Missing link found:Creationists choke on more evolution cack

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 10, 2005, 2:15 pm

Midnyte I am guessing you want to say that because I said myself the science is not set in stone that your statement still stands.

Let's just put it this way: The evidence we have found suggests more strongly that there is a higher probability that we're not alone than that we are.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 10, 2005, 2:35 pm

Lohrno wrote:Midnyte I am guessing you want to say that because I said myself the science is not set in stone that your statement still stands.

Let's just put it this way: The evidence we have found suggests more strongly that there is a higher probability that we're not alone than that we are.

You're a fool. What evidence? ROFL

I happen to believe in aliens, however there is not one shred of "proof" of anything beyond our little existence. Lots of theories though.s

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 10, 2005, 2:47 pm

There is no concrete evidence there ARE aliens. I never said this.

However: We know that there are stars out there that have similar characteristics to our own, and we have some data on what the likelihood of those stars having planets like our own. Whiddle that data down based on some other things and you can guess the chance of one of those forming life.

Given the current data, there is a high probability we are not alone. Much higher than that we are not.

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » May 10, 2005, 2:59 pm

We've found microbes on mars, and now Titan as well!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 10, 2005, 3:02 pm

It's been a while since I dabbled in the sciences (which is why it's so disturbing that I seem to know more about evolution than some of the people on this board), so remind me... Do microbes count as "life"? They're just the building blocks, right?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 10, 2005, 3:11 pm

techinicaly fire has all the characteristics of life. it consumes or needs fuel, leaves waste, grows, etc. but i don't think it has evolved

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 10, 2005, 3:31 pm

the entirety of human history is but a blink in the age of the universe. considering the evidence of the age of the universe, and the age of humanity, you creationists should have some explaining to do.

life will be found wherever it is suitable and where the proper components are. earth is very suitable... ONE POINT TWO BILLION SPECIES on earth. billions more disappeared many thousands of years before we evolved.

we are far from special.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 10, 2005, 3:33 pm

nobody wrote:techinicaly fire has all the characteristics of life. it consumes or needs fuel, leaves waste, grows, etc. but i don't think it has evolved

technically that statement is completely incorrect.

no we havent found microbes on Mars or Titan. we have found evidence of water on Mars (pretty solid evidence), and concentrations of methane gas that would be hard to explain (but not impossible) as having geological (as opposed to biological) origins.

i heard a rumor that a paper is in review confirming evidence of life on Mars, but maybe that is just a rumor. the current rovers didnt have mass spectrometers that were good at determining the presence of things like nucleic acids, etc (i think).

yes microbes are "life". Microbe is a kind of generic term for things like bacteria.

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » May 10, 2005, 3:33 pm

You are not the contents of your wallet?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 10, 2005, 3:37 pm

The very definition of evolution is that organisms will adapt to its surroundings to thrive. All our limited minds can say as "proof" of pure evolution versus the intelligent design is that the earth holds the right amount of water, air, pressure, temperature, etc etc. Why does evolution require a perfect balance of conditions? Does that not actually contradict evolution?

You can see the creatures on earth that adapt to their surroundings....such as in the deserts...the deepest parts of the oceans....burrowing deep into the soil....the arctic......why would organisms not be able to evolve on the planets closest to us? Why not on the moon that is made up from a part of the earth?

All any of you can do is claim pure evolution on a theory, but you can't explain why it has not happened on any other observed planet or moon. Sure creatures adapt and evolve over time....but science is always based on pure theories and no one could honestly prove anything as every theory is based off of other established theories. Just accept the fact that there are some things humans will never know.

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » May 10, 2005, 3:56 pm

Such as: When's the next time Kilmoll will take a shower? WE WILL NEVER KNOW.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 10, 2005, 3:57 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The very definition of evolution is that organisms will adapt to its surroundings to thrive.

Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. You forget the alternative: They die out. Usually it's the latter. Things don't just magically change as thier environment does. Mutations are either adventageous or not.

All our limited minds can say as "proof" of pure evolution versus the intelligent design is that the earth holds the right amount of water, air, pressure, temperature, etc etc. Why does evolution require a perfect balance of conditions? Does that not actually contradict evolution?

Once again, in near-infinate space, it's neigh impossibe for the "perfect" conditions (remember, just for OUR kind of life) not to exist somewhere. Evolution doesn't "need" anything. It's not TRYING to create life, it just happens. It's not a means to an end, so the question doesn't apply.

You can see the creatures on earth that adapt to their surroundings....such as in the deserts...the deepest parts of the oceans....burrowing deep into the soil....the arctic......why would organisms not be able to evolve on the planets closest to us? Why not on the moon that is made up from a part of the earth?

Again, you answer your own question by calling on the theory of evolution which itself suggests infinate possibilities. It's all the same universe, but not all masses of matter will be alike, so it's not really relevant, even if you assume the moon WAS part of the earth in the not-so-distant past.

All any of you can do is claim pure evolution on a theory, but you can't explain why it has not happened on any other observed planet or moon. Sure creatures adapt and evolve over time....but science is always based on pure theories and no one could honestly prove anything as every theory is based off of other established theories.

Like gravity, evolution is an observable theory, and the more "missing links" like this that are found, the clearer the picture becomes. It does not claim to show us how "it all started", just how we got from a certain point to where we are now. Perhaps this is where you confuse the real theory of evolution with the assumption that evolution "created" life. This is not the scientifically held view.. That's the athiest view. Pure science can only tell us what we know, not what might be.

Just accept the fact that there are some things humans will never know.

I dearly hope there's no one who will argue with you on that point.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 10, 2005, 4:07 pm

yes, the fact that every single nook and cranny in the universe is not home to a Starbucks disproves evolution.

i never understood that until now.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 10, 2005, 4:13 pm

Evolution != Adaptation

Keep trying. Maybe throw in some research to a post or two. Maybe. I can hope.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 10, 2005, 4:23 pm

Niffoni wrote:
Just accept the fact that there are some things humans will never know.
I dearly hope there's no one who will argue with you on that point.

I will. I wouldn't bet either way as to what we will and won't ever know.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » May 10, 2005, 4:27 pm

i think that jack bauer has an internal conflict with god and al qaeda because on one hand he is a republican so he has to believe in the bible and closet sodomizationw hile on the other hand he is a super leet counter striker with wallhacks and ogc irl (as seen in season 4 episode 13 and 15) anyway i think if you were to ask jack bauer he would start crying because he had to watch his wife get shot by some other hotchick and he had this really hawt daugher named kim bauer played by elisabeth cutbhert LOl but you know who i think is hotter is reiko aylesworth because she is half japanese and also the most beautfiul woman imo ever maybe nex tto my mom of course LOL HAPPY MOTHERS DAY IF YOU ARE READINT HIS MOM so back to the subject at course for par mr bauer would say there cnat be creationalismt because god would not create terrorists to steal nuclear warheads and bomb my countery but god bless america because the vice president is a giant pussy like helen keller i mean she was blind def and dumb sorta like sylvos LOL SLAM did you know that my favorit ecaroton was johnny quest and if i could be anyone i would be race bannon because he was dreamy and heroic and nailed doctor quest in the bathroom of the hydrofoil anyway what does this have to do with creationalism and dinosaurs you ask? nothing but theres no time for reason when habib marwan has nuclear warheads in ohio and is planning to blow up iowa LOL BIG LOSS THERE RITE? not but i got to save them anyway so i wi ll go now c u thats what jack baure would say i hope i have driveled enough retard on this thread to derail it into the pits of hell.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 10, 2005, 4:54 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Niffoni wrote:
Just accept the fact that there are some things humans will never know.
I dearly hope there's no one who will argue with you on that point.
I will. I wouldn't bet either way as to what we will and won't ever know.

This just further establishes you as a retard.....and a Canadian.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 10, 2005, 5:01 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: This just further establishes you as a retard.....

Oh I think I have come out of this thread pretty unscathed as far as that goes. Perhaps I have hit bottom.

You on the other hand have put forth the notion that life should be evolving on just about every other planet out there for evolution to be considered a valid theory.

I'm pretty sure if anything you are losing more points in this department than I am...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 10, 2005, 6:11 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: This just further establishes you as a retard.....
Oh I think I have come out of this thread pretty unscathed as far as that goes. Perhaps I have hit bottom.

You on the other hand have put forth the notion that life should be evolving on just about every other planet out there for evolution to be considered a valid theory.

I'm pretty sure if anything you are losing more points in this department than I am...

Once you stop worrying about scoring points with the fucktards on this board then maybe your posts will become less retarded.....and canadian.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 10, 2005, 6:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Once you stop worrying about scoring points with the fucktards on this board then maybe your posts will become less retarded.....and canadian.

I was speaking figuratively.

And I hope you will understand if I don't take pointers from you as to how to make my posts less retarded...

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » May 10, 2005, 10:12 pm

If we survive for another 500 million years, here's an article that discusses what the more likely future humans will be like:

Human evolution at the crossroads

It's a long article, but here's a brief summary:

Unihuman: Skin tones blend. Larger eyes are associated with greater "domestication."

Survivalistian: Protective brow and skin layer contribute to "radiation hardening."

Numan: DNA and drugs enhance intellect and physique.

Cyborg: Hardware enhances humans. Eventually the devices look more elegant.

Astran: Body hair just gets in the way during interstellar trips.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 11, 2005, 1:05 am

Yeah gang up on Lohrno and ignore the vast majority of the posts on this thread easily destroying your so called "arguments."

Fucking hyenas, except less intelligent.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » May 11, 2005, 11:06 am

I find it funny that the same people that are screaming that God can't exist because no one can show him are the same people saying aliens are definitely real even though no one can show one.

Not that I have any idea if life on other planets exists or not. It's just humorous that the show me physical evidence arguement is ok in one direction and not the other.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 11, 2005, 12:25 pm

Sabek wrote:I find it funny that the same people that are screaming that God can't exist because no one can show him are the same people saying aliens are definitely real even though no one can show one.

Not that I have any idea if life on other planets exists or not. It's just humorous that the show me physical evidence arguement is ok in one direction and not the other.

Before you lump me in with others....I do not believe in God because 1) there is no proof and 2) there is no such thing as magic.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in aliens because I have no proff either way, however that does sound a little more realistic than god to me.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 11, 2005, 12:55 pm

Sabek wrote:I find it funny that the same people that are screaming that God can't exist because no one can show him are the same people saying aliens are definitely real even though no one can show one.

Not that I have any idea if life on other planets exists or not. It's just humorous that the show me physical evidence arguement is ok in one direction and not the other.

the laws of probability make it very likely that there is some form of "life" besides us out there in the vast universe

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 11, 2005, 1:01 pm

"Close Encounters" has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is the mechanism for speciation here on earth.

Nothing.

nobody should confuse any speculation regarding intelligent life on other planets with verifiable facts (millions of them) that document specifically the evolution of our species through dozens of intermediaries (the broad fossil record of Hominids), as well as our order (Primates), our class (Mammals), and the absolute clear wealth of information on the evolution of vertebrates at large (fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> 2 paths one bird one mammal).

oh yeah, and lets not forget the absolute clear path of evolution of non-vertebrate chordates to bony fishes. And the various hemichordates and other primitive deuterostomes with clearly evolved from organisms similar to modern echinoderms (starfish, sea urchins, etc).

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ,etc

whoever posted above is absolutely right, insisting that intelligent alien life out there exists is no more verifiable than insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was divine.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 11, 2005, 1:28 pm

We need a new topic. This one has been totally pwned by Team Evolution.

Haven't any pro-lifers been murdering doctors lately? Haven't any liberal judges legalized man-on-turkey sex yet? Come on! I want to read more about the downfall of the western world!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 11, 2005, 1:43 pm

i know its been a battle between this and the church kickers

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » May 11, 2005, 1:45 pm

Voronwë wrote: whoever posted above is absolutely right, insisting that intelligent alien life out there exists is no more verifiable than insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was divine.

To clarify I wasn't suggesting that evolution doesn't exist, I was simply refering to the alien path the thread seemed to take.

drasta wrote: the laws of probability make it very likely that there is some form of "life" besides us out there in the vast universe

So you can use the 'most likely' arguement for aliens, but when a Christian says there is a God you require a DNA sample from said God?
I could just as easily stick my fingers in my ears and go "lalalalalalaaliensdontexistlalalalalalaIamnotlisteningtoyoulalalalalala", because thats pretty much your arguement for God not existing.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 11, 2005, 1:52 pm

Sabek wrote:
Voronwë wrote: whoever posted above is absolutely right, insisting that intelligent alien life out there exists is no more verifiable than insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was divine.
To clarify I wasn't suggesting that evolution doesn't exist, I was simply refering to the alien path the thread seemed to take.

drasta wrote: the laws of probability make it very likely that there is some form of "life" besides us out there in the vast universe
So you can use the 'most likely' arguement for aliens, but when a Christian says there is a God you require a DNA sample from said God?
I could just as easily stick my fingers in my ears and go "lalalalalalaaliensdontexistlalalalalalaIamnotlisteningtoyoulalalalalala", because thats pretty much your arguement for God not existing.

no ... if you think about all the billions of planets out there and the millions and millions of combo's of atmospheres/unknown chemeicals etc chances of one holding some sort of "life" the chances are pretty high.... now when you sit down and think ... hmm i wonder what are the chances of some 2000ish year old uneducated people that thought lightening was the wrath of god and crap are correct about having a divine being....

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 11, 2005, 2:09 pm

Voronwë wrote: whoever posted above is absolutely right, insisting that intelligent alien life out there exists is no more verifiable than insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was divine.

This being the operative word. I think a prediction of possible other civilizations based on current data and some assumptions holds more weight than "some guy was god's son because so and so said he did this and blah blah blah." Maybe not much more but I find a mathematical model based on some assumptions to be more credible than hearsay over hundreds of years.

I think it may be verifiable within the next 200 years that there are other civilizations. With billions of stars out there, the chance that we are alone is quite slim. Given our current data.

Killmol said that we were alone...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » May 11, 2005, 3:45 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Voronwë wrote: whoever posted above is absolutely right, insisting that intelligent alien life out there exists is no more verifiable than insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was divine.
I think it may be verifiable within the next 200 years that there are other civilizations. With billions of stars out there, the chance that we are alone is quite slim. Given our current data.

Killmol said that we were alone...

The following comments are based upon the assumption that the speed of light is essentially an immutable limit to the rate at which information (matter or energy) can be transmitted across the vast expanse of space.

If we assuming that an intelligent species would rely upon radio transmissions as the conclusive evidence needed to indicate intelligent life, then no device beyond ~100 lightyears would receive any transmissions of Terran origin that would indicate intelligent life is present here on Earth.

As a mirror image to this, any civilization that has reached sufficient technological maturity to trasmit radio waves must be as close in lightyears as the number of years that they have had radio communications system for us to receive conclusive indications of intelligent life.

As a result, if we receive electro-magnetic communication that originates from 100,000 lightyears away, then we can only say that there was life there 100,000 years ago. Many astronomers would argue that the early universe did not contain the right chemical composition (no heavy metals and limited amounts of transition metals, etc) or stability to sustain planets that could have lifeforms similar to our own. It is common assumption that more recent generations of stars (like our own) are more likely to have planets that could support life.

If these planets are relatively new (on a cosmic scale), then it likely that life as it has evolved on Earth occured on a similar timeframe on other similar planets. We have good indications that none of the surrounding stars are similar to our, which would suggest (not conclusively) that if life is evolving on other worlds, it is doing so very far from Earth. If any of these distance planets were to produce intelligent civilizations capable of powerful radio transmissions, we would not recieve their transmissions for thousands of years, if ever (due to interference from stellar and interstellar sources of absorbtion and natural transmission).

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 11, 2005, 4:04 pm

yeah but arch, 100,000 years is really not a significant amount of time when talking about the number of fused nuclei ejected from stars to form planets. Earth is what, 4 or 5 billion years old? 100,000 years +/- in some other solar system is nothing in regards to that. even millions of years here or there. So civilizations could have come and been long gone.

speed of light/distance isnt the only thing limiting receipt of communication on either end either. Should be noted that there are a tremendous number of sources of interference.

hell, there could have been civilazations very close to us, but they torched themselves before we had the technology to pick up radio.

good post Arch. the window that we have had radio receivers, and that enough time has passed (on average) across galaxies to allow for civilizations to form, may be extremely small.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 11, 2005, 4:10 pm

Yup...unless there is a way to transmit/receive something faster than light it is not likely we will be in any contact with any civilizations, assuming we found them in the first place. We would have to be able to detect a new civilization and communicate with them at an acceptable delay.

Still this doesn't mean that we are alone in the universe, even if contact with other civilizations is beyond our capabilities at the moment. I would claim that we probably aren't, and that the universe was not created with us in mind.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 11, 2005, 4:16 pm

Lohrno wrote:Yup...unless there is a way to transmit/receive something faster than light it is not likely we will be in any contact with any civilizations, assuming we found them in the first place. We would have to be able to detect a new civilization and communicate with them at an acceptable delay.

Still this doesn't mean that we are alone in the universe, even if contact with other civilizations is beyond our capabilities at the moment. I would claim that we probably aren't, and that the universe was not created with us in mind.

No, of course not, Lohrno the Retard. You don't know if the universe was even created by anyone or thing who could have had anything in mind. It may have just happened. To make assumptions you have any fucking clue or anyone will EVER have any fucking clue is nothing but laughable.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 11, 2005, 4:19 pm

Great posts Voro.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 11, 2005, 4:31 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: No, of course not, Lohrno the Retard. You don't know if the universe was even created by anyone or thing who could have had anything in mind. It may have just happened.

Nope, you're right I don't. Again you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that given what we know right now, it is probable we are not alone, and that we are not special to this universe. Others would claim that this universe was created with someone in mind because we are alone, which is kind of a silly statement anyways because if we were created by some form of intelligent design, it doesn't mean we have to be alone. Perhaps we are a lesser cog in that machine. But we are probably not alone in any case. Right now there is no way to prove the creation of the universe happened because of anything. Perhaps there will be someday.

To make assumptions you have any fucking clue or anyone will EVER have any fucking clue is nothing but laughable.

To assume they wont is more laughable, seeing as the current trends in research do not point to our losing information. Perhaps some day we will know. To assume we won't know might be more laughable. (Unless we experience some form of armageddon, and all goes to shit.)

I'd hedge my bets more on "We'll find out more later" than "Our knowledge is going to hit a brick wall somewhere or we are going to lose it."

No one can predict the future, but we can make educated guesses. I think "We'll never know certain things" is defeatism.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 11, 2005, 4:36 pm

the answer is 42

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 11, 2005, 4:37 pm

Clues left behind will only lead you to assumptions of how they came to be.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 11, 2005, 4:41 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Clues left behind will only lead you to assumptions of what lay behind.

True, but you can test these assumptions in varous ways and change them when they are shown to be bad or not work. You can scrutinize anything even language until it makes all of your ideas useless, or you can accept a reasonable ammount of error with the idea that you could be wrong. The latter is how we have to operate because the former is counter productive and just leads to chaos.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 11, 2005, 5:29 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Clues left behind will only lead you to assumptions of what lay behind.
True, but you can test these assumptions in varous ways and change them when they are shown to be bad or not work. You can scrutinize anything even language until it makes all of your ideas useless, or you can accept a reasonable ammount of error with the idea that you could be wrong. The latter is how we have to operate because the former is counter productive and just leads to chaos.

Oh really?

I will be making your statement there my sig so the next time you cry about letting guilty people go because less than 1/2 of one percent might possibly be innocent, you can read my sig to remind yourself. Thank you for playing the game...pawn.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 11, 2005, 5:30 pm

There's no way an advanced civilization would be using radio waves to communicate over 1,000's of light years. Earth has only been transmitting signals for 100 years or so and less than that with any purpose to the transmissions.

At the rate our technology has been progressing in the past half a century, I suspect we'll have found another means of communication within a few hundred years which would severely limit the possibility of another civilization detecting our radio signals, which most likely wouldn't be near them for hundreds of thousands of years anyway. There is also the solid chance of an extincion level event coming from within or externally to the human race before we can colonize and enact the human virus invasion upon the universe.

In summary, we aren't technologically advanced enough for other civilizations to be concerned with us.

We do have the Voyager Space Probe gold record thingy floating through space!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 11, 2005, 5:35 pm

the next time you cry about changing the letting guilty people go because less than 1/2 of one percent might possibly be innocent

English, motherfucker.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 11, 2005, 5:37 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: I will be making your statement there my sig so the next time you cry about changing the letting guilty people go because less than 1/2 of one percent might possibly be innocent, you can read my sig to remind yourself. Thank you for playing the game...pawn.

It's much worse to kill an innocent person than to make a knowledge mistake. No one died because they thought the earth was flat. There have been a few casualties in our pursuit of knowledge, but those were mostly those who either were put to death by an oppressive government for their ideas, or who knew and accepted the risks. Innocents put to death are something altogether preventable, and I'm pretty sure they don't think in their last moments, "Well, it's for the good of society that I go to death so we can eliminate the real murderers." I'm glad you like what I write enough to make it your sig though.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 11, 2005, 5:40 pm

miir wrote:
the next time you cry about changing the letting guilty people go because less than 1/2 of one percent might possibly be innocent
English, motherfucker.

Thank you Miir. I fixed it. *non-gay hugs and kisses*

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 11, 2005, 6:53 pm

Niffoni wrote:We need a new topic. This one has been totally pwned by Team Evolution.

Haven't any pro-lifers been murdering doctors lately? Haven't any liberal judges legalized man-on-turkey sex yet? Come on! I want to read more about the downfall of the western world!

Actually, the current man-on-turkey sex thread is over here...
http://www.graffe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31442

Never say I aint done nothin' for ya!

*Hugs*
Varia

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 11, 2005, 6:57 pm

you think we'll quantum teleport our information to one another in a few hundred years winnow?

if i have a few million photons that are entangled with a few million photons that you have, but on the other side of the galaxy, we could communicate instantly!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » May 12, 2005, 11:19 am

First Comment:

Quantum entanglement requires proximity, at present, to initiate. As a result, we could theoretically communicate faster than the speed of light to any location that a communication device with a quantum entangled particle was present (provided that the quantum properties work over large distances as we "hope"), which initially would require travel at slower than the speed of light.

Second Comment:

The presense of life on planets other than Earth does not necessarily preclude humans from being "special", nor does is it evidence that the universe does not have a divine maker. One must be cautious of building arguments containing non sequiturs when mixing religion and science.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 12, 2005, 1:36 pm

Here's concise short paper that was written about the topic of travelling or communicating at speeds faster than light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... t/FTL.html

It was written in 1998 but still has great info on the possibilities.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » May 12, 2005, 1:40 pm