# LHC didn't kill us yet



## Erik (Sep 10, 2008)

Apparently, the test today was successfull and we are still alive. 
The real experiment will take place in about a month?
Maybe we should organise an LHC open for lightspeed fast cubers xD
At least we'll die happy with nice people around us...


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 10, 2008)

:confused:


----------



## Carson (Sep 10, 2008)

Maybe they could load a couple 3x3's into that thing...


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 10, 2008)

We were trying to watch it in our school and suddenly the electricity went out. Everyone was joking around like "Ooh, we are all going to die now!", some people really got scared though


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Sep 10, 2008)

My dad works at the largest accelerator on the east coast


----------



## tim (Sep 10, 2008)

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ 


Spoiler



view the source


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 10, 2008)

Over 5 billion dollars were spent to make that!!!
What a ripoff.


----------



## MistArts (Sep 10, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Over 5 billion dollars were spent to make that!!!
> What a ripoff.



We could make another universe.


----------



## sam (Sep 10, 2008)

october 21st . Doomsday everyone! i'm just lucky that i dont have plasma poisoning from the Princeton Plasma Physics lab next to my house...


----------



## pcharles93 (Sep 10, 2008)

MistArts said:


> CAT13 said:
> 
> 
> > Over 5 billion dollars were spent to make that!!!
> ...



Which would then push ours out of existence.


----------



## Garmon (Sep 10, 2008)

One of the main Scientists working on it is Welsh.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 10, 2008)

i am not comfortable with the LHC. there's just something about intentionally creating black holes that makes me nervous.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 10, 2008)

I don't get why people care about all of this stupid space crap!1! Why can't people use all of that time and money to do something that we need, like cancer research and stuff like that!? These kinds of people make me so freaken mad!!!


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 11, 2008)

crackpot idiots are spreading black hole rumors. If you did any physics like I did, you would know how retarded the claims are. The black hole crackpot theory has become a running joke in the circle of physics students and profs that I hang out with.


----------



## brunson (Sep 11, 2008)

Didn't they see Ghostbusters? YOU DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!!!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 11, 2008)

[sarcasm] i'm shaking with fear. I almost wet my pants [/sarcasm]

I hope is ends up as a big flop and i will laugh about it. If it doesn't and we all die, I'll bring my cubes to the grave.


----------



## slncuber21 (Sep 11, 2008)

lol waffle

arent black holes made when stars die? not from atom-smashing??


----------



## MistArts (Sep 11, 2008)

slncuber21 said:


> lol waffle
> 
> arent black holes made when stars die? not from atom-smashing??



Isn't stars dying atom-smashing?


----------



## pjk (Sep 11, 2008)

Quite amazing stuff.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 11, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> crackpot idiots are spreading black hole rumors. If you did any physics like I did, you would know how retarded the claims are. The black hole crackpot theory has become a running joke in the circle of physics students and profs that I hang out with.



im not saying that they are going to do it, or even that its possible. i'm just saying that the idea of someone trying to do that is scary. i also admit that i have not done much research on the subject, and i also do not know much abotu astrophysics. maybe we should ask tyson, he got a degree in astrophysics from Caltech, he might know a little on the subject.


----------



## JBCM627 (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> I don't get why people care about all of this stupid space crap!1! Why can't people use all of that time and money to do something that we need, like cancer research and stuff like that!? These kinds of people make me so freaken mad!!!



I completely agree. Why research subatomic physics, which provides us with better computers, which provides us with the ability to conduct most research in biology at all?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> I don't get why people care about all of this stupid space crap!1! Why can't people use all of that time and money to do something that we need, like cancer research and stuff like that!? These kinds of people make me so freaken mad!!!


Because these people are physicists and chemists, not cancer researchers, maybe?


----------



## crabs!!! (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> I don't get why people care about all of this stupid space crap!1! Why can't people use all of that time and money to do something that we need, like cancer research and stuff like that!? These kinds of people make me so freaken mad!!!



Cancer is insignificant compared to discovering more about the universe.


----------



## Guoguodi (Sep 11, 2008)

There's actually a live webcam stream from the LHC (don't know what you'd watch it for, though). 

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html


----------



## Swoncen (Sep 11, 2008)

I don't care if we die.. I like it when people say that the earth is exploding or something because then my girlfriend says: "Come let's make sex the last time before we die!".

ahahahaha.. NICE!!


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

You people don't seem to like my opinions


----------



## cpt.Justice (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13...
What they are doing at Cern is basic research. They don't know exactly what results to expect, but that doesn't make it useless.


----------



## brunson (Sep 11, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> i also admit that i have not done much research on the subject, and i also do not know much abotu astrophysics. maybe we should ask tyson, he got a degree in astrophysics from Caltech, he might know a little on the subject.


These don't involve much astrophysics, they mostly entail quantum mechanics.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 11, 2008)

brunson said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > i also admit that i have not done much research on the subject, and i also do not know much abotu astrophysics. maybe we should ask tyson, he got a degree in astrophysics from Caltech, he might know a little on the subject.
> ...



that was an interesting read. thank you, now i know a little bit about micro black holes.


----------



## Carson (Sep 11, 2008)

Guoguodi said:


> There's actually a live webcam stream from the LHC (don't know what you'd watch it for, though).
> 
> http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html



Very Interesting Page


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

Here we go, people. This is basically what I mean.
What is wrong with the world today that requires us to spend so much money on a thing like this, and not donate it to the poor starving children in Africa?


----------



## tim (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Here we go, people. This is basically what I mean.
> What is wrong with the world today that requires us to spend so much money on a thing like this, and not donate it to the poor starving children in Africa?



It needs more than just money to help the "poor starving children in Africa".


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Here we go, people. This is basically what I mean.
> What is wrong with the world today that requires us to spend so much money on a thing like this, and not donate it to the poor starving children in Africa?



You are too simple minded. The world doesn't just work that way. It's like, why don't we just print more money?!
INFLATION

For this problem:
There needs to be technological advanced to make the production possibility curve larger. So more things can be produced to enlarge the economy. I suppose it also makes sense to help the Africans so we can trade with them to increase profits. But there should be some sort of logical explanation why we aren't just giving everything away to help the Africans.
We have some debate in English class a few days ago about what is objective and subjective. One of the arguments was that we actually research about biology so much. In order to be purely objective, we should just study space dust because that's the most abundant thing in the universe.
People will always want to study what they want to study, so let them!
Why do you waste money on cubes and good food? Why don't you just never have fun and only eat canned foods and donate everything else to the Africans?


----------



## Kurzeja (Sep 11, 2008)

Of course the LHC hasn't killed us.
Thats not until 2012.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

> Why do you waste money on cubes and good food? Why don't you just never have fun and only eat canned foods and donate everything else to the Africans?


 I've spent maybe $150 on cubes at most. I would have to say that 5.3 billion dollars is nowhere close to 150 dollars.
Food doesn't cost anywhere near 5.3 billion dollars, either
What does fun have to do with eating only canned foods?

Whatever. I just think that researching stars and stupid stuff like that will never get us anywhere. Just go through life happily. One day maybe a big fat meteor will come and kill us all. So be it.


----------



## Bounb (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> I think that NASA needs to stop wasting their dang money and DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!!!!!
> There is no point in researching space and everything out in space. If there is any other life supporting planet, we already know that it is NOT in our solar system. It will take us years after years to get there. Centuries and centuries there is no freaken point. "Oh lets go jump on the moon and see if there are any rocks up their. Maybe there used to be life there..." WHO CARES!?!? Focus on your own planet





CAT13 said:


> I don't get why people care about all of this stupid space crap!1! Why can't people use all of that time and money to do something that we need, like cancer research and stuff like that!? These kinds of people make me so freaken mad!!!



"WHY WUD A SIENTISTS RISCK A BLAK HOLE FOR AN STUPID EXPERMENT WHO CARSE!!1! WAT A WAST OF MONIES" 

It's people like you that make me so "freaken" mad. Once again you display your scientific ignorance.

This research is absolutely fundamental.
The LHC is the greatest scientific endeavour in history. The questions it will answer are so basic, yet so burning. The current accepted model of particle physics is called the standard model. This has basically passed every test so far and is fairly robust. But really, there are many things we can't explain about it. And there are many questions to be answered. Why does the universe expand? Are there multiple universes? What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy? What if our current model is totally wrong? These are just a few. Essentially the LHC is a big microscope and a sort of time machine. It allows us to revisit the first few moments of the creation of the universe when it was just fundamental particles. The LHC hopes to find the Higgs Boson which has been so long elusive yet so crucial to our basic understanding of why we are here. It will help us explain what it is that "makes stuff, stuff". 

This research is inherently expensive. 
5,6,7 billion dollars or so? Yes. It is a fair bit of money, but keep in mind that the world's GDP in 2007 was estimated at 54,620,000 million USD. This thing is a beast. It uses a hell of a lot of energy. The tunnel is very long. The controls are state of the art. The protons must be accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light (that's fast, if you didn't know). It produces a raw data stream of 300gb/sec which is stored in a distributed grid. It's a massive undertaking, but it is well worth the time.

This may pave the way to totally unexpected technology.
Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN when he developed the idea of the World Wide Web, proposed as a way of researchers to share data. A good deal of money has been spent on the the LHC Computing Grid. This helps analyse, store, and collate all the data by combining processing power from thousands of computers and utilising private optical fibre and existing high speed internet. It is very possible that it will pave the way towards a future, faster internet.

There is no risk of a dangerous black hole or stranglets or giant purple buffalo being produced.
Big machines may be scary but it doesn't mean that they are harmful just because some crank heard about it and the media spun it into a good yarn.

You should be interested and supportive of this project.


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Sep 11, 2008)

There is no risk because the annihilation of anti matter is devistating but it doesn't creat black holes. It is a controled experiment so they will not come in contact with any matter and will not react. Hopefully this reaseach will eventually lead to efficent alternative fuels.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

Bounb said:


> CAT13 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that NASA needs to stop wasting their dang money and DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!!!!!
> ...



I hope that that post was entertaining to write, because I'm not going to read it all.
And I never said "WHY WUD A SIENTISTS RISCK A BLAK HOLE FOR AN STUPID EXPERMENT WHO CARSE!!1! WAT A WAST OF MONIES" using that spelling and uppercase and stuff. but I did accidentally put a 1 in there  
this is going to be my last post in this thread and the last time I look in here so just forget that I ever said anything. Or just pretend like you forget or something.
And as I said before, I just have a different opinion than everyone else. And I don't really see what is wrong with that
And I don't think I said anything about "RISCK A BLAK HOLE"


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Nah nah nah nah nah, nah, I'm not listening!



...
Ok, so maybe I paraphrased.


----------



## Dene (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> And as I said before, I just have a different opinion than everyone else. And I don't really see what is wrong with that



Because your opinion is stupid?

What I say is this: The experiment is fun, I'm sure (honestly, I'd love to be there!) However I think the money would be better spent developing a faster computer. Once we have a computer faster than a human brain, experiments will become pointless, the computer can solve all our problems!


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

Dene said:


> However I think the money would be better spent developing a faster computer. Once we have a computer faster than a human brain, experiments will become pointless, the computer can solve all our problems!



Thank You!!!

(ok, now I am really not going to look again)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

Dene said:


> Because your opinion is stupid?
> 
> What I say is this: The experiment is fun, I'm sure (honestly, I'd love to be there!) However I think the money would be better spent developing a faster computer. Once we have a computer faster than a human brain, experiments will become pointless, the computer can solve all our problems!


My opinion is stupid? Lets all put our fingers in our ears, shall we?

I'm rather...appalled by lack of thought that went into your last sentence. You really think that a sufficiently fast computer can solve any problem?


----------



## Dene (Sep 11, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Because your opinion is stupid?
> ...



Sorry, my post was directed at the one above yours. You posted in between  . I'll add a quote to my other post.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

Okay, well the second part of my post still applies


----------



## Bounb (Sep 11, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> I hope that that post was entertaining to write, because I'm not going to read it all.



Are you actually kidding me? Jesus Christ.



CAT13 said:


> And I never said "WHY WUD A SIENTISTS RISCK A BLAK HOLE FOR AN STUPID EXPERMENT WHO CARSE!!1! WAT A WAST OF MONIES" using that spelling and uppercase and stuff. but I did accidentally put a 1 in there
> 
> And I don't think I said anything about "RISCK A BLAK HOLE"



Ah, I thought you would capitalise on that one, pun not intended. I didn't quote you as having said that directly, I purposefully exaggerated your stance (and the way I have seen other people talking about this) to be demeaning.



CAT13 said:


> And as I said before, I just have a different opinion than everyone else. And I don't really see what is wrong with that



Nothing wrong with an opinion, but there is something wrong with the "I'm not going to bother reading what you wrote" attitude. I can't understand it. I spent some time writing my thoughtful response to your totally unthoughtful comment in an attempt to help you understand this, and I get that sort of response. Really, I shouldn't be so surprised by this.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 11, 2008)

Bounb said:


> Nothing wrong with an opinion, but there is something wrong with the "I'm not going to bother reading what you wrote" attitude. I can't understand it. I spent some time writing my thoughtful response to your totally unthoughtful comment in an attempt to help you understand this, and I get that sort of response. Really, I shouldn't be so surprised by this.



about that... I just wanted to see how you would react.

I just don't really care about how the LHC is the greatest scientific endeavor in history. Or about how it will show us how the universe is created. And I don't care about what makes stuff, stuff; I just care about how the stuff is stuff and not about the stuff like how the stuff turned to stuff. And yes I do know that 99.9% of light speed is fast. But I am quite interested about this giant purple buffalo you speak of


----------



## Dene (Sep 11, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> I'm rather...appalled by lack of thought that went into your last sentence. You really think that a sufficiently fast computer can solve any problem?



Super intelligence?

EDIT: BTW, i'm doing a university paper on this stuff, just so you know.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

That doesn't make you right, necessarily.
Sure, a computer will be able to do something humans can't because it can calculate things much faster than humans. But what will it calculate? Where are the algorithms it runs through going to come from?
No matter how quickly a computer can analyze data, its going to need data to analyze and if the boundaries of knowledge are going to be pushed, experiments will need to be done.


----------



## Escher (Sep 11, 2008)

i think what CAT13 was trying to say is... that apart from making lots of scientists very interested/curious/happy, what are its benefits or potential benefits to everyday man? will it pave the way for newer, faster, cheaper technology for everyone? will it cure HIV/AIDS, cancer etc? will it help people? 
would $6 billion (or whatever) have been better spent on hospitals in Africa, or helping people in the Sudan, or gone towards renewable energy technologies? 

thats not really my opinion, but just wanted to try and clarify the argument. 

in perspective, $6 billion dollars is not a lot of money. Hell, 'makepovertyhistory' couldnt improve african peoples lives with 60 billion pounds! I heard somebody say that its more likely that aliens will fly down and land on the loch ness monsters head than the world will end because of the LHC. Finally, i believe that the LHC is one of the greatest undertakings of modern science, and it shows the fantastic ability of humans to work towards a goal. if i remember right, 5000 scientists, and 23 different countries (not including companies) have put effort into this, and thousands more have theorised about it. at any rate, its exciting stuff.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 11, 2008)

Yeah, not to make a political statement or anything, but compare $6 billion euros for this facility and its upkeep to your country's defense spending and research budget.


----------



## JBCM627 (Sep 12, 2008)

Dene said:


> However I think the money would be better spent developing a faster computer. Once we have a computer faster than a human brain, experiments will become pointless, the computer can solve all our problems!



Well but see, there will probably need to be quite a bit of research done in quantum mechanics and similar fields before we can significantly improve computers. How else are we going to cram more data and compute more efficiently in a small space?

On a similar note, ever heard of quantum dots? Check out the apps and the "see also" section. There are some quite interesting potential technologies.



Dene said:


> EDIT: BTW, i'm doing a university paper on this stuff, just so you know.



I'd be curious to read this.



hawkmp4 said:


> Yeah, not to make a political statement or anything, but compare $6 billion euros for this facility and its upkeep to your country's defense spending and research budget.



By "your country's", that means look at the US's. Its only a few orders of magnitude larger.


----------



## toast (Sep 12, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> Of course the LHC hasn't killed us.
> Thats not until 2012.


That's true.(;


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 12, 2008)

JBCM627 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, not to make a political statement or anything, but compare $6 billion euros for this facility and its upkeep to your country's defense spending and research budget.
> ...


That's correct, I won't deny it...I abhor it. 
On that note, The UK's defense spending for 2008 is at 34 billion pounds, the US is at 626 billion dollars. 
Disgusting, no?


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> That doesn't make you right, necessarily.
> Sure, a computer will be able to do something humans can't because it can calculate things much faster than humans. But what will it calculate? Where are the algorithms it runs through going to come from?
> No matter how quickly a computer can analyze data, its going to need data to analyze and if the boundaries of knowledge are going to be pushed, experiments will need to be done.



What I mean is: artificial intelligence. A computer that is infinitely smart should be able to work out the problems as of itself. I see no reason why that couldn't be the case. A smart computer designs an even smarter computer and so on until it is the ultimate in intelligent.



JBCM627 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: BTW, i'm doing a university paper on this stuff, just so you know.
> ...



Hmm. Sorry, there has been a misunderstanding. Over here we call courses "papers". What you call a "paper" we just call an assignment or an essay.


----------



## Erik (Sep 12, 2008)

Hmm, computers are just faster, not smarter. Computers can't think...
You just say, they do (FAST).


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2008)

Well, yes that is the big debate, could a computer be conscious? Most modern philosophers think it could. I also think it could, but possibly using a different perspective. I think a computer that learns a language just as a human does (this could be easily implemented) would attain consciousness as a side-effect of it.

It is actually amazing how simply the human brain can be broken down to processes easily replicable in a computer system. It would all be the same thing: electrical impulses.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 12, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...


 
626/34 == about 18
sure, we're not THAT much bigger than you, but we are a good bit bigger

I do agree, however; we spend too much on defense spending...


----------



## Erik (Sep 12, 2008)

Dene said:


> Well, yes that is the big debate, could a computer be conscious? Most modern philosophers think it could. I also think it could, but possibly using a different perspective. I think a computer that learns a language just as a human does (this could be easily implemented) would attain consciousness as a side-effect of it.
> 
> It is actually amazing how simply the human brain can be broken down to processes easily replicable in a computer system. It would all be the same thing: electrical impulses.



It would first require a total breakdown of how the brains work. Something that is far from acomplished nowadays. I think that once we found out the magic in the brains we could possibly make a similair construction in computers, although I doubt that this is a wanted thing to happen. You would at least have to outsmart them with some self-destruct stuff or they might make an army


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 12, 2008)

Dene said:


> I think a computer that learns a language just as a human does *(this could be easily implemented)*


[citation needed]



Stachuk1992 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > The UK's defense spending for 2008 is at 34 billion pounds, the US is at 626 billion dollars.
> ...


pound /= dollar


----------



## Karthik (Sep 12, 2008)

tim said:


> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Ha ha. Too good. +1


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 12, 2008)

Guoguodi said:


> There's actually a live webcam stream from the LHC (don't know what you'd watch it for, though).
> 
> http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html



made me chuckle 

Chris


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Sep 12, 2008)

Guoguodi said:


> There's actually a live webcam stream from the LHC (don't know what you'd watch it for, though).
> 
> http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html



hahahahaha! that caught me off gaurd!


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Sep 12, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> Guoguodi said:
> 
> 
> > There's actually a live webcam stream from the LHC (don't know what you'd watch it for, though).
> ...



Thats great ROTFLMAO


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 12, 2008)

Erik said:


> I think that once we found out the magic in the brains we could possibly make a similair construction in computers, although I doubt that this is a wanted thing to happen.



I don't see why you wouldn't want it to happen.


----------



## pcharles93 (Sep 12, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > I think that once we found out the magic in the brains we could possibly make a similair construction in computers, although I doubt that this is a wanted thing to happen.
> ...



Have you even seen "I, Robot"?


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 12, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> CAT13 said:
> 
> 
> > Erik said:
> ...



They are just computers. Its not like you are going to stick some arms and legs on it and give it a freaken gun. If Erik would have said "we could possible make a similair construction in *robots*, although I doubt that this is a wanted thing to happen," than I would totally agree. But it's just a computer, and computers without appendages can't do much harm.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 12, 2008)

Alright, even if we can model a human brain with a computer, and it was infinitely intelligent, however you want to define that...
It STILL needs to do experiments. One can postulate as much as he likes, it means jack without support.


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2008)

Firstly, consider this: A smart computer might realise it has a bomb attached to it and disarm it. Secondly, if the computer got access to the internet it could download itself onto a computer in a car manufacturing building, and make a robot out of the materials. What I'm trying to say is, Erik is right in that it might be a threat. This is why a lot of philosophers are saying to stop, before it's too late. Personally, I don't care if it destroys the whole earth, so I'm all for it  .

Mr. Laire: In modern theories of cognition quite a bit is known about how the learning process (of language) works. There are a few varying theories, but they could certainly be tried, and tweaked as necessary. Implementing it may be as simple as having a microphone and a few "innate" processes in the computer so that it learns, and attempts to speak, what it is hearing. It just depends on the specific details of how much innate knowledge the robot needs, which can be a matter of trial and error.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 13, 2008)

Dene said:


> Secondly, if the computer got access to the internet it could download itself onto a computer in a car manufacturing building, and make a robot out of the materials. What I'm trying to say is, Erik is right in that it might be a threat. This is why a lot of philosophers are saying to stop, before it's too late. Personally, I don't care if it destroys the whole earth, so I'm all for it



Firstly, computers aren't allowed on the internet without adult supervision. Secondly, I think that if there was any suspicion about such a thing happening, the computer would always be monitored (monitor, lol) anyway, the computer would always be monitored and never be connected to the internet without being watched. And make sure that it does NOT have wireless internet and the wired internet is always unplugged when not in use. Muahaha I just solved all your problems


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2008)

Lol? You're joking right? We're talking about a computer that is smarter than all the humans in the world put together multiplied my infinity. Do you honestly think you could stop it?


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 13, 2008)

Dene said:


> Lol? You're joking right? We're talking about a computer that is smarter than all the humans in the world put together multiplied my infinity. Do you honestly think you could stop it?



unplug it .


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2008)

Lol? I have a feeling this computer would have a different power source than to a simple plug. Remember, it is effectively a biological organism.


----------



## numegil (Sep 13, 2008)

Then smash it to pieces 

On a more serious note, I think that many people do not realize that the LHC and similar endeavors really can contribute to the solution of many global problems. For one thing, being able to understand quantum mechanics and similar sciences is essential to producing faster and better computers (quantum computers). 

Once we can make these good enough, all sorts of other research will be able to progress. Cancer research, AIDS, you name it. For example, I remember a few years ago seeing some kind of global network that PS3 owners could connect to in order to contribute to cancer research or something. Millions of people were connected from all over the world at any given time, donating some of their processing power to whatever research facility. Just imagine what kind of processing power research facilities around the world will have access to if we can figure out how to make quantum computers, and the vast things they will be able to do with this enormous processing power.

So for all of you that are saying that the LHC is useless to the common population, and that we should be more focused on more commonplace global problems, you are wrong. The LHC is really the first step toward solving many of these other issues.

On another note, I don't think it will ever be possible for us to create any machine that can outsmart us. Sure, they can do stuff loads faster than we can, but thats just speed, not ability. No matter what you do, a computer can only execute instructions, exactly what you give it. If I were to tell you to go to the bank, withdraw 10$, then come back and you were forced to follow my instructions exactly without doing anything else, how could you possibly make your own decisions? Computers are machines, we are humans. By definition, humans are conscious, machines are not.

-Alexei


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 13, 2008)

CAT13, when you come to your warm home today and make yourself dinner with that stove or microwave, then sit behind your computer and check your email, dont forget to realize that all of this comfort came to you from science. You seem to be taking it all for granted. All of these things were at one point or another "cutting edge physics".

"Instead lets all throw money at children in Africa"
Great fu**** solution. good job


----------



## pcharles93 (Sep 13, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, if the computer got access to the internet it could download itself onto a computer in a car manufacturing building, and make a robot out of the materials. What I'm trying to say is, Erik is right in that it might be a threat. This is why a lot of philosophers are saying to stop, before it's too late. Personally, I don't care if it destroys the whole earth, so I'm all for it
> ...



I have dealt with a few laptops that, if you don't enter the boot password in correctly, it connects to some security company and alerts them of unauthorized attempts at entering the laptop. Plus, why build a computer that smart if it has to be watched all the time? And, even if it is connected to the internet, do you think it will tell the supervisor "I'm connecting to the internet to access a line of assembly robots to build a new casing for me"? Computers do a lot of things without telling us.


----------



## Kenny (Sep 13, 2008)

Numegil, our brain is just like some kind of supercomputer with a gigantic capacity. Feelings, smells, hearing, seeing, being able to think, to remember things, to make our own decisions, these things all have their own mechanisms ...in our encephalon (technically, it's the cerebral cortex where most of these things are being carried out but w/e). We are not conscious because of some divine miracle, it's our brain that gives us consciousness and from a certain perspective, our brain is just like a computer.


----------



## DcF1337 (Sep 13, 2008)

Kenny said:


> Numegil, our brain is just like some kind of supercomputer with a gigantic capacity. Feelings, smells, hearing, seeing, being able to think, to remember things, to make our own decisions, these things all have their own mechanisms ...in our encephalon (technically, it's the cerebral cortex where most of these things are being carried out but w/e). *We are not conscious because of some divine miracle, it's our brain that gives us consciousness* and from a certain perspective, our brain is just like a computer.



Sorry if I sound rude, but I'm just asking. Are you actually implying that God does not exist, in your opinion?


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 13, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> CAT13, when you come to your warm home today and make yourself dinner with that stove or microwave, then sit behind your computer and check your email, dont forget to realize that all of this comfort came to you from science. You seem to be taking it all for granted. All of these things were at one point or another "cutting edge physics".
> 
> "Instead lets all throw money at children in Africa"
> Great fu**** solution. good job


hmm I thought we were done with this arguement


And about the supercomputer thing. If we could ever figure out a way to make a computer intelligent, then I think we could also figure out how to only give it the qualities of human brain that we want it to have. So in otherwords, give the computer our brain, minus anger, jealosy, and other things like that.


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 13, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > CAT13, when you come to your warm home today and make yourself dinner with that stove or microwave, then sit behind your computer and check your email, dont forget to realize that all of this comfort came to you from science. You seem to be taking it all for granted. All of these things were at one point or another "cutting edge physics".
> ...



hmmm yes i suppose we are  I was just skipping through the posts yesterday and found your misinformed posts and i just felt like correcting you. And I was a little drunk yesterday actually so it came out a little rude, but i still stand by the message.

and to stay on topic: yes when we get bigger and more badass supercomputers, we will be able to map out the brain and simulate it inside the computer. Now that's just taking us as a product of evolution over millions of years, and dumping it into a computer. And of course, it would "feel" and "think" just as we do, provided that we model our chemical processes in the brain correctly... which is harder than it may seem.

But to create intelligence from scratch would be much more involved, and to my knowledge noone has a clue on how to do this yet, if it is at all possible. (but i'd like to think it is)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 13, 2008)

CAT13 said:


> hmm I thought we were done with this arguement


Yeah, I thought you weren't gonna look at this thread anymore?


----------



## Rama (Sep 13, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> Now that's just taking us as a product of evolution over millions of years.



Evolution is not real, Jesus is the way and the truth and the life.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 13, 2008)

Evolution might be real, might not be real, but scientists are very close to proving it.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Sep 13, 2008)

That's a good idea, lightspeed cubers


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 13, 2008)

Rama said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > Now that's just taking us as a product of evolution over millions of years.
> ...


Your reasoning? (I'm hoping this is a sarcastic post...)

We might never know for sure a proven reason for why organisms are they way they are but all evidence suggests and the scientific consensus agrees with evolution.


----------



## CAT13 (Sep 13, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> CAT13 said:
> 
> 
> > hmm I thought we were done with this arguement
> ...


I changed my mind 



And lets try not to get into a religious debate


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 13, 2008)

I wasn't going to bring it up, but its kinda hard to avoid when someone says something like that :/


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 14, 2008)

Rama said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > Now that's just taking us as a product of evolution over millions of years.
> ...



I didn't want to believe it at first either! I mean... Noah's tale where he takes a pair of every animal in the entire world on a boat makes perfect sense! Those were dark days for me  Even to this day I struggle... Should I choose a logical explanation, or should I listen to a 2000 year old compilation of books, written by men, and compiled/edited and filtered by other men living 1000 years later? Why is life so hard..


----------



## Guoguodi (Sep 14, 2008)

Don't listen to badmephisto! He has 666 posts!! 0mg, he is the devilz0r !!1!


----------



## Dene (Sep 14, 2008)

numegil said:


> On another note, I don't think it will ever be possible for us to create any machine that can outsmart us. Sure, they can do stuff loads faster than we can, but thats just speed, not ability. No matter what you do, a computer can only execute instructions, exactly what you give it. If I were to tell you to go to the bank, withdraw 10$, then come back and you were forced to follow my instructions exactly without doing anything else, how could you possibly make your own decisions? Computers are machines, we are humans. By definition, humans are conscious, machines are not.
> 
> -Alexei



You already have a problem then, there are already computers that are almost as fast as the human brain. A quote from Nick Bostrom: "The fastest supercomputer today is IBM's Blue Gene/L, which has attained 260 Tops (2.6*10^14 ops). The Moravec estimate of the human brain's processing power (10^14 ops) has thus now been exceeded". This is, however, a lower estimate, and some people say the human brain is as fast as 10^18 ops. That was in 2005.

And I am talking about a computer that learns just as a human does, except far more efficiently. Yes it is possible, if you think not you are foolishly wrong.

Also, I have no idea where you get this idea of a human being conscious by definition and a machine not, but you have need a dictionary. I just checked dictionary.com for "human" and "machine". Neither of the definitions given under the first result mentioned consciousness. 



badmephisto said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > badmephisto said:
> ...



My lecturer made a very amusing statement about this one day. It was very spur of the moment (even for him) so it's hard to remember exactly, but he was talking about Aristotle, and how he thought all organisms reproduce sexually. He then made an extremely funny comment about how Noah must have had an interesting time gathering up all the bacteria and making them have sex, or something like that


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 14, 2008)

Noah's tale makes no sense. Evilution is seems biased too many fake missing link fossils. That suggests a certain belief/faith of evolution. In order to be purely not religious, I must condemn evolution as the ultimate evil religion. It is just fake atheism in disguise. I arrive at the conclusion that people have never existed. We are just figments of each other's imaginations. 

I don't really care actually, just trying to confuse people.


----------



## pcharles93 (Sep 14, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Noah's tale makes no sense. Evilution is seems biased too many fake missing link fossils. That suggests a certain belief/faith of evolution. In order to be purely not religious, I must condemn evolution as the ultimate evil religion. It is just fake atheism in disguise. I arrive at the conclusion that people have never existed. We are just figments of each other's imaginations.
> 
> I don't really care actually, just trying to confuse people.



Wow, CAT13 is pretty cruel then. I mean, who imagines starving children in Africa.


----------



## Rama (Sep 14, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > badmephisto said:
> ...



How can you proofe that God doesn't exists, it's impossible, because God exists.
I do not talk by ''scientific evidence'', but by faith.
Science is useless when it comes to God....

And don't say ''And why is there starvation etc...'', I will quote something I heard a few months ago, so I am not sure I will quote it exactly, but the meaning of it is understandable: ''Joy is not the absence of pain, but the presence of God''.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 14, 2008)

Rama said:


> How can you proofe that God doesn't exists, it's impossible, because God exists.



Nobody can prove if God exists or not. It's simply belief.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 14, 2008)

Rama said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...



And God is useless when it comes to science.

Did I EVER say God doesn't exist?
Ever?
And that's your opinion, don't try and push it as fact.
Personally, I don't know if there is a god or divine being/s or not...but I don't care, if I live my life in a good and moral manner if that god is good then he will like me 
But that's faith.
The proof is there for evolution. And there's a hell of a lot of proof. Just because its called the theory of evolution does not mean that its unsupported.


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 14, 2008)

There's is no proof for evolution. It's just a hoax by Darwin. It is the most evil religion of all. He secretly wanted everyone to believe in evolution so that he can become a sort of god to the so called non religious people.
All efforts to prove Evolutions are not objective. They are biased to begin with. The do not simply ask questions and analyze the data. They alter the numbers to make all discoveries support evolution. This is the greatest crime of religions. It must not interfere with true science.
Evolution is mostly rooted in racism. That's why there is social Darwinism. That's the original purpose of evolution. People try to proof that they are more advanced than others.


----------



## Rama (Sep 14, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> And God is useless when it comes to science.


In chemistry, Jesus turned water into wine.
In Biology, Jesus was born without the normal conception.
In physics, Jesus disproved the law of gravity when He ascended to Heaven.




hawkmp4 said:


> The proof is there for evolution. And there's a hell of a lot of proof. Just because its called the theory of evolution does not mean that its unsupported.



Evolution in a picture.
Look! The cheese is also full of holes.



hawkmp4 said:


> Personally, I don't know if there is a god or divine being/s or not...but I don't care, if I live my life in a good and moral manner if that god is good then he will like me
> But that's faith.



It's useless to do good deeds, if theres no relationship with God.


----------



## Harris Chan (Sep 14, 2008)

Come on guys, it was ancient aliens from outer space who did all this evolution. They performed hybrids and testing on early humans and create the modern human today. Ascended to Heaven? The UFO beamed Him up. Light from Heaven? It was the saucer in the sky.

(Intended as jokes)


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 14, 2008)

haha Harris that sounds almost like Scientology to me 

anyway, in the academic circles (people that study this stuff for their entire lives), evolution is not disputed at all, and on my university I have not found a single person that would question any part of it. I'm sad that there are layman out there who think that there is a big controversy surrounding the issue, and that we are all picking sides, when in fact this issue was in reality settled by all people with IQ > 90. Please educate yourself. Go on YouTube, search evolution, and listen through a couple of videos. just... unbelievable.
over and out


----------



## Rama (Sep 14, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> just... unbelievable.
> over and out



It's certainly unbelieveable that you don't believe in God.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2008)

Why must God and evolution be mutually exclusive? That's my question. Yes aside from the fact that by creationism we were created a short time ago (by evolution standards). Still things like fruit flies, mayflies, or bacteria with a short lifespan can still evolve, even if we were created a short time ago.

It makes no sense to me that people think it's impossible that both can't be true.

Chris


----------



## Athefre (Sep 14, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Evolution is mostly rooted in racism. People try to proof that they are more advanced than others.



And most Christians (and non-Christians) would say that there are two categories of creatures, Animals and Humans.



cmhardw said:


> Why must God and evolution be mutually exclusive? That's my question. Yes aside from the fact that by creationism we were created a short time ago (by evolution standards). Still things like fruit flies, mayflies, or bacteria with a short lifespan can still evolve, even if we were created a short time ago.
> 
> It makes no sense to me that people think it's impossible that both can't be true.
> 
> Chris



People just don't want to merge them, usually according to one side the other is impossible so they can't exist together, according to both sides.

It seems like a great idea to me but I'm still undecided about my beliefs.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 14, 2008)

Rama said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > And God is useless when it comes to science.
> ...



Can you reproduce those so we can see for ourselves?


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 14, 2008)

There's no need for a discussion when we don't have facts.
You can argue if evolution exists or not, but trying to prove or disprove Jesus ascending to heaven is nonsense.


----------



## ST (Sep 14, 2008)

Something that I find incredibly interesting is how most of the supposedly objective evolutionist community get so upset when their sacred cow is attacked.

The real questions, first:



> Why must God and evolution be mutually exclusive? That's my question. Yes aside from the fact that by creationism we were created a short time ago (by evolution standards). Still things like fruit flies, mayflies, or bacteria with a short lifespan can still evolve, even if we were created a short time ago.
> 
> It makes no sense to me that people think it's impossible that both can't be true.



The answer lies in Romans 5:12; ...Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—...

In Christian teachings, the Fall of Man separated us from God, and it is only through atonement from Jesus that we can be saved, since he pays the price for our sin. Now, in evolutionary teachings, there is no fall from a state of perfection, which is the fundamental reason in which evolution undercuts Christianity.

If evolution were true, and I quote from “American Atheist” here:

“…the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. …

Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"

Some evolutionists understand the issue more clearly than Christians!



> People just don't want to merge them, usually according to one side the other is impossible so they can't exist together, according to both sides.
> 
> It seems like a great idea to me but I'm still undecided about my beliefs.



Although it seems like a great idea, compromise just isn't possible, as I have briefly shown above. Theistic evolution also implies that God, who is omni-benevolent, and who Christianity teaches “contains no evil” created humans through millions of years of death, disease and suffering; a clear contradiction.

Those appear to be the only legitimate and reasonable questions from the non-Christians (I apologise if I've missed anyone else).



> anyway, in the academic circles (people that study this stuff for their entire lives), evolution is not disputed at all



Hand waving and closing ranks against creationists. It is also completely untrue; there are many legitimate scientists who are conservative, Bible believing creationists:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983

In any case, you’ve committed the genetic fallacy rather marvellously here. A belief’s truth is not based on who believes it.



> on my university I have not found a single person that would question any part of it.



More hand waving.



> I'm sad that there are layman out there who think that there is a big controversy surrounding the issue, and that we are all picking sides, when in fact this issue was in reality settled by all people with IQ > 90.



Genetic fallacy (again…), elephant hurling, and an instance of ad hominem!



> Please educate yourself. Go on YouTube, search evolution, and listen through a couple of videos.



Another instance of ad hominem. Naturally, all those who dispute evolution are stupid bigots who don't understand a single fact of science. A classic case of poisoning the well.



> just... unbelievable.
> over and out



It really is unbelievable that YouTube is depicted here as a definitive source of information. I’ve seen some of these so called educational videos, and suffice to say that they are sadly lacking, most (although admittedly not all) consisting of some person ranting at a video camera (yes; this does include some “professional” ones).

I find the distinct lack of real content in your posts quite worrying

Of course, it does not matter that mutations always result in a neutral or downhill change in genetic information and specified complexity, and that natural selection has no creative power, and only really works to cull the more damaging mutations out of the gene pool (the majority are not subject to it, so the mutational load builds up; we're experiencing devolution, not evolution).



> And God is useless when it comes to science.



Ah. I find it amusing, then, that real science relies on Biblical axioms, and that science began in earnest only once; in Europe, under the influence of Christianity.



> It's useless to do good deeds, if theres no relationship with God.



Yep. It's equally useless for a deed to qualify as good or bad without God. With no standard of absolute morality, good and evil are chemical by-products of our brain, having no more concrete value than air.

The key issue to bear in mind with this debate is that we are dealing with origins, not operational science. Simplistically, origins science is a historical reconstruction of the past, which is naturally heavily influenced by the reconstructor’s philosophy; hence, nobody is perfectly objective in this field, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but one must be aware of it.

Hope that helps to clear some things up.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2008)

ST said:


> > Why must God and evolution be mutually exclusive? That's my question. Yes aside from the fact that by creationism we were created a short time ago (by evolution standards). Still things like fruit flies, mayflies, or bacteria with a short lifespan can still evolve, even if we were created a short time ago.
> >
> > It makes no sense to me that people think it's impossible that both can't be true.
> 
> ...



I think the issue here is people are not considering that this argument allows for two kinds of evolution. If creationism is true, then the evolution of humans from a simpler state to our current state is impossible, and did not occur. I concede this.

However, what is to say that the evolution of a currently existing species, as a process, is invalid? This is what pisses me off. The fact that people say that species don't change due to their environments.

Let's say I take one large population of fruit flies, separate them into two groups. One group will be contained in a proper habitat for fruit flies with food and everything to sustain life for generations, only I alter the temperature of this habitat to be near the highest tolerable temperature of the fruit fly (before causing death).

Now take the other half of this original population and place them into a separate, almost identical, habitat only alter the temperature of their habitat to be close to the lowest tolerable temperature for fruit flies (just slightly warmer than causing death).

Now let these populations live for a long time, say 20 years. Are you seriously telling me after many many generations of fruit flies that there would be absolutely no physiological changes when comparing the flies after 20 years with those who were originally placed inside the habitats?

I can't believe how people get so worked up over this. If creationism is true, then yes the evolution of humans from a simpler state to our current state never happened. How could that not be obvious? As someone who believes very strongly in evolution as a scientific process, it makes perfect sense that if God created man, then man did not evolve from a previous state to our current state. We were simply created this way. It makes sense, I see no qualms about this.

*However*, I disagree completely that all species currently in existence are not in the process of evolving due to our environments.

This is why I think it is possible for both to be true. Now let me state this very precisely, because frankly I am sick of hearing the same arguments from people who say evolution is crap.

Let's assume the creationist view of the universe is true. In this case, God created man probably in the vicinity of 2000-3000 years ago. In this case we did not evolve from apes, or rather from a simpler primate state into our current state. Any evidence of this fact was created by God, possibly as a ruse or whatever you want to think about this fact.

*However*, it has been nearly proven that species as they exist now are capable of evolving. Therefore all species are evolving or changing to react to their environment. You see this in fruit flies, humans, etc..

How does this not make sense as at least being a possibility? Evolution does not need to be a "religion". Those who think we evolutionists think of ourselves as believing in the "religion" of evolution are sadly mistaken and are putting words into our mouth, which again pisses me off.

My question has yet to be answered. I state it much more precisely below:

*Why is it impossible for God to have created man as we are now, and for us also to be evolving from our current state into some future state due to our environments with each successive generation?*

I think science has proven that species can evolve from our created state. I challenge you to refute this if you think evolution is completely wrong. Remember I am *not* referring to the evolution of humans from apes to what we are now. I *am* referring to the process by which a species is changing over successive generations from our current state to some future state as dictated by factors in our environment.

I'm going to go cube now. I both love and hate these kinds of discussions.
I finish with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

Chris


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 14, 2008)

My previous posts were obviously silly. 
Of course any cases in condition would produce changes in gene expression in even minutes. All creatures change and adapt wit their environments so that they can be better suited for it. But that only various in a certain range. I'm not sure what is the exact range. I don't think it is possible that bacteria evolved into humans. But like small variations are definitely true and possible. For example, perhaps all cats, leopards, lions, etc are just variants in the cat group. But that group is closed and does not lead to new possibilities.
I was taught and believed evolution when I was very young, it just seemed like such a magical happy idea, but the real world doesn't really work that way...
The creation story was intriguing and completely new to me. It's such a radical way of looking at things.
I'd say that they aren't completely mutually exclusive, but they are on the topic of the origin of humans.
I don't think we can ever find out the truth, so just be happy and enjoy cubing! I'm going to play with my megaminx or magic now.


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 14, 2008)

ST said:


> bla bla bla




Ok there Mr. Scrabble, you accuse me of having no substance but despite throwing around big words, I find it difficult to find a coherent thought in there. 

So wait, let me get this straight... Those 100 names are THE list of "Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation" ? See if you can count and list them like that, you know you have a problem.

Moreover, my concern here is not that much that people don't understand how evolution works, but worse, refuse to find out because they are afraid it may clash with their faith. Even worse, they go on message boards and argue with people about it when they have no idea what it is about. They just know that someone told them its evil and wrong.

Lastly, yes Youtube IS a good source of information. If you want to listen to a random person "ranting" at a video camera, you can do that. But I hope you have noticed that there is no shortage of clips from highly regarded documentaries that normally air on national television. 
But no, you're right. I should have suggested that people go on internet and find a full documentary, pay 50 dollars plus shipping for the DVDs, wait 1 month to have it delivered and THEN learn about evolution. I'll do that next time, my bad.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.


----------



## ST (Sep 14, 2008)

I don't have muchtime to give a full reply right now, but you are correct in that a species can change. However (I did not expand greatly upon this point before, since that was not the place for such an issue to be raised), mutations and natural selection only lend themselves to a downhill change in genetic information and specified complexity; the "evolution" that we observe today is headed in the wrong direction when compared to the change required for particles-to-people evolution to work (which requires gross amounts of added information. 

Unfortunately, many evolutionists equivocate between these two types of change, lumping them both under the broad heading of "evolution", which tends to obfuscate the whole debate.



> However, I disagree completely that all species currently in existence are not in the process of evolving due to our environments.



This is actually an important part of the Creationist model. Creationists believe that the original created "kinds" were broader than our current classification of species, and had sufficient genetic information to account for all the diversity present in modern day animals. This was how Noah was able to fit all the animals onto the ark; he required only one pair from each kind, not from each species.



> However, it has been nearly proven that species as they exist now are capable of evolving. Therefore all species are evolving or changing to react to their environment. You see this in fruit flies, humans, etc..
> 
> Why is it impossible for God to have created man as we are now, and for us also to be evolving from our current state into some future state due to our environments with each successive generation?



You are completely correct, and I cannot think of many well-informed creationists who would contend this issue. However, I think that it is misleading to call this evolution, since this implies evolution in the full blown particles-to-people sense (although not all people mean this).



> I think science has proven that species can evolve from our created state. I challenge you to refute this if you think evolution is completely wrong. Remember I am not referring to the evolution of humans from apes to what we are now. I am referring to the process by which a species is changing over successive generations from our current state to some future state as dictated by factors in our environment.



Once again, you are correct in that science has proven that a species can change from its current state as a result of natural selection and mutations. I do not wish to refute this, since it is an undeniable fact that is crucial to the Creationist model, as detailed above.



> I'm going to go cube now. I both love and hate these kinds of discussions.
> I finish with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4



E-hugs from England, too.  (Or should that be V-Hugs  )

Steve

EDIT: I've got to go now; I'll respond to others tomorrow (Chris's post was the first I saw).


----------



## Erik (Sep 14, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> I finish with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4



Hugs Chris!


----------



## Dene (Sep 14, 2008)

This will be fun. BTW, let's make it clear, YES I am a Christian, YES evolution is fact, NO I am not a Creationist.



ST said:


> Something that I find incredibly interesting is how most of the supposedly objective evolutionist community get so upset when their sacred cow is attacked.



Ad hominem, hypocrite.



> The real questions, first:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is that an answer? It's only some dribble about sin, not evolution.



> In Christian teachings, the Fall of Man separated us from God, and it is only through atonement from Jesus that we can be saved, since he pays the price for our sin. Now, in evolutionary teachings, there is no fall from a state of perfection, which is the fundamental reason in which evolution undercuts Christianity.



I don't see how there is a problem here. Maybe man fell from God when people like you started manipulating His words.



> If evolution were true, and I quote from “American Atheist” here:
> 
> “…the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. …
> 
> Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"



Yet again, a load of crap. (Trust an American to say something so silly).



> Some evolutionists understand the issue more clearly than Christians!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't "briefly" show anything. And hello! Notice the *billions* that are dying and suffering today. Your own argument is the destruction of itself.



> Those appear to be the only legitimate and reasonable questions from the non-Christians (I apologise if I've missed anyone else).



I suggest reading some Hume. You might find some more powerful athiest arguments there. (Might i stress here that I do not agree with Hume, however he was a genius and you will crumble under his intelligence).



> > anyway, in the academic circles (people that study this stuff for their entire lives), evolution is not disputed at all
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called an appeal to authority. I don't think the genetic fallacy quite applies the same here. And there is reason to handwave against the Creationists: Becuase they're wrong.



> > Please educate yourself. Go on YouTube, search evolution, and listen through a couple of videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Another instance of ad hominem. Naturally, all those who dispute evolution are stupid bigots who don't understand a single fact of science. A classic case of poisoning the well.



How is this an ad hominem?? Stop throwing out fancy terms that you don't understand, moron. (YES, that was an ad hominem, YES I did it intentionally, YES I meant it).



> I find the distinct lack of real content in your posts quite worrying



Hypcorite, again? Where was the quality content in your post? I don't see it?



> Of course, it does not matter that mutations always result in a neutral or downhill change in genetic information and specified complexity, and that natural selection has no creative power, and only really works to cull the more damaging mutations out of the gene pool (the majority are not subject to it, so the mutational load builds up; we're experiencing devolution, not evolution).



Obviously you lack any knowledge of how evolution works. It is not intentional, it does not aim for anything. Evolution is a blind process. Yikes, need I say more, you're arguing against something that isn't there.



> The key issue to bear in mind with this debate is that we are dealing with origins, not operational science. Simplistically, origins science is a historical reconstruction of the past, which is naturally heavily influenced by the reconstructor’s philosophy; hence, nobody is perfectly objective in this field, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but one must be aware of it.



Reconstruction of the past is provable. For example: There a dinosaur bones, therefore dinosaurs existed. Unless we're going to be skeptical (in which case you really are on the wrong side, arguing for the existence of something you can't even _see_) you really lack any argument against bones and fossils.



> Hope that helps to clear some things up.



You failed to clear anything up.


----------



## Erik (Sep 14, 2008)

Erik hugs Dene too? 
To add anything at all:
I believe in God personally, it's kind of like how I call my concience and kind of the christian God too. It's my voice in my head that tells me 'don't do it' when I'm about to do bad stuff. It might sound a bit weird, but I don't care, it's clear and logical to me.
Also, I'm a strong believer in the evolution *theory*, yes it's a theory and it'll probably be like that for a looong time. Especially in my school I learned a lot about it.

What this discussion is going to (disregarding the fact that it's completely off topic (remember how it was called 'LHC didn't kill us yet'?) is people explaining their faith or believes here and are actually argumenting why theirs is right and the others' is wrong. 
That's the most useless thing you could ever do. People don't change their religion or believes just because you tell them to. Sometimes people change, but it always comes from the inside of that person and free will.

Furthermore I'd like to add that I encourage everyone to keep believing what they believe no matter if it's Allah, God, Aliens or a Flying Spaghetti Monster *BUT *don't let your religion influence other things. Things like politics, or things that have to do with the way you treat other people and especially not actions that are against the law or just common sence.

I ask you to either quit this discussion here, or to make a new thread discussing this subject. Let's stick here with making fantasies about the LHC monster.
Thanks and hugs, 
Erik


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 14, 2008)

Erik said:


> What this discussion is going to (disregarding the fact that it's completely off topic (remember how it was called 'LHC didn't kill us yet'?)


Well, it's the Off Topic forum, it might have been misunderstood


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 14, 2008)

Erik said:


> Erik hugs Dene too?
> To add anything at all:
> I believe in God personally, it's kind of like how I call my concience and kind of the christian God too. It's my voice in my head that tells me 'don't do it' when I'm about to do bad stuff. It might sound a bit weird, but I don't care, it's clear and logical to me.
> Also, I'm a strong believer in the evolution *theory*, yes it's a theory and it'll probably be like that for a looong time. Especially in my school I learned a lot about it.
> ...



well said Eric. 
Just to clarify, I have no problem with people believing in god. I do have problem when that belief starts to interfere with my life (mostly through politics as it often does). Faith should be a personal matter, but maybe it is too much to ask of it to stay just that. We all know the ways its been used in the past to push economic and political agenda of highly placed individuals (take Crusades as the perfect example)

So anyway, LHC monster eh?


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> So anyway, LHC monster eh?



In the spirit of all the amazing cubing "friends" who are way better than all of us actual competitors, I wonder if particles physics has something similar.

"I had a friend one time who discovered the Higgs Boson in his basement in 10 seconds on a homemade particle accelerator, but never told anybody."

"Rather than collide particles together I used to just peel the electrons off the atoms."

"omg wuz teh fastest way 2 discover a H1ggz boson? Can sum1 tell me plzz?!?!"

Chris


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 14, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > So anyway, LHC monster eh?
> ...



LOL OLL ROF2L!!!

You are the funniest person ever! (and best at BLD!)
http://www.lab-initio.com/sci_physics.html


----------



## Dene (Sep 15, 2008)

Mr. Akkersdijk: How about we keep the hugging to cubes only?   (or cats! I love my cats)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 15, 2008)

*hugs Dene*


----------



## Dene (Sep 15, 2008)

*and walks away with a sore face*


----------



## ST (Sep 16, 2008)

> My previous posts were obviously silly.



I know; it just annoys me when people do this.



> Of course any cases in condition would produce changes in gene expression in even minutes. All creatures change and adapt wit their environments so that they can be better suited for it. But that only various in a certain range. I'm not sure what is the exact range. I don't think it is possible that bacteria evolved into humans. But like small variations are definitely true and possible. For example, perhaps all cats, leopards, lions, etc are just variants in the cat group. But that group is closed and does not lead to new possibilities.



I understand what you’re saying, but it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s not so much the amount of change, but the type of change.



> I was taught and believed evolution when I was very young, it just seemed like such a magical happy idea, but the real world doesn't really work that way...
> The creation story was intriguing and completely new to me. It's such a radical way of looking at things.
> I'd say that they aren't completely mutually exclusive, but they are on the topic of the origin of humans.



You seem to have some interesting ideas on this subject (I mean this in a good way); I disagree when it comes to creation and evolution being mutually exclusive, however.



> I don't think we can ever find out the truth, so just be happy and enjoy cubing! I'm going to play with my megaminx or magic now.



I think we can, but it will always require some faith. Hope you enjoy the megaminx (which I really need to get), and be happy too.

With consideration to Erik’s request, I’ve PMed both badmephisto and Dene in a continuation of the discussion, rather than continuing to drag this thread off-topic any longer.


----------



## Lofty (Sep 16, 2008)

Can someone explain how life originally came from non-life? With regards to things like chirality and such. And then how we got from a few organic molecules all the way to the first cell? A link will suffice. But I have thought about the subject. I read Francis Collins book the Language of God and Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator. 
I'm a Christian but don't care too much about evolution or creation as finding a final answer on the subject won't affect my faith at all. 
Lol @ Dene. Do you not like Physical contact? Free hugs to everyone.


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2008)

I don't nkow anything about chirality, but:
The idea that I think is strongest for the origins of life is the idea of there being a whole bunch of molecules being formed and dying randomly on Earth for billions of years. Then, purely by chance, one came about that had the special ability to replicate (this one of course being DNA). The rest is a matter of spreading and random mutations (i.e., evolution).
I don't know enough biology to be specific, but I don't see how there are too many complications here. A DNA mutates with certain features that pose an advantage, and so on and so on until the DNA has created a shell for protection, and suddenly you have a cell. (this of course is very simplified).
I recommend reading books by Dawkins, particularly The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable.

And no, Lofty, I do not like physical contact.


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 17, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Can someone explain how life originally came from non-life? With regards to things like chirality and such. And then how we got from a few organic molecules all the way to the first cell? A link will suffice. But I have thought about the subject. I read Francis Collins book the Language of God and Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator.
> I'm a Christian but don't care too much about evolution or creation as finding a final answer on the subject won't affect my faith at all.
> Lol @ Dene. Do you not like Physical contact? Free hugs to everyone.



I'll take a crack at this one because this is a field I am really interested in, so I researched stuff about it already. There are a couple of things you must understand here:

1. This question is so incredibly hard, that it actually has a complete field dedicated to it. It is called Abiogenesis. It is concerned with how life began. It is NOT evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution. People often make the mistake of connecting the two somehow.

2. It is believed that life in its simplest forms was created somewhere 3-4 billion years ago. I stress again: 3-4 BILLION years ago. This is such a GIANT number, and such a GIANT span of time, that it is hard to imagine even how much of time that is. But all chemicals were in place, and Earth was stable enough at that time to start supporting trivial forms of life. 

3. We currently have not proved any conjecture about how life began, and there is no scientific consensus on which conjecture is right or not. NOTE my use of 'conjecture'. These are not theories. Theories are actually MUCH bigger deal than this, in Science lingo: Such as the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Evolution. That being said, there are a couple of mechanism that were put forward that could work. This is a very hard area to study, because all of this happened over such incredibly long time, and sooo long ago.

4. This is incredibly cutting edge stuff, and requires a lot of laws of Quantum Mechanics, and knowledge from different areas of physics/chemistry/molecular kinetics, etc. Therefore it is very hard to explain to layman such as yourself (no offense of course is implied). To present you with an analogy you may understand a little is... Imagine trying to explain the M2R2 method to a COMPLETE Rubik's Cube beginner. And you have to do this in 5 minutes or he will loose interest. Where would you even start?!

Finally,
Here is a YouTube channel of one postdoc with a PhD in Molecular Neuroscience. He is quite popular on YouTube for his quality and accuracy of material. 
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
Check out one of his videos on Abiogenesis for a small idea of what it is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg




EDIT:


Dene said:


> I don't nkow anything about chirality, but:
> The idea that I think is strongest for the origins of life is the idea of there being a whole bunch of molecules being formed and dying randomly on Earth for billions of years. Then, purely by chance, one came about that had the special ability to replicate (this one of course being DNA). The rest is a matter of spreading and random mutations (i.e., evolution).
> I don't know enough biology to be specific, but I don't see how there are too many complications here. A DNA mutates with certain features that pose an advantage, and so on and so on until the DNA has created a shell for protection, and suddenly you have a cell. (this of course is very simplified).
> I recommend reading books by Dawkins, particularly The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable.
> And no, Lofty, I do not like physical contact.


And of course that is wrong. We are almost absolutely certain that DNA did not spontaneously appear as the first carrier of information. It is way too complex. And your use of random is of little concern. Remember this is all not only random, but also GUIDED. That is important. But you do have the right idea.


----------



## Lofty (Sep 17, 2008)

Well chirality is the fact that these random molecules will be both right and left handed meaning just mirror images of each other. One would expect chains of said molecules forming to be a random mix of both handedness but in life we find that they are all the same handedness...
So not only did molecules form that could reproduce, which I don't know how it happened and pretty much everyone agrees the Stanley-Miller experiment is false in that it used the wrong gases for the early atmosphere and from what I've heard the only thing they can get from trying to use more accurate mixtures is things like formaldehyde...
yes that is far too simplified and much too good to be true. How would the DNA get the shell? It would have to have some means to manufacture the shell and where would that come from.
Evolution, survival of the fittest, and all that, sounds good in theory but I don't know how well it actually fleshes out especially in the very early stages like this.
And I think you should get used to it Dene. Other people can be quite nice.
Edit in response to badmephisto: 
Well you can't have evolution from the simplest life form up to the ones we have now if the first life form can't have come into existence so I see how they are very easily and necessarily linked. And I understand its a long time but in that time we have to get from absolutely nothing to everything we see today. And doesn't the fossil record give us some more limitations on that time? Like by the time of the Precambrian explosion there already had to be incredible advances by out early life forms. 
As for point 4 shoot and see if I get bored. I am a college student studying physics and math who has looked into this stuff some im not a complete noob. I'll check out the links provided in the next few days tho. If anything from our discussion I'd like to at least show not all Christian laypeople are blindly shutting down evolution without serious thought in it.


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2008)

badmephisto: Naturally; I just gave my own simplified version (because of the simple knowledge I have in the area). But in effect that is what had to happen. Something random happened that led to DNA, and from there evolution did its thing.


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 17, 2008)

Lofty said:


> As for point 4 shoot and see if I get bored. I am a college student studying physics and math who has looked into this stuff some im not a complete noob. I'll check out the links provided in the next few days tho. If anything from our discussion I'd like to at least show not all Christian laypeople are blindly shutting down evolution without serious thought in it.



I know, you get respect points from me just for asking about it, and letting me try and explain, at least briefly 

and btw, we went from almost nothing to all this in just few thousand years, and they are all documented and undisputed  Imagine that only 2-3000 years ago we all lived in huts around one big fire. Compare that with the 4 BILLION of years  And yes they are linked, but you see people all the time claiming that "we cant explain origins of life, so evolution is clearly false". Evolution already assumes life, and looks at how it changes. You can see how wrong the argument is. You study math. Think base case as AbioGenesis, and induction step as evolution  Often base case is the easy one, but ironically it turns out that in real life and cutting edge science, we struggle more (at least for now) with the former.

edit: funny tidbit: I was actually Christian up until about 14 years of age, simply because my entire family is Christian. In fact, chances are that all of you that have some faith, simply have the same faith as your parents. It just shows how arbitrary it is. In any case, I am now often referred to as the family abomination


----------



## Lofty (Sep 17, 2008)

Yea but I think that the human brain actively creating things is completely different then some atoms and molecules randomly interacting... unless you are advocating divine intervention (symmetric to us humans using our brains) 
I would just hate to be the evolutionist if ever the day comes that the abiogenesist goes "crap, we can't figure this out" and his life work was based upon a false assumption...
And you don't just have to give me a brief history of time you can go into as much detail as you want and I'll read it/research it.
And I'd like to transfer my respect gained from me to Christianity in general.
Even if you do convince me on abiogenesis you'e just pushed the creator back a step farther onto the cosmologists plate not eliminated him.


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2008)

How would it be problematic for the evolutionist? Evolution has been proven in fruit flies, it is all real. We have seen it in real time. It is just as real as your hands in front of you. (as is a classic reference in epistomology).


----------



## badmephisto (Sep 17, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Yea but I think that the human brain actively creating things is completely different then some atoms and molecules randomly interacting... unless you are advocating divine intervention (symmetric to us humans using our brains)
> I would just hate to be the evolutionist if ever the day comes that the abiogenesist goes "crap, we can't figure this out" and his life work was based upon a false assumption...
> And you don't just have to give me a brief history of time you can go into as much detail as you want and I'll read it/research it.
> And I'd like to transfer my respect gained from me to Christianity in general.
> Even if you do convince me on abiogenesis you'e just pushed the creator back a step farther onto the cosmologists plate not eliminated him.



Be careful  If I were that evolutionary scientist, and someone tells me abiogenesis is actually a bunch of crap and can never work, I would be perfectly fine with that  Look around you. There is life everywhere. I dont care how it got here, but I know that its here  Since my assumption is satisfied, my conclusions are valid  I think my analogy with induction has mislead you slightly. It doesn't indeed quite work.


----------



## Lofty (Sep 17, 2008)

Oh yea don't mistake me for saying that I don't believe in any kind of evolution at all... My main beef is with the early stages and change of species. Of course the minor stuff I have no problem with at all.


----------



## sgowal (Sep 17, 2008)

Evolution is a very vague word.

You can think of atoms/molecules assembling to each other to form an other molecule. The resulting molecule might not be stable and will split (not surviving). The same principle can be applied to even smaller particles. That could be considered some kind of evolution.

I am conscious that I am simplifying a lot, but I guess, you guys get my point.


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Oh yea don't mistake me for saying that I don't believe in any kind of evolution at all... My main beef is with the early stages and change of species. Of course the minor stuff I have no problem with at all.



Changing species can occur in many different ways, known as speciation.

Going on the idea that evolution by natural selection consists of three factors:
1) Random mutation of a gene.
2) Gene-environment interaction.
3) Selection.

First, take the definition of a species to be "a group of organisms capable of sexual intercourse and producing viable offpsring", where "viable" means the offspring can then produce further offspring. By this definition a mule does not count, as it cannot itself breed. Second, take a species, and separate it into two separate environments. Third, wait several million years. Fourth, bring the species back together, and see if they can produce viable offspring. If they can't then speciation has occurred. You now have 2 separate species.
There are of course different modes of speciation (check the link. I didn't read it myself, but I assume it is all the same since I learnt this stuff).


----------



## Muesli (Apr 11, 2010)

Just a quick bump.

The LHC has been smashing particles for about 3 weeks now at half speed (7 TeV as opposed to 14 TeV).

Be afraid, very afraid.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 11, 2010)

Why?


----------



## stinkocheeze (Apr 11, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Why?



BAM! Collider smashes at full speed. Black hole is created... "oh f***"


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 11, 2010)

>Implying that you have knowledge about black holes on that scale, and you actually understand what the LHC does.


EDIT: Also, you'll notice that if you read the thread, that was already addressed:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85115&postcount=29


----------



## stinkocheeze (Apr 11, 2010)

4Chan said:


> >Implying that you have knowledge about black holes on that scale, and you actually understand what the LHC does.



And I don't. 

But I know what the LHC is...


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 11, 2010)

Then you wouldn't make stupid posts.

Yes, it was stupid.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 11, 2010)

stinkocheeze said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



Do you... know why black holes are dangerous, by any chance?


----------



## adimare (Apr 11, 2010)

ST said:


> Of course, it does not matter that mutations always result in a neutral or downhill change in genetic information and specified complexity, and that natural selection has no creative power, and only really works to cull the more damaging mutations out of the gene pool (the majority are not subject to it, so the mutational load builds up; we're experiencing devolution, not evolution).



Are you really that ignorant? Or are you blatantly lying? If what you wrote were true, it'd be possible (and relatively easy) to get rid of a lot of diseases that cause quite a bit of trouble. From Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, regarding this very issue:



Spoiler



In 1996, a new class of drugs, were specifically engineered to block HIV-protease, one of the key enzymes used by the virus that causes AIDS. Compounds unlike any found in nature were engineered to fit precisely into a crevice in this protein enzyme, to block its activity. HIV-infected people treated with these new protease inhibitors showed dramatic improvements. The drugs blocked viral respiration and delayed the onset of symptoms so effectively that AIDS-related hospitalizations dropped dramatically. A new age of therapy seemed to be dawning.

However, evolution enabled HIV to strike back. The virus has a very high mutation rate, owing to the sloppy work done by the reverse transcriptase enzyme it uses to copy its genetic material. During the course of long months and years of treatment, mutations of the HIV-protease gene appeared in the very bodies of people using the drugs. Gradually the effectiveness of the drugs waned, owing to the emergence of the new, drug-ressistant varieties of the virus. Why were these viruses drug-resistant? Because they had undergone mutations that remodeled their proteases, enabling them to do their work without allowing the protease inhibitors to block them.

In short, that random, undirected process of mutation had produced the "right" kind of variation for natural selection to act upon, even within the body of one individual.



I could give you many more examples of situations were it's been proven that mutations can be beneficial. Actually, the Ames test (the primary test used to check the mutagenic potential of a chemical) relies on this very fact:


----------

