religion

[RobotElvis]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity



Just cursory search it goes c. C is the fastest things go. Not just light.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

The gravitational wave would propagate at the same speed as light would. The affects of both would be observed simultaneously. Gravity would not shut off before the lights went out.

"The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature." -wikipedia

[iruinedyourday]

NO GOD WOULD DESIGN YOU IDIOTS

[radditsu]

Ok I have not had a physics class in well over a decade amd the science channel is all about that kaku cocksucker talking over planets smashing together as if to say "look at this cool shit guys. We can cgi some planets blowing up!" And then they cum all over their own chests.


Science tv is the worst yall.

[Glenzig]

“Even if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and even if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed, it seems that determining a biological system to be designed is akin to shrugging our shoulders and saying God did it. The fear is that admitting design as an explanation will stifle scientific inquiry, that scientists will stop investigating difficult problems because they have a sufficient explanation already.

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Well that wasn't actually the point of that particular quote. The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

"The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research."

First, you have to show design is apparent and not based on personal feelings. Otherwise, the claim is nonsensical. Also, this man you quoted didnt even know the definition of vestigial or is being dishonest about it. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

"Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you."

Nice assertion. How would terminology like "junk DNA" meant to describe a phenomena we observe reinforce the quote you posted? Explain in detail.

[radditsu]

Eating and fucking = reproduction and growth. Poor traits tend to die off after a few tries. More things with a better trait that is stronger and fucks harder and has more exist. They then have more room to develop. Bigger seals get to fuck the women.