J
joinerjohn
That's because , unless we send £2 per week, they die. 
Sponsored Links
its simple,no contradiction at all,im not hiding anything, i got nothing to hide. i am open minded,
tons of people 5 feet tall today, 5.2,6.2,5.7. how tall we are does not proof anything, other than maybe a diferent diet ect.still same pair of legs,same two eyes,same functions.
This question came up on a radio debate a couple of months ago - what was the last human evolutionary change? Apparently, it's food and nutrition. Our ancestors were able to gain a lot more nutrients from unprocessed foods than we can today. Most of us would find it difficult to survive on the same diet.
That's an interesting comment and funnily enough I'd disagree with it. If anything, a lot of the diseases we now suffer from (eg type 2 diabetes) are caused by our diet changing faster than we can evolve to handle them. The old hunter gatherer diet was far lower on carbs than current diets and I'm of the opinion that high carb diets are the cause of lots of our recent (evolution timescale) health problems.
We would be a lot healthier if we all reverted to pre-agriculture hunter gather diets.
We would be a lot healthier if we all reverted to pre-agriculture hunter gather diets.
Sponsored Links
Not until we live for ever
But asking where God came from or where the physical universe came from is just the same question. What acted upon nothing to make it a something? Dunno but let's call it God.
I can't handle the God name it carries to much baggage for me, I cant get past that Sistine chapel image,Maybe Bill or george.
Showing your ignorance
Fallacy by declaration. Just saying something is so, does not mean it is true. And repeating something does not make it more true.
There is no evidence that the universe is infinite. But if you have evidence to say otherwise, feel free to provide some.
The universe is exapnding. The scientific community has agreed upon an age of about 13.7billion years. You have no expertise or have any evidence to say otherwise.
PS. Shaming language does not work.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
If you think that something can be created from nothing without something acting upon the nothing to make it a something then that's for you to prove - not for me to disprove. Hint: If it were possible to create something from nothing then why didn't it happen an infinite time ago? So let's hear your explanation shall we? (we won't).
breadnbutter said:
(My italics) No argument there. So explain, if you can, why so many of you (religious) types have put so much effort over the centuries into trying to deprive the rest of us of one of them?
PS: For what it's worth, I could come up with a half-decent theory - but it relies on evolution so I won't bore you with the details.
Meanwhile, back at the dawn of time:
In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking proposed the theory that the energy in a gravitational field, being negative, might exactly balance the (positive) mass that is the source of that field. Consequently, the total mass/energy in the universe was - and still is - zero.
It's a neat theory if you can get your head around the concept of negative energy.
The reasoning behind the existence of that negative energy is mathematical. If a hollow sphere of mass is allowed to collapse, mechanical energy is released and can be used elsewhere. At the same time, the gravitational field outside the sphere goes up. The obvious conclusion is that negative energy was added to the field. The alternative theory is that positive energy was added to the field but the mass of the sphere went down in the process.
It's a problem that's crying out for experimental testing. And if you can reliably detect - or disprove - the mass change in a hollow sphere as it collapses under its own gravity, I can confidently predict that your Nobel Prize will be in the post. When you fly in the face of the scientific community with your own theory, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
You also need to demonstrate you actually know what you are talking about. You even lack this.
See previous post regarding repitition.
Your comment even lacks basic logic. If the universe were infinitely old (which it isn't), your comment about creating anything is irrelevant.
As I have already pointed out, there is no "before the universe". As far as I know, there was no time before the big bang, and therefore you point is again irrelevant.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
So where did the energy come from to start the process? And more importantly - why?
The scientific community are dumb. They can't explain climate change or tell me if it will rain next Saturday. Use your own brain power mate - or do you simply say what others have said? What happened 13.77 billion years ago that made nothing into something? And what is the Universe expanding into if there is nothing outside of the universe? And if time never started - then how can it ever end? Or better still - how can it not end?
True.
Evolution is not a simple explanation. The details are often debated among scientists but the basic framwork has been confirmed with various branches of science and evidence.
This speaks volumes.
You'll find they have. Even a large subject like climate change is being modelled. Details are being refined, but that does not mean it cannot be explained.
This Saturday looks to be wet if that helps.
If you want to ignore current scientific thinking, you'll need to do more than emotive language.
Sponsored Links