Creationists take heed

[CyberGnu]

St. Leo, I think the thicker skin (or, more accurately, a thick layer of blubber under the skin) was developed as a reaction to colder temperatures during Ice Ages. Both the Mammoth and the Sable Tooth Tiger died after the last Ice age disappeared.

[CyberGnu]

BTW, love your signature

[raghar]

It was Douglas Addams, isn't it.

So you basicaly want to say something like this.
There are M1A2.
Then Russian build towerless 152 mm T-95.
Then US develop reactive armer for M1A2.
Then US opponents would mount gun on cars 1000 guns for price of 1 M1A2.

There were reasons for that.

BTW Temperature and sea levels on earth are cycling too. So no problem wiht that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
We don't know if the universe is a closed system. Even if it is, a system the size of earth might as well be approaching the equivalent of the quantum level we are talking about, enough to make the Second Law aruemnt trully useless.

Three points - one, the Universe is BY DEFINITION a closed system, because the Universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Thus there can be nothing outside the Universe, for it would not exist. Two, evolution can occur even in a closed system, because the entropy in another part of the system can increase correspondingly. Three, evolution does NOT imply a decrease in entropy. In fact, evolution may INCREASE entropy.

[St Leo]

Both the Mammoth and the Sable Tooth Tiger died after the last Ice age disappeared.

Who said I was only talking about those two? BTW, we wiped out the Mammoths ourselves, so they wouldn't be a classic example of the cycle.

[St Leo]

There were reasons for that.

BTW Temperature and sea levels on earth are cycling too. So no problem wiht that.

If a Deity is behaving in a way that for all intents and purposes suggests that there is no Deity, then that Deity might as well be assumed to not exist.

[Elok]

I would argue with you guys, but my mom always warned me not to talk to strangers who say "creationistical." That word has too many modifying suffixes, dammit. A truly evolutionary lexicon would eliminate such an unwieldy construction over time. Therefore evolution does not exist. You should think this would all be obvious.

...No, I'm not sure which side I'm making fun of either...

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by MRT144
loinburger, the persuasion stick is not something to be joked about...

Of all the things to get upset about in this thread, you picked that one?

[loinburger]

I thought that was odd as well. I mean, there are many persuasion sticks -- I thought that I'd done a good job of picking one of the least controversial ones.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Persuasion is only effective on people who have an open mind and willing to forget pre-conceived notions. Once you accept you can't persuade creationists all that is left is to have fun insulting and ridiculing them.

While I would have liked to take issue with this sort of mind set, sadly it is true. Creationists cannot be convinced by any use of logic or facts. "Creationists take heed" was obviously spoken in jest since of course they will not take any heeds.

[Cruddy]

Creationists NEVER take note. They've had the notes for 1000s of years and they're not about to ditch them for a new set.

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker


Three points - one, the Universe is BY DEFINITION a closed system, because the Universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Thus there can be nothing outside the Universe, for it would not exist.

By which definiton is the Universe all point, everything? I have never heard this. As for there being nothing outside of it: well, that just brings out the problem of what the universe is expanding in. If you could tarvel in such a way as to meet up with the primordial particles of light that have been travelling since the Big Bang (or to put it another way, the edge of the universe), what is there, ahead? Nothing, nothingness, pure and simple? Well, as you ask, how could nothingness exist? But then that also brings up the tricky problem of origins..I mean, can everything just pop out of nothingness?

This si why the start of the universe holds little interest for me..too many phylosophical questions with no answers.

[BustaMike]

Good point. I would agree that the Universe by definition is not a closed system because it has no known bounds. How can something infinite be closed?

[Cruddy]

A circle has an infinite number of points on it's circumferene, yet that is closed.

Suggest you try reading "Fractals Everywhere" by Miichael Barnsley. It won't tell you what shape the universe is, but you'll have a few ideas for modelling it.

Universe = set of all things in relation to one another.

Multiverse = set of all things in all possible states.

[BustaMike]

A circle has an infinite number of points on it's circumferene, yet that is closed.

Not quite accurate as it pertains to this topic. As I said before, when systems start to get to very small levels, they fail to be smooth and start to get quantifiable. If a circle reference is to be relevant, it must adhere to this same principle... therefor, it does not have an infinite number of points to it.

And regardless of that, a circle has set boundaries. The universe doesn't. Your example is well... cruddy.