Why are evolutionists convinced we are not created?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Actually, we can make fusion ourselves.

You really should read a book. Or 5.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is just one example, there are a lot more. I know I said I was done but your ignorance is hard to ignore.

Have fun, digital boy.

actually we are attempting to make fusion, we have not managed it yet

should be pretty easy as well, if nature in your mind could have easily created 'fusion' billions of times over

No, we have done it. It's not yet sustainable. Again, please read a book.

Or just the internet, read the g'damn link I gave you. It TELLS you that it's occurred.

Here is a list of experimental FUSION REACTORS.

* TM1-MH (since 1977 Castor, since 2007 Golem[5]) in Prague, Czech Republic; in operation in Kurchatov Institute since early 1960s; 1977 renamed to Castor and moved to IPP CAS,[6] Prague; 2007 moved to FNSPE, Czech Technical University in Prague, and renamed to Golem
* T-10, in Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia (formerly Soviet Union); 2 MW; in operation since 1975
* TEXTOR, in Jülich, Germany; in operation since 1978
* Joint European Torus (JET), in Culham, United Kingdom; 16 MW; in operation since 1983
* Novillo Tokamak,[7] at the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares,in Mexico City, Mexico; in operation since 1983
* JT-60, in Naka, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan; in operation since 1985
* STOR-M, University of Saskatchewan; Canada in operation since 1987; first demonstration of alternating current in a tokamak.
* Tore Supra,[8] at the CEA, Cadarache, France; in operation since 1988
* Aditya, at Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) in Gujarat, India; in operation since 1989
* DIII-D,[9] in San Diego, USA; operated by General Atomics since the late 1980s
* COMPASS,[6] in Prague, Czech Republic; in operation since 2008, previously operated from 1989 to 1999 in Culham, United Kingdom
* FTU, in Frascati, Italy; in operation since 1990
* Tokamak ISTTOK,[10] at the Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, Lisbon, Portugal; in operation since 1991
* ASDEX Upgrade, in Garching, Germany; in operation since 1991
* Alcator C-Mod,[11] MIT, Cambridge, USA; in operation since 1992
* Tokamak à configuration variable (TCV), at the EPFL, Switzerland; in operation since 1992
* TCABR, at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; this tokamak was transferred from Centre des Recherches en Physique des Plasmas in Switzerland; in operation since 1994.
* HT-7, in Hefei, China; in operation since 1995
* HL-2A, in Chengdu, China; in operation since 2002
* MAST, in Culham, United Kingdom; in operation since 1999
* NSTX in Princeton, New Jersey; in operation since 1999
* EAST (HT-7U), in Hefei, China; in operation since 2006
* KSTAR, in Daejon, South Korea; in operation since 2008


Jeesh, you can lead a horse to water..

I would guess that you'll ignore this information similar to the way you ignore common sense..

reply to post by TinkerHaus


what your saying is fact, is that we have fusion, as in what has been created within these reactors will burn for the next billion, trillion years and for ever after without decreasing in power?

while i would love to be proven wrong, i just don't think I am

I thought we had created a fusion reaction which last for a few minutes, no longer than that though (i really would like to be corrected)

reply to post by piles


10 seconds of researching fusion reactors.

pesn.com...

As an example, in a recent experiment over an 18 hour period with an average input of 80 watts it produced at least 15 kilowatts continuous, and sometimes as high as 20 kW.

It's good to do your own research.

reply to post by piles


and id just like to point out i don't think its possible for us to create an object that burned for ever like the sun, yet nature managed to do it billions of times over...very improbable

and i think what you refer to in fusion is a reactor, which is required in order to create fusion, which it needs the reactor to fuse, where are the billions of stars reactors?

of course you will answer something like the perfect environment in the universe that creates a natural reactor, but what are the chances..

yet i can write a software program using binary maths that has a billion stars burning forever, as could you... more probable ain't it me matey...

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by piles

 

10 seconds of researching fusion reactors.

pesn.com...

As an example, in a recent experiment over an 18 hour period with an average input of 80 watts it produced at least 15 kilowatts continuous, and sometimes as high as 20 kW.

It's good to do your own research.

edit on 1-11-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

fair eough i'm proven wrong, 18hours is the record, hardly billions of years though is it??? and according to someone that is certain of evolution our sun alone has burned for a very long time, longer than 10,000 years anyway...

god bless nature

reply to post by piles

i don't think its possible for us to create an object that burned for ever like the sun, yet nature managed to do it billions of times over...very improbable

And I am sure that when the Aztecs were gazing at the stars they thought, "We are going to leave this planet and visit other planets." Science is always unexpectedly surprising us by new discoveries. Just like the light barrier possibly being broken. No one would have thought that was possible before it happened, but now it is a possibility. We are incapable of knowing what we will achieve in the future, so saying something like, "I just don't think it is possible," is ignorant. We don't know what we are capable of yet. The future is a mystery.

Originally posted by piles
reply to post by piles

 

and id just like to point out i don't think its possible for us to create an object that burned for ever like the sun, yet nature managed to do it billions of times over...very improbable

and i think what you refer to in fusion is a reactor, which is required in order to create fusion, which it needs the reactor to fuse, where are the billions of stars reactors?

of course you will answer something like the perfect environment in the universe that creates a natural reactor, but what are the chances..

yet i can write a software program using binary maths that has a billion stars burning forever, as could you... more probable ain't it me matey...

No.. It's not more probable.

You are talking about two very different situations. You use words like "improbable" but the fact remains that there are billions and billions of stars in the sky. Stars easily produce fusion because there is enough gravity, density, and heat to do so. We are trying to do the same thing in controlled environments.. Give it 50 years and it will be a reality.

What are the chances? Again, considering that there are countless stars in the sky I'd say the chances are pretty damn good.

You assume mathematics is a creation of man. You should watch The Code: Numbers, Shapes and Prediction, a great BBC documentary that will explain the principles nature uses to organize itself. It's amazing what nature is capable of. Please watch, you'll learn a lot.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

You assume mathematics is a creation of man

Definitely not a creation of man. haha More like an observation of man.

Originally posted by piles

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by piles

 

10 seconds of researching fusion reactors.

pesn.com...

As an example, in a recent experiment over an 18 hour period with an average input of 80 watts it produced at least 15 kilowatts continuous, and sometimes as high as 20 kW.

It's good to do your own research.

edit on 1-11-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

fair eough i'm proven wrong, 18hours is the record, hardly billions of years though is it??? and according to someone that is certain of evolution our sun alone has burned for a very long time, longer than 10,000 years anyway...

god bless nature

Derf, with each post you exhibit that you are incapable of reading and understanding..

I said early in this thread that I cannot be sure of evolution or creation, and that the two are not mutually exclusive.

I have no problem with the end result of your theory, that we are some sort of computer program, perhaps a tank of sea monkeys entertaining some child in a classroom.. My problem this entire time has been with the assumptions and gross misunderstanding of basic science that you used to get there.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


and my problem has been that you haven't explained why you don't understand that if our universe were created, then its only possible that this universe is digital...

some people have come back with some really silly non-possibilities,

i really don't know where to start with the subject, because I can't grasp what it is exactly you don't understand..

I too don't know the answer, if we evolved or are digital, i wish i did...

we all have beliefs, and sometimes our beliefs get in the way of our logical thought process...

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by piles
reply to post by piles

 

No.. It's not more probable.

You are talking about two very different situations. You use words like "improbable" but the fact remains that there are billions and billions of stars in the sky. Stars easily produce fusion because there is enough gravity, density, and heat to do so. We are trying to do the same thing in controlled environments.. Give it 50 years and it will be a reality.

What are the chances? Again, considering that there are countless stars in the sky I'd say the chances are pretty damn good.

You assume mathematics is a creation of man. You should watch The Code: Numbers, Shapes and Prediction, a great BBC documentary that will explain the principles nature uses to organize itself. It's amazing what nature is capable of. Please watch, you'll learn a lot.

what are the chances of stars having just the right gravity, density and heat to be able to burn, fairly improbable right, it would be more probable that someone wrote a computer program using binary maths or to create the right environment for fusion, than an explosion created the right environment for billions of stars

to many factors to consider into who created maths, however its a very effective system that works, i will look to see at a later day if the bbc doc is on you tube or online and give it a chance perhaps...

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by piles

 

i don't think its possible for us to create an object that burned for ever like the sun, yet nature managed to do it billions of times over...very improbable

And I am sure that when the Aztecs were gazing at the stars they thought, "We are going to leave this planet and visit other planets." Science is always unexpectedly surprising us by new discoveries. Just like the light barrier possibly being broken. No one would have thought that was possible before it happened, but now it is a possibility. We are incapable of knowing what we will achieve in the future, so saying something like, "I just don't think it is possible," is ignorant. We don't know what we are capable of yet. The future is a mystery.

okay ignorant, fair enough, but then consider what the chances are that our planet would end where our planet is, and that we without the sun wouldn't excist, the fact that the sun produces just the right amount of heat for us to live, the fact the sun produces light for us to have some excelent views..and be able to see really clearly.. its makes it more inprobable!
surely you can see that i can write a computer program with not only a star that burns for ever, that had a planet that was the perfect distance from the sun, which provided just the right amount of heat, and a lot of light... isn't that more probable?


if we were not digital, it would be more probable that we were a-sexual, that there was no light, but it was fairly warm, that we would mutate...

reply to post by piles


Given the size of the universe, which is undetermined as we can not see the edge, the span of time things have been up there, the fact that things are always being destroyed and rebuilt, that a large percentage of stars has some sort of a solar system, it does not seem improbable to me. You have to take into consideration the vastness of the universe before you deem something about to be "improbable."

reply to post by Tony4211


given the size of the universe though is a hard point to argue, because for all we know every other solar system could have at least one planet with alien life on, and at this point we just don't know.. i remember nasa saying something about they have found worlds with perfect environments which could support life

what are the chances of that?

is it more probable that within the nearest 100 solar systems that 4 planets have an environment that could support alien life, or more probable that someone created 4 planets that could support life using a computer? as i could write a software program which had four planets that could support alien life within the nearest 100 solar systems fairly easily, our creator could have created those worlds.. and im pretty sure thats more likely

(i just searched for a link on nasa website but couldn't see anything immediately that backs up what i'm saying, however distinctly remember watching this on the news over a year ago)

reply to post by piles


You are probably talking about this.


news.discovery.com...


I find it more probable that things happened by chance, rather than some entity making computer programs. The problem with the computer thing is that behind the computer is the creator and behind the creator is.... what? It can not be that we need to be created, yet that particular being is exempt. That, to me, is improbable. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is the Evolution forum.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by piles

 

You are probably talking about this.


news.discovery.com...


I find it more probable that things happened by chance, rather than some entity making computer programs. The problem with the computer thing is that behind the computer is the creator and behind the creator is.... what? It can not be that we need to be created, yet that particular being is exempt. That, to me, is improbable. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is the Evolution forum.

well thats where you get me because i can only make assumptions about the odds of the creators existence...

its very unlikely that the creator would live on a planet that looked like our planet, that orbited a star, which excisted amongst billions of other stars thats for sure...

it would be more likely that the creator was a sexual, that the creator had no light and that the creators planet (if its a planet) was fairly warm (but that heat wasn't from a star burning close by)

unless of course the creator was digital as well, theorizing we could be at the bottom of a long line of computer programs and yes if you assume we are at the bottom of a long line of computer programs a big bang does seem more likely.. but to define why someone would create a computer in the first place, such as the universe is very hard to do, and until we understand the potential purpose of a computer such as this universe it is hard to define the odds... an experiment doesn't add up for me, i reckon in binary maths the amount of digits that would need to go into a single human could be upwards of possibly a trillion digits.. that would take a lot of time to create, on our planet time like that normally comes at a price, so if we assume he creators invested money into this universe, then how does he get it back???

and go further with this theory if you like, but its just theory, no facts at all

reply to post by piles

but its just theory, no facts at all

Actually, it's not a theory. It has not been, nor do I think it can be tested.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by piles

 

but its just theory, no facts at all

Actually, it's not a theory. It has not been, nor do I think it can be tested.

its not a theory that anyone has been through that i am aware, but its still theorizing... i don't think it can be tested, unless the creator (if theirs a creator) made himself aware to our species (which due to the fact that if we were created, the creator could not physically be here)

the point is we are here either through creation or evolution, which means if we evolved a billion things had to happen to get us here, in fact more.. if we were created someone just had to write a computer program.. if we are digital then we definatly have a creator and i do imagine that it is more likely that less things had to happen in order for the creator to exist.. (like not having to rely on a star for heat and light or an explosion for a planet to live on)

I would imagine if there is a creator his planet would have formed through some form from a living organism, almost like coral.. only a piece of coral at least the size of america...

Originally posted by piles
reply to post by Tony4211

 

given the size of the universe though is a hard point to argue, because for all we know every other solar system could have at least one planet with alien life on, and at this point we just don't know.. i remember nasa saying something about they have found worlds with perfect environments which could support life

what are the chances of that?

is it more probable that within the nearest 100 solar systems that 4 planets have an environment that could support alien life, or more probable that someone created 4 planets that could support life using a computer? as i could write a software program which had four planets that could support alien life within the nearest 100 solar systems fairly easily, our creator could have created those worlds.. and im pretty sure thats more likely

(i just searched for a link on nasa website but couldn't see anything immediately that backs up what i'm saying, however distinctly remember watching this on the news over a year ago)

Yeah, and?...It's also easier and quicker for a calculator to do math, but then nature throws out a freak of nature, Scott Flansberg . With an exception to every rule and (recently) 7 billion people on this planet, freak events happen....all the freakin' time. Your chances of hitting the lottery are improbable....yet people continue to win it. you can't count on freak events but they happen all the time everywhere.Of course by your logic someone just X amount of these things with a computer. sigh.

Furthermore by your logic....
Your ''super computer'' thought enough to create X amount of liveable planets but computer programer/God just got tired of the same house hold on sims, so buh bye dinosaurs, helloooo humans? (Ice age was just remodel mode. guess the decor was to tacky) Trying to say a program (known for doing only what they are told) is telling us what to do next, is like saying humans are logical creatures. (your whole argument is proof that no, humans are not logical)