Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Marauder on May 28, 2006, 12:19:46 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html)
Now taking bets! Chicken or the egg came first - get your tickets here! :P
-
"eggsperts"
- Oh for god's sake...
"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
- :wtf:
"Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
- These are without a doubt the Einsteins of our time. :rolleyes:
-
My money's on the Cockerel ;)
-
Humerously enough, a flash animation on newgrounds solved this about 6 months before...
link (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/294180)
-
dinosaurs were laying eggs long before the chicken ever existed.
-
Ya think? :rolleyes:
-
Actually, Dinosaurs were chickens in potentia. Theres a nice philosophical discussion for you, considering that a Dinosaur is merely what a 'chicken' looked like 65 million years ago, is the question even relevant? ;)
-
i say niether, the single-celled organism came before either the chicken, or the egg. :p
-
...I think the point is that the organism we call a chicken must have a certain range of DNA. Outside of that range, the organism is not a chicken, inside, it is. The modern chicken evolved from some previous organism who was not a chicken in this genetic sense. It copulated, and a zygote formed, which is essentially an egg without a shell rather than part of the surrounding chicken which is not the same organism. Within the zygote the DNA was arranged in such a way that it became the modern chicken. QED.
Ta. :ha:
This is old, also. My science teacher told me this 2 years ago.
The real question is, what came first - war, or Alpha 1?
-
No no no, the egg and chicken were the second to come. Fist came the cock.
-
The Egg couldn't get laid until the chicken did.
-
Eventually, this goes to creo vs evo (like most debates concerning living things usually do).
If you're a creationist, chicken was first because they were created. That's quite obvious because even God (despite His obvious lack of common sense in some cases) couldn't be so stupid as to waste his holy infinite energy to first make an egg, keep it warm until it hatched and then take care of it until it got big enough to feed itself, no sir, He would have made the chicken ready once and for all IMO (should there have been a creation...)
If you're an evolutionist like I am, the egg was logically first, because the first bird that could be qualified as a chicken was logically borne as an egg laid by a "pre-chicken" bird, a bird that couldn't yet be qualified as a chicken.
More specifically, the first chicken was the bird that lacked the ability to reproduce with the species from which the chicken originally derived from via specifiation.
So, first there was a pre-chicken population of birds. Then one part of that population was separated from the other part of population, and started to evolve onto chicken-ish direction. When the first member of this separate population differed enough from the original population (ie. couldn't reproduce with the original population but only with its own part of population), it was the first chicken and it was the same chicken inside the egg, thus the egg was first. The bird that laid the first egg was not yet a chicken, but its ancestors were (and are) chickens.
In short, a non-chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken that had evolved from the non-chicken via mutations. :lol:
Not that it matters any bit, but the problem was actually solved many many years ago. :lol:
-
Very amusing, Herra Tohtori :lol:
-
Sod the chicken and egg, where's my omelette?
-
Sod the chicken and egg, where's my omelette?
I ate it, with some toast and jam.
-
Incidentally. Have you ever seen a headless chicken fly? I have. When I was about 6-7 years old we slaughtered our chickens (it wasn't worthwhile to keep them anymore). It was awesome. It was winter and the snow was covered in blood. And our dog thought it was fun to catch the poor mindless chickens in mid air. He lost interest in them when they stopped moving though. It was amusing to watch. I think my fathers axe cut about 10 chickens that day.
Chicken on log.
Fathers axe swung.
*CHOP*
Father threw headless chicken in air.
Spewing blood.
Dog jumping after the chicken.
Me laughing my ass off.
Next chicken on log.
Of course it didn't affect my mental development in no way at all. :D
-
I really hope you don't know where I live. :eek: :nervous:
-
Incidentally. Have you ever seen a headless chicken fly? I have. When I was about 6-7 years old we slaughtered our chickens (it wasn't worthwhile to keep them anymore). It was awesome. It was winter and the snow was covered in blood. And our dog thought it was fun to catch the poor mindless chickens in mid air. He lost interest in them when they stopped moving though. It was amusing to watch. I think my fathers axe cut about 10 chickens that day.
Chicken on log.
Fathers axe swung.
*CHOP*
Father threw headless chicken in air.
Spewing blood.
Dog jumping after the chicken.
Me laughing my ass off.
Next chicken on log.
Of course it didn't affect my mental development in no way at all. :D
Ahhh... Why did your dad chop that many chickens in one day? (I know you said they weren't worth keeping, but 10 chickens in a day?)
-
It is debateable which came first,. the chicken or the egg, but they will both end at the same time: in my frying fan, giving birth to a delicious chicken-breast omlette.
Of course, that's a joke. Putting chicken in an omlette is just disgusting, the sort of thing the French would do.
-
Heh, that's what an omelette is for. Just throwing any old bits you happen to have available into ;)
-
Yeah, shredded left over chicken and chaddar make yummi omelette :D
-
problem is if you look at the 'first chicken' and it's parent, you will find the were the same scpeiciese, in evolutionary terms there is no 'first chicken', such clasifications can only be made well after the fact. so it was the chicken, you see because every time you check the parent they will be the same speciese as the child, so you can just keep on going all the way back untill the first animal that layed eggs, eventualy you will get to a point were there was no egg laying atall, and reproduction would have no egg phase, but there would be an adult phase, so it is chicken that is winner!
-
LOL I love the amount of answers this riddle generates ;)
-
problem is if you look at the 'first chicken' and it's parent, you will find the were the same scpeiciese, in evolutionary terms there is no 'first chicken', such clasifications can only be made well after the fact. so it was the chicken, you see because every time you check the parent they will be the same speciese as the child, so you can just keep on going all the way back untill the first animal that layed eggs, eventualy you will get to a point were there was no egg laying atall, and reproduction would have no egg phase, but there would be an adult phase, so it is chicken that is winner!
Hmmm, go you go back further, you will have living things in cellular level; go back further you'll have molecules and atoms. Don't think the chicken's the winner :p
-
yes, but when I say checken , I'm talking about an adult phase, adult can be defined as the point in an organism's life cycle after it becomes capable of reproduction, this is because as I said, you cannot define a point at wich the line of animals becomes chickens, so chicken can only refer to the adult phase, eventualy you get to a point were ofspring are not borne from eggs, or a point were there is no egg phase at all, just because the apearence of the individuals does not conform to what we whould think of as a chicken is irrelevent, because if we are going back through the generations all parent's give birth to the same speciese as themselves, so the thing we are looking at must be a chicken, even if it would fail the standard speciation test.
further more, even if we were to accept the 'first chicken' concept, the egg the the chicken hatch's from is not a chicken egg, it was layed by a non-chicken, therefor it must be a non-chicken egg, that by some imposable querk happens to have a chicken growing in it.
-
10 chickens in a day?)
Wasn't that a Crowded House song?
Ah, 10 seasons in one day. Oops.
-
...every time you check the parent they will be the same speciese as the child...
I'm not so sure. That would imply, by mathematical induction, that no speciation can ever happen. Obviously there are animals that can't produce viable offspring by mating with their evolutionary ancestors. Thus, at some point the genetic deviation becomes large enough for that to happen, and that is when we say that there is a new species.
Like, say, a chicken.
Ok, look at the smilie carefully:
:headz:
That is what we are doing to this topic.
-
I think it's important to note that you don't 'see' DNA; when you have enough of a physical differentiation to create a new species, I'd reckon
you could go 'back' a few generations or more and probably find enough genetic similarity to group those organisms as part of the new species (rather than the old).
(NB: obviously have not read up on the exact bounds of speciation when writing the above, not sure if it's biologically correct to do it in such a way)
-
I always thought of the egg and chickent thing as asking the wrong questions. Kind of like the answer "42" from the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy".
In the end, we have chickens today, most likely did not have today's chickens in the past (unless your science book comes from sunday school maybe), and something happened inbetween.
Just always keep in mind: Whenever life gets you down Mrs Brown... (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3)
(pinched it from here) (http://www.mwscomp.com/sound.html)
-
My own view on the correct answer is that the first chicken came before the first chicken egg.
2 parents with (through evolution type stuff TM ) 90% chicken DNA - 10% pre chicken DNA (rough estimates) got jiggy/knocked boots/horizontal mamba/etc and the subsequent chicken was 100% chicken, but the egg was not :confused:
Sorry bout that last post, work headache and 2000 yard stare of boredom are setting in....
-
Meh, total solution is here:
The Easter Bunny was first. And it lay an egg (many of them, actually), which contained the first chickens, and they were really chickens whether or not they were inside an egg or not. So the egg and chicken appeared simultaneously.
-
Try looking at the solution in another way:
Two human races have a child, say someone from china and an aboriginal. They give birth to a chinese-aboriginal. Before then, there was no such thing as a chinese-aboriginal (for arguments sake).
So what came first? The chinese-aboriginal or the chinese-aboriginal fetus / new-born / baby / child.
It's the same question different context, yet slightly more clearer to see the answer too if you don't muddy it up with additional details.
-
Just always keep in mind: Whenever life gets you down Mrs Brown... (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3)
(pinched it from here) (http://www.mwscomp.com/sound.html)
LOL Bruces Philosophers Song is still my favourite ;)
-
"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," [Mr Papineau] said.
"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
Ah, but why should we grant that? It is equally viable to say that it is a chicken egg if and only if it is laid by a chicken. Papineau does not argue his definition of what constitues a chicken egg, but merely asserts it and provides an illustration of his assertion.
If we do not accept his assertion but instead choose the alternative definition of "chicken egg," the entire position falls apart. Prof Brookfield's position is identical to Papineau's, in that he uses the DNA of the organism within the eggshell as the defining characteristic of the type of egg it is, and therefore it falls to the same objection.
As usual, arguments that contains the word "surely" are rarely sure at all.
Bourn's argument is true in itself, but it misses the point of the debate. Pro-chicken arguers are not debating the prior existence of eggs as a reproductive means in general. Instead, they are arguing that the chicken had to exist before the chicken egg. Both Brookfield and Papineau recognise this and address their arguments towards the point of debate, but Bourn misses it.
Final results: inconclusive.
-
Just always keep in mind: Whenever life gets you down Mrs Brown... (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3)
(pinched it from here) (http://www.mwscomp.com/sound.html)
LOL Bruces Philosophers Song is still my favourite ;)
Yeah, I love the "I drink therefore I am". :p
Sesquipedalian - too clever. =| (or I'm just too dumb... :p)
-
Sesquipedalian, yes your criticism of Papineau's argument is completely correct. Wasn't he the farmer guy? Anyway, I still stand by my valiantly pro-egg position. Wait, that sounds like pro-life...*headdesk*
-
Ive always thought this was a ridiculous question as soon as I learnt the basics of evolution, and I dont understand why so many apparently intelligent people have such trouble grasping the concept.
A "chicken" is simply a man made term. Where do you draw the lines as to what is and what isnt a chicken? If we found in a new species of bird, through what criteria would we be able to say that it is or isnt a chicken?
Example, is this a chicken, or another kind of bird?
http://www.indiana.edu/~ornith/orders/galliformes/GAQU.jpg
Or how about this one:
http://www.sddot.com/kidspage/Images/treevor/pheasant.gif
Or how about this one:
http://www.dto.com/images/managed/1485.jpg
Now you can say for certain that this fella...
http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/chicken/chicken-farm3.jpg
...is a chicken. But the lines are arbitrary, and as you look at more and mroe birds it becomes harder and harder to say what is and what isnt a chicken.
The question is therefore meaningless, asking which came first. Its like asking which came first, the fish or the egg. But what consitutes a fish? Some fish are warm blooded, and some fish even have lungs. Nature doesnt draw lines, everything that has ever evolved has only ever been a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.
Ed
-
You're not really debating the validity of the chicken-egg question though. I, and others, have said "assume that there is some set of conditions on DNA from which one can determine whether an organism is a chicken or not, conclusively. Then the chicken/egg came first, because..." You're contradicting a premise of the argument - that there are such conditions, and that they are sensible enough to be argued (sorry, debated :D) about. I'm more interested in the logic - that is, what comes after the ellipsis in my illustrative sentence above.
-
You're not really debating the validity of the chicken-egg question though. I, and others, have said "assume that there is some set of conditions on DNA from which one can determine whether an organism is a chicken or not, conclusively. Then the chicken/egg came first, because..." You're contradicting a premise of the argument - that there are such conditions, and that they are sensible enough to be argued (sorry, debated :D) about. I'm more interested in the logic - that is, what comes after the ellipsis in my illustrative sentence above.
But what is a chicken? If you use the word in a practical application you very quickly realise the question is pretty much meaningless, and the only way to make it make any kind of sence is when you come up with this arbitrary set of critera by which to say what is and isnt a chicken, to look back in the chickens lineage of ancestors and point to a specific point and say "right, this is a chicken", for no real reason at all other than it fits your critera you deciced upon.
Ed
-
That's quite obvious because even God (despite His obvious lack of common sense in some cases)
:lol:
the instinctual arrogance of humans never ceases to amuse me.
-
I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.
-
Whats that got to do with the price of fish?
<old london expression-circa 1920>
-
I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.
'Formation' is wrong.
Evolution is the model for the complexity of life; abiogenesis is the model for the creation of life.
And I'd suggest you back that statement up, because it has a whiff of - if you'll forgive the phrase - ignorance about it.
-
Chickens, Eggs,... At the end of the day they both end up on my plate. Its a nice argument but at the end of the day it all boils down to point of view or thereabouts.
You may as argue paradoxically about the schrodingers cat, or the grandfather murder paradox.
-
You can't answer this question untill you answer one other question - what makes a egg a chicken egg?
If the orgnism that laid the egg is clearly a chicken, does that make the agga choicken egg?
Or is the egg defined by the organism that is inside it?
-
Chickens, Eggs,... At the end of the day they both end up on my plate. Its a nice argument but at the end of the day it all boils down to point of view or thereabouts.
You may as argue paradoxically about the schrodingers cat, or the grandfather murder paradox.
LOL Yeah, but it took scientists several years to figure out that Schrodinger was trying to politely take the piss ;)
-
To be a Scientist, you must sacrifice at least 3/4 of your common sense. :D
The same with accountants...........
-
I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.
Yes it does. Occams Razor doesnt mean you're free to make up whatever you like, its the "simplest explantion is usually the correct one" that explains all the evidence. Otherwise Occams Razor would be the most ridiculous idea ever.
-
You can't answer this question untill you answer one other question - what makes a egg a chicken egg?
Exactly my point! :D
If the orgnism that laid the egg is clearly a chicken, does that make the agga choicken egg?
Or is the egg defined by the organism that is inside it?
Unlike what many Creationists will have you believe Evolution doesnt say any organism can ever give birth to anything fundamentally different to itself. A chicken can only give birth to a chicken. An ape can only give birth to an ape. A dog can only give birth to a dog. Populations evolve, not individuals.
-
It's like the whole 'Things must get simpler' thing, which doesn't take account that when you exploit a new medium, such as wings, you are doing something similar to jumping energy levels in chemistry. All of a sudden there are millions of new possibilities for development.
-
I think many creationists believe a cat can be expected (by their misunderstanding of the theory) to evolve into, say, a frog......
-
Thats quite a disturbing concept, now a budgie -Rhino is much more plausible. :lol:
-
The idea of a Rhino charging across the Serengeti roaring 'Ooos a Pretty Boy Den!' is certainly an amusing one ;)
-
I actually saw a Budgie wheigh 600K with a rhinos head flying around an old dears back garden, but yours sounds cool too :D
-
I actually saw a Budgie wheigh 600K with a rhinos head flying around an old dears back garden, but yours sounds cool too :D
Blame that on being high. :p
-
Ugnhhhh, Not literally you peanut :D
My Dept manager wouldnt take it to well if i yelled from my side of the building, "Oi mate, run down the garage and get me some FRICKIN PRINGLS !!!!"
now would he :lol:
-
It's funny that the same argument has been used at least one page back, and I answered it with my own, but the only response has been the repetition of the original argument by several people.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Roughly same thing for why calling ID a scientific theory is wrong. Imagine if Einstein has been thinking about the Michelson/Morley 1887 results in 1905 and had said...
"Well, this is obviously pretty complicated. A complex law like this could only be designed by an intelligent agent."
-
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Except that you've missed the fundemental flaw in your argument. God is not simple. If you want to claim God did it you have to explain God.
Considering that mankind has spent thousands of years trying to do that and isn't one iota closer (in fact we're further away according to most faiths) I don't think you can make any reasonable argument that God did it is simpler.
-
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"
Like I said a page back Occams Razor makes perfect logical sence, the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence IS usually the correct one. And that means not resorting to unverifiable supernatural explanations.
-
It's funny that the same argument has been used at least one page back, and I answered it with my own, but the only response has been the repetition of the original argument by several people.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Roughly same thing for why calling ID a scientific theory is wrong. Imagine if Einstein has been thinking about the Michelson/Morley 1887 results in 1905 and had said...
"Well, this is obviously pretty complicated. A complex law like this could only be designed by an intelligent agent."
Ah, but Occams Razor is based on observable evidence. God is only possible as an explanation if there is actual, proper evidence of God, and there isn't.
-
Occams Razor is a theory anyway, and like all theories will be pushed as hard as it can to see if it breaks, regardless of ID, a scientists dream is to prove one of the 'Great Theories' wrong.
That is the difference, if ID were considered as a science, it would be under constant attack, it's encouraged in the scientific community, if we'd taken what Newton said for granted and never questioned it, we would still have massive gaps in our knowledge. Those attacks would eventually, in fact rapidly disprove it for lack of substantial evidence. Religion does not cope well with constant questioning, assuming it is lack of faith, Science is the art of constant questioning.
-
That's the thing most creationists don't get about science. Experiments are occasionally carried out to prove stuff we've known for years is still true.
One of the things the astronauts did on the moon was to drop a feather and something heavy (A rock or a spanner or something) to prove that acceleration under gravity is the same for both. We've know that's true for over 300 years but yet it was still done.
-
Occams Razor is a theory anyway, and like all theories will be pushed as hard as it can to see if it breaks, regardless of ID, a scientists dream is to prove one of the 'Great Theories' wrong.
Its not really a theory, rather its a philosophy science.
Ed
-
Oddly enough, there are lots of ways to get a scientist to say 'We don't know' as well...
'Why does Water disobey the laws of physics at 4'C, and expand? A fact that is utterly vital to life.'
'How did monomers become Polymers in an aqueous solution, a reaction required in the creation of life and yet completely unexplainable using our current knowledge of chemistry?'
'Why has particle physics dissapeared so far up it's own rectum they now happily talk about 15-dimensional strings that even the people that theorised them don't understand?'
Theres no doubt whatsoever, there's a lot still to learn and a lot of misconception in science. It took American scientists until well into the late 1950/early 60's to accept Tectonics, scientists aren't without their hang-ups ;)
It's not about having all the answers, it's about not giving up and saying 'God Did it', and instead trying to find those answers.
-
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Except that you've missed the fundemental flaw in your argument. God is not simple. If you want to claim God did it you have to explain God.
Considering that mankind has spent thousands of years trying to do that and isn't one iota closer (in fact we're further away according to most faiths) I don't think you can make any reasonable argument that God did it is simpler.
Actually, God is very simple. You're missing my point by lightyears. You're talking about some kind of pseudo-theological understanding of God. I'm talking about natural laws. Explaining scientific evidence using God has practically no entropy, because you can use it to explain anything the same way once you let go of science. Science says, for example, using a classical Newtonian-style exposition: "You have such and such scenario with objects x and y. x has quantities x_1 and x_2, and y has quantities y_1 and y_2. What will happen is such and such, and results in the new quantities x'_1,2 and y'_1,2. In fact, we can even describe this using formulae A and B."
When you allow God to control the structures of the world to his choosing, the point is that those quantities are changing without any order to them. There are no formulaes, no controlled scenarios that repeat themselves. "How come object x did that?" "Oh, it was a holy object. God saved it." The point isn't that, say, we don't know why God chose to save that and not this. The point is that is no scientific description possible in a world with miracles.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"
Like I said a page back Occams Razor makes perfect logical sence, the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence IS usually the correct one. And that means not resorting to unverifiable supernatural explanations.
I know. I'm supporting your side.
It's funny that the same argument has been used at least one page back, and I answered it with my own, but the only response has been the repetition of the original argument by several people.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Roughly same thing for why calling ID a scientific theory is wrong. Imagine if Einstein has been thinking about the Michelson/Morley 1887 results in 1905 and had said...
"Well, this is obviously pretty complicated. A complex law like this could only be designed by an intelligent agent."
Ah, but Occams Razor is based on observable evidence. God is only possible as an explanation if there is actual, proper evidence of God, and there isn't.
I know. I'm supporting your side.
Oddly enough, there are lots of ways to get a scientist to say 'We don't know' as well...
'Why does Water disobey the laws of physics at 4'C, and expand? A fact that is utterly vital to life.'
'How did monomers become Polymers in an aqueous solution, a reaction required in the creation of life and yet completely unexplainable using our current knowledge of chemistry?'
'Why has particle physics dissapeared so far up it's own rectum they now happily talk about 15-dimensional strings that even the people that theorised them don't understand?'
Theres no doubt whatsoever, there's a lot still to learn and a lot of misconception in science. It took American scientists until well into the late 1950/early 60's to accept Tectonics, scientists aren't without their hang-ups ;)
It's not about having all the answers, it's about not giving up and saying 'God Did it', and instead trying to find those answers.
I know. I'm supporting your side.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say by the above scientific questions. Are you trying to say that science is clueless about these things? Granted, you're right there's a lot to learn, but I think your choice of at least the top two of your cases is misguided/misinformed. Water behaves that way because of how the hydrogen bonds produced by its molecule cause those molecules to arrange themself. This is also responsible for water having the surface tension it does. As to the polymer thing, I'm not on strong footing here, but I believe from my bio course that there is also a chemical cause for these behaviors, involving once again the way that charges are distributed in different parts of the molecule.
By your third case, all you're really doing is using words indicating the image of that science as 'weird'. I don't think that makes much of a point.
-
What needs to be borne in mind is that one of the most powerful engines in Evolution is radiation, which is utterly random, due to the nature of Electrons being impossible to 'pin down', the centre of the Earth is pretty hot radioactively speaking, most of the heavy elements sunk when it was still cooling, it's that radiation that helps to create random mutations, and a lot of those mutations are so minor that they have no effect on the organism whatsoever and get passed onto the next generation.
Evolution is random because the cause of mutation is a chaotic system, most mutations are either too small to be detected or, if larger, fatal and often rejected or miscarried by the parent.
Lack of knowledge as to the whole of the answer doesn't mean that God did it, because we don't know why Nature behaved in that manner. We are trying to look millions, sometimes billions of years into the past to find answers to these questions.
The simplest solution is usually the right one, not because it's easy to understand but because Nature abhors waste, molecules will bind together, for example, depending on energy levels, not the will of the observer.
-
As far as the whole water and ice thing is concerned, there is a lot of theory about it, but even given the natural tendency of water to be sticky still doesnt explain how something that is losing energy can expand. Yes, the skin on water is fully explainable, but whilst there are theories on how it works, no-one has ever produced a testable demonstration. Low energy levels should not, according to our knowledge of physics allow for expansion, molecules should be less reactive when at low energy levels not actively seeking out extra bonds. It obviously does, those bonds do exist, but no-one actually knows why they do so at such a low energy level.
The second question causes a lot of consternation to scientists because of the mass action law, its like putting granulated sugar into a glass of water and expecting it to create a sugar cube. Once again theories exist, but no testable proof.
As for the third question, yes, thats exactly what I am saying, physics in particular has started to move so far into the realms of the theoretical that it makes no sense even to those who are studying it...
Allow me to quote Michio Kaku on Superstrings...
'The Heterotic string consists of a closed string that has two types of vibrations, clockwise and counterclockwise, which are treated differently. The Clockwise vibrations live in ten-dimensional space. The counter-clockwise live in a 26 dimensional space of which 16 have been compactified (we recall that in Kazua's original five-dimensional, the fifth dimension was compactified by being wrapped up into a circle).'
It just seems to me that Particle Physics, in particular has pretty much lost the plot and is making stuff up as it goes along on a sub-atomic level.
I'm simply trying to make the balance that science cannot explain everything, however, simply because it cannot, that doesn't mean it's invalid, it simply means there's a lot more to learn.
-
Particle physics has basically reached the point where they've managed to explain everything they can test.
-
Aha! Looks like my knowledge of Water is 2 years out of date...
The reason that water expands upon freezing is because of the strong hydrogen bonding between the water molecules. Water is polar having a positive end nearest the Hydrogens and a negative end nearest the Oxygen atom. Therefore The positive ends of some water molecules attract the negative ends of other water molecules. When water reaches 4 degrees Celsius the molecules have been pushed as close to one another as they will be. Below 4 degrees the water molecules begin to align themselves into the crystal structure of ice. This requires the water molecules to widen the angle between the Oxygen Hydrogen single bonds from the usual 104.5 degrees. When this happens the water molecules take up more space hence expansion.
Apologies :D
-
Thanks Flip, that was exactly what I was referring to when I disputed your original statement. It's refreshing to see an issue be resolved by a person revising their position by themselves, something that usually doesn't happen in this war-torn forum :lol:
I still think you're a bit off on the 'strangeness of physics' thing. I'm sure a person from around Newton's time or later would have said the same thing about Newtonian physics. Whether or not something seems esoteric to you is all about how much you're initiated into the subject. This stuff is pretty cutting edge, so despite attempts to popularize it it's still often very weird to most. But if you look at Newton or perhaps even up to Einstein, nowadays that's been so ingrained in our culture everybody is used to some of the terminology, effects, etc. of the field. People generally don't go blank when you talk about mass and energy being equivalent because of E=mc^2. And I'm pretty sure that in a couple of centuries at most, people will talk about superstrings and compactified dimensions.
As to the polymer thing, I believe your reference to the sugar-in-water is equally or more appropriately described as the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, there is a difference - chemical bonds can form polymers from monomers, it's more a question of how much it happens. Obviously, there are large molecules that are stable and don't dissociate rapidly and spontaneously all the time. There are even other reactions that happen spontaneously. So I think that there could be a chemical reason for what on the surface seems to be a weird event, just as you found out with the water thing.
-
Heh, yeah, probably, I just hate reading something and not being able to understand it, really drives me wild ;) I can just about cope the half wave half particle behaviour of electrons.
Quarks annoy me the most, not because of behaviour but because of the naming conventions (or Flavors) it's pretty self evident they were discovered during the phsychadelic era ;)
-
Well they gave such naming conventions partially to reinforce that "these are arbitrary names for these properties."
Mainly because a few people take the arbitrary labels given to electromagnetic properties (positive and negative charge) a bit too literally.
-
Technicly, God allways did it...since he put hte laws of physics there in the first place.. LOL
But I agree.. It's one thing saying "God did it" or "God might have done it" but not even trying to investigate further is another.
Just becouse God did something doesn't mean its unexplainable, as he might as well decide to act TROUGH the physical laws...
anyway, if you belive in the what happened in Međugorje and the Ladys 10 messgaes, we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
-
<snip>
anyway, if you belive in the what happened in Međugorje and the Ladys 10 messgaes, we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
... :wtf: :doubt:
-
<snip>
anyway, if you belive in the what happened in Međugorje and the Ladys 10 messgaes, we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
... :wtf: :doubt:
It's a place in Croatia. bunch of peeps claim they were given 9 messages (so far) by God, and when they get the 10th the world will end, etc etc.
-
Nah...they got 10 messages(secrets) but they can't disclose them yet (alltough some of hte messages are rather bad for us).
I say we're gonan hear them soon becouse accoring to them the Virgin Mary will inform them when the time is right for the secret 10 days before it's fulfilment. They will pray for 7 days and their reverend will then reveal the secret to the world.
I say soon becoause the reverend is pushing his age...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me%C4%91ugorje
-
<snip>
anyway, if you belive in the what happened in Me?ugorje and the Ladys 10 messgaes, we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
... :wtf: :doubt:
It's a place in Croatia. bunch of peeps claim they were given 9 messages (so far) by God, and when they get the 10th the world will end, etc etc.
In the (admittedly narrow) interest of preserving the world, then, I vote to cut off all internet access to Croatia.
-
<snip>
anyway, if you belive in the what happened in Međugorje and the Ladys 10 messgaes, we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
... :wtf: :doubt:
It's a place in Croatia. bunch of peeps claim they were given 9 messages (so far) by God, and when they get the 10th the world will end, etc etc.
*Changes e-mail display name to "God" and sends a message to Croatia about herbal viagra*
-
Hardy har-har.....
-
Thanks to the magic of the spiritual medium, I can exclusively reveal the Ten Messages
1/ Hello
2/ Um...what, you want ten messages? Well, allright. I'll do it before dinner. Time passes slowly up on the celestial planes, you know.
3/ Bit parky for it, isn't it? Sure you should be out?
4/ Well, at least put on a jumper or something
5/ Ah, bit nicer today. Did I leave the oven on?
6/ Well, I'm sure I had an oven somewhere
7/ Look, I don't care what scriptures say, I had a nice Zanussi model with a hotplate and everything
8/ Oh, wait, that was Martha Stewart, wasn't it?
9/ I do have an oven right up here, though. We get all the best designers, because they're dead. Hmm. Been here a bit. wonder how far along dinner is.
10/ Oh, bugger it then. That's my quiche ruined.
I will now accept your platitudes and money. Money preferred. Souvenir T-shirts are available in the lobby gift shop.
-
I guess well see just how much truth there is in it, won't we?
-
Why would God need to send messages to people in Croatia?? Surely the message of God is for the whole world according to religion, so why do all these people walk around claiming 'He talked to us exclusively!'. Sounds like attention grabbing to be honest.
Still people have spend centuries predicting the End of the World over and over again, it was supposed to happen on 6/6/06 etc, I take it all with a pinch of salt.
Asteroids, Yellowstone Volcano etc I can understand, they are real threats, but not groups who claim to have had exclusive messages from deities.
-
I've heard Croatia has some quite nice beaches, maybe He was on holiday at the time.
-
Is it not landlocked?
-
Is it not landlocked?
mmm, don't think so. I forget the name of it, but I remember reading of some really nice resorts.
-
we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
They've been saying that for centuries, if not thosuands of years. But none of these guys learn since they all die and a new generation think it will happen during their lifetimes.
-
we can expect a unmistakable sign of God's presense in the next few years..
They've been saying that for centuries, if not thosuands of years. But none of these guys learn since they all die and a new generation think it will happen during their lifetimes.
....which usually amounts to a cheese toastie or a strangely shaped stain on their floorboards.
-
Why would God need to send messages to people in Croatia?? Surely the message of God is for the whole world according to religion, so why do all these people walk around claiming 'He talked to us exclusively!'. Sounds like attention grabbing to be honest.
Still people have spend centuries predicting the End of the World over and over again, it was supposed to happen on 6/6/06 etc, I take it all with a pinch of salt.
Asteroids, Yellowstone Volcano etc I can understand, they are real threats, but not groups who claim to have had exclusive messages from deities.
There was no talk of the End of the World. (alltough during one of hte visions one of the seers cried and when the reverend asked why she said becoause of hte suffering of hte chuilder she saw, but she couldn't say more) What they did say that there will be both good and bad things.
The contents of those messgaes will be revealed to the world in days to come..
And for the last 30-40 years the scientists have been all over Medugorje and they could find no explanation of the trance the seers experienced. There were allso many diseases healed and other signs over the years.
Why would God need to send messages? I dunno..maby becouse we don't listen.. you tell me. Croatia is 86% Catholic so maby that's it. But as I said before - we'll see what will happen...
-
God, IMO, doesn't give signs to the masses, because the masses are too rowdy to listen properly...
-
So the first thing someone does when they get a PM from God is go and try to raise the masses....
Somethings going wrong there.....
-
Zigackly.
-
i say we could use a good apocalypse, to thin out the human race.
as it is now, we're evolutionarily going nowhere as a species, mostly because everyone gets to breed pretty much. take out a good portion of the population, get us some selection pressure (hopefully in favor of intelligence) and maybe this race will go somewhere.
-
maybe if we're lucky all the fundies will get raptured away
-
Yes. Double posters first, methinks.
-
damn wireless lag!
-
God, IMO, doesn't give signs to the masses, because the masses are too rowdy to listen properly...
Yea, he used to use talking animals and burning bushes, or miraculous occurances like the parting of the sea. Now all we get is Jesus' head on a cheese toastie. God's just not trying anymore.
-
take out a good portion of the population, get us some selection pressure (hopefully in favor of intelligence) and maybe this race will go somewhere.
What a Brave New World that would be! :D
-
uh oh, aldo has decreed that us double posters will go first. at least i have company, lol
-
The good news is that after the first two secrets fulfill themselves (and before the third secret - the sing) all people will still be able to save themselves from what's coming If they turn towards a good life..after that..well, the mercy train has moved on, sorry :D
-
Um. Sorry, TrashMan - call me a sinful, blasphemous heretic halfway to hell already, but I care about this less than I care about a guy in Ausralia named Moe deciding that maybe it will rain tomorrow afterall.
-
The good news is that after the first two secrets fulfill themselves (and before the third secret - the sing) all people will still be able to save themselves from what's coming If they turn towards a good life..after that..well, the mercy train has moved on, sorry :D
I wonder what the odds are that the first 2 secrets will only be revealed once fulfilled, the 3rd will be something vague like 'the son of man before will scale the great towers', oh and that 'mercy' will require some sort of praying and donation of money.
-
I am a non-believer in any religion but if i was forced to choose one, I'd go with the noodle freak pasta-wotsits, It seems like a lot less hassle.
-
Actually, God is very simple. You're missing my point by lightyears. You're talking about some kind of pseudo-theological understanding of God.
No I'm not. I'm talking about a scientific explaination of God. I'm not saying that you have to explain why God did anything. I'm saying that you have to explain how God exists in the first place.
Otherwise there's an even simpler explaination than that God did it. Why do things fall downwards? They just do. Why is water wet? It just is.
Things get very simple if you cop out and take an easy route. Occam's razor can't be defeated by the explaination that God did it because first you need to prove that God exists. The only time you're going to make Occam's razor work in favour of God is when you end up with a problem which is so complex that it is actually easier God do it than to have a scientifc explaination. Despite what IDers claim no one has ever spotted a question that hard yet.
-
Who owns the copyrights to the bible anyway?
-
No one. Even if someone did it's too old to actually retain it anyway :)
-
<Imagines the RIAA sending Cease and Desist letters to the Pope>
-
Religious
Interjection
Anus
Authority
:lol: ;7
-
Or they might merge the RIAA and MPAA to become the..
Media
And
Film
Industry of
America
;)
-
The good news is that after the first two secrets fulfill themselves (and before the third secret - the sing) all people will still be able to save themselves from what's coming If they turn towards a good life..after that..well, the mercy train has moved on, sorry :D
I wonder what the odds are that the first 2 secrets will only be revealed once fulfilled, the 3rd will be something vague like 'the son of man before will scale the great towers', oh and that 'mercy' will require some sort of praying and donation of money.
According to them, all secrets will be revealed 3 days before they happen. And the third secret is a "unmistakable sign of Gods presence".
And there will be no money or donations or anything like that. They said that prayers from people all around the world mildened the bad things to come, but no ammount of praying or anything else can milden them any more.