#51 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio
#52 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn:

I don't joke about this stuff

That's a sin

The b

The pastor aint tell me nothin bout no gravity

#53 Posted by Silavite (55 posts) - - Show Bio

Still wondering why the corona of the sun is hotter than the surface.....

#54 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Jesus is the only science I need. If you beeleve in that evolution you r going to hell. I tell you it's true.

I aint come from no MONKEY

#55 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: The Lava poured on ice was a cool video!

Hollow moon theory is that the moon is hollow, some also believe in the Spaceship Moon Theory which is even more crazy but a cool theory. Hallow Earth Theory is that the Earth is hollow and that their is an inner sun, they made movie about it. (journey to the center of the Earth)

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a theory that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The theory was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?".[1]

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.[1]

Their theory relies heavily on the suggestion that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from meteor impact, are generally too shallow and have flat or even convex bottoms. Small craters have a depth proportional to their diameter but larger craters are not deeper. It is theorized that small meteors are making a cup-shaped depression in the rocky surface of the moon while the larger meteors are drilling through a five mile thick rocky layer and hitting a high-tensile "hull" underneath.[2]

#56 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn:

Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size. All events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause. This uncaused cause is supernatural. By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. This means that God is uncaused. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

#57 Edited by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

@silavite said:

Still wondering why the corona of the sun is hotter than the surface.....

Hollow Earth Theory perhaps?

#58 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

Has anyone heard of the Aquatic Ape theory? Thoughts?

The Theory

The most common theory for human evolution is that we are descended from apes. Some of these apes moved out of the forests in which they lived and onto the grasslands. The human features are supposed to be adaptations to a savannah environment.

In that case we have to consider other savannah mammals. Most walk on four legs and are covered in hair, but you don't see any of these adaptations in humans.

However, the Aquatic Ape Theory suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already differant from apes. It suggests that hairlessness, bipedalism, and other characteristics evolved some time earlier, when the human and ape lines first diverged.

Most of the features of human physiology are rare or unique among land mammals, but are common among aquatic ones. Perhaps some of our earliest ancestors lived in a semi-aquatic habitat for a prolonged period of time.

There is geological evidence to support this hypothesis, and nothing in the fossil record that is inconsistant with it.

#59 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

Hollow moon theory is that the moon is hollow, some also believe in the Spaceship Moon Theory which is even more crazy but a cool theory. Hallow Earth Theory is that the Earth is hollow and that their is an inner sun, they made movie about it. (journey to the center of the Earth)

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a theory that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The theory was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?".[1]

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.[1]

Their theory relies heavily on the suggestion that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from meteor impact, are generally too shallow and have flat or even convex bottoms. Small craters have a depth proportional to their diameter but larger craters are not deeper. It is theorized that small meteors are making a cup-shaped depression in the rocky surface of the moon while the larger meteors are drilling through a five mile thick rocky layer and hitting a high-tensile "hull" underneath.[2]

Well, that's certainly... creative. But yeah, there's no chance this is even remotely true... either of these wacky ideas.

#60 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone ever question the validity of the moon landing since its only been on national television once and all that jazz

#61 Posted by Dernman (14763 posts) - - Show Bio

Why would you ever want to do it again? It's a waste of money if you ask me.

#62 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Yeah it's crazy, but I like the creativity of it. I'd differently would want it to be possible, traveling to the center of the Earth would be the coolest thing ever. What do you think about the Aquatic Ape Theory?

#63 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft:

I love the aquatic ape theory. When you think about it, a lot of it does make sense. The hairlessness, insulated fat, etc. Did you watch that documentary on animal planet ?

#64 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: Yeah I saw the documentary, that's were I learned it from. Cool stuff that makes a lot of sense.

#65 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

Has anyone heard of the Aquatic Ape theory? Thoughts?

Not my area, but sounds like an interesting hypothesis. It makes sense that something drove some of those adaptations.

Anyone ever question the validity of the moon landing since its only been on national television once and all that jazz

The Moon Landing Hoax Theory makes for interesting speculation, and plays well to the anti-government conspiracy theory crowd. There's even a whole "theory" that the government got Stanley Kubrick to do the fake landing. Then when Kubrick filmed The Shining he put in all kinds of clues that he'd done it. There's a whole movie on YouTube explaining what all the clues in The Shining are.

But we did definitely land on the Moon. The conspiracy theory stuff is all just fantasy.

#66 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

Anyone ever question the validity of the moon landing since its only been on national television once and all that jazz

BTW if you're wondering about proof that we actually did land on the Moon...

1. When the astronauts took off from the Moon, they left behind a mirror experiment. It was a mirror made up of something called "corner reflectors". It's a type of reflecting device that reflects back light towards whatever direction the light came from. This device is used even today. We shine a laser at the Moon and the light goes up there and then comes back. This allows people to measure things like the distance to the Moon.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/

2. Not long ago we took photos of the landing site from lunar orbit. The photos show the remaining lander and other gear, and even the tracks of the rover.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

#67 Edited by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio

Life On Mars is probably my favorite theory.

What draws us to Mars? Although it is much smaller than Earth, Mars is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system, bearing many similar geological features, including polar ice caps and what appear to be ancient (but now dry) river beds. In fact, many planetary scientists suspect that in the distant past Mars was even more Earth-like, with raging river systems and vast oceans. And this theory is strengthened by the recent discovery of evidence that there are vast amounts of water ice lying just beneath the surface of Mars. And where there's water, many researchers conclude, there may be life. (link)

I think this documentary "Mystery of the Sphinx" talks about life on Mars, and the connection to Egypt and Mars.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Mystery_of_the_Sphinx/70023310?trkid=13004525

Charlton Heston hosts this intriguing documentary that explores the possibility that Egypt's Great Sphinx, one of the world's most recognized monolith statues, is thousands of years older than originally believed.

More startlingly, there is the recent discovery/confirmation made by Richard Hoagland, that the 'Face on Mars' has a Sphinx-like dual nature - one side representing the head of a lion, and the other side representing a hominid head.

Spirit Science also talks about it on youtube, but I can't find the video.

#68 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

Check this out:

#69 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio
#70 Posted by laflux (14258 posts) - - Show Bio


While I do like watching arguments...can you guys promise to not make responses anymore than 4 paragraphs >.>

The argument will just end when it reaches it's climax with a "have a nice day" or a more aggressive "grow up" or something along those lines.......

either way, I just have to say:

@laflux got any popcorn?

Fine, keep disagreeing with me if you like. I'm only trying to help you. If you think that reading an AP Bio textbook makes you some authority on science, then I cant really do much for you.

The Man is a PROPHET!!!!!

You know your always welcome to rejoin my crew if you feel

And why I do. If this thread goes AWOL, you'll need it for the spectacular way I'll derail it..........

#71 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32848 posts) - - Show Bio

#72 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32848 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

Has anyone heard of the Aquatic Ape theory? Thoughts?

The Theory

The most common theory for human evolution is that we are descended from apes. Some of these apes moved out of the forests in which they lived and onto the grasslands. The human features are supposed to be adaptations to a savannah environment.

In that case we have to consider other savannah mammals. Most walk on four legs and are covered in hair, but you don't see any of these adaptations in humans.

However, the Aquatic Ape Theory suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already differant from apes. It suggests that hairlessness, bipedalism, and other characteristics evolved some time earlier, when the human and ape lines first diverged.

Most of the features of human physiology are rare or unique among land mammals, but are common among aquatic ones. Perhaps some of our earliest ancestors lived in a semi-aquatic habitat for a prolonged period of time.

There is geological evidence to support this hypothesis, and nothing in the fossil record that is inconsistant with it.

Did you just read the Wake?

#73 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn said:

Jesus is the only science I need. If you beeleve in that evolution you r going to hell. I tell you it's true.

I aint come from no MONKEY

;) Some poor bastard replied to me with a serious wall of text.

#74 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio
#75 Posted by umbrafeline (5300 posts) - - Show Bio
#76 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17602 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone ever question the validity of the moon landing since its only been on national television once and all that jazz

Its a proven fact that the moon landing happened. The conspiracy theory has been proven wrong over and over.

#77 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio
#78 Edited by consolemaster001 (4976 posts) - - Show Bio

FOR SCIENCE !!

#79 Posted by cameron83 (6676 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux said:

@cameron83 said:

While I do like watching arguments...can you guys promise to not make responses anymore than 4 paragraphs >.>

The argument will just end when it reaches it's climax with a "have a nice day" or a more aggressive "grow up" or something along those lines.......

either way, I just have to say:

@laflux got any popcorn?

@willpayton said:

Fine, keep disagreeing with me if you like. I'm only trying to help you. If you think that reading an AP Bio textbook makes you some authority on science, then I cant really do much for you.

The Man is a PROPHET!!!!!

You know your always welcome to rejoin my crew if you feel

And why I do. If this thread goes AWOL, you'll need it for the spectacular way I'll derail it..........

Invitation accepted!

#80 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

Ground Control to Major Tom

Commencing countdown, engines on!

#81 Posted by ccraft (5072 posts) - - Show Bio
#82 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

What would it be like if you were approaching a Black Hole? This video tells you.

I'll try to post more of these later. If you guys have questions about the physics of the stuff discussed in these videos, post them and I'll give you an answer if I can.

Enjoy.

#83 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

#84 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123: Yeah comics physics is nothing like real physics, at least when it comes to the Speed Force. It allows Flash to ignore the rules of Special Relativity.

#85 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123: Yeah comics physics is nothing like real physics, at least when it comes to the Speed Force. It allows Flash to ignore the rules of Special Relativity.

That's why comics are great.

#86 Posted by turoksonofstone (13199 posts) - - Show Bio

#87 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

Want to know more about Quantum physics?

#88 Posted by novi_homines (1336 posts) - - Show Bio

Whoever made this thread, THANK YOU! You are awesome. I've literally sat here watching nearly every video and reading through the discussions on religion/ BBT/ Evolution, as well as the Aquatic Ape theory (so interesting), and the hollow earth, and spaceship moon theories (-_-) as well. This thread is VERY entertaining. Let's keep this going! =D

#89 Edited by novi_homines (1336 posts) - - Show Bio

@king_saturn:

DEFINITELY agree. These two videos ALWAYS get to me.

#90 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

Whoever made this thread, THANK YOU! You are awesome. I've literally sat here watching nearly every video and reading through the discussions on religion/ BBT/ Evolution, as well as the Aquatic Ape theory (so interesting), and the hollow earth, and spaceship moon theories (-_-) as well. This thread is VERY entertaining. Let's keep this going! =D

You're welcome! =)

#91 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution.

How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread.

Agreed,not the time/place...however,I am not sure how it would exactly contradict it,at the same time,I am not exactly sure how it would fit in....

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

They are only incompatible if you interpret it all literally.

#92 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@willpayton said:

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

They are only incompatible if you interpret it all literally.

True, but I can only go by what the text actually says, not by what people think it says. I dont know what they think or assume, or which parts they decided to believe literally, figuratively, allegorically, or otherwise. If the text says "6 days" then I read "6 days". I'm pretty sure that if the text actually comes from an all-powerful entity, then if he/she/it wanted to say something other than "6 days"... he/she/it could have done so.

#93 Posted by novi_homines (1336 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone have any strong opinions on string theory? Either for or against?

#94 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone have any strong opinions on string theory? Either for or against?

String Theory is a very elegant and powerful theory. It really does a great job of explaining and bringing together a lot of different phenomenon that other theories have trouble with.

It's just too early to say whether it will last or be replaced by something else. String theorists are still trying to find new predictions that String Theory makes that they can test.

#95 Posted by novi_homines (1336 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines said:

Anyone have any strong opinions on string theory? Either for or against?

String Theory is a very elegant and powerful theory. It really does a great job of explaining and bringing together a lot of different phenomenon that other theories have trouble with.

It's just too early to say whether it will last or be replaced by something else. String theorists are still trying to find new predictions that String Theory makes that they can test.

One of the biggest issues I have with it. Can it really be accurately tested?

#96 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@willpayton said:

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

They are only incompatible if you interpret it all literally.

True, but I can only go by what the text actually says, not by what people think it says. I dont know what they think or assume, or which parts they decided to believe literally, figuratively, allegorically, or otherwise. If the text says "6 days" then I read "6 days". I'm pretty sure that if the text actually comes from an all-powerful entity, then if he/she/it wanted to say something other than "6 days"... he/she/it could have done so.

If the text says "day", then you you may read "day". But, you may also consider that the word that was translated into day may not have only meant day as conceptually understood of today. You may also consider that whether the actual meaning was lost in translation or not, if its largely irrelevant(to the point of the story), an all-powerful entity could let the actual meaning be lost in translation.

....Also, the idea of only going by what a text literally says kind of eliminates the idea of similes, metaphors, and various literary tools.

#97 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@willpayton said:

@jezer said:

True, but I can only go by what the text actually says, not by what people think it says. I dont know what they think or assume, or which parts they decided to believe literally, figuratively, allegorically, or otherwise. If the text says "6 days" then I read "6 days". I'm pretty sure that if the text actually comes from an all-powerful entity, then if he/she/it wanted to say something other than "6 days"... he/she/it could have done so.

If the text says "day", then you you may read "day". But, you may also consider that the word that was translated into day may not have only meant day as conceptually understood of today. You may also consider that whether the actual meaning was lost in translation or not, if its largely irrelevant(to the point of the story),

I'm not saying you cant take those things into account, just that if the text clearly makes a statement about fact, then I see no reason why I would want to speculate about it not being what it claims to be. Assumptions and interpretations are hardly a basis for making absolutist claims. All it leads to are false conclusions and I'm not interested in wasting my time with that.

@jezer said:

....Also, the idea of only going by what a text literally says kind of eliminates the idea of similes, metaphors, and various literary tools.

It doesnt eliminate similes and metaphors at all. Similes and metaphors are not statements of fact.

#98 Posted by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

It's just too early to say whether it will last or be replaced by something else. String theorists are still trying to find new predictions that String Theory makes that they can test.

One of the biggest issues I have with it. Can it really be accurately tested?

As long as it makes some unique predictions that can be tested in this universe, yes. So far it predicts things pretty well. Ideally the theorists can come up with a prediction that it makes and no other theory does and which can be tested fairly soon.

#99 Posted by ssejllenrad (12847 posts) - - Show Bio

Check this out:

That's not science! That's religion! Obviously a miraculous Catholic Rosary! Nyehehehehehe! Kidding... Cool video!

#100 Edited by WillPayton (9181 posts) - - Show Bio