Reply With Quote
saying "it may have existed" implies I don't know about before the universe came into existence -nothing more, nothing less.
ftr, I don't call out believers per se. I call out the Bible.
right, just like a Creator can't be backed by math or science.
interesting because English requires that you capitalize "I" when talking about yourself.i capitalized Creator as a le because that's how English works - nothing more, nothing less.
and ftr, it's only it English works if you are talking about God. The creator of the Ipad does not get such preferential grammatical treatment.
saying "it may have existed" implies I don't know about before the universe came into existence -nothing more, nothing less.
ftr, I don't call out believers per se. I call out the Bible.
look at my posting style and youll see ill throw in a comma there, maybe an apostrophe here, but i hardly ever capitalize "i." i used the word Creator as a le because of a response to LnGrrR's post where he uses it.
come on, you can't use that ad hominem bull to debate. just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.
it seems like you need to do some research if your only rebuttal to me is "i don't know about ."
You said it was the English thing to do to capitalize "Creator". Just helping you out.
I was also responding to your fart post:
I'm open minded. Please explain the way things were before the Big Bang.come on, you can't use that ad hominem bull to debate. just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.
it seems like you need to do some research if your only rebuttal to me is "i don't know about ."
i said that's how English works. we both speak English, and you understood me. Ta da!
my fart post was a joke to Tlong's because nobody has any idea what caused the big bang or what happened before it. they do have theories backed by science that spacetime was a phenomenom resulting from the big bang.
come on give it up. socratic arguments only make you look ignorant. ill give you a little hint - they don't work on me.
i don't know why you have spite towards religion and label me as some kind of ambassador of religion, but if you carry that mindset for the rest of your life, people will never take you seriously. you don't want to live like that, do you?
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-27-2010 at 05:18 PM.
I understood you capitalized Creator in line with LnGrrrR's idea that it was a sentient being that created the universe. Is that not the case?
You used English to confirm you don't know about before the universe began either. Ta da!my fart post was a joke to Tlong's because nobody has any idea what caused the big bang or what happened before it.
they also have theories backed by science that "the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets."they do have theories backed by science that timespace was a phenomenom resulting from the big bang.
just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.
bad assumptions on your part are actually making you ignorant.come on give it up. socratic arguments only make you look ignorant. ill give you a little hint - they don't work on me
I don't or haven't labeled you anywhere as any kind of ambassador of religion and have not shown any spite towards religion in this thread that I can recall.i don't know why you have spite towards religion and label me as some kind of ambassador of religion, but if you carry that mindset for the rest of your life, people will never take you seriously. you don't want to live like that, do you?
We are both speaking English, but I have no clue what you are talking about or what you are getting at.
string theorists are considered "radical" physicists in astronomy. their theories are built upon pure speculation that the big bang model is completely and absolutely wrong - contrary to observations and mathematical models. but hey, they got their name out, right? reminds me of you, kind of. who knows, einstein and hawking were considered radical, but their theories have been almost completely confirmed whereas your theorists' have not.
ill post my sources and cut out. you can read up on them and maybe make proper renovations to your train of thought. thanks for the laugh.
One of these theorists is Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton.
oh the irony.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...d-feature.html
Their theories do tend to give some possible insight as to what the dark matter might do, no matter how radical you think this physicist might be.
No renovations needed.ill post my sources and cut out. you can read up on them and maybe make proper renovations to your train of thought.
Steinhardt > you
Did you actually plan to have this much fail today?Texas Tech University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees and certificates.
http://www.ttu.edu/facts/
Again, this will break down into a philosophical debate, on whether the universe was "created" or if it's always been there.
hey blake, why can't you understand that my philosophy is built on accepted science and not works in progress. steinhardt is a million times more intelligent than me (and you), but his new theories on brane cosmology are incomplete. recently, he gave a talk in austin about his theories but has yet to "win" over his peers. the lack of observations of his theory really hurts his case. i say he's "radical" because he chooses to think "outside the box" and that's a good thing - no negative connotation on my part. yet his theories are just that - radical.
however, that's besides the point. the point is, i put my intellectual well-being into the hands of hundreds/thousands of reputed physicists and astronomers and the extensive research that they carry out to build complicated theories with and test, test, test. if steinhardt's theory is accepted and he garners the support of his peers who then publish it in scientific books and journals and teach it in classrooms, good for him, i will put my confidence in his theory.
but.....it hasn't. truth is, physicists can only hypothesize what dark matter and energy is because they have no idea. quantum physics is nowhere near finished, so please stop claiming that it negates the hard work of all the astrophysicists throughout the years - that's really insulting to them, especially from someone of your repertoire. they are still trying to figure it out, and when they have an acceptable theory, i will believe in their hard work.
oh, and in this case, according to your beliefs that you decided to google just to try and counter my argument, the Creator for you is an alternate universe. good for you, i'm glad youre finally on board.
if you want, ill be more than happy to ask my professor what he thinks about spacetime before the universe. chances are he'll say "the accepted theory right now is that it was created after the big bang, but we just don't know anything that happened before the big bang."
want to make a bet?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.374363d.html
someone's school forgot to do their homework.
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=7590421
...and doesn't know jack about vaginas. there are so many case studies of Raider Rash. why haven't they taken advantage of that?
I guess that defies my imagination... but then, theoretical physics often does.
We still don't know entirely what happened in the first instants after the big bang yet either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
They have gotten a bit closer to figuring out the ultimate process, and getting some kinds of self-replicating simple molecules and figuring out under what conditions those things might form is a Very Interesting part of biology and organic chemistry.
Very Interesting things tend to attract a lot of brainpower.
My take on the concept is that it is just another "God in the gaps" argument where creationists attempt to say "but since you haven't fully shown/explained 100% of the entire process, it must be false".
"You say that Creature A evolved to creature C, but you don't have a fossil of Creature B, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".
(Scientist finds fossil of creature B)
"You say that Creature A evolved to creature B, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.5, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".
(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.5)
"You say that Creature A evolved to creature A.5, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.25, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".
(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.25)
etc etc etc.
Abiogenesis is the logical conclusion from the process of evolution.
I am certain we will eventually uncover some mechanism, as we fill in the gaps on our knowledge.
Jeez, looking over the last few pages and an intersting snit fit about astrophysics vs. quantum mechanics makes me love this place even more.
I wonder if the Lakers' equivalent of Spurstalk has arguments over dark matter?
Nah. That would detract from the important coversations about who Jack Nicholas took to the last game...
Quantam mechanics is an area that unless you hold a PhD in, you probably dont understand it. Even with a PhD, youre only scratching the surface.
Its is the least understood science in science.
Thus, it is only logical that the Ultimate Quantam Factory (the BB) is a very formidable opponent in terms of wholesale explanation. Quantam Theory, even when two situations are exactly the same, becomes an unpredictable mess.
I dont even touch it beyond a passing interest, even though its importance to "How Works" is of great importance.
The laws of physics that can be applied to any and all observable macro objects fall apart completely once you enter the realm of an electron microscope. Which only heightens the mystery of our universe, IMO.
Ive read more than a few books on M-Theory, String Theory and any GUT thats gets proposed, and it always breaks down when you apply the strong and weak nuclear forces to quantam mechanics.
Quantam mechanics is the last vestige of an all encompassing theory of everything. Judging by the lack of true understanding, we as a species are far away from any GUT in my lifetime.
Then again, who knows?
Every once in a while, I like to imagine that there was a creator... but after he built us, he just fudged some of the details... like what happens to matter at extremely small or extremely large scales.
Like he just got tired and said, "Oh screw making any of this make sense together... I'm tired. Besides, how the heck will they ever get to this point anyways? They'll probably all eat each other or something like that and be dead within the year. Damn it, I need a strong drink."
Here is my thing:
If you set up the laws of physics and matter to the point where life such as we have on our planet was a statistical certainty, you wouldn't have to do much more.
Set up the different atomic and subatomic forces just so, have different molecules with just the right kind of chemical properties...
Evolutionary processes are pretty powerful things, if somewhat haphazard. All you need is to set up the rules of how things interact from the get-go and wait for massive amounts of time and space to do the rest.
great, good for you.
but who exactly are you to say this:
how exactly is that a philosophical flaw if there are respected professionals in the scientific community that hold theories of their own that time did exist before the Creator?
me too, but that's besides the point.however, that's besides the point. the point is, i put my intellectual well-being into the hands of hundreds/thousands of reputed physicists and astronomers and the extensive research that they carry out to build complicated theories with and test, test, test. if steinhardt's theory is accepted and he garners the support of his peers who then publish it in scientific books and journals and teach it in classrooms, good for him, i will put my confidence in his theory.
but.....it hasn't. truth is, physicists can only hypothesize what dark matter and energy is because they have no idea. quantum physics is nowhere near finished, so please stop claiming that it negates the hard work of all the astrophysicists throughout the years - that's really insulting to them, especially from someone of your repertoire. they are still trying to figure it out, and when they have an acceptable theory, i will believe in their hard work.
exactly what makes LnGrrrR's post philosophically (and scientifically) flawed?
I haven't really posted my beliefs regarding pre-Big Bang, have I?oh, and in this case, according to your beliefs that you decided to google just to try and counter my argument, the Creator for you is an alternate universe. good for you, i'm glad youre finally on board.
I think you are on board the wrong ship.
no, because that was exactly the point I made earlier when I talked about not really knowing about before the big bang.if you want, ill be more than happy to ask my professor what he thinks about spacetime before the universe. chances are he'll say "the accepted theory right now is that it was created after the big bang, but we just don't know anything that happened before the big bang."
want to make a bet?
You appear to be on board several different boats at one time.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.374363d.html
someone's school forgot to do their homework.
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=7590421
...and doesn't know jack about vaginas. there are so many case studies of Raider Rash. why haven't they taken advantage of that?
someone likes to post outdated articles and information from 2007 and 2008. The probation were very minor and amounted to nothing more than a frown from the committees.
The OB/GYN program is doing just fine. Hooked on Phonics is a fine reading comprehension program. Why haven't you taken advantage of that?"The review committee didn't find fault with the quality of care we were providing or academic environment we had created. It was more of a numbers game in certain procedures," says Dr. Hampton......
I think abiogenesis is one logical conclusion to be sure.
I misspoke a bit when talking abiogenesis. I was really referring to matter ultimately coming from non-matter. I also can't seem to get around it all being a random act. Again, I think down the line it points to some kind of order.
huh....I guess I did state my pre-big bang beliefs.
What if randomness was the preferred method?
If some of what is implied by quantum physics, i.e. multiverses, there may be a rather large amount of universes where the forces that make up the universe differed by juuuuust enough, not to make life, or matter possible.
When you have an infinity to work with, suddenly anything is literally possible, even our universe,even life.
Kinda reminds me of the end of new Battlestar Galactica...
Who knows?
I feel the same way. I'd lost religion in early life for reasons I touched on earlier in the thread, but it wasn't until I read and worked through the ideas of people like Newton (who I didn't think made a case for why a body at rest was a body, or why it retained its body-ness after a collision), Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein, Schrodinger, etc. that I began to see a place for God as a set of conditions/forces and matter/energy/life as an expression thereof. Condensed this way on a bulletin board, it probably sound trivial; but it was a meaningful moment for me.
preferred by who?
the concept of outer space might really be a government cover up.Who knows?
It would explain all the Hollywood effects of the Apollo missions.
so which religion do you think is the right one?
I guess I don't think about it that way. I look to the Bible because that's the tradition I was raised in and the type of fellowship I'm drawn to, but I don't begrudge people who choose or are called to seek God through other systems of belief (all or almost all of which have the same moral directives and spiritual aims) and I actively oppose proselytism, and consider prejudice against people of other faiths to be the height of evil.
I'm with you. The hope is that nobody begrudges anyone for their beliefs.
I have a problem with the Bible because of its imperfections. If God wanted to send a clear message, the logic of sending it through such a flimsy medium doesn't jive with me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
