Gabez Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Don't blame me, blame St Thomas Aquinas. And as an extra: that colour spectrum is not every light in existence. I heard that buttlerfilies can see another colour, but I can't confirm that (it sounds a bit weird). What seems to be true is that there are other colours, as mind boggling as that is. Quantum physics is another strange thing - stuff like particles being in two places at once etc. Once you accept that weird things like that happen in the Universe and we know nothing about them (String Theory is another I've just thought of) the concept of God starts to make a lot more sense. Well it does for me, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Gabez [...] the concept of God starts to make a lot more sense. Well it does for me, anyway. ...Quite the contrary for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 In order for string theory to be right, it would have to exsits on 11 dimensions. There is no being on earth (as yet we know about) that has the brain capacity to think in 11 dimensions, or to see 11 dimensions. Whether extra terrestrials from other worlds can is another matter, but then we'd have to believe in the multiverse and that's a whole other bucket of eggs (if you hold your eggs in a bucket). But frankly, in order for something to exist, it must be percieved, by a third party to itself, and the only logical third party to the 11th dimention is God, the only higher being I can think of that could think in 11 dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Joshi Whether extra terrestrials from other worlds can is another matter, but then we'd have to believe in the multiverse and that's a whole other bucket of eggs (if you hold your eggs in a bucket). ...The multiverse theory, the theory about 11 dimension and the theory about extraterrestial life are three completely different buckets (not even containing the same things), they don't have anything to do with each other! Originally posted by Joshi But frankly, in order for something to exist, it must be percieved ...Come again? Not neccessarily, no... And anyway, that statement is pure philosophical, you can't possibly prove or disprove it, it's like that "If a tree falls over and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?"-thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Joshi In order for string theory to be right, it would have to exsits on 11 dimensions. Minimum. There is no being on earth (as yet we know about) that has the brain capacity to think in 11 dimensions, or to see 11 dimensions. I say we have the capacity, but not the need to do so. It's also stupid to try to visualize it because this only works for 3 dimensions. (Or some more if we 'use' phaserooms.) But frankly, in order for something to exist, it must be percieved MAN no, of course not. WHO then percieved earth so that it can exist and life can develop? GOD? Then tell me who percieved "God" so that he can exist and "create" earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 MWAHAHAHAHA! The wheels keeps burning rubber! Bloody good point Ray, never thought of that. My theory is that Jesus existed, but was just a VERY clever man well ahead of his time. Religion is just an evolution in the human brain to keep ourselves from going mental. Our brains have developed so much that it needs to give itself a reason to exist (not that religion is that reason), rather than just to breed, considering we've managed that with considerable success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 I was merely expressing how such philosophical arguments can be put into an argument as support without any real proof, sort of a degrees of seperation thing. Basically, there is no real proof, people mainly just take it on faith. And Dr McCoy, string theory, the multiverse and extra terrestrials, may not have much to do with each other, but you can't seperate them completely, they're still a part of the unknown and therefore can be related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Joshi And Dr McCoy, string theory, the multiverse and extra terrestrials, may not have much to do with each other, but you can't seperate them completely, they're still a part of the unknown and therefore can be related. ...Yeah, like, say, a chicken and a kilt can't be seperated completely, they're still a part of all known things and therefore can be related.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 That's almost the complete opposite of what I said. Because we understand all about chickens and understand mostly about kilts (seriously, it's a skirt) we know that they're generally not connected unless a scotsman gets really drunk on a summers night. Aliens, multi-dimensions and string thoery on the other hand aren't fully understood. they're not even canon, we don't know whether any of them exist, in order for our minimum of 11 dimensions to exist, we'd have to say that string theory is more than just a theory, but considering it isn't, it is still just a theory. We are yet to come into contact with extra terrestrials in the universe (who may or may not have better technology and understanding and therfore may have a better knowledge of string theory) and therefore, they are still a theory and we may find that such things exsist in other universes, which opens up another theory. So, in essence, because, we don't know know about all of this, we can safely say, for now, that these things may be related. But there is no proof to say that they aren't apart from the fact that these theories on their own have not been proved and therefore cannot be used to support and argument which was my point in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Seriously, we _do_not_ understand the chicken. We do not even know what came first, the chicken or the egg. Ok, we do know more than about aliens, but err.. only within 3/4 dimensions. As for the chicken - kilt connection, first thing coming to mind is: electrons, protons, neutrons. hm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 The egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Yes, but was there a chicken in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 In potential, I suppose there's no definate line you could draw in evolution that could define where the egg held a baby chicken, but in effect, if you could, the egg would have to come first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Hmm. The 'classic' egg came before the 'classic' chicken. But on the other hand, there definitly must have been some creature that dropped the first egg ever. Maybe some fishy thing. Maybe some kind of special mutation or just a development that stepped over the line, from "no it's only slimy" to "hey, almost eggy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 I have a degree in Ecology, trust me the chicken came first cos it evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 But did it evolve from another animal that is born in eggs? The chicken's egg may have been another animal's egg before it. You'd have to say "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" In which case, after years of evolution, the chicken egg, which would hold the first evolved animal considered the chicken, came first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 No not true. Archaeopteryx was the first bird and that was evolved from a lizard (a sort of salamander thingy). Archaeopteryx then started to lay eggs, and so forth until the chicken. So in theory the egg came first but that's only in it's modern form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 That's exactly what I'm saying, Brighty. This "Archaeopteryx" evolved into a chicken, meaning eventually, one of it's generations eggs would hold a creature close enough to be called a "chicken". So the chicken egg came before the chicken, even if the egg came before the chicken egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 No. There was just a mysterious egg and a chicken came out and layed another egg. Meaning the EGG came 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 3, 2005 Author Share Posted March 3, 2005 But then you'd have to come up with a definitive date for the birth of the chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 How long have chickens ben around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toenail1 Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 But who draws the line between when it stops being an archaeopteryx and becomes a chicken? If that line is crossed while the chicken is alive, then the chicken came first. If the line is crossed when the sperm and egg meet and the traits become just right to make a chicken, then the egg comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 I think it was a dinosaur that god changed into a chicken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 Originally posted by toenail1 But who draws the line between when it stops being an archaeopteryx and becomes a chicken? If that line is crossed while the chicken is alive, then the chicken came first. But evolution is about changed happening in generations. Sure, animals physically change when they are alive, but they are still not considered to be evolving. The evolution comes during the changes of genes or the offspring during reproduction. ... Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinkie Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 Originally posted by Kjølen ... Right? That's a definate maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.