It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Another_Nut
reply to post by zysin5
 


Actually it is said god created everything in 6 days

On the 7th he rested

Which is why we haven't seen him in thousands of years

Has got his feet up watching the show here on earth

While having a smoke and a beer and possibly other consciousNess altering substances

That why he sent his son to deal with us

( i have no clue if my nonsense is right... but it sounds better than Hams nonsense)

What do you think of that explanation grim?


edit on pm220142808America/ChicagoThu, 06 Feb 2014 20:01:04 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)


Well in all truth to me on my personal level, I find it VERY hard to buy into. I really can not buy into a God creating the whole universe just for planet Earth, and that is all there is to it.
A very BIG and hard pill to swallow there. (A pill the size of a car!)

But yeah, what you said about God having a smoke and beer on the 7th day, sounds better than what Ham had to say on it.

Ham pretty much just kept going back to the same one liner. "God Said so." Pretty much was his answer to all the questions given to him. Ham could not come up with a sound reason, so they go to their old standard. It was God.. Class dismissed!
Nothing else to learn, nothing more to see. It was GOD. end of story. Blah.. Lazy and poor excuse for a reasonable debate.

So yeah, I feel ya.

When people have to fall back on, its written in the Bible, and its the direct Word of God bothers me. And is deeply troubling for every person on this Earth. That line of thinking is Dangerous, and leads to people being bullied for not taking some persons word, on threat of burning in hell forever! Either we see it their way, Or we get to burn in hell. Which to me, is being a bully. There is no room for any other line of thought with that. Its either their way. Or the HELLway!
I find that rather arrogant, ignorant and down right pushy.
And people wonder why other groups of people start pushing back.
edit on 3614331625 by zysin5 because: spelling3




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Sure FBB.... If Phage comes around that would be great. I have seen how much he agrees with you in other threads,,ahemm.

I think you avoided answering long enough to distance yourself from the statement.


I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.






So why is that a BS argument?
edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


No one is growing plants on the moon . . . yet.

Phage didn't argue the science he just didn't like the words I used . . . but I guess that is the same thing to you.

Gravitational constant
en.wikipedia.org...


The gravitational constant, approximately 6.67×10−11 N·(m/kg)2 and denoted by letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation(s) of gravitational force between two bodies. It usually appears in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, and in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially as Big G.[1] It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the free-fall acceleration[2]), especially that at the Earth's surface.


If G was changed even slightly life would not work . . . and as I explained to you the ISS is experiencing 89-92% the (g) gravitational acceleration. They are different things . . . as one is a constant and the other is a dependent variable.

Here is an article that likely explains this better to you;
What If There Were No Gravity?
www.livescience.com...


Tweaking just one of the fundamental physical laws or constants, normally perfectly "fine-tuned" at the right values to allow stars, planets, atoms and life as we know it to flourish, could turn things very different — quite unpleasantly so. Imagining such a "bizarro" universe may heighten your appreciation for the norm.

Consider, for example, how horrifically unrecognizable the universe would be if it had formed with just three fundamental forces instead of four — if electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction were all exactly as we know them, but that fourth force, the one that pulled together a bunch of rocks to form Earth and still keeps your feet firmly planted on the planet, never existed. What if there was no force of gravity?

Picture a barren wasteland. According to James Overduin, a physicist at Towson University in Maryland who specializes in gravitation, a universe without gravity would be "completely flat and featureless." Overduin explained that gravity is just another term for the curvature of space-time — how steep or shallow the fabric of the universe is in a given place (and thus how likely objects are to fall toward the source of curvature). Just as a bowling ball placed on a trampoline curves its surface, it is the presence of matter and energy that cause space-time to curve. So, if the universe can't curve (because gravity doesn't exist), then there can be no matter or energy within it.


Physical constant
en.wikipedia.org...

Fine-tuned Universe
en.wikipedia.org...

As to gravity and life or cell division;
Gravitational biology
en.wikipedia.org...


Recent experiments

Recent experiments have proven that alterations in metabolism, immune cell function, cell division, and cell attachment all occur in the hypogravity of space. For example, after a matter of days in microgravity (< 10-3 g), human immune cells were unable to differentiate into mature cells. One of the large implications of this is that if certain cells cannot differentiate in space, organisms may not be able to reproduce successfully after exposure to zero gravity.

Scientists believe that the stress associated with space flight is responsible for the inability of some cells to differentiate. These stresses can alter metabolic activities and can disturb the chemical processes in living organisms. A specific example would be that of bone cell growth. Microgravity impedes the development of bone cells. Bone cells must attach themselves to something shortly after development and will die if they cannot. Without the downward pull of a gravitational force on these bone cells, they float around randomly and eventually die off. This suggests that the direction of gravity may give the cells clues as to where to attach themselves.


Honestly you could have confirmed this with a few simple searches . . . but you rather try and troll me which just exposed how poor your understanding of physics and science is.

So go ahead an continue you science denial, it matters not.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I see nothing in which you posted stating that if gravity was changed even just a little most species couldn't reproduce.

They think that might be the case, but it isn't proven.

Can you please quote where it says it would be impossible.

If it is impossible I guess all the talk of colonizing Mars is just foolish because unless I am completely mistaken the gravity on Mars is 0.62 of what it is on earth. That seems like more than just a little different. Well I hope someone notifies NASA that they should abandon all hope of colonizing space.




Honestly you could have confirmed this with a few simple searches . . . but you rather try and troll me which just exposed how poor your understanding of physics and science is.


I was wondering how long it would be till you started insulting me. That has become quite predictable from you and not just towards me.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


You have made it clear you don't know what you are talking about and just want to argue.

Gravity Effects on Reproduction, Development, and Aging
Jaime Miquel, Kenneth A. Souza
www.sciencedirect.com...

The effect of gravity on surface temperatures of plant leaves
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
In this study the small changes in gravity (little g) lead to significant increases in leaf temps and denaturing of physiological processes that are adverse to the plant's health.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE FORCE OF GRAVITY ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD*.
BY LEONARD HILL, M.B., Assist. Prof of Physiology, University College, London. Grocers' Research Scholar.
jp.physoc.org...

Effects of microgravity on cell cytoskeleton and embryogenesis
SJ Crawford-Young - International Journal of Developmental Biology, 2006
www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/descarga/paper/052077sc

There is very little positive aspects of lower gravity on organisms outside of single celled.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


You have made it clear you don't know what you are talking about and just want to argue.



Sure think that if you want.

You say.


If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.


All I have to say about your claim is you should really let NASA know so they can quite waisting their time.

Enjoy the rest of your nite.


edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Grimpachi

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

You have made it clear you don't know what you are talking about and just want to argue.

Sure think that if you want.
You say.


If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

All I have to say about your claim is you should really let NASA know so they can quite waisting their time.
Enjoy the rest of your nite.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Thank you for proving my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Are you saying life can only reproduce on earth, and no other place in the universe has any life what so ever? I believe in god 100%. I have a hard time seeing anything but evolution when looking at how species change and adapt to their environment and I think science and religion should work together.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You have yet to provide anything to back up YOUR statement of.




If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.


However, you did provide some links about the effects in Zero G, micro gravity, and the effects on the human circulation in those environments. As far as I know Mars is nether Zero G nor is it considered a micro gravity environment.

I think you have proved all that needs to be proven by avoiding direct questions and your attitude.

If you would like to provide evidence that



If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.


I guess you can say that when you said (see above) what you really meant was micro or zero G of course I haven't seen you say anything like that.

Otherwise there isn't much of anything else to talk about.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Slickinfinity
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Are you saying life can only reproduce on earth, and no other place in the universe has any life what so ever? I believe in god 100%. I have a hard time seeing anything but evolution when looking at how species change and adapt to their environment and I think science and religion should work together.


Ummmm no, not at all.

I was talking about the fine tuned interaction of the forces being what allows for life to exist. Grimpachi began some weird argument about gravitational acceleration when I was talking about the gravitational constant being changed.

I said that systems of organized cells start acting funny or "novel" when exposed to prolonged free fall. The NASA studies have yet to provide much of their data on how the well the seeds of plants from space germinate once returned to higher gravity. They do not really explain much in the way of what and how the mechanical systems they are using to support the plants operate.

Certain strains of bacteria and plants have been shown to do rather well in such environments, but people . . . well they sure do take some serious adjusting once they are returned to an environment in which they encounter the normal force on Earth.

Basically Grimpachi was just confusing the entire issue to prolong an absurd argument and confuse anyone who read it afterwards.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

You have yet to provide anything to back up YOUR statement of.


If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

However, you did provide some links about the effects in Zero G, micro gravity, and the effects on the human circulation in those environments. As far as I know Mars is nether Zero G nor is it considered a micro gravity environment.
I think you have proved all that needs to be proven by avoiding direct questions and your attitude.
If you would like to provide evidence that


If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

I guess you can say that when you said (see above) what you really meant was micro or zero G of course I haven't seen you say anything like that.
Otherwise there isn't much of anything else to talk about.


I have linked you to all the evidence you need . . . I am being very cereal here. You are just refusing to acknowledge it.

There is no such thing as Zero-G, G is the gravitational constant and only exists (theoretically) if there is no mass. What you are calling zero-G or microgravity is free fall. Free fall is a simulation of the absence of gravitational acceleration (little g). Why are you still trying to conflate the G and g as being the same thing? Gravitational acceleration still exists in the ISS even though you seem to think it doesn't . . . . You are being absolutely ridiculous about this.

In regards to what would happen if the (G) gravitational constant was changed? None of the functions physics operates by would be valid any longer. They all fit together very nicely with the values they currently have. If you change their magnitudes while keeping the same ratios, everything still falls apart . . . this is basic physics.

You keep coming back to a quote which I specified G vs. g and seem entirely incapable of realizing that I clarified which I was speaking of.

You are seriously making a fool of yourself right now.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply FBB, cleared that up, I didn't read every post so I was just trying to figure out where the debate was going. For me the facts seems pretty clear and evolution does indeed occur in DNA and its miracles like that that have me in awe of Gods creations. For all our human ignorance I am still optimistic these debates are better then no one talking about what they believe in, and I understand how passionate people get to which can hinder change.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


More insults from you. Do you not know how to converse without them?

You claim a small change in gravity has a result to where most species could not reproduce. That is absolutely ridiculous on your part. You have provided no evidence of such unless you consider micro or zero g environment a small change. Furthermore NASA uses a variety of facilities to create microgravity conditions. A "stationary" micro-g environment would require travelling far enough into deep space so as to reduce the effect of gravity by attenuation to almost zero. Which is why we have the ISS to perform tests in a state of weightlessness to simulate an environment without gravity.

All those times I asked you about the Gs the crew experienced in the ISS, and you played dumb like you had no idea what that meant. I think you just like to argue. G-force (with g from gravitational) is a measurement of acceleration felt as weight.

Of course you want to argue over the unit of measurement to avoid your previous statement. Why? Because that is the way you are.

(snip)

Scratch that I was going to go on but I see no point in it with you. I think almost everyone knew where I was going with this. BTW I have been reading over some papers addressing the concerns of reproduction in reduced gravity environments such as Mars. So far I haven't come across any statements such as yours. BTW there is a considerable difference of gravity on mars than what it is on earth. More than a minor percentage so even though there are concerns about Mars gravity if the earths gravity was changed a minor percentage I doubt we would have much of a problem.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Force = mass * acceleration (period, now apply it to your source)

You obviously do not understand the material you are linking me to . . . go ahead and take your argument to a physics class or anyone who knows what they are talking about.

They will not agree with you.

g-force (from your own source)
en.wikipedia.org...


It is incorrect to refer to it as a force as "g" (lower case character) is an acceleration and can be measured with an accelerometer. Since such a force is perceived as a weight, any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass" (see the synonym specific weight). The g-force acceleration acts as a multiplier of weight-like forces for every unit of an object's mass, and (save for certain electromagnetic force influences) is the cause of an object's acceleration in relation to free-fall.[1][2]

This acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces acting on an object's freedom to move. The accelerations that are not produced by gravity are termed proper accelerations, and it is only these that are measured in g-force units. They cause stresses and strains on objects. Because of these strains, large g-forces may be destructive.


YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GRAVITY (G or g) . . . . .



Gravitation acting alone does not produce a g-force, even though g-forces are expressed in multiples of the acceleration of a standard gravity. Thus, the standard gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface produces g-force only indirectly, as a result of resistance to it by mechanical forces. The 1 g-force on an object sitting on the Earth's surface is caused by mechanical force exerted in the upward direction by the ground, keeping the object from going into free-fall. The upward force from the ground ensures that an object at rest on the Earth's surface is accelerating relative to the free-fall condition, which is the path that the object would follow when falling freely toward the Earth's center.


You are talking about the normal forces which I already explained to you.

I am amazed at how absolutely absurd you are becoming just so you can disagree with me.

Astonishing!

-FBB
edit on 7-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Is there evolution? Yes. Is there creation? Yes. Going by Logic...something cannot evolve unless it first exists. So creation comes before evolution. However, there is a paradox....Can you Create something from nothing? No. Can you evolve from nothingness? No.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

sean
Is there evolution? Yes. Is there creation? Yes. Going by Logic...something cannot evolve unless it first exists. So creation comes before evolution. However, there is a paradox....Can you Create something from nothing? No. Can you evolve from nothingness? No.


Real paradox is actually that you believe that you can't create something from nothing, meaning that there should be 'creator', but forgot that something had to create even your 'creator'.

We have good grasp at what happened, there are some experiments that show it possible, and people are working to prove that abiogenesis is full theory, rather then hypothesis.

Once abiogenesis is proven theory, what I really wonder, as you don't question evolution - will this mean that you will stop believing in 'creator' / 'creation'? If no - why not?
edit on 7-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


For the record i have no stake in hams biblical gains about the bible

Or the bible in general for that matter

You should really read up on the fine tuned universe

Because that much is true

Tweaking even one of the like 9 or so variables

Will result in us not being here

The only way around this is to BELIEVE the there are infinite universes

And we just happen to be the luckyones who had all the ten to the nth powers dice fall our way

But in either case it is still just a belief

Infinite niverses was just a get around for atheistic scientist to not have to BELIEVE in a created universe

That is where the real creation comes in

But hey we are all entitled to our own beliefs



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I like you superfrog

But infinite regression is utter nonsense

Comparable to hams

And it has been debunked

Like so

When (if ) we create our own lifeforms

And they ask where they came from

And we tell them they were created

That would (using infinite regression) mean we were created

Because the next question would be who created us

I hate infinite regression as a defence

See how it all falls apart once we create life?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Weather the "science guy " or whoever , wants to contemplate stuff ..You only have to ask yourselves a gazillion questions and find the answers to those questions ..small task when you have many differing opinions in science ..I think that Hawkins latest statements are pure comedy ..Black holes and big bangs that exist but don't really and dont really have anything to do with each other .I mean like you would have to be suffering from cognitive dissidence in order to get your mind around them and believe them to be true .

I was going to way into this debate but thought about it for a few days and decided that anyone truly looking for answers to questions they may not have considered to have a gander at this 3 hour vid ... www.youtube.com... peace



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The argument boils down to this: creationists claim that a finitely complex system (the universe) cannot 'just exist' - it requires an infinitely complex system to 'just exist' in order to create the finitely complex system. It's arse-about-face logic, driven by a need to insert 'god did it' into everything they see.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join