Creationist Fanatics

No. You're wrong. The universe IS in fact perfect. Why should it be perfect just for us? No. You see, species like us aren't meant to be. Species, in general, are supposed to adapt to the current cirunstanses and climate. We don't. We shred our world and make stupid decisions, just because of our fear of dying and by our fear to be forgotten. Humans are in fact an offspring to weak to survive. Just look at us. Are we as fast as a hare? No. As strong as a bear? No. Can we survive heat or cold without help of other things, i.e death? No, we can't. We were never meant to travel between the stars and colonizing them. And we will never be able to, seing that the distances are by far too great. To achieve something like that, we would need to be able to travel as fast as the light itself, wich again is impossible, us being materia and all.
So no, again. You are wrong. The universe is perfect just as it is. If it wasn't, it would probably have collapsed by now, imploding into nothing.
Also, there must've been something before the universe, don't you think? Something as perfectly structured as the atoms and such just doesn't appear out of exactly nowhere. And as many times you say that the universe we live in might be a part of another universe, I'll say that there still mut've been a BEGINNING, and therefore something to cause or create this.
THAT, my friend, is God.

 

We don't need to be as fast as a hare, or as strong as a bear because we are smarter.

 

That's the problem. With great power comes great responsability, and we have done NOTHING to improve the state our planet is in today. If we were really ready to be as "intelligent" as we are today, then we would have acted more WISELY than we have.

 

(I'm a little drunk at the moment, so don't wonder...)

We don't know what existed before our universe. It is not neccessarily "nothing" or "nowhere". It can happen that the time is "wrapped", i.e. the future equals the past (it can happen that both space and time are limited). We can't say no more about the basic structures of the universe, since we used to it, its terms and its effects... Even measuring quantum thingies are hard. And time can exist only in our viewpoint, but not the universe's.

"Something as perfectly structured as the atoms" - HA HA HA. As I said before, if it is not structured so "perfectly", we would not simply exist. Believe me, if hydrogen would be radioactive, and it would contain like 200 neutrons, you would still say it's the perfect world.

What did we do when we invented gas heating? We adapted to our environment. What did we do with many of our invention? We adapted to our environment. We can adapt to our environment with tools and devices, too.

Yes, the other star systems are too far from here. It can happen that we never reach any of one. But this doesn't mean that we are "never meant" to do so.

No, the universe being "good" enough not to collapse doesn't mean it is the best, the perfect one. See computer programs: many programs are working, but you can hardly find any that is free of bugs, vulnerablitites or imperfect (slow) implementations of functions. In the real world, there are such particles that lives only for the fraction of a second! Instability is part of the perfectness, or what?

And yes, you are right. Before searching for extraterrestial intelligence, we would have to look for intelligence on the Earth itself. Of course, nobody would do such a pointless experiment

 

Is the bear as fast as a hare? No, it survives because it's stronger. Has it done anything to improbe the state of our planet? No, all it does is use its strenght to get food, sleep and create offspring, basically the same things that we do only we use our intelligence to get food instead.

We have the ability to use our brains to overcome obstacles, the bear has its strenght, the hare has its speed. All different ways to solve problems, our is not better, it's just another of the ways, which evolution has come up with. If we weren't made for this world (right now), then there wouldn't have been an advantage to be smart. But as long as human-kind has existed, it has, not saying that it will be forever, the dinosaurs were super big and strong etc. and they died out.

Today intelligence is one of the best ways to survive, who knows what will be good in the future? Also, did the dinosaurs, who had a pretty good advantage in the dinosaur-ages do anything to make the planet better? Nope, the reason for us to do something is so that we can be able to stay on top of the food-chain as long as possibel.

Isn't realising that you can use clothes as good adaptation as growing a fur? Only it's most faster, so we are much better at adapting. If global warming would increase, we wouldn't be in that much trouble, we just have to get better irrigation of our plantations, bigger fans and use less clothes. Animals with big furs on the other hand, have real trouble, they can only move north/south for so long, then they reach the North/South Pole and have nowhere else to go and probably die.

About the universe being perfect, why does it have to be? The universe started existing/has always existed, long ago, with some laws, which the scientists are trying to describe. One of those is that many kinds of materia is drawn together, small matter is drawn together greating bigger which leads to atoms being created, atoms creating molecules molecules creating bigger stuff and so on. Nothing really perfect there, just some rules that all things follow.

"If it wasn't, it would probably have collapsed by now, imploding into nothing. "

By now? The universe has existed for about 15 billion years, who decides when the "by now" should happen? The sun isn't perfect and will destroy itself sometime into the future, but according to your logic, it must be perfect or it should have exploded "by now", right?

"We were never meant to travel between the stars and colonizing them. And we will never be able to, seing that the distances are by far too great."

Stone age man: "We will never be able to travel to that island in the middle of the sea, the discance is by far too great."

But today we can.

"To achieve something like that, we would need to be able to travel as fast as the light itself, wich again is impossible, us being materia and all. "

Middle ages man: "We will never be able to travel to India by going the wrong direction. To achieve something like that, we would need to be able to travel past the earth's end, (all scientists say that the earth is flat), wich again is impossible, us being human and all."

But today we can.

Who is to say that it really is impossible to go faster than the speed of light? Scientists todat believe it, but scientists have been wrong before.

 

I recently read a quite fascinating article about intelligence. The writer (don't know who it was, and can't check it out, 'cause I sat on a train while reading it and I left the paper there) claimed that intelligence is a kind of failure in evolution, that "intelligence" is something developed when there are no other solutions avaible. Those creatures who could me considered "intelligent" in our kind of way are mostly PARASITES, just as we are. And no, Frigo, inventing gas heating and other inventions is not a way to adapt oneself to ones surroundings, it is still to adapt your surroundings to you. Because that gas heating system, or whatever, still comes from something else which's been harvested. And, in order to harvest more and enough for the lot of us, the rescourse harvested must grow. But it WON'T. Not in a as grand scale as this.
And about the universe and the atoms being perfect: they are. It's just our THEORIES conserning them that aren't. Bohrs' theory, for example. It's all rubbish, but it's the easiest to learn, and it works quite good. But it's still not right. You see, electrons can do as they "please", meaning that they can, in fact, be at several places at the same time.

Anyway, I'm right and you're wrong. For now. Or, for me, at least. here's no point in further discussion, I'll only get angry (it's silly, I know, but that's how I work), and I don't like being angry. You go ahead and write answers to this if you like, but I won't.
I think I'll wait until something else pops up.

 

Wolfsbane, how can you possibly say an atom is perfect? Perfect in what context?
Atoms don't exist to fulfil a purpose they simply exist. We can use some atoms / molecules to benefit us so does that make them more perfect than atoms which aren't useful to humans?
In that case surely a perfect atom is one that clothes, feeds, shelters, provides knowledge, provides bliss, etc for us humans? You can't judge an inanimate object by human standards.

As for travelling to the stars. Just because we can't travel at the speed of light doesn't make it impossible. If you have a car that travels at 100 miles an hour you can travel across the country. Does that mean if you have a car that travels at 50 miles an hour you cannot travel as far? No. It simply means that it will take longer. So if humans live for centuries or put themselves in stasis then the stars are certainly not out of reach for an individual human.

 

Look buddy, Adam is perfect in everyway. Oh wait, you mean atom.....ummm never mind. Carry on then

 

YOU'RE ALIVE! Good job!

 

FISH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All this talk of evolution and light speed is great, but does any one person who comes here really understand it all? Technically, we're moving FASTER than light right now, on this planet. Why do you think we can look back in time through telescopes? Well, part of THAT is we're slowing down, and have been for a few billion years. Anyway, light speed travel, or faster is possible. We just need to find a way to create and harness wrinkles in time. To make a spaceship move at light speed by conventional methods would require enough fuel to fill the entire universe. Obviously, an implausibility. Another interesting point; black holes. They have seemingly infinite mass, enough gravity to absorb light, and they freeze time. Maybe that's what happens when something moves too fast.
The use of human ingenuity has lead to the destruction of countless acres of rich, vibrant habitat. What other animal does this? The elephant. Nothing else destroys so much liveable space that it can't be replenished. If it was up to me, I'd take the human population, and shoot 3/4ths of it into the sun. The elephants should go down by about 1/5.
The sun! My, what a great display of molecular dynamics and atomic fusion! It's got about 5 billion years left before it grows supermassive and dies, wiping out every planet within the inner solar system. Of course, that may never happen, seeing as there's a gigantic black hole on a collision course with the center of our galaxy, which in turn is another gigantic black hole. These two will form an even BIGGER hole of doom, zooming through the milky way into our neck of the woods around 4 billion years from now. If anyone says our universeis perfect the way it is, just keep that in mind. Nothing can be perfect. Perfect implies everlasting. If all of THIS was perfect, there would be no worries as to how long our crude oil reserves would last, the sun would ALWAYS be there, and no species would ever decimate liveable space just because they can.

 

The universe is perfect in the sense that it functions exactly as it was intended to. The perfect tooth brush might not make a very good hammer, but it was never intended to drive nails.

 

Only to an outside observer who is comparing us to another moving body so as far as we are concerned we are not travelling faster than light. That's one of the basics of relativity.

If you look at anything you are "looking back in time". Light is not instantaneous it has to travel from an object to your eye. So when you look at your own hands you are seeing a fraction of an instant into the past because light has to travel the 30cm from your hand to your eye. The further away you look the farther back in time you are seeing. So looking back in time is not dependent on travelling at the speed of light.

No and no. By definition anything is perfect if it is itself. However that definition of perfect has nothing to do with the other definition associated with perfection being "good" or "better" than anything else.
So yes the universe is perfect (in only one limited definition of the word) but that does not make it ideal as was implied by Wolfsbane.

 

To qoute from the bible:

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

So you understand Japes? You were there when the earth was created so you can say with 100% certanity that the earth functions as god intended it to? How do you know? Where was you when the earths foundation was laid?

 

Read Genesis 1:1.

"...and God saw that it was good."

God does not make mistakes. To quote 1 Corinthians 1:25, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

 

You can only repent / regret if you are in error. So only someone who made a mistake is capable of repenting.

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy... both man, and beast... for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Gen. 6:6-7)

 

OK fine, you got me on perfect, but the distance light needs to travel between my hand and my eye is so insignificant as to be inconsequential. It might as well be instantaneous, unless you want to get into yotto-seconds of the past(yotto means one septillionth). While looking back in time is not dependant on you yourself moving at light-speed, we see things at light speed, and that's all that matters. Besides, when did I say that we had to be moving at light speed to look back in time? I was saying how the past is catching up with us, and that's why we are able to see quasars and other such phenomena, meaning we're slowing down.

 

Who defines inconsequential. The fact that light travels that distance in a minute amount of time is far more trivial than the fact that light still requires time to travel that distance.

That's one possibility, or we just aren't traveling at the speed of light. One or the other, and all declarations as to which one is fact is speculative.

 

Now we definitely have a problem. Because none of us have ever traveled our relative light speeds, been in space, witnessed any of what we're talking about happen, all we can do is argue over which of our opinions either makes the most sense, or gives the least severe headache. That's the major problem with stellar physics and quantum mechanics. We might as well be spouting truisms.

 

Many things can be proven mathematically.