Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • SNL Skit
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
SNL Skit
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 28 2008, 09:10 PM (838 Views)
enemydeservesnomercy Oct 3 2008, 08:39 AM Post #76
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,464
Group:
Members
Member
#10
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Maker13
Oct 3 2008, 02:01 AM
enemydeservesnomercy
Oct 2 2008, 04:03 PM
...aaronk, with all due respect, it sounds like you have accepted that as your belief...and i honestly do respect your belief...but when you say that "everything has a creator" that is not proof...

...the fact of the matter is that science is constantly coming up with new information and answers to questions that we never would have dreamed of having 50 let alone 2000 years ago...but when it comes to religion we have not moved one inch from 2000 years ago...people believe the same stories now that they did then...

...with all due respect...
Honestly, this sounds like a bigger defense of creationism than evolution. If I were to throw my belief behind something, I would rather choose that which has withstood 2000 years of people trying to dismantle than that which changes every 50 years.
...i will gladly take blame and say that i didn't explain myself well enough in my post...you and i obviously have a misunderstanding...

...i'm simply saying that people with religious beliefs have believed the same stories for thousands of years...with no proof, other than that it is written in a book...there is NO PROOF that those stories are real...

...but with science...we are constantly PROVING theories true...we are constantly coming up with proven facts...

...i don't know about you but i like to believe in something that has PROVEN TO BE TRUE...i would rather not choose to believe something just because someone said it was true, with absolutely no PROVEN FACTS behind it...
"The possibilities of basketball as seen here were a revelation to me. Basketball may have been invented in Massachusetts, but it was made for Indiana."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Oct 3 2008, 09:31 AM Post #77
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Besides inventing "water-gas" power, what are some of the big scientific breakthroughs in the last 50 years? Maybe Brumdog and Aaron can provide an update on the miracle of HHO gas and how it will revolutionize energy production. :sarcasm:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Oct 3 2008, 09:52 AM Post #78
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Oct 3 2008, 09:31 AM
Besides inventing "water-gas" power, what are some of the big scientific breakthroughs in the last 50 years? Maybe Brumdog and Aaron can provide an update on the miracle of HHO gas and how it will revolutionize energy production. :sarcasm:
Hmm.
Recombinant DNA technology, (using bacteria to create insulin, etc.)
Oral Contraceptives
Fullerenes (buckyballs and buckytubes)
the discovery of Archea
RNA, RNA splicing
DNA polymorphism (DNA Fingerprinting)
Industrial Robots
Communications satellites
GPS
Internet Porn.



Hows that?

Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
enemydeservesnomercy Oct 3 2008, 10:03 AM Post #79
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,464
Group:
Members
Member
#10
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
 
Besides inventing "water-gas" power, what are some of the big scientific breakthroughs in the last 50 years?


:blink:
"The possibilities of basketball as seen here were a revelation to me. Basketball may have been invented in Massachusetts, but it was made for Indiana."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Oct 3 2008, 10:18 AM Post #80
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Oct 3 2008, 09:52 AM
HoosierLars
Oct 3 2008, 09:31 AM
Besides inventing "water-gas" power, what are some of the big scientific breakthroughs in the last 50 years? Maybe Brumdog and Aaron can provide an update on the miracle of HHO gas and how it will revolutionize energy production. :sarcasm:
Hmm.
Recombinant DNA technology, (using bacteria to create insulin, etc.)
Oral Contraceptives
Fullerenes (buckyballs and buckytubes)
the discovery of Archea
RNA, RNA splicing
DNA polymorphism (DNA Fingerprinting)
Industrial Robots
Communications satellites
GPS
Internet Porn.



Hows that?

Good list. I would argue achievements like robots and GPS are merely the logical progression of engineering made possible by advances in computer technology.

I wonder if the evolutionary crowd has a problem explaining incredibly complex modecules like DNA. The belief that these "evolved" naturally is more ridiculous than believing the bible is 100% factual.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Oct 3 2008, 11:05 AM Post #81
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
mongo
Oct 2 2008, 02:05 PM
Jesus these threads are just good entertainment, although I do wonder how every single thread on the political board ends in an abortion/religion argument...
Not the bailout (more like failout) plan ones. Those devolve into me sonning Lars and him resorting to feeble reasoning techniques. B)
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mongo Oct 3 2008, 01:18 PM Post #82
Coach
Posts:
11,597
Group:
Members
Member
#160
Joined:
February 12, 2008
LOL
Posted Image

"Son, if you really want something in this life you have to work hard for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maker13 Oct 3 2008, 02:35 PM Post #83
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,370
Group:
Admin
Member
#37
Joined:
February 5, 2008
enemydeservesnomercy
Oct 3 2008, 08:39 AM
Maker13
Oct 3 2008, 02:01 AM
enemydeservesnomercy
Oct 2 2008, 04:03 PM
...aaronk, with all due respect, it sounds like you have accepted that as your belief...and i honestly do respect your belief...but when you say that "everything has a creator" that is not proof...

...the fact of the matter is that science is constantly coming up with new information and answers to questions that we never would have dreamed of having 50 let alone 2000 years ago...but when it comes to religion we have not moved one inch from 2000 years ago...people believe the same stories now that they did then...

...with all due respect...
Honestly, this sounds like a bigger defense of creationism than evolution. If I were to throw my belief behind something, I would rather choose that which has withstood 2000 years of people trying to dismantle than that which changes every 50 years.
...i will gladly take blame and say that i didn't explain myself well enough in my post...you and i obviously have a misunderstanding...

...i'm simply saying that people with religious beliefs have believed the same stories for thousands of years...with no proof, other than that it is written in a book...there is NO PROOF that those stories are real...

...but with science...we are constantly PROVING theories true...we are constantly coming up with proven facts...

...i don't know about you but i like to believe in something that has PROVEN TO BE TRUE...i would rather not choose to believe something just because someone said it was true, with absolutely no PROVEN FACTS behind it...
Quick preface
I don't have a set opinion on the origins of everything. I've gone either way at different points in my life and right now I'm back on the middle of the fence.

I'm not trying to make the statement that I don't believe in science. Science does a lot to explain everything around us, and without a doubt has gotten a lot right and made huge strides to furthering our knowledge of everything around us. However, the only scientific facts that haven't changed and are taken to be definitive and final are those of basic physics and math. Algebra, calculus, gravity, momentum...Newton's Laws haven't changed, and won't. These are laws describing the world around us. Scientific models, on the other hand, change almost constantly. Everything from genetics to atomic structure to definition of matter (dark matter, etc.) and evolution all are always being amended, altered, or altogether redefined. Evolution has never been "PROVEN TO BE TRUE". In fact, the only "PROVEN FACTS" behind it seem to miss the vital steps that validate the theory. How did life start? How does one species change into another? There are no "PROVEN FACTS" to answer these questions as neither fossil records nor recorded observation have shown proof of a fish changing to a frog to a lizard to a human. And the whole idea of life spawning from nothing seems incredibly implausible to me. Regardless, science has given nothing that's a guaranteed answer to that question and is always revising what answers it does give as with every other model. There's nothing proven anywhere.

Either way you believe, there's got to be something infinite. It could be the matter of the universe that's infinite and at some point of its existence, matter condensed and exploded in a Big Bang. Or it could be an infinite God (gods, god, being, dude, whatever) that created matter and life at a specific point. Neither should be any more or less possible than the other since both require the fact of the infinite presence of something. I can't see a way to know the answer for sure. At best, I think the approach from the movie Dogma is best...to have a pretty good idea.

EDIT: fixed a couple typos. They annoy me.
Edited by Maker13, Oct 3 2008, 02:52 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Oct 3 2008, 03:26 PM Post #84
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,077
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
As for how did life start and is it possible for life to spawn from nothing, I believe that this in fact has already proven to be ture. If not true, at least extremely likely. I don't keep up with the Science Daily or anything so I'm not sure.

I believe this is what the primordial soup is. Scientists put a bunch or elements and molecules together that they think likely existed in early earth and amino acids and proteins started to form. Proteins of course are the basic building blocks of life (literally every living thing is made of proteins). I haven't kept up with whether they were able to get rudimentary life from these amino acids and proteins or not, but I believe if they haven't, they're close.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Oct 3 2008, 04:21 PM Post #85
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Oct 3 2008, 03:26 PM
As for how did life start and is it possible for life to spawn from nothing, I believe that this in fact has already proven to be ture. If not true, at least extremely likely. I don't keep up with the Science Daily or anything so I'm not sure.

I believe this is what the primordial soup is. Scientists put a bunch or elements and molecules together that they think likely existed in early earth and amino acids and proteins started to form. Proteins of course are the basic building blocks of life (literally every living thing is made of proteins). I haven't kept up with whether they were able to get rudimentary life from these amino acids and proteins or not, but I believe if they haven't, they're close.
Is "primordial soup" a technical term? Yeah, this soup managed to create DNA molecules as the result of trillions of random events. Seems believable to me. :sarcasm:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maker13 Oct 3 2008, 04:37 PM Post #86
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,370
Group:
Admin
Member
#37
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Oct 3 2008, 03:26 PM
As for how did life start and is it possible for life to spawn from nothing, I believe that this in fact has already proven to be ture. If not true, at least extremely likely. I don't keep up with the Science Daily or anything so I'm not sure.

I believe this is what the primordial soup is. Scientists put a bunch or elements and molecules together that they think likely existed in early earth and amino acids and proteins started to form. Proteins of course are the basic building blocks of life (literally every living thing is made of proteins). I haven't kept up with whether they were able to get rudimentary life from these amino acids and proteins or not, but I believe if they haven't, they're close.
I'm gonna go ahead and call you out on this one. I could have missed something somewhere if this discovery has been made, but I'm fairly sure that's not true. It's my birthday and I'm way more concerned about working on the keg that just showed up on my doorstep, but the wikipedia page has a lot of stuff in it. The theory is definitely there, but it is just that, a theory.

Quote:
 
As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.


Anyways, I'm cashing out of this one until I regain consciousness, which could be as late as Tuesday. I love college.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Oct 3 2008, 04:39 PM Post #87
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,077
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
For as complex as you seem to think DNA is, there are only 4 base pairs which make up the DNA of every single living organism. A-T, G-C. I personally think that is the beauty of life. As complex as everything seems, we're all just a bunch of proteins and a few molecules.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Oct 3 2008, 04:40 PM Post #88
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
HoosierLars
Oct 3 2008, 04:21 PM
dreachon
Oct 3 2008, 03:26 PM
As for how did life start and is it possible for life to spawn from nothing, I believe that this in fact has already proven to be ture. If not true, at least extremely likely. I don't keep up with the Science Daily or anything so I'm not sure.

I believe this is what the primordial soup is. Scientists put a bunch or elements and molecules together that they think likely existed in early earth and amino acids and proteins started to form. Proteins of course are the basic building blocks of life (literally every living thing is made of proteins). I haven't kept up with whether they were able to get rudimentary life from these amino acids and proteins or not, but I believe if they haven't, they're close.
Is "primordial soup" a technical term? Yeah, this soup managed to create DNA molecules as the result of trillions of random events. Seems believable to me. :sarcasm:
Makes more sense than a 'creator' doing it.

And on the second day, God was bored. So instead of just letting humans live with just the struggles of good and evil, he decided to spice things up a bit. And so DNA was created, but not just working DNA. No, that would be boring. God decided that some people wouldn't need all of their DNA molecules. Blessed are the freaks said God, and so he rejoiced with laughter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Oct 3 2008, 04:45 PM Post #89
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,077
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Maker13
Oct 3 2008, 04:37 PM
dreachon
Oct 3 2008, 03:26 PM
As for how did life start and is it possible for life to spawn from nothing, I believe that this in fact has already proven to be ture. If not true, at least extremely likely. I don't keep up with the Science Daily or anything so I'm not sure.

I believe this is what the primordial soup is. Scientists put a bunch or elements and molecules together that they think likely existed in early earth and amino acids and proteins started to form. Proteins of course are the basic building blocks of life (literally every living thing is made of proteins). I haven't kept up with whether they were able to get rudimentary life from these amino acids and proteins or not, but I believe if they haven't, they're close.
I'm gonna go ahead and call you out on this one. I could have missed something somewhere if this discovery has been made, but I'm fairly sure that's not true. It's my birthday and I'm way more concerned about working on the keg that just showed up on my doorstep, but the wikipedia page has a lot of stuff in it. The theory is definitely there, but it is just that, a theory.

Quote:
 
As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.


Anyways, I'm cashing out of this one until I regain consciousness, which could be as late as Tuesday. I love college.


Ok, so no life yet, but the amino acids are there. I think in time they'll be able to carry this experiment out to fruition.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
Edited by dreachon, Oct 3 2008, 04:46 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maker13 Oct 4 2008, 03:37 PM Post #90
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,370
Group:
Admin
Member
#37
Joined:
February 5, 2008
The amino acids are still not proteins. And even if they can manage that, the existence of proteins doesn't mean cells are going to form. Or start working. If I take all the pieces of a camera and put them in a box and shake it, I'm not going to open the box and find a working camera. Even if I do it 100 million times. The math on evolution is nuts. I don't have any of it in front of me, but I did a few papers on it in high school. The probability that everything works out like the theory says is absolutely astronomical.

As for HoosierFaithful, every system degenerates. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Things atrophy, human genetics is no different. What could have started as perfect has gain flaws through the random mutations that happen during impregnation and cell reproduction.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 2:35 PM Jul 11
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy