and changes. my problem is how life, and also the universe, started. Evolution has no place in the beginning of all things.
however, because of the physical/spiritual duality of the cosmos, the physical world can come out of the non-physical world with no paradox. even moreso, the physical world NEEDS the spiritual realm in order to have popped into existence in the first place. just ask schrodinger’s cat.
you see, if something created the universe, then it existed when there was no time or space.
whatever created all this CANNOT have a beginning or an end, because those are physical terms. this creator exists outside of spacetime.
it is much the same way we interact with the internet and cyberspace. an intelligence created the internet with certain laws and boundaries, but that intelligence cannot physically enter that world.
“The fact is that SOMETHING caused tens of thousands of people to drastically change their religious and societal structure. this cannot be disputed.”
Judging the “truth” of a religion based on the devotion of the followers is dubious. Tens of thousands of Mormons gave up everything they had to follow Joseph Smith. Scientologists are pretty devote, too.
“in that same sentence you said “whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.†sounds like dogma to me.”
That’s not dogma, its logic. Give it a try sometime.
“also, please tell me what current life is competing for resources in my junk drawer?”
This just proves you’re being dense. Literally billions of microscopic organisms live on every imaginable surface on Earth, from the frozen lakes of Antarctica to the hot springs in Yellowstone. Its really, really hard to find a place on Earth that isn’t covered in life.
“and do you really want me to come up with an experiment to prove that an intelligence created the cyber-world?”
The cyber-world is part of the physical world, you know that right? The electrons that made up the internet operated under the same rules as the electrons that make up life. So using that as an analogy for some magic world that doesn’t follow the same rules is useless. The cyber-world isn’t an more real than the “worlds” that exist in novels or movies.
“whatever created all this CANNOT have a beginning or an end, because those are physical terms. this creator exists outside of spacetime.”
^This sentence has no meaning. Its just Star Trek gibberish. You might as well say that God is made of polarized tachyons beams in a warp field. There is a word for something outside space and time and that word is “imaginary”.
If the physical world came from the “spiritual” world, then where did the spiritual world come from? See, you’ve actually made the problem more complicated by involving your imaginary world. You say its outside time, but how do you know that? Have you been there? Have done any experiments to support this theory? No. You’re making bullshit up.
“the physical world NEEDS the spiritual realm in order to have popped into existence in the first place. just ask schrodinger’s cat.”
You really have no clue about quantum mechanics. Stopping talking about it, before somebody thinks you’re an idiot.
There are 2 arguments put forward for Intelligent Design. !st: The Universe is too complicated for it to have developed from chaos w/out purpose. 2nd: The perfection of the complexity of life. The universe isn’t complicated so much as it expansive. It it is so difficult for us to see it (literally and figuratively). We want to understand it, yet we don’t (not completely, not yet). The perfection of the complexity of life is a straw man argument. There’s no such thing. Man is not perfect (biologically, mentally, physically, spiritually or anyway-ly). Scratch the surface of anything that appears perfect and you find everything but perfection. We get sick, we die…sometimes slowly and painfully. The usual Intelligent Design example given is something like “What are the odds that all the parts of a watch could be dropped and form into a working watch?” Again another straw man argument. We’re not a watch and we don’t function nearly as well. Perfection is poetic, not a real philosophical or scientific term. Intelligent design doesn’t even belong in the sciences it’s a philosophical argument, not a scientific one; and a rather silly one at that. As to the odds that something like us could have its beginnings in some amorphous goo may not be good, but apparently it was just enough to happen…because it did. The chances of winning a lottery are pretty bad too, yet it happens on nearly a weekly basis. Complexity theory allows for a lot of stuff to go wrong and have things still happen. It shows that nothing can happen for a very long time and then WHAM! stuff starts going crazy and then…here we are. The self-organizing principle while not proven has been observed over and over. Part of the reason we get so much complexity is that there is no purpose. Purpose is singular and generally not complex. Evolution tends to be short term answers to long term problems. It’s just enough to fix a problem and rarely more than that. Even those that believe (whatever that means) in evolution tend to think of it as a directed force; it’s not…it just is. There is no purpose to evolution any more than there is to existence.
I hope I got this mess typed right because I’m not going over it to check it. 😉
reboot: no, no, no, and no.
i am not judging the truth of a religion. i am simply stating that any drastic cultural shift has an explanation behind it. other than the resurrection, what accounts for the drastic shift in the jewish world just months after the crucifixion?
and the difference between mormons/scientologists and these first christians (especially the disciples) is that the disciples were in the UNIQUE position of KNOWING whether or not they truly saw Jesus rise again.
this does not apply to mormons, scientologists, muslims, or whatever. my point is that the early christians either saw Jesus alive or they died for something the knew was a lie. people will become martyrs for things they believe to be true but no one dies for something they know to be false.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Unless you have a better explanation, that’s what we have to assume happened. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.”
in this statement, you say the existence of a creator is impossible~even though you CANNOT prove it; at the very least it is ‘improbable’~ you ignorantly eliminate it as an option based on your religion. what is logical about that?
in b4 atheism is not a religion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
my example of the cyber-world is just an illustration, and it is valid. of course it is part of the physical world. but you cannot physically enter it, can you? can you put your arm in there and fiddle with it? nope. it is a world you can only enter in your mind through some kind of interface.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
there are things in this world that are outside of spacetime. what about thoughts? what about emotions? altruism? there are things that are real that are not made of atoms
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the shrodinger’s cat comment refers to the fact that observation is an integral part of existence, which also points to there being a creator.
and my point about the physical/spiritual sides of the universe comes mainly from the fact that the universe had a beginning. the big bang, the doppler effect and the redshifting of the light coming in from all the stars, the curvature of spacetime all point to the fact that there was a beginning. the universe popped out of fluctuations in the vacuum or whatever.
clearly, before there was everything, there was nothing. couldn’t this ‘nothing’ be spiritual (for lack of a better word for non-physical) in nature? can the dark energy in the cosmos be non-physical/supernatural/spiritual?
the whole universe came into being out of this nothing that has a non-physical substance. if god is real, and if the physical world came out of this spiritual ‘nothing’, then there is no paradox, because time doesnt apply; space doesn’t apply. it can’t by definition
“people will become martyrs for things they believe to be true but no one dies for something they know to be false.”
So Jim Jones was a true prophet?
“there are things in this world that are outside of spacetime. what about thoughts? what about emotions? altruism? there are things that are real that are not made of atoms”
Of course they’re made out of atoms. Is your brain made out of atoms?
Here’s an easy lesson in scientific method.
Theory: thoughts and emotions are not made out of atoms.
Hypothesis: If thoughts and emotions are not made out of atoms, then they should not be affected by substances made out of atoms.
Experiment: drink alcohol.
Result: thoughts and emotions are affected by alcohol.
Conclusion: Thoughts and emotions are made out of atoms.
Do you realize how super-crazy the rest of you comment is? You seem to have serious problems with thinking that imagination is real. Or that dark energy is spiritual. Or that getting rid of time would resolve paradoxes. WTF? Its the kind of redardo-insane I hear from the homeless guy on the bus.
no, reboot. you seem to have a serious problem with thinking that not everything in the universe is based in matter
emotions, meaning, philosophical truth, and consciousness are not the domain of empirical science
great minds of the quantum age all knew that there is more to the world than atoms . people like james jeans and schrodinger, and nils bohr. and who would know more about atoms than bohr?
heisenberg, schrodinger, einstein, de broglie, jeans, planck, pauli and eddington all began to express an interest in mysticism once they discovered the secrets inside the atom. jeans wrote about how atoms and matter were based in thought rather than the other way around.
physics deals with shadows, not reality
Quotes from some of them:
Eddington:
“In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper….The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.”
Scroedinger:
“Please note that the very recent advance [of quantum and relativistic physics] does not lie in the world of physics itself having acquired this shadowy character; it has ever since Democritus of Abdera and even before, but we were not aware of it; we thought we were dealing with the world itself.”
Sir James Jeans:
“The essential fact is simply that all the pictures which science now draws of nature, and which alone seems capable of according with observational fact, are mathematical pictures….They are nothing more than pictures – fictions if you like, if by fiction you mean that science is not yet in contact with ultimate reality. Many would hold that, from the broad philosophical standpoint, the outstanding achievements of the twentieth-century physics is not the theory of relativity with its welding together of space and time, or the theory of quanta with its present apparent negation of the laws of causation, or the dissection of the atom with the resultant discovery that things are not what they seem; it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality. We are still imprisoned in our cave, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall.”
so you see, reboot, your conclusion in the above thought experiment showing that thoughts and emotions are made out of atoms is not quite right~you can’t take an idea’s temperature, measure how long it is or how fast it is, etc…
but the thing is, since matter can effect emotion and thought~and vice versa~they must share some base commonality. and some of the world’s greatest (some would say retardo-insane) minds think that the universe is one that is ultimately based in thought rather than subatomic particles.
the dancing wu-li masters FTW
ya I wasn’t checking this cause it seemed done but I guess not
natedog you’re dangerously close to requiring medication. Listing off factoids from biased religious texts is not a good way to back a religious stance.
10’s of thousands of people changed their ways…according to the bullshit you’re accepting as fact. I don’t think Rod and Todd Flanders know as much about who wrote what unto whom as you do. And that’s a very bad thing.
You also said the universe doesn’t have a never ending supply of time and asked me to reference a theory. Theories are not facts and that seems to be the basis of all your logic as is with religion with gets trumped by science which shows repeatedly provable facts.
This is interesting and all. I’m just not down with the God cuckoorey. That’s why I referenced the talking walnut. There are 4 times as many people in Indian who think shit like monkeys created the universe and to put it in perspective I lump creationists in there with them.
lump away, fucko
that is what ignorant people do out of fear
they lump people into groups
call them all crazy
medicate all the crazies who think differently than me
what science are you referring to?
what what are these repeatedly provable facts you speak of?
And now you’re committing another logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
It doesn’t matter what the greatest minds think, even the smartest scientist in the world still has to prove his or her hypothesis through experiment.
That’s what you don’t get about science, a good idea is not enough, it has to get results.
The fact that Einstein et al started heading into some mystical realm proves nothing; other than, perhaps, they were as likely as anyone to head for the mystical hills once they couldn’t go further w/ their philosophy/science. It happens all the time. Newton did so on a regular basis. The smartest people in the world tend to think they’re the smartest people in the world and that there could not be human knowledge beyond theirs and thus posit some mystical/religious nonsense. Einstein said that he refused to believe that God would play dice w/ the Universe. There is no God and no dice and the only one’s playing are us. Most people prefer to follow Kant rather than Hobbes. It makes belief possible and life easier. None of which makes it right.