AK350Z

Stopping off on the way up Colin? Or straight to Morton?

Very nice Immy, although for once i'm not tooo jealous of the weather. Turning out nice here for the Wales run, fingers crossed!

Shame you pulled out of Wales mate, you're missing out! I struggle to afford mine, and i don't even commute in it! Still worth it every time it comes out the garage though Hope it sells well

Happy Birthday James, how's the polishers elbow?

Two car washing areas? We'll flood the place!

Drove past one in Buttermere a few weeks ago, looked like a better version of the 307cc.

I usually try to, sometimes don't get one back though!

Like some kind of automotive woman! High maintainence I tell ya!

It would be a very tight squeeze bud. More space for us at Moreton in our two washing areas then, and just outside the bar too Yeah, it's a proper revolving door on those 3 or 4 spaces that the hose actually reaches to!

Any spaces at this for spectators/tea drinkers/cake eaters Mike? Feel like i'm missing out this time!

Fran's pretty understanding... Because of paying for the Zed I can't really save any money for the wedding!

Will be sorry to see the end of your DIY ethic with the mods mate, especially the paddles!

Wash your mouth out!

That is soooo apropriate to this conversation! I honestly don't know. I've got a sneaking suspicion that the journey is a lot more fun than the destination though. I'm certainly not holding out for something good afterwards. I can easily see why that scares the sh*t out of people, me included. It's enough to make you turn to God (No offence!). One of my biggest wishes is for life, even if just single cellular, to be found on another planet or moon. At least that would mean that life was endemic and maybe even inevitable in the universe. It would clear up a whole slew of scientific and philosophical questions at a stoke. And then, of course, pose a whole new set of them!

Would probably be worse if it was an Iphone. Hide the charger....

Well no, of course not. I would group those three together too! Well untill they do exist, there's nothing really to deal with is there? Well maybe, but if we apply an Occam's Razor type approach, what is most likely? Basic physics and biology, or an unseen and (apparently) uncaring creator? Co-operation and altruism are an essential part of the development modern civilisation, and the resulting surpluses of food, time, and money allows us remove less fortunate people from suffering the apparent harshness of nature. Science is similarly magical you know. It's not necessary to reduce the complexity of life to some kind of basic computer system, the beauty of arranging neurons into a complex network such as happens in your brain, is that it can become more than the sum of its parts. Presumably at some point the complexity gives rise to sentience, and then, well, the sky's the limit! I think part of the issue these days is that the scope of science is so unimaginably vast, and in some areas, almost beyond comprehension, that average joe in the streets just get frightened off and looks for easier and simpler answers to the questions of exsistance.

Ah well see, you missed next weeks lottery numbers that were conjured up by the self-annihilating clash of science and religion. Dont bother going back to look now, it's been deleted.

Hello Folks, time for another round? Don't worry, it's not compulsory! Well yes, I can imagine it, but if we are going for the God-set-the-universe-spinning theory, I want to know how we can test that. As physics itself breaks down before that point, we can speculate on the "before" till the cows come home. My money's on the possible creator being the Giant Spaghetti Monster. Hey, no harm no foul! This is just a debate you know. We're unlikely to set the world to rights within the confines of this thread, but we can try dammit Haha you think? It was the fact that he couldnt explain it with Newtonian physics that led him to the general theory of relativity. and explaining the photoelectric effect gave him the nobel prize. not the general theory of relativity itself sorry couldnt let it go If you say so mate, just Newton not quoted in my book (and I'm loath to check with Lord Wikipedia), just mentions Einstein building on the work of Bequerel and Hertz. I concede the point. Jay, you came back! I knew you would! Look, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just can't go for an question that is not testable. It's making order from chaos, and I don't particuarly think you need to look beyond the borders of the universe to find beauty in the rules that make it sensible. I'm not a Dawkins type who thinks religion is some kind of illness, It's certainly caused it's share of problems for science though, through fundamentalism and puritanism. Wouldn't it have been great had Islamic science not imploded through the middle ages, and as previously mentioned, Copernicus and Galileo hadn't been so worried about attracting attention of the church? I'm more than happy to carry on annoying anyone else who wants to take your place in the debate though

I'm just slightly worried that quite a few people think that the hard facts of the world are somehow subject to personal opinion over whether they are right or not! The point in science is that these truths/theories/rules would be observed the same by anyone performing the appropriate experiment. Religion was a human contruct from an age before we had the tools to understand the world around us. I would say it's a safe bet that all its texts were written by man, and as such any assertation that any one (indeed many times only one) person had some blinding special knowledge to kick them off should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. If other people cannot test the assertations, why belive it? Why creationism has turned out to be such a special battleground I'm not sure, evolution is still a young science. I guess it's just a continuation of the trials of Copernicus and Galileo! p.s. Greekman: [ Newtons theory was a fact until mr einstein decided to dig into the photoelectric effect...and now his theory is a fact ] The photoelectric effect has nothing to do with Newtons theories of gravity. Sorry, couldn't resist!

The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence. So really, what is it your saying? I mean never mind all the fancy words and Dawking's stuff your reciting, lets just look at the foundation of your theory, something which I feel every theory should have solid before even continuing...I mean come on, look at how much has stemmed from the theory of evolution and its foundation is a mess, it's not like its even got a decent answer, there is none. Energy cannot be created or destroyed? so what are you saying, energy isn't physical? its not real? Of course it had to be created at some point to exist. And ultimately you say the big bang theory will be speculation forever, so your going to go into the next hundred years toting evolution as fact, when your foundation is speculation and has no proof, or even idea how it came about. Doesn't that worry you? Europe's best scientists are using the large hadron collider to understand what happened back in the beginning, but their still using 5 billion euros worth of machinery and there's still hundreds of scientists trying to produce this energy.....your theory is saying it came from nothing? Evolution has far too much research into reptiles legs and the transformation of apes, when really it needs to have a solid foundation before even considering these ideas. Perhaps I should have used the full sentence: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. All forms of energy are ultimately derived from the unimaginable high temperatures of the Big Bang. Beyond that, science cannot say, only speculate at the moment. I am not saying the LHC will be violating the laws of physics. Speculation on what happened before the Bang doesn't really figure on evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics or anything, its just a natural process. So, no. It doesn't worry me. And as for "fancy words" and "Dawkins stuff", I've never read a Dawkins book, I find his style too combative. I do however have an interest in general science, and its somewhat hard to articulate that to an audience without a liberal sprinkling of fancy words to describe the hugely complicated topics available. In the end you either accept the scientific method wholesale or not at all. You can't go cherry picking particular theorys to rage against just because you don't happen to like or agree with them. All scientific theorys were arrived at the same way, wether they underpin nuclear power or mobile phones.

Whens she due her P1? or is that something else.....

Arguably, this is mostly to do with the secularisation of the UK, and the greater underpinning of modern life by science. The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence. Not from nothing, see above. Theological debate. A classic example of moving the goalposts. Once the Creator is pushed back from the space around the earth, he merely pops up again beyond the edge of the observable universe! This doesn't advance the human condition one jot. He's right though. No one's in charge. It's all down to luck and circumstance, there might be another asteroid heading this way with our name on it. It has happened before. Fair enough, I think we all in agreement on this point. Asolutely not. It is in a different category precisely because it is developed by scientists. Creationism is a theory based in dialogue and symbolism, its shape and direction is progressed through art, discussion, and varying points of view. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is based in hypothesis and experimental evidence. We take observations and develop the rules and tools to understand the world around us. The main difference being that any normal person could, given the right tools and knowledge, come to the same conclusion by following the same processes. Beliefs require no evidence, that is why they are called beliefs. No, it is not my opinion. This is the difference. I look at the evidence on both sides and decide which is the more likely. Which better explains the way the world is? Saying that a creator wound up the clockwork and let the world spin away does not tell us anything about the observable universe or our place in it (except perhaps emotionally). You are assuming that creationism and evolution are theories that start on an equal footing, but that is simply not the case. What is the difference? Evidence. Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing. Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form. There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years. But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism. Yeah, pretty much. We have a complete taxonomic lineage at least. Its more logical than popping into exsistence out of the ether. Not yet. But we at least have theories, and they are testable. No doubt if it ever gets solved Creationists will move the goalposts back once again! Sex allows quicker adaption to enviromental conditions and is a prime driver of evolution. I would say that if you are arguing the side of creationism, you had better accept that it is a absolute truth, because if it isn't, it's no better that any other religious dogma or idea up for theological discussion! I need a lie down after all that!

I was quite worried about how this was going to turn out, but i think the Zeds shape takes it really well! It looks bloomin brilliant!

Well, I'm just trying to straighten the arguments out into their respective categories. The problem is that you have places like the Discovery Institute telling american schools to "Teach the Controversy". This argument of course pre-supposes that there is a controversy! Like the broccolli and gerbil video before, the teaching is that one could not have evolved from the other, but in reality they didn't have to; they both diverged from a primitive multicelled common ancestor tens of millions of years ago. Like a bomb disposal expert, science has to try to get it right at every step, if it doesn't - BOOM! Any chink in its armour can be exploited by spreading doubt and misleading what-ifs. Theorys such as creationism have no such vunerabilities, as they cannot be proven or disproven, or as previously mentioned, falsified (found to be false).