Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Lecture Time: Evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 8:15pm

Originally posted by NiQ-Toto NiQ-Toto wrote:

Clark, how do you feel about Ann Coulter's chapter title in her book Godless that states:

"Saying that apes evolved into humans is like saying Walkmans evolved into iPods."

Or something similar to that.

Not quite a fair comparison, since Walkmans can't reproduce.

But I actually kind of agree - kind of hard to argue that iPods are not descended from Walkmans.

In fact, Sony has an mp3 player called "Walkman"...

 

EDIT - bumped myself.  Brilliance on previous page.



Edited by Clark Kent - 31 July 2006 at 8:49pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 8:25pm

Originally posted by Ken Majors Ken Majors wrote:

Well....since my entire family since time recorded was born within 50 miles of an ocean, somewhere, sometime, my family members should begin to grow gills, webbed fingers and toes, and show an incredible affinity for the water.
That is if evolution is true.
Unless of course...we are de-volving.

This raises a general point - "if evolution is occurring, then why hasn't species x evolved feature y".

And the answer is simple: because evolution doesn't have a plan.  What you are describing is a version of intelligent design.  Evolution by natural selection is unguided, and doesn't always go where one might think or want.  You might think gills are "better" - but the real test is survival and reproduction.

A somewhat controversial example on this point might be human intelligence.  Most people agree that smarter is "better".  But that is "better" by our scale.  Natural selection doesn't care what we think.

In America today, smarter people are more likely to be more educated.  More educated people are likely to have fewer children than less educated people.  As a result, smarter people tend to have fewer children than less smart people.

There is an argument that in North America and Europe this is leading to evolution towards less intelligent, since being smart leads to fewer children.  This is only a (small-t) theory with no particular evidence behind it, but it elegantly explains how survival of the "fittest" may not favor the people we think are the "fittest".

Quote I like to think I believe in natural selection but I have seen way too many people do incredibly stupid things and survive.

Hard to argue with that.

Quote Sometimes ya just gotta have faith.

Hard to argue with that too.



Edited by Clark Kent - 01 August 2006 at 1:48am
Back to Top
oreomann33 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Can you say ... ZAZZy?

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 8102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oreomann33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 8:29pm
mama said i didn't come from no daggum monkey
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

it is bad math.
"fuzzy math"

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 9:23pm
Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?

Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 9:30pm
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 9:44pm

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?

Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.

Two points:

1.  What you are describing is abiogenesis - life from nothing.  That theory is completely distinct and independent from evolutionary theory.  Even if abiogenesis turns out to be completely false, that is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

2.  The numbers you quote are more or less made up - there are two many unknowns to make a meaningful estimate of exactly how likely abiogenesis is to occur at any given moment.

But (math follows):

Take event E, with probability p of occurring during any given trial.

p is a number between 0 and 1 - let's say 0.1 (rolling a 1 on a 10-sided die).

Therefore, on any individual trial, you have 0.1 probability of event E occurring on that trial.

Now let's do two trials.  The chance of event E occurring on either of the two trials (we only need one to win, in this discussion) is capital P for the combined probability:

P = 1-[(1-0.1)^2] = 0.19

Basically, you figure the chance of E not happening twice, and do the inverse of that.

How about we do 10 trials?

P = 1-[(1-0.1)^10] = 0.65

65% chance you'll hit a 1 after ten tries.

We'll generalize this formula to:

P = 1-[(1-p)^x]

where P is total probability, p is individual probability, and x is number of trials.

Now let's say we have infinite trials.  What happens?  Well, apply basic calculus.  This is a limit, with x -> infinity.

Solve for P, and you get P=1.

With infinite trials, event E is guaranteed to happen.  Mathematically guaranteed.

And here's the exciting part.  It doesn't matter what p, the probability of E, is.  So long as p>0, the result is the same - with enough trials, it will occur.

To restate in English:  Given infinite trials, every possible event will occur.  Impossible events won't occur, but every single possible event is absolutely mathematically guaranteed to occur.

So, how unlikely does abiogenesis look now?

The issue isn't how unlikely it is to occur on any single trial - the issue is how many trials there have been.  And the truth is that we don't know, and we cannot know.  There could be parallel universes, sequential universes, system resets, infinite planets all trying at the same time, time that changes speed...   the list goes on.

And, of course, the probability you listed is only for one particular event that we can think of.  There might be other ways for other forms of life to pop up that we haven't thought of (trapped as we are into our carbon-based thinking).  What if there are ten other ways that life (of some sort) could instantly be created?

I venture that any argument based on "unlikely" is not going to be successful in this particular environment.  There is a common term for really long odds, for really unlikely events, for really big numbers, for really long distances...   what is that term...   oh yeah:  Astronomical.  How apt.

Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 July 2006 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 


Whose estimates?

I've read estimates that figure on several thousand in our galaxy alone with similar mass, solar energy input, gravitational forces, and chemical makeup.

Life could meet genesis in any number of ways. Because we are carbon based beings breathing oxygen does not mean that ALL life must be the same, or must grow on an identical planet. Look at some of the extremophile bacteria that can survive in undersea volcanos or antarctic conditions. Life has adapted to several hundred degrees range of temperature on Earth alone. Who knows what else may be out there, was out there, or will be out there?

Three or four billion years gives chance a LOT of opportunities to 'trial' its way to biogenesis. Life is just an increasingly complex series of chemical reactions when you get down to it..
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 2:34am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 


dude, you are way off.  there are billions of galaxies, and within those galaxies are trillions of stars.  from current data, solar systems are created when a star is created.  so if only 1 planet in every 1 million contains life, that is still alot of planets out that there that could support life. 
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 2:43am
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 


Whose estimates?

I've read estimates that figure on several thousand in our galaxy alone with similar mass, solar energy input, gravitational forces, and chemical makeup.

Life could meet genesis in any number of ways. Because we are carbon based beings breathing oxygen does not mean that ALL life must be the same, or must grow on an identical planet. Look at some of the extremophile bacteria that can survive in undersea volcanos or antarctic conditions. Life has adapted to several hundred degrees range of temperature on Earth alone. Who knows what else may be out there, was out there, or will be out there?

Three or four billion years gives chance a LOT of opportunities to 'trial' its way to biogenesis. Life is just an increasingly complex series of chemical reactions when you get down to it..


The article I read on that came out several years ago, I cant find a copy of it at the moment.

As for the figure that was the only figure I've been able to find supported in multiple articles logically.

Unfortunetly when I made my post my I didnt have any of my sources avalible, so I withdraw my arguments.
 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 2:57am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 


Whose estimates?

I've read estimates that figure on several thousand in our galaxy alone with similar mass, solar energy input, gravitational forces, and chemical makeup.

Life could meet genesis in any number of ways. Because we are carbon based beings breathing oxygen does not mean that ALL life must be the same, or must grow on an identical planet. Look at some of the extremophile bacteria that can survive in undersea volcanos or antarctic conditions. Life has adapted to several hundred degrees range of temperature on Earth alone. Who knows what else may be out there, was out there, or will be out there?

Three or four billion years gives chance a LOT of opportunities to 'trial' its way to biogenesis. Life is just an increasingly complex series of chemical reactions when you get down to it..


The article I read on that came out several years ago, I cant find a copy of it at the moment.

As for the figure that was the only figure I've been able to find supported in multiple articles logically.

Unfortunetly when I made my post my I didnt have any of my sources avalible, so I withdraw my arguments.
 


google hubble and look in the images portion.  example:



those bright portions are millions of gas lighting up the gases in the galaxy that they are in.  there are two galaxies colliding in that picture.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 2:59am
Originally posted by darkSIDEofMOON darkSIDEofMOON wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.
I can't remember where that number came from, but the answer is really quite simple. Luck.
Think about the immensity of the universe, and the sheer number of planets life could have (or did) spring up on. It was bound to happen somewhere.


But according to estimates there are only seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours.

Yes, its entirely possible that we lucked out but its more likely I'll win the lottery 5 times in a row and get struck by lightning.
 


Whose estimates?

I've read estimates that figure on several thousand in our galaxy alone with similar mass, solar energy input, gravitational forces, and chemical makeup.

Life could meet genesis in any number of ways. Because we are carbon based beings breathing oxygen does not mean that ALL life must be the same, or must grow on an identical planet. Look at some of the extremophile bacteria that can survive in undersea volcanos or antarctic conditions. Life has adapted to several hundred degrees range of temperature on Earth alone. Who knows what else may be out there, was out there, or will be out there?

Three or four billion years gives chance a LOT of opportunities to 'trial' its way to biogenesis. Life is just an increasingly complex series of chemical reactions when you get down to it..


The article I read on that came out several years ago, I cant find a copy of it at the moment.

As for the figure that was the only figure I've been able to find supported in multiple articles logically.

Unfortunetly when I made my post my I didnt have any of my sources avalible, so I withdraw my arguments.
 


google hubble and look in the images portion.  example:



those bright portions are millions of gas lighting up the gases in the galaxy that they are in.  there are two galaxies colliding in that picture.


And this has to do with the topic at hand how . . .?
 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:03am
go here to kinda get a reltionship of how many galaxies there are...

here
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:03am
uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:05am
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.


thank you
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:14am
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.


Pictures of colliding galexies dont prove there are many earth-like planets out there.

I'm well aware there are hundreads of billions of gallexies with hundreads of billions stars if thats what hes trying to show me.  My point was the article I read stated there were an estimated 7 - 8 planets like ours in the universe.
 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:29am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.


Pictures of colliding galexies dont prove there are many earth-like planets out there.

I'm well aware there are hundreads of billions of gallexies with hundreads of billions stars if thats what hes trying to show me.  My point was the article I read stated there were an estimated 7 - 8 planets like ours in the universe.
 


1)  picture was to show the vast amounts of stars that could have planets.
2)  you don't know the difference from a galaxy and a universe.  the first picture was two galaxies.  the universe includes ALL galaxies within the universe.
3)  current technology can't even allow us to see that far out into space to know that there is an estimated 7-8 planets like ours.
4)  if your paper/book/magazine said that they believe there are only 7-8 planets like ours in the UNIVERSE then you should kick they in the ass.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:35am
Originally posted by darkSIDEofMOON darkSIDEofMOON wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.


Pictures of colliding galexies dont prove there are many earth-like planets out there.

I'm well aware there are hundreads of billions of gallexies with hundreads of billions stars if thats what hes trying to show me.  My point was the article I read stated there were an estimated 7 - 8 planets like ours in the universe.
 


1)  picture was to show the vast amounts of stars that could have planets.

The article I read was an estimation based upon the compisition of our planet and the composition of other systems.  The volume of galixies in the universe was not relevent.

2)  you don't know the difference from a galaxy and a universe.  the first picture was two galaxies.  the universe includes ALL galaxies within the universe.

Where did I suggest that I didnt know that?  I specifically called that picture two galexies collading.  I have no idea where your getting that idea from

3)  current technology can't even allow us to see that far out into space to know that there is an estimated 7-8 planets like ours.

I suggest you read up on spectra of matter and how we can tell a lot about the composition of a system by its spectra.

4)  if your paper/book/magazine said that they believe there are only 7-8 planets like ours in the UNIVERSE then you should kick they in the ass.

Scientific hypothesis are dissproven, the authors arent kicked in the posterier



EDIT : And bear in mind, I already withdrew my argument because I didnt have the article avalible to cite.

Edited by Darur - 01 August 2006 at 3:36am
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2006 at 3:40am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by darkSIDEofMOON darkSIDEofMOON wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

uhhh i believe you were the one to mention "seven planets or so in the universe similar to ours"

he provided proof that we observe them? i'd say that makes it relevant to what YOU said.


Pictures of colliding galexies dont prove there are many earth-like planets out there.

I'm well aware there are hundreads of billions of gallexies with hundreads of billions stars if thats what hes trying to show me.  My point was the article I read stated there were an estimated 7 - 8 planets like ours in the universe.
 


1)  picture was to show the vast amounts of stars that could have planets.

The article I read was an estimation based upon the compisition of our planet and the composition of other systems.  The volume of galixies in the universe was not relevent.

2)  you don't know the difference from a galaxy and a universe.  the first picture was two galaxies.  the universe includes ALL galaxies within the universe.

Where did I suggest that I didnt know that?  I specifically called that picture two galexies collading.  I have no idea where your getting that idea from

3)  current technology can't even allow us to see that far out into space to know that there is an estimated 7-8 planets like ours.

I suggest you read up on spectra of matter and how we can tell a lot about the composition of a system by its spectra.

4)  if your paper/book/magazine said that they believe there are only 7-8 planets like ours in the UNIVERSE then you should kick they in the ass.

Scientific hypothesis are dissproven, the authors arent kicked in the posterier



EDIT : And bear in mind, I already withdrew my argument because I didnt have the article avalible to cite.


i understand spectra of light and what they can understand from it.  but since there are stars so far distant that they can't get the spectra of one star, how can they say that there are only 7-8.  maybe they or you meant that it was within our own known closest stars.    <poopy> you wouldn't understand.


Edited by Rambino - 01 August 2006 at 9:32am
oh no, strikes...watch out now..oooohhh
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.