PDA

View Full Version : Human species 'may split in two'


Iguana
21 Oct 2006, 11:56
Real life Dwarf Fortress is only a few steps away. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm)

Plasma
21 Oct 2006, 12:00
Why would humans grow shorter and uglier?

Xinos
21 Oct 2006, 13:08
I find it rather unlikely, but who knows what will happen in 100 000 years from now. Our technology may play a huge roll and it's impossible to predict what exactly that will be.

"all" species are attracted to healthy good looking ones, so a subspecies that only get's ugglier is hard to imagine. It's more likely I think that everybody will be good looking prior to our species splitting.

But I'm no genetics expert..

Zero72
21 Oct 2006, 13:11
Humans have been getting taller over decades/centuries.

Xinos
21 Oct 2006, 13:16
Yes. It confuses me whenever people claim that humans arn't evolving anymore.

Plutonic
21 Oct 2006, 14:56
its not that were not evolving but that our evolution has slowed.

LSD Cow
21 Oct 2006, 17:51
"all" species are attracted to healthy good looking ones, so a subspecies that only get's ugglier is hard to imagine. It's more likely I think that everybody will be good looking prior to our species splitting.

What's considered good and ugly have very much to do with what kind of culture we're brought up in, and can therefor change pretty dramatically with time.

Short and fat women are considered very hot in many Islamic countries for example.

Meh, this whole thing may just be a hoax anyway.

Kelster23
21 Oct 2006, 18:21
How do they know we won't evolve into Alien-like creatures?
We could evolve into anything, it just depends on what we do.

MrBunsy
21 Oct 2006, 18:54
Meh, this whole thing may just be a hoax anyway.
That's what the Guardian reporter thought, according to them the research was sponsered by a televion channel and was mostly nonsense.

Xinos
21 Oct 2006, 22:40
Meh! Hoaxes are no good. It would be more fun if it was the serious work of some crazy disillusion scientist =P

MonkeyforaHead
22 Oct 2006, 09:20
AND THEN IN 200,005 A.D. GODZILLA MONSTERS FROM THE TOKYO SPACEPORT WILL TAKE OVER JUPITER AND DUKEN UKEM XLVIII WILL RISE FROM THE GRAVE AND DESTROY THEM ALL AND THEN THAT ONE VOLCANO OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA WILL ERUPT SO VIOLENTLY IT COVERS THE ENTIRE PLANET AND DRAINS THE EARTH'S CORE OF ALL ITS MAGMA AND THE GLOBE IMPLODES.

Of course, not before the alien clones of Chuck Norris arrive to steal the world's supply of Mountain Dew.

WormGod
22 Oct 2006, 09:41
They spoke about this on Have I Got News for You recently.
Aparently it was for a Bravo challenge.

"'It's funny to think that in 1,000 years time everything will be so different.'
And Bravo will still be ****."

Slick
22 Oct 2006, 18:07
I think around the year 20XX we'll start to see more robots used and missused...then about the year 21XX Robots will go insaine or "mavrick" if you will. Then there will be HUGE battles and wars to prevent humanity from being destroyed. After that I forsee about 100 years or so, a utopia for humans to live. Naturally this is caused by a hunting down and distruction of all the robots capible of going "mavrick". For some odd reason I don't think that will work though. But the robots and humans get along as equals. Soon enough its hard to tell them apart! In case there are "mavricks" however there would be a "guardian" force to protect the humans. Upon finding a specail kind of metal, the "guardians" use a trasportation service known as Giro Express. Then a boy/girl loses controll of all they're desision making and body movement as a rather handsome person from the past that you might know as "slick" saves the day. :3
GO BUY MEGAMAN ZX YOU JERKS!!



:p

pilot62
22 Oct 2006, 23:11
Humans have been getting taller over decades/centuries.

Yes, but before that people were smaller compared to earlier times.

Zero72
23 Oct 2006, 00:24
I think around the year 20XX we'll start to see more robots used and missused...then about the year 21XX Robots will go insaine or "mavrick" if you will. Then there will be HUGE battles and wars to prevent humanity from being destroyed. After that I forsee about 100 years or so, a utopia for humans to live. Naturally this is caused by a hunting down and distruction of all the robots capible of going "mavrick". For some odd reason I don't think that will work though. But the robots and humans get along as equals. Soon enough its hard to tell them apart! In case there are "mavricks" however there would be a "guardian" force to protect the humans. Upon finding a specail kind of metal, the "guardians" use a trasportation service known as Giro Express. Then a boy/girl loses controll of all they're desision making and body movement as a rather handsome person from the past that you might know as "slick" saves the day. :3
GO BUY MEGAMAN ZX YOU JERKS!! When I die, I want my brain to be put in stasis so I can be rebuilt as a Reploid. :3

MtlAngelus
23 Oct 2006, 06:32
When I die I want to take the whole universe with me :3

agent luke
23 Oct 2006, 13:19
When i die i want my ashes spread over the PC! evolution is a conspiracy theory, as a christian i refuse to beilieve evolution ,

Iguana
23 Oct 2006, 13:19
When I die, I want to end up getting revived by people with silly french names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Zero_%28video_game%29#Story) because of a huge plot hole. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_X6)
...
>:3

Akuryou13
23 Oct 2006, 14:36
evolution is a conspiracy theory, as a christian i refuse to beilieve evolution ,PAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!! ROFL!!!

christianity. flying in the face of proven facts for 2000 years. :D

Star Worms
23 Oct 2006, 14:39
Read about this before... Personally it seems like a load of BS. We are already nearing a crisis point in the human population on this planet and it is impossible to predict what anything will be like in 100,000 years time. I expect humans would have destroyed the earth by then. Which is why I don't bother to support the poverty campaigns - getting people out of poverty means they can afford healthcare and lots of children survive. Then because there are too many children they will find themselves in poverty.

The human species is very diverse and there are 60 billion of us and we can travel easily. No-one knows what will happen in the future. We cant even predict the weather the next day correctly yet.

Oh and agent luke - evolution doesn't necessarily conflict with christianity. Evolution isn't about how life began, it's about how life adapts to its environment. The bible suggests a way that life began rather than carried on.

MrBunsy
23 Oct 2006, 15:09
Oh and agent luke - evolution doesn't necessarily conflict with christianity. Evolution isn't about how life began, it's about how life adapts to its environment. The bible suggests a way that life began rather than carried on.
Nicely said, and Agent Luke, just think carefully before saying something which is going to be picked up by absolutely everyone.

My personal prediction about the future is that air travel will, sometime, start becomming less common again as the price of aviation fuel eventually starts to raise the price of tickets, which will dramatically reduce the amount people travel.

As to the poverty thing StarWorms, the population in countries like the UK and most of europe (and I think the US too) would actually be falling if it weren't for immigration. Therefore, I think that if poverty ever were eradicated across the planet, the population would eventual fall to a stable level.

SuperBlob
23 Oct 2006, 16:24
evolution is a conspiracy theory, as a christian i refuse to beilieve evolution
Right. Now, are you just saying that so that god lets you go to heaven? There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for god.

Iguana
23 Oct 2006, 16:30
Damn it Luke, it was going quite well so far, Reploids and all. Why does every serious/scientific thread I start turn into a pointless religious debate? :p

Star Worms
23 Oct 2006, 16:52
As to the poverty thing StarWorms, the population in countries like the UK and most of europe (and I think the US too) would actually be falling if it weren't for immigration. Therefore, I think that if poverty ever were eradicated across the planet, the population would eventual fall to a stable level.May I just point you towards China's 1 child policy. Populations fluctuate. If a population in a country is falling and there's no immigration then it becomes cheaper to live - There would be many empty houses and they'd have to shift them at a lower price. As it becomes cheaper to live, more people will have more children and then the population will rise again. Africa is a big continent and eradicating all poverty there would have serious implications on the earth - they'd want to expand and would end up using fossil fuels. The welfare of the planet is more important than the welfare of people as it has greater implications on everything on this planet, including the welfare of people. Although I don't want to get into a debate about that...

Also the UK would not have a declining population without immigration as we have a higher birth rate than death rate. However in Germany it is lower but it's not as if German people would become extinct if left alone - they'd eventually start having bigger families.

Slick
23 Oct 2006, 17:18
=Why does every serious/scientific thread I start turn into a pointless religious debate? :p

Bekauz YU mad this thred and u r the DUM HUMAN!!!1 :mad: :mad: :mad:


But seriously...I think it's because everyone is trying to cope with the fact they don't have a large e-***** like me. :)

But really, when you bring up a subject about evolution, it's going to happen.


There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for god. IE - fossils.
False. And I say that for many reasons. If you want to debate me on that, whatever, I don't care. Just do it on MSN so you don't spam this thread up.

UnKnown X
23 Oct 2006, 17:46
False. And I say that for many reasons. If you want to debate me on that, whatever, I don't care. Just do it on MSN so you don't spam this thread up.Well, this thread is about evolution.





Anyway, I consider this splitting-in-two thing a silly statement to make. Not because it's unlikely, but because we're too dumb to predict a damned thing about ourselves. There are far too many possible outcomes to make any remotely accurate prediction.

Star Worms
23 Oct 2006, 17:58
My mum has some old books. One of which shows what the moon would look like by the year 2000... they thought we'd have towns on the moon and stuff like that (or something similar anyway). If we can't predict what will happen in 30 years time then there's no use extrapolating to 100,000 years because it's far too inaccurate to predict anything.

MrBunsy
23 Oct 2006, 18:41
May I just point you towards China's 1 child policy. Populations fluctuate. If a population in a country is falling and there's no immigration then it becomes cheaper to live - There would be many empty houses and they'd have to shift them at a lower price. As it becomes cheaper to live, more people will have more children and then the population will rise again. Africa is a big continent and eradicating all poverty there would have serious implications on the earth - they'd want to expand and would end up using fossil fuels. The welfare of the planet is more important than the welfare of people as it has greater implications on everything on this planet, including the welfare of people. Although I don't want to get into a debate about that...

Also the UK would not have a declining population without immigration as we have a higher birth rate than death rate. However in Germany it is lower but it's not as if German people would become extinct if left alone - they'd eventually start having bigger families.
Good point, I really hadn't thought of it like that. But still I think it is possible for the vast magority of the world to be out of poverty without causing much harm to the planet one way or another.
Right. Now, are you just saying that so that god lets you go to heaven? There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for god. IE - fossils.
Last time I thought this through, and things haven't changed much, fossils don't disprove God. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

SuperBlob
23 Oct 2006, 18:48
...err...I'm a 15 year old kid who's more interested in music than anything else, what do you expect :p

UnKnown X
23 Oct 2006, 20:54
Last time I thought this through, and things haven't changed much, fossils don't disprove God. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That's more of a philosophical or even terminological problem about what God is and how God is defined. If it's as vague as a "force" that "creates", then God could be anything, but if God is specifically a bearded man in the skies watchin' o'er us and keepin' us out of trouble, I'm very doubtful.

wormthingy
23 Oct 2006, 23:49
and here we go again....
its kinda funny how everyone yells: "no more offtopic please" but as soon as someone mentions "christanity says/has tought me.. or the bible said:" (or any other religion/ religious book) it goes *BOOOM* religious debate! Offtopic! untill the thread dies and the non-believers are done yelling "NO! UR WRONG!"
have we still learned nothing after all these years.. this offtopic is never going to end. so please drop it.



on the other hand, this thread was proberly going to go offtopic anyways...
we might aswell get rid of the whole idea of threads and topics, just make it like a big shoutboard

Xinos
24 Oct 2006, 00:24
No let's not argue religion. Trying to change people's views on how life and reality works is too much of a hassle.

Pigbuster
24 Oct 2006, 06:15
there are 60 billion of us

Err... just thought that I ought to mention that there are only 6 billion people.
No one else seemed to catch that.
If there were 60 billion, we would be soooo damn screwed. :p

About the Africa thing, don't they have a lot of kids because the child death-rate is high over there?
I'm actually not sure if that's true, it's just the conclusion I settled on years ago.

And don't talk about religion. Just do what I do and say that all beliefs, no matter how far-fetched, are true. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Star Worms
24 Oct 2006, 16:50
Err... just thought that I ought to mention that there are only 6 billion people.
No one else seemed to catch that.
If there were 60 billion, we would be soooo damn screwed. :pPfft near enough:p

I get it confused with the UK figure which is 60 million.

Kelster23
25 Oct 2006, 04:07
Who says you have to follow what your religon says?
I'm a (FORCED) Catholic, and (I hate being one) I sure don't act like one.
About the dwarf thing: Some midget is going to go play in some nuclear waste and end up coming out looking like that. Or maybe it's gonna be a baby. Or perhaps the dwarves have been underground for millions of years, waiting for Alantis to bring them up again.
Possibilties are endless, people! Proven or not!

Plasma
25 Oct 2006, 19:44
Who says you have to follow what your religon says?
I'm a (FORCED) Catholic, and (I hate being one) I sure don't act like one.
I used to be a forced catholic. Then I decided that I'm really an atheist.
Kelsey, give in to the neutral side of the force!

MrBunsy
25 Oct 2006, 21:56
Let's not get religion muddled up with beleifs either. Personally I don't like the connotations of the word religion and definatly do not like large aspects of the catholic church.

But yes... ending this topic of conversation... prolbably easier to stop the tide....

Xinos
26 Oct 2006, 00:37
Okay, if not religion then how about this theory on how life began to earth:

The Big Bang was 13.7 billion years ago. But life on earth didn't start untill 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago. That leaves about 10 billion years in betwhen, in which life started to evolve elsewhere. This life would evolve into a very advanced creature or whatnot, that was aware of the fact that it would die and could not save itself, probably because of a super nova. So they built huge quantity of vessels where they stored bacteria. They knew that they could not save themselfs, so they saved life itself. By sending theese vessels out into the universe they hoped that life would find a new place to evolve on, which happened here on earth.

This is what the guy who won the Nobel Prize for figuring out the structure of DNA beleives. (I can't be arsed to find out what his name is)

Discuss.

Slick
26 Oct 2006, 02:06
Okay, if not religion then how about this theory on how life began to earth:

The Big Bang was 13.7 billion years ago.

My biggest question is how people think it's easyer to have eveything in the universe just explode into exsistance, out of complete nothingness...and think that makes more sense than there being a god who made it. As for the earth. You've got all the variety of animals, insects, fish, etc. on a planet that is perfect for live what with the protective atmosphere to protect the surface from metiors, radiation, and whatever. Not to mention it's the prefect distance from the sun.*(See how many times it takes you to throw ingrediants in the air to make a perfect egg roll. :p) Evolution says that it all came from one thing pretty much. Ok, so you've got all that time for everything to sprout out of that one organisim. It's still hard to believe that everything came from that. We still are discovering new animals, plants, and fish. Not to mention the extreme places they might live would take a very long time to get used to in the first place. (Like the deepest part of the ocean)
Honestly I don't know why people beleive in stuff that people just make up. Because it might be true, dose not mean it is. If a famous scientist says somthing that makes a little bit of sense, that might be true...with thousands of logical holes in it, it must be true then! After all, the world is flat, and the sun moves around the earth. Oh wait, we've disproved that. Ok, better idea. The universe came from a big bang of nothing. Hmm yes, I think that works. After all galaxys are moving farther apart. That we can SEE. It's a big sky after all. Just because they are moveing one way, dose that mean that we arn't moving? Galaxys spin correct? Could it be that we are spining away from the things we can currently see? I don't know.
Then you have people that say that there is no God. If God exsists, why dose he let bad things happen...and if God is real how come life sucks when he is suppost to be good? My question to you people is why don't you research for yourself. The answers are out there believe it or not on why those things are like that. You DON'T have to join a church or whatever to find them. Religious groups today are mostly filled with people that just do as they are told with out explination. That isn't right. What I am getting at is if you want to beleive in evolution, fine...whatever. If you believe in God, fine...whatever. Just for crying out loud search for the truth before you choose to believe in it.


Sorry about the most likely poorly spelled rant, it couldn't be helped.

* (if it were farther away, the earth would be frozen; if it were closer it would be too hot)

Star Worms
26 Oct 2006, 12:35
As for the earth. You've got all the variety of animals, insects, fish, etc. on a planet that is perfect for live what with the protective atmosphere to protect the surface from metiors, radiation, and whatever. Not to mention it's the prefect distance from the sun.*(See how many times it takes you to throw ingrediants in the air to make a perfect egg roll. :p)Well yes but we haven't just popped up on a random planet and it just happens to be perfect for us. Because the planet is "perfect", we have popped up. Lots of planets in the universe to choose from.

But yes people should come to their own conclusion.

agent luke
26 Oct 2006, 13:16
I still think that evolution is a buttload of crap made up by some "high-on-pot" sientest, god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it, he is the only one that could change us into a dwarf thing.

thomasp
26 Oct 2006, 13:25
To the person who requested that this thread be deleted: I've just skimmed through this thread and have found nothing that really warrants it being deleted.

As long as it stays flame and religious-hatred free, it might as well stay.

Iguana
26 Oct 2006, 13:40
god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it
If God is behind every human's actions, including rape, murder and everything else, then I wouldn't say he's that nice of an omniscient, omnipotent being. Also, it kind of ruins that "free will" thing everyone's talking about...

While I believe that someone might have made or triggered our universe's creation intentionally, the chances of them watching over us and sending us to heaven or hell after death are quite low, IMHO.

AndrewTaylor
26 Oct 2006, 14:16
I still think that evolution is a buttload of crap made up by some "high-on-pot" sientest, god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it, he is the only one that could change us into a dwarf thing.
You know what, I don't care if post reports are supposed to be private or if it is abusing my power. I know it was you who said this thread was "insulting [your] religion". Now read your post again and tell me why I should give your opinions even a second's consideration.

thomasp
26 Oct 2006, 15:32
To the post reporter (although that is a bit irrelevant now, hiding their anonymity ;)) - if you don't like what you read in this thread, then don't read it. Others seemed to be enjoying the discussion.

Simple as that, really.


Edit:

While I'm here,my views on this whole evolution thing (note, I'm taking a much more "sciency" approach than a religious approach - mainly because I'm not religious) are as follows:

For the human race to survive, it will have to evolve - no question about it. Whether it is to adapt to livivng in very cramped conditions, extreme solar radiation (because our generation and the previous generations have destroyed the ozone layer, etc) or "natural disasters" (floods, etc), for the human race to continue on this planet, it will have to adapt. Otherwise, its curtains for us.

If the planet continues to become more populated, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few tens of thousands of years there is a race of "superhumans" and a race of "inferior-humans" (for lack of a better term). Just look at how we've evolved and adapted from cavemen and very early homo-sapiens.

Evolution is our future, and the future of everything else, and I can see very little proof for it not "existing" or occuring.

UnKnown X
26 Oct 2006, 15:48
Humans would be adapting very efficiently if we hadn't been destroying everything at this rate. Life on Earth (especially more complex creatures such as ourselves) don't cope well with changes as abrupt as they are now.

If God is behind every human's actions, including rape, murder and everything else, then I wouldn't say he's that nice of an omniscient, omnipotent being. Also, it kind of ruins that "free will" thing everyone's talking about...

While I believe that someone might have made or triggered our universe's creation intentionally, the chances of them watching over us and sending us to heaven or hell after death are quite low, IMHO.

To quote Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
"Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
"Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
"Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

Star Worms
26 Oct 2006, 16:32
I still think that evolution is a buttload of crap made up by some "high-on-pot" sientest, god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it, he is the only one that could change us into a dwarf thing.And do you actually know what evolution is? Until you understand the principles behind natural selection and evolution, you're not in a position to say that evolution is "crap". Furthermore, misspellings and overuse of of words like "buttload" and "high-on-pot" just invalidate whatever point (if any) there was in your post. This thread isn't about religion, it's about the subject of evolution. If you don't believe in it then don't read it, but don't troll. You're clearly just dismissing evolution as false before you know enough about it to understand it.

Slick
26 Oct 2006, 19:53
god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it

Religious groups today are mostly filled with people that just do as they are told with out explination.


That includes putting faith in teachings/traditions. :rolleyes:
Agent Luke, I would suggest accually studying that principal of "god controls everything" before you start believing in it and saying that it's a fact to other people with nothing else to back it up.

Plasma
26 Oct 2006, 20:21
*Big rant*
My $0.02:
1: There's actually a very high chance of a planet being created naturally and can sustain life. Remember, the universe is VERY VERY VERY large, and it's been moving around for a VERY VERY VERY long time. Now, take your eggroll example. Get a few *very high number* of friends to do it too, and keep throwing them for billions of years. You're bound to have a good lunch by then.
And I also back this up with the thought that you can't be born without some living thing making you, so you wouldn't be on an inhabitable planet.
2: No, the big bang was not created from nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
However, it's completely unknown what made this hot, dense thing in the first place.
Myself, I believe in the Olber's Paradox, ie: that the universe has unlimited space and time, and only the mass of objects is constant.
3: As I see religions, I see of trying to do what they believe gods want the people to do, not what the people want to believe so they can shun other things. I know many very sensible people that believe in religion.

[highlight]will[/b]
This mistake made me laugh.

thomasp
26 Oct 2006, 22:25
1: There's actually a very high chance of a planet being created naturally and can sustain life. Remember, the universe is VERY VERY VERY large, and it's been moving around for a VERY VERY VERY long time.

Reading this made me think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article explaining just how big the universe was and that because it is infinitely big the probability of there being any life on one of the planets (which occupy an area that tends to 0, since planets are infinitesimally small compared to the infinitely big universe) is zero.

So therefore, we don't exist. Or it's highly improbable that we exist.

This mistake made me laugh.

Hey, I'm only human :D

Plasma
26 Oct 2006, 22:38
Reading this made me think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article explaining just how big the universe was and that because it is infinitely big the probability of there being any life on one of the planets (which occupy an area that tends to 0, since planets are infinitesimally small compared to the infinitely big universe) is zero.

So therefore, we don't exist. Or it's highly improbable that we exist.
Just made this up now:
But you're forgetting the rule of probablilities in maths:
If there are 0 options, the probability of a selected option coming up is 1 out of 1.
As there is no option of which planet has life on it, the inhabitants of this planet definitely exist!



Also, it reminds me of this, that I also just made up.

If 1-1=2-2

and if 1/1=2/2

Then surely we can conclude that 1 = 2

wormthingy
26 Oct 2006, 23:14
Also, it reminds me of this, that I also just made up.

If 1-1=2-2

and if 1/1=2/2

Then surely we can conclude that 1 = 2

is it just me or is that plain nonsense.. :p
lets say X is equal to 1
1/2X = 0,50
2/2X = X
X/X = X
so X = X

philby4000
26 Oct 2006, 23:55
Congratulations plasma, you have not only proven that zero is in fact equal to zero, but you've also solved the eternal mystery of what 1 is equal to as well.:rolleyes:

If you want a real proof that one doesn't equal one then consider this-

First take the real number 0.9999999999999... (That being an infinite number of 9s at the end).

times that number by 10 and you'll end up with 9.999999999999...

now take the first number from the second:
9.99999999999... - 0.99999999999... = 9.

divide by nine- 9/9 = 1.

let 0.99999999... = X


((X x 10)-X)/9 = (10X - X)/9 = 9X/9 = X.

So 0.9999999999... is equal to 1.

Of course the difference between the two numbers is infinitely small, but still, actual proof if you asume infinite decimal expansions can be manipulated the same was as Quotients.:p
edit- sorry, the sheer stupidity of the last part of plasma's post made me miss the sheer stupidity of the first part of his post.

Just made this up now:
But you're forgetting the rule of probablilities in maths:
If there are 0 options, the probability of a selected option coming up is 1 out of 1.
As there is no option of which planet has life on it, the inhabitants of this planet definitely exist!

If you have a bag with no balls in it the probability of removing, at random, a blue ball from it doesn't become 1 just because there are no balls at all in the bag. That makes no sence.

You meant one chance, not zero, and that change makes your post nonsence. The only logical problem with the statement in the first place is the assumption that a number that tends to zero is zero.

Star Worms
27 Oct 2006, 11:32
Congratulations plasma, you have not only proven that zero is in fact equal to zero, but you've also solved the eternal mystery of what 1 is equal to as well.:rolleyes:

If you want a real proof that one doesn't equal one then consider this-

First take the real number 0.9999999999999... (That being an infinite number of 9s at the end).

times that number by 10 and you'll end up with 9.999999999999...

now take the first number from the second:
9.99999999999... - 0.99999999999... = 9.

divide by nine- 9/9 = 1.

let 0.99999999... = X


((X x 10)-X)/9 = (10X - X)/9 = 9X/9 = X.

So 0.9999999999... is equal to 1.

Of course the difference between the two numbers is infinitely small, but still, actual proof if you asume infinite decimal expansions can be manipulated the same was as Quotients.:p
edit- sorry, the sheer stupidity of the last part of plasma's post made me miss the sheer stupidity of the first part of his post.


If you have a bag with no balls in it the probability of removing, at random, a blue ball from it doesn't become 1 just because there are no balls at all in the bag. That makes no sence.

You meant one chance, not zero, and that change makes your post nonsence. The only logical problem with the statement in the first place is the assumption that a number that tends to zero is zero.You could simply have said that 1/9 = 0.1111111111111. Therefore 9/9 = 0.99999999999999999 = 1

But enough of this maths stuff!

AndrewTaylor
27 Oct 2006, 12:12
So 0.9999999999... is equal to 1.

Of course the difference between the two numbers is infinitely small
Actually, there is no difference. 0.9 recurring is nothing more than a rather stupid way of writing "one". It's an age old argument that exists on the internet but not in mathematics departments of universities, where everyone is sufficiently well-versed in how real life mathematics work to understand that 0.9 recurring and 1 are in fact the same number.

I'd prove it to you but you already did it yourself.

Akuryou13
27 Oct 2006, 14:35
I still think that evolution is a buttload of crap made up by some "high-on-pot" sientest, god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it, he is the only one that could change us into a dwarf thing.I would like to make a comment on this post of yours if you're still reading, luke.

judging by your beliefs I would say it's safe to assume you're a christian, correct? well I would like to point out that in the bible, the church, and every religious text ever written by true christians the main theme of christianity is to treat others as yourself and to be accepting of others as well as respect them. the other section of the main teachings of christianity is to live your life in the footsteps of christ so that you may be to the world today what christ was in his day. doing that requires that you accept all people for who they are and not look down upon anyone regardless of how lowly they seem to be. you may want to remember that in the bible, jesus passed up the prosperous and the popular, the healthy and those full of faith in order to meet with those "lesser" people that the rest of society looked down upon. jesus walked the earth as a commoner and spent his time with those of different beliefs trying to persuade them to believe in what he termed to be "the one true God". his life was spent teaching those with no faith or those on misguided paths to believe in God, and all the teachings of the church to this date teach us to follow in his footsteps and guide those walking other paths to find the path to God (that's guide, not force). never in any of the teachings of christianity was it instructed to shun other religions, races, people, etc for having different beliefs or different customs, but in fact the exact opposite is true. so ask yourself luke: how can you look down upon those with other beliefs when the entire point of christianity is to do the exact opposite? I just want you to think about that for a while.

and yes, I'm christian. I've confirmed and been through everything else associated with that. I know what christianity is and I agree with most of it as it was what I was raised believing, but blindly believing something because it was what you've been taught since you were young isn't what religion of any kind is about. even in christianity you have to find your own path and no one can expect anyone to believe 100% of the things taught by any religion. you just have to take what you agree with and form your path from that; but looking down on someone else because they decided upon a different path, regardless of what that path is, goes against everything jesus taught here on earth and makes his sacrifice meaningless.

Plasma
27 Oct 2006, 15:23
is it just me or is that plain nonsense.. :p
What gave it away? Was it the fact that the certain rule of prbability does not apply to what I was proving, or the fact that 1 is not equal to 2?

... me miss the sheer stupidity of the first part of his post.
SUCESS! Mwahahah!


Ok, I've had my fun.
Back on the origional topic: The only way way I could see people becoming short, fat, and deformed-looking is if they lived only in fortifications in rocky mountains, and spent very little time outside.

Xinos
27 Oct 2006, 16:08
My biggest question is how people think it's easyer to have eveything in the universe just explode into exsistance, out of complete nothingness...

Well, everything in our universe that we can see is moving away from a single point. Got any better explenation for that?

The univerese might have been created as a science project. The Big Bang might have resulted from a black hole in another universe that eventually got full all created a new universe, in wich it put all the mass in a single point.
Like teleporting all the atoms of an object to the same cordinate at the same time.

If you want to call the reason behind the creation of our universe "god", why not? But all gods that are bound to our different religions are just plain silly. Except the Hindu god Brahman which is purely the creator of our universe =P

AndrewTaylor
27 Oct 2006, 16:16
The Big Bang might have resulted from a black hole in another universe that eventually got full all created a new universe, in wich it put all the mass in a single point.
Actually, almost that exact theory was put forward lately as an explanation for why the universe is so well balanced to support life and other complex molecules: essentially* inside black holes, new universes form. These universes are a bit like the "parent" but not quite the same. As a result, the vast majority of universes are ones tunes specifically to create lots of black holes, which also makes them ideal for complex molecules and therefore lifeforms.

Where did life come from? God? Sorry, it evolved.
Why is the universe so perfect for life to evolve? God? Sorry,that evolved too. According to this theory, anyway.

I can't recall the details but I thought it pretty interesting.

_____________
*as in "nothing like this really but this will do as an acceptable lie for these purposes"

Pigbuster
31 Oct 2006, 06:35
I still think that evolution is a buttload of crap made up by some "high-on-pot" sientest, god is the only god and he controls what we do and how we do it, he is the only one that could change us into a dwarf thing.
You should try actually thinking about your religion. It can be rather meaningful and help you know more about yourself.

I, for instance, believe that the soul is all of the positive and negative bonds we make with other people throughout our lifetimes. These are the bonds of our memories and interactions. Merely passing someone on the street will implant them in your soul forever, even though that bond will be rather weak.
And when we die, we shed the physical body and we are nothing but a mind and a soul, and the afterlife is essentially the memories of our loved ones.
And note that I don't really believe that there are literally ethereal strings between everyone in the universe. It's mostly symbolic.

There's more to that, but that's actually the first time I ever wrote my beliefs down. FUNKY.