logo Sign In

MeBeJedi

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
10-Feb-2025
Posts
4,879

Post History

Post
#101209
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Time
"As for evolution vs intelligent design...it's harder to believe in evolution, since there are so many gaps in the logic or just plain leaps in logic to really understand anything. Besides, doesn't the laws of thermodynamics already prove it wrong? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, matter goes from a state of union to disunion (can't remember the correct terms, but u get it)?"

What I don't get is why people can't reconcile these two seemingly disparate terms. There is a great deal of evidence of life adapting to changes in the environment. Humans in different areas of the world, such as artic vs. equitorial, have important and subtle differences in physiology to help them survive. Think of what happened to the variety of life in Africa when the Sahara slowly became a desert (it used to be covered with water.)

Let's not forget plate techtonics (as the recent floods reminded us are still very much in play.) Plant and fossil records show that where the plates used to meet (i.e. Pangea), modern-day organisms from those same areas share remarkable similiarities, despite now being millions of miles apart. Of course, Austriala is almost an island unto itself in this regard ( ), having been separated from the other continents for a greater period of time, and having a wider range of animals with very unique characteristics (i.e. marsupials.)

What people seem to miss is, regardless of whatever the "intelligent design" might have been, it is always affected by outside forces - i.e. nature. Of course, seeing as how I think the design is to adapt, survive and propogate, I have no problems with how life has changed to suit its needs. Someone who thinks there is a "higher purpose" to life might have a little more difficulty reconciling these ideas.

As to your other points, here's some fun reading:

order versus complexity. I loved the distinction made here. Excellent stuff.

types of entropy.
Post
#101166
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Time
"The existence of dinosaurs does not prove anything about the validity of evolutionary bio as a first cause."

As a first cause, no, but as an indication of evolution over long periods of time, yes.

And again, I have no problem with the "intelligent design" scenario. The fact that all living things, regardless of their actual physiology, have DNA kinda makes this a no-brainer. I just think the design, itself, is very intelligent and ultimately will be decipherble, just as we are still attempting to understanding the process of other natural phenomena, such as hurricanes and earthquakes.

There is a system (otherwise, we wouldn't have repeatable phenomena, such as seasons) - I just don't believe there's a sole superbeing or intelligence overlooking it.
Post
#101142
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Time
"I just have one question: why on earth would you want to believe that you were made by accident?"

You presume the belief makes a difference with the reality. Also, why should a theory's validity be determined by one's like or dislike for it?

"In my experience, the world works by cause and effect. Things don't just happen for no reason."

There are reasons. Whether or not they make sense from our point of view seems to be the issue here. You, yourself, are now proving the difficulty of having an intelligent debate by using straw-man arguments.

"Evolution says that things got more orderly over time. That goes against the law of entropy."

Over millions of years? Systems do eventually break down, but not always immediately, and not all at the same time. You need to expand your frame of reference here.

"Then there's the Van Allens belts. They are getting weaker over time, but if you were going to say that man existed on the earth for millions of years, that couldn't happen with the way the Van Allens belts would be. "

Except not one person here said that humans lived millions of years ago.

"Those things would be so strong that live would not be able to exist on this world much less man."

And again, I would ask the same question I've asked many times, and yet no one seems to want to answer: WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?!?

It sure makes me wonder why everyone keeps sweeping that aspect under the rug.

Not to mention the fact that the Earth's atmosphere (a major factor in protecting life on Earth from extra-terrestrial forces) could have changed as well. We see weather systems on Earth changing and adapting all the time, and yet it doesn't occur to anyone that the conditions of the Earth may not be quite the same millions of years ago as they are now?

BTW, as a little research shows, the "deadliness" of the Van Allen belts isn't quite what you believe it to be.

Quote

The Inner V.A. Belt reaches its maximum intensity at 5000 km (3000 miles) but extends inward to about 1000 km (600 miles) The Outer Belt starts at 1500 km (9300 miles) and peaks at 22000 km (15500 miles). That belt is dominated by trapped electrons from the solar wind; the Inner Belt is marked by protons brought in mainly as cosmic rays. Two important conclusions from the discovery of the Van Allen Belts: 1) they have for eons provided protection from these potentially devastating particle bombardments - a fact critical to the successful development of life on Earth; and 2) both spacecraft and humans would need to be shielded effectively when passing through the Belts.LINK


Quote

The Van Allen Belt's Impact on Space Travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion and several satellites ceased operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts that have travelled to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness.LINK


Quote

"The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried."

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts. This site is my favorite


Astronauts traveled right next to the Belts and survived, and yet you think they were in a position to destroy life millions of years ago? I think you'll need to drum up a little more proof of that belief.

And here's a nice, short discussion of entropy versus organization.

This is a rather wordy explanation.
Post
#101005
Topic
Star Wars: Deleted Magic (Released)
Time
ocpmovie: Of course I would kill hundreds for a release of the actual Lost Cut.

Rikter: Count me in on your quest


Which quest was that - to kill hundreds, or get the lost cut?


"The president wants to know if everything's ok, or should we nuke Russia?"
"Tell him 'yes' on 1 and 'no' on 2."
"Uh, was that 'yes' on 'nuke Russia' or, uh, number 2?"

(Only cool people will get that reference. )
Post
#101015
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Time
Agreed. It didn't occur to me until watching "A Beautiful Mind", when the baby was in the bathtub and the water level was up to his face. I found myself clenching my fists and almost jumping out of my seat to save him. Wow!

BTW, I ran across this odd off-topic discussion while reading about "activist judges". I though the comparisons were very interesting.

Americans vs. Europeans