Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32434
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:08 AM

Chris,

The problem I see here is that the scientific justification of God becomes leverage for the acceptance of a lot of presupposition about the will of God which is not meritted by the findings.

Any proof that there was an entity of some significance would not necessarily push the conclusion that gays should be flogged, but will lead people to return to the bible, and draw that conclusion.

A safer attempt to explain the christian God would probably be something in the collective unconscious, and not in space.

Just a thought.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The problem I see here is that the scientific justification of God becomes leverage for the acceptance of a lot of presupposition about the will of God which is not meritted by the findings.

That is a problem with people, and ideally wouldn't need to be brought up unless we were talking spesifically about people.

Nothing is ever ideal. For example:

Quote:
Any proof that there was an entity of some significance would not necessarily push the conclusion that gays should be flogged, but will lead people to return to the bible, and draw that conclusion.

Religion, and the bible is an example of it, is created by human beings, and it has been said that nothing separates people from god more effectively than religion. If there is a god worthy of praise I think that statement is probably true.

The idea that people should connect god to a religion is faulty, and I wish people would drop it. Unfortunately that is unlikely.

For example if you could somehow prove that Jesus was indeed the Christ with all its modern connotations that would not mean you should necessarily take the Bible as correct because even if all of the words of his are recorded correctly and accurately translated (doubtful) there is a hell of a lot more there than just what he said.

Quote:
A safer attempt to explain the christian God would probably be something in the collective unconscious, and not in space.

I was just using that as an example of a possible situation because I know that the particle I described would have recently been considered the product of random chance. Whether or not it is still considered as such I do not know. Whether or not it really would be a result of random chance is something I certainly don't know.

I believe there is a god, but I don't believe I understand how that god works, if I wanted to do that I would be a scientist, which I am not.

PSANDUSKY

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nevered:
I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.

"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Of course!

That must be it!

How could we be so blind?

Bull.

Didn't your mama teach you about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?

PSANDUSKY

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dharmagal:
Interesting thread. All I have to say is this: if you really think evolution sucks, you only get one flu shot.

Did you happen to read the recent Doonesbury strip on that very topic? Came out in a Sunday strip, no less.

Ran a li'l sum'fin like this:

Doctor: (thinking) Uh-oh... Hope he's only a Sunday creationist.
Patient: TB? My God! Are you sure?
Doctor: Afraid so. But we caught it early.
Patient: So my prognosis is good?
Doctor: Depends. Are you a creationist?
Patient: Why, yes, yes I am. Why do you ask?
Doctor: Because I need to know whether you want me to treat the TB bug as it was before antibiotics... or as the multiple-drug-resistant strain it has since evolved into.
Patient: Evolved?
Doctor: Your choice. If you go with the Noah's Ark version, I'll just give you streptomycin.
Patient: Um... What are the newer drugs like?
Doctor: They're intelligently designed.

God bless Doonesbury, I say...

CUNKNOWN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:32 AM

I would like to point out something that may not have been emphasized enough in this thread, imo. In Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution was very strong. Although the fossil record and lack of a good method of inheritance (Mendelian Genetics wouldn't make its splash until later) were problems for the theory, it still seemed fairly clear that life wasn't static in the forms it took.

Today, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and any reasonable person is simply compelled to accept it. No, there isn't absolute "proof" per se that humans evolved from an ape-like primate, for example, but at the same time, there isn't really "proof" of anything if you want to get skeptical enough. Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to believe that life is static and never changes (or even that it never changes -much-), you have to be willfully ignorant of everything that is known in the field of biology today. Creationists talk a lot about, "Can they prove this??" "Where is the transitional form for this, huh??", but if they took even a small amount of time to actually study the basics of evolution with an open mind, they would realize their mistake. And besides, I'm sure many of those transitional forms have actually been found--have these Creationists been perusing the latest Paleontology journals lately? Have they made the slightest effort to find out if any of their questions have actually been answered by scientists yet? Of course not.

These "Seven Problems with Evolution" webpages are intellectually dishonest and don't even deserve a response. The proof for evolution is out there, if you make any effort at all you can find it.

VALICK

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:54 AM

The only thing I have to say is How does something that wasn't there explode and make goo which then makes itself into something more intricate by the decade? I say, there is a God, he made a boom and evolution did take place. All happy, decided, no more arguing.

Why again are we talking about this on a Firefly website? I'd like to point out we all believe in something that we KNOW doesn't exist. Enough said

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:14 AM

Quote:
My sister in law is the head optic engineer of laser diagnostic inc., she says the speed of light is not a constant, so I accept that. But it's not unconstant in an ever diminishing way that would explain the astrological anomolies we see in space.

And she's absolutely right, the speed of light is not constant, the speed of light in a vacuum *is* constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. May seem like I'm being pedantic but the constant c being a constant is extremely important to modern physics

.

Quote:
but there's enough evidence to suspect that the universe is in fact a black hole within a larger universe. Also, there's no such thing as a singularity, that's an illusion.

I think that's something you need to take up with Hawking...

The mathematics work quite well to show that matter compresses in to an infinitesimally small point (a singularity) it's just at the point of singularity our current understanding of physics breaks down...
But how would the compressed particles and plasma (plasma is still comprised of particles, it's just superheated disassociated ionised matter) orbit a central point if there's nothing there to generate the gravitational centre?
I've never seen a supporting theory, or a mathematical model to support what you suggest in anyway is all...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:31 AM

I'm sorry, Valick, are we not discussing topics from your approved list? Can you tell us what we are allowed to talk about, thanks.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:35 PM

Chris,

Outside of the agenda for support of the presupposition like the Bible, et al., the concept of God is absurd. I think flying spaghetti monster *litterally* has more chance of success. It is rediculous, yes, but less so than God. I can actually envision the set of circumstances that would be necessary in order for the FSM situation to be possible, in order for God to possible a set of circumstances much be envisioned that would by necessity be almost totally delusional. Spending time considering the possibility might be like spending time considering the possibility that the Iraqis are going to respond to attacks by US forces by turning us into squirrels, and adjusting US strategy to account for such.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:48 PM

Citizen,

The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant, which does open the possibility for the variable speed of light theory, but accepting the theory out of hand is not wise, as the theory itself draws conclusions which don't follow, and it is probably false. If true, it would explain nothing, accept maybe a different expansion of the universe.

The mathematics are absurd, and were originally only meant as approximations. We don't need to know whether or not it is possible for matter to be compressed into a singularity, which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so. If you haven't run into studies about the unstable nature of the black hole gravitational sense or its spin, both of which lead to the idea of something moving inside, or the random particles leaving a black hole, you could simple look up at the sky, knowing that you are inside a black hole, and figure that the behavior of this universe represents a macromodel of what behavior inside a black hole must be like

Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.

The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.

SPINLAND

Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.

I agree with you about pushing laws or teachings, but as for keeping it to one's self:

I don't see the problem with believers of a faith, whatever it may be, trying to "spread the word." I just think when it becomes clear someone doesn't want to hear it they should shut up.

I believe you are correct, Chris, and in a later post I softened that statement with some clarification. I was "shooting from the hip" in the above-quoted post, something I should not do to the exclusion of thinking about what I'm about to spit out. Sometimes my personal experience with religious zealots leaves its mark in the form of angry retorts.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant

Not under relativity it isn't. c is a constant. It is 299,792,458m/s. c is the natural speed of light in a vacuum which is constant.

Quote:
According to standard modern physical theory, all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, propagates (or moves) at a constant speed in a vacuum, commonly known as the speed of light, which is a physical constant denoted as c. This speed c is also the speed of the propagation of gravity in the theory of general relativity.

One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light source (although the colour, frequency, energy, and momentum of the light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect). If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light. Because of this, one can view c as a fundamental physical constant. This fact can then be used as a basis for the theory of special relativity. It is worth noting that it is the constant speed c, rather than light itself, which is fundamental to special relativity; thus if light is somehow manipulated to travel at more or less than c, this will not directly affect the theory of special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Quote:
which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so.

We don't know any such thing.

Quote:
Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.

e=mc2 shows that energy can be converted in to particles and vice versa. Frankly Steven Hawking among all of the worlds leading physicist subscribe to singularities and mostly to the big bang. The math is from the same theories that have been proven experimentally.

There's no theory (i.e. one backed up by math or experimental evidence) for the universe being inside a black hole. The properties of black holes can be explained through singularity, there are, however, flaws in the assumption that matter is spinning around a central point.

Quote:
The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.

The big bang theory is actually quite solid. The conditions have been mapped backwards to within a few tenths of a second after the event. Computer models based on the Big Bang theory have produced remarkably similar universes to the one we have today.

You state this like fact but it is an entirely unsupported theory...
It's not unlike saying Evolution doesn't exist so ID must be the answer...

Edit:
The theory of black holes arose from the idea that the speed of light has a maximum speed (it's speed in a vacuum) and that matter can be crushed into a singularity.
It's a consequence of that and relativity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
http://www.twisted-imaginings.com/S

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:28 PM

The trouble with Intelligent Design is that you have to assume that God is a lousy engineer; otherwise why would humans still have an appendix, vestigial tailbone, or a gall bladder?

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:27 PM

Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.

The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event. The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.

The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.

First. Here's the thing about black holes, which never approach singularity: They pull in the fabric of space time like a big knot, and that make the space time within the hole to be of greater density, thus the hole is dimensionally transcendental. Space is created by the fabric, from the point of view of anyone inside the space, the amount of space taken up by the fabric of space time is going to be relatively constant, regardless of how it might look to an outside observer. The fabric does not exist *in* space, space exists *in* the fabric. Thus, inside a black hole, by necssity is larger than it appears from the outside. I feel confident that it *must* be so, given what we know about the nature of space-time.

Second. Anything which falls into a black hole does so with some undetermined amount of tangential velocity. Everything we know about physics also tells us this *must* be so and is *always* the case. Since nothing anywhere in physics indicates that anything would ever cancel out this tangential velocity, it must be so that the progression towards the center would follow the same sort as that towards any other gravitating object, and thus miss the exact center. Since the center is infinitely small, this also *must* be so, and thus the falling particles would fall into perpetual orbit of the non-existant center, must the way a whirlpool orbits a space with no water, or an intense storm orbits a space with no wind.

Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.

Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.

Fifth. The gravitational field of a black hole exhibits behavior akin to that of a gravitating object with spin, much like would be created by a field of orbiting material, and not that which would be created by a quantum particle.

Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.

The whole nature of concepts such as speed, distance, and space, are nothing more than relative to the extant quantity of spacial fabric crossed, which is what allows some items to be conceivably capable of moving as what appears to be faster than light to us, but that most probably occurs because of an absense of space.

The so called 'doppler shift' that we view is quite possibly not a 'doppler shift' at all, but the biofringent distortion if that's the right term, cause by looking through spa

DOUGP59

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
I'm a scientist and I'm trying to keep an open mind. Everything I read about either Creationism or Intelligent Design is usually all about perceived problems with evolution, with very little support for ID. The absence of information about the theory of Intelligent Design has left me with some questions.

I'm not sure which sites you ahve dealt with, have you visited the Discovery Institute? BTW, what field of science are you in?

Quote:

1) What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism (assuming there is one)?

There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.

Quote:

inconsistent with evolution, why would supporters of Intelligent Design be so anti-evolution?

Because most came out of supporting evolution when for various reasons, they came to see it for what it is, myth.

Quote:

2) What is the evidence in support of Intelligent Design?

There are many, one are irreducible compex systems.

Quote:

3) What do Intelligent Design scientists research? ...test your theory you are dealing with philosophy or theology,

Watch out, that is a two edged sword.

Quote:

Intelligent Design cetainly poses all sorts of nice questions (who is the Designer? is there more than one? is creation a single event, or a controlled, interactive scenario? what was the Designer's purpose? where is the Designer now?), but I cannot figure out a way to test a hypothesis based on any of these questions. Do ID scientists perform research seeking incosistencies in evolution? If so, they studying evolution and are in truth evolutionary scientists.

Obviously the answers to these questions cross over into faith and philosophy.

Quote:

My unoriginal inclination is to say Intelligent Design is a transparent attempt to disguise Creationism, and since neither theory can ever be tested, they are not science. But I'm trying to keep that open mind.

Actually, it is more of an attempt to follow the truth in regards to origins, regardless of the final destination.

DOUGP59

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.

Absolutely false statement, just like everything else you've spewed. There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.

That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.

Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.

It is altogether fitting that Hitler writhes in agony in the fires of hell.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

SPINLAND

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.

Yep, that's pretty much it. If you can't accept that, well, tough rocks. It's reality, and as I said before, reality bites sometimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.

Meaningless drivel referencing a "god" which doesn't exist. Please, continue to believe in your make-believe god if it comforts you, but I reserve the right to hold you and your imaginary playmate in contempt--and to do so with impunity, since there's no such thing as any divine retribution for my failure to kiss your god's divine ass.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

DOUGP59

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:30 PM

Quote:

The Bible says something like "By their works you shall know them". So, how do you account for the fact that atheists are generally more moral (lie, cheat, steal, and divorce less) than "believers"?

The Bible also says "All (atheists included) have fallen short of the Glory of God."

Quote:
Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all./QUOTE]

Barna is not the untimate arbiter of who is in and who is out of the flock, as it were.

For the truth on what the founding fathers really said, visit one of my other sites;

www.whateveristrue.com/heritage

True, that Jefferson and Franklin were diests. Too bad.

Quote:

Evil Uncle Chuckles (Pat Robertson) calling for various assassinations and Dubya himself are certianly NOT good advertising for religious morality!

Personally I find Pat an embarrasment and not truly representive of true followers of Christ. I think Chavez maybe a little whacky, but I would never advocate his assasination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DOUGP59

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.

You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.

How sad.

I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.

The truth is that Hitler was an avid and devout christian, and a die hard creationist. This is why the accusations made by eurocollectivists that social darwinism eventually led to the holocaust don't hold water. The truth is that social darwinism is a theory about how societies evolve, and the collectivists were afraid that this would ultimately lead people to support the idea of a meritocracy, and so conveniently blamed them for WWII. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people involved in the planning of the Third Reich were social darwinists, and a great number, if not all, were creationists.

As a Taoist, my faith doesn't call for, or perhaps allow, the existance of an omniscient sentient, just living forces in natural progression. If this seems like fringe wackoness to the Xtians, I would offer that my chosen faith has a following comparable to that of Christianity, Islam, Buhddhism and Hinduism. Just saying, not a fringe belief, but also not atheism.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.

That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system

.

Quote:
The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event.

It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental. If some group said evolution is proof of God does that suddenly make evolution a belief system?

Quote:
The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.

No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove your black hole theory. None.

If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.

Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.

Quote:
The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.

You’re flying in the face of a well established and supported theory, DT, you need more than just rhetoric to support your point.

Quote:
Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.

For crying out loud DT, this is not the level of argument I expect from you. By the same reasoning I could say that since the universe exists, and god created the universe that's definite proof that god exists.

Quote:
Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.

As matter is 'sucked' into the blackhole it orbits around before passing through the Event Horizon, producing just the effects you mention.

As for escape velocities above the speed of light, well normal matter can't travel faster than c. A blackhole is black because beyond the Event Horizon nothing can escape without traveling faster than c, and nothing with a finite rest mass can travel faster than c. The radio/x-rays and matter emmissions always come from the accretion disk, outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is less than c.

Light still travels in a straight line inside a blackhole though, it's just space-time is curved in on itself so that light traveling in a straight line always ends up back at the singularity.

Quote:
Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.

DT, I don't want to be overly patroni

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:37 PM

dreamtrove:

You should look into philosophy a bit, "I can envision" and "I can't envision" are very, very weak arguments and have been used to "prove" god, "disprove" god, "prove" free will, "prove" determinism, "prove" compatiblism, "prove" the existiance of souls, prove … well you get the idea, I hope.

Science as we know it was originally philosophy (and by a strict definition still is) but it has the distinction of not using that kind of argument but instead using the scientific method in an attempt to achieve better and better approximations of reality.

The idea of god is one that exists outside of all of that, sort of. If a god evolved like people than that god doesn’t even meet most peoples definitions of god, that is the type of god that would fall victim to your envisioning a set of circumstances.

-

If god is instead a force of nature then it is as easy or difficult to envision as the warping of space by mass or the speed of light being constant.

If god is a statistical phenomena of grouping than the circumstances necessary for it are the same as the ones that make the sequence 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 appear in random number sequences (which it does.)

If god is the creator of the universe than that idea seems just as delusional as the idea that the big bang simply happened. That has always seemed the supreme joke to me, god aside the only thing as absurd as the idea that there was an uncaused event (be it god or the big bang or something else) is the idea that there wasn’t (and thus an infinite sequence.)

If god is a being which really can defy the laws of physics (seems absurd to me to begin with, why create the laws if you’re going to break them?) than it seems just as absurd as the idea that you can have a dream where there is a force of gravity but you can fly.

I can go on, but the point is simply that the idea of there being a god is absurd in some renditions of god, but few I have seen are any less absurd than things we take for granted. Also in the first three hardly seem delusional to me, at least no more so than the warping of space, math as a whole (which I support as one of the most useful things in history), and the start of the universe.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not, I'm not sure he would be the *worst* christian whoever lived.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I believe you are correct, Chris, and in a later post I softened that statement with some clarification.

Yeah, I saw that actually.

Sometimes I read through all posts before I respond, but others I respond as I read to avoid forgetting what I want to respond to.

I was doing the second then, and am in fact doing it now.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
god aside the only thing as absurd as the idea that there was an uncaused event (be it god or the big bang or something else) is the idea that there wasn’t (and thus an infinite sequence.)

The idea that the big crunch (the end of this universe) could cause the big bang (the start of this universe) isn't so weird because between the two time and cause and effect do not exist.

Quote:
warping of space

Space isn't warped, space-time is. It's a subtle but vital distinction.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Frankly Steven Hawking among all of the worlds leading physicist subscribe to singularities and mostly to the big bang.

In one of his books Steven Hawking said he was researching a theory that said the big bang never happened, are you saying he gave up on (or disproved) that theory?

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:52 PM

Steven Hawking is an advocate of Big Bang theory. I can look in to creationism, doesn't mean I'm a creationist.

Quote:
Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ (Underlining added)

I think I know the theory your talking about, but I'm going to have to look it up, bare with me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:06 PM

To Spinland

I agree with most things you have said before, now that you have clarified them, but I think you are being a little bit too harsh with the following:

Quote:
Yep, that's pretty much it. If you can't accept that, well, tough rocks. It's reality, and as I said before, reality bites sometimes.

...

Meaningless drivel referencing a "god" which doesn't exist.Please, continue to believe in your make-believe god if it comforts you

God is hardly disproven, and even when I didn't believe in god I didn't think people should say things like that. I don't think people should be so derogetory about the opposition on things that are truely unknow, and god remains one of them.

Quote:
but I reserve the right to hold you and your imaginary playmate in contempt

This however I have no problem with at all. I personally would have said, "Your god," but that is an unimportant disinction when the one saying it doesn't believe in the god.

Quote:
--and to do so with impunity, since there's no such thing as any divine retribution for my failure to kiss your god's divine ass.

And to this my response is to go for it. If I am right, and the god I believe in does exist, acting like that will earn you more divine respect than kissing ass out of fear or hellfire (or fear in general.) If I am wrong that still earns you more of my respect because you believe what you believe out of conviction, not fear or greed.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Space isn't warped, space-time is. It's a subtle but vital distinction.

I actually know that, which makes me feel all the stupider for not having that reflected in what I wrote.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Steven Hawking is an advocate of Big Bang theory. I can look in to creationism, doesn't mean I'm a creationist.

My wording seems to be worse than normal, or perhaps it was always bad and I didn't notice.

I thought he was trying to prove the theory he was looking into. You seem to know more about this than I do so I'll take your word on it.

-

You seeming to know more reminds me, I've been trying to figure something out.

I've been told there is no such thing as absolute speed (save that of light in a vacuum.) If something is not accelerating it is at rest from its frame of reference and moving from another, but neither is more correct.

However I have also been told that as something accelerates towards the speed of light it gains mass. If that is true couldn't one simply measure the mass of, say, a hydrogen proton, in a non accelerating object and from that determine whether it is moving faster or slower than another non-accelerating object that has had a similar measurement? (By seeing which has more mass, of course.)

If that is not true why isn't it?
If that is true wouldn't that mean there is such a thing as absolute speed?

-

There's so much to respond to in this thread. Finally done for now though.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
And to this my response is to go for it. If I am right, and the god I believe in does exist, acting like that will earn you more divine respect than kissing ass out of fear or hellfire (or fear in general.) If I am wrong that still earns you more of my respect because you believe what you believe out of conviction, not fear or greed.

One of the most enlightened responses I've read on this subject. I don't hold to the Christian god of the Bible, because I believe that god would be what the bible says what god is supposed to be.

It's hard to explain. The Christian god is infinitely forgiving and compassionate, yet murders the first born of Egypt? Small children, babies, innocents in the true sense of the word. That I don't get. It's an act that is all together too human.

Quote:
I actually know that, which makes me feel all the stupider for not having that reflected in what I wrote.

Didn't mean to make you feel stupid...
It's a point that people often stumble on, which makes their understanding of the ideas completely screwed, which is possibly where my misunderstanding came from.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
I've been told there is no such thing as absolute speed (save that of light in a vacuum.) If something is not accelerating it is at rest from its frame of reference and moving from another, but neither is more correct.

True, sort of, I'll get back to it.

Quote:
However I have also been told that as something accelerates towards the speed of light it gains mass.

This is true. It is given by M/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), or the resultant mass is equal to the rest mass divided by the squareroot of one minus the velocity squared times the speed of light in a vacuum squared.
If you had an object of 1kg traveling at a speed of 0.95c the relatevistic mass would be:
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - (0.95*c)²/(1*c)²)
(Solving for c)
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - 0.95²)
M = 1 / sqrt(0.0975)
M = 1 / 0.3122...
M = ~3.2kg

Quote:
If that is true couldn't one simply measure the mass of, say, a hydrogen proton, in a non accelerating object and from that determine whether it is moving faster or slower than another non-accelerating object that has had a similar measurement? (By seeing which has more mass, of course.)

No. Within it's own reference frame the hydrogen particle will have gained no mass, it gains mass in respect to the outside universe. In order to measure an objects mass it *must* be at rest within your reference frame, ergo you'll never see a discrepency between two hydrogen particles, as you can only measure rest mass.

Quote:
If that is true wouldn't that mean there is such a thing as absolute speed?

Yes and no. As a particle with finite rest mass reaches c it's energy/mass coefficient reaches infinity. Thus a photon (beam of light) can reach c because it has a rest mass of zero. An object with a finite rest mass (above 0) would reach the point of infinte energy/mass coefficient at a lower speed, thus not being able to reach c.

Now even under relativity it is theoretically possible to exceed c, but you need a negative rest mass. That is, for instance, you need a bag of sugar that weighs -1kg. One type of particle that has been theorised to have a negative rest mass is a tachyon (Greek for swift) though there's no direct evidence of their existence (I heard something awhile back about a type of radiation being encountered in the upper atmosphere which is consistent with Tachyons) they would theoretically not be capable of speeds slower than c.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

VERASAMUELS

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:52 PM

>the simple fact that one plus one does equal two<

Not in non-Eclidean geometry .

But to enter the wider debate;

What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Vera

Devout Keeper of Jayne's Lunchbox

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by VeraSamuels:
What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Various religions and books (Stranger in a Strange Land for example) are based on that very thought.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:09 PM

Quote:
Not in non-Eclidean geometry

Just thinking. Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as Astemeyer correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts, the theoretical shape described by Siddus must therefore be a poly-dri-doc-deca-wee-hedron-a-hexa-sexa-hedro-adicon-a-di-bi-
dolly-he-deca-dodron.
Everything else is popycock. Isn't that so?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SPINLAND

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:52 PM

Thanks for again being the voice of reason, Christhecynic. I fear I'm unable to respond to the troll who started this thread without my own baggage coming through. I shall work harder to ignore his posts and reserve any comments I have for responding to the rest of you as they occur to me.

Cheers!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, January 13, 2006 12:03 AM

I always thought that 1 + 1 = 2 because the defintion of two was "1 + 1" then you merely have to assume or prove that 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 which intitively seems to be the defintion of =.

I mean one is the only number that exists in reality anyway, take one person, add another person, you now have one group, add another person and you have ... one group.

But it would be nice to distinguish these different forms of one, so we give them names the first group, one person and one person, written 1 + 1 people, is called a (which means one) group of two, or 2 people.

All of this is too many words, so we just make our symbols, and all math I have thus far been introduced to stems from addition and the idea of identities. So I always thought 2 was defined as 1 + 1.

Of course "always" is a lie, I was told in high school that because some group was more or less masochistic they took only two axioms where sane people took three. That forced them to rigorously prove various things, 1 + 1 = 2 being one of those things.

I was also told that the person who proved it burned out, and after writing out the long paper proving it he produced little else of the caliber he consistantly had before.

I should point out that many of the things I was told were not true, these may be among them.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:09 AM

Doug,

True, some ID is flying spaghetti monster. For another, I just said that big bang was ID. I mean it too. But then all of this is creationism, just not christian creationism.

But Intelligent Design has a more insidious role to play. It is part of the neocon's plan to throw the '08 election to Hillary, who is really one of their own. All that needs to happen is for the republian nominee to get up and say "I believe in intelligent design and will make its teaching federal law in place of evolution" and I guarantee you that the repulicans will lose.

Doug,

You're also not for real. Someone put you up to this. I've known christians, many of them, fundamentalists, and you in no way resemble them. I think you're probably doing it as a prank, you certainly don't really believe everything you post. You probably don't believe anything you post.

Quote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh no, if you're not a christian maybe you're defending nazis here. I think that Hilter was a Christian is a well established fact, just like that he had the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, though he was, if I recall correctly, a Lutheran. I think as a rhetorical device, your response failed miserably. A better response would have been "He was also a vegetarian, what of it?"

Quote:
That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system.

Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.

Quote:
It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.

Quote:

No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment.

That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.

Quote:
If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.

I think I just gave you half a dozen things.

Quote:
Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.

Of course, and we know how and why this happens, because particles are the result of the interaction of energy strands. Even if the statisically unlike event that all strands everywhere crossed at the same point in space in time, which is unlikely on the order of one in infinity, the laws of quantum mechanics would still prevent the event from cr

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:19 AM

Chris,

but why go there? The thing is, I don't know the answers, I'm just constantly stabbing in the direction, comparing the possibilities. To take an absurd notion to be true because someone wants it to be true is to lose all sense of perspective and to blind you from ever knowing the truth.

I'm not bent on no God, just as I'm not bent on no big bang, but neither idea seems to have strong enough supporting it to make it even probable, let alone definite. Furthermore, closer examination may lead one to think the initial idea was suspect, so why bother. More effort can be spend on unknowns far more plausible and proveable.

I'm not arguing an infinite sequence, only that the objective analysis seems to indicate to me that the universe is far older and larger than the theory allows, and that the theory doesn't like that because that means that there are an awful lot of unknowns.

My theory has a lot of stuff it can never explain, like i must deal with the 'whatever's outside' of this black hole universe. Well, I'm pretty sure that what I have now is more concere than the big bang, I have no philosophical need for this 'outside' but my theory does seems to indicate one, and so I have to assume that it exists. I have no problem with it existing, only that I can't possibly tell what it is. I assume it to be universe like in nature, but maybe it's endless plasma goop, or the henderson's kitchen table, I don't really know.

TANSTAAFL28

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:30 AM

Evolution is scientific theory that happens to fit the available facts. Until another scientific theory comes along and replaces it, it's the best we have.

People who peddle ID are mistaking philosophy for science. Beliefs aren't facts. Beliefs are the wishful thinking that people comfort themselves with when they don't like the facts.

"You can't take the sky from me..."

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:33 AM

Citizen,

Thanks for the back up on the nazi christian thing, I wish I had some resources to send you on debunking the big bang et al., I have to assemble some. The problem is that most of what is behind the big bang is theoretical mathematics, and most of what shoots it down is scientific observation, and I'm not just shooting my mouth off here. I think if you look into the flaws, your faith will be shaken. I'm not sure what point that has, unless you are interested in the truth. That said, I have to disagree with you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Why not, I'm not sure he would be the *worst* christian whoever lived.

Yes, he was. I thought about this for a couple minutes first, and I thought of a lot of crusaders, the various leaders of the crusaders, and was it Richard the Lionheart who led the genocide crusade that depopulated Israel? Killed 10 million arabs and jews or something? Maybe it was another king. So, yeah, sure, possible, but if all Hitler had done was the holocaust, he might have been bested, but alas there was also the polish genocide, the serbian genocide, the gypsies, the russians, the lithuanians, not to mention a war with casualties of up to 60 million. He was undoubtedly the worst, in sheer numbers. I don't know if he actually ate children like Patassé was it? So sure, there's competition for the title, but I'm going to go with bodycount here.

Actually, I have to reconsider for a second. I just remembered king ferdinand of spain. 4 million europeans and untold numbers of indians, and the destruction of all that ancient knowledge, civilizations, etc. Hmm. Fuhrer still probably number one, but there's a top ten here somewhere.

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, January 13, 2006 5:27 AM

Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.

As for "Intelligent Design"--

"Intelligent Design is not science - not even BAD science - but it is bad religion. After all, any religion that has to lie about what it is in order to sneak into the building needs to take a long hard look at some of its own tenets regarding morality and integrity...

...I believe that eventually our science will be good enough that we can explain to God how we think He did it, and He'll say "Great job! You get an A! It would have been an A+, but you left 'Dark Energy' in place as a fudge factor. Now here's a nebula full of hydrogen. Show Me what you can build."

Until then, however, I'm not going to use the book of Genesis as a template for a scientific theory. The answers may be in The Book, but we're expected to show our work. That's the only way that we can enjoy the fruits of DOING the work." -- Howard Taylor

For the record, Mr. Taylor is a devout Mormon, and also a hard science fiction writer. Check out his Webcomic "Schlock Mercenary" for some good clean fun.

"I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma." -- George R.R. Martin

AERIN

Friday, January 13, 2006 7:32 AM

Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding! I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution). I was also taught that the speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant. I don’t understand Dreamtrove’s arguments and they run counter to what I know, but I can’t dismiss them out of hand based on the overall quality of Dreamtrove’s posts.

I nominate Hitler for the prestigious award of “Worst Christian in History”. Any seconds?

Rocketjock – Doug’s lack of a FF history has been noted by others on the thread. Nice quote!

AERIN

Friday, January 13, 2006 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.

This is the crux of my concern. Intelligent Design is sold as a theory distinct from Creationism, but if this were really true every ID theorist would say he’s not a Creationist. Instead of replacing Creationism with a new scientific theory, Intelligent Design just lumps religion in with philosophy to sneak them both into the science classroom. I would guess the majority of ID theorists are Creationists, with a few Deists and Agnostics thrown in for variety. I think the definitions below would distinguish between religious fundamentalists trying to debunk science, and scientists who believe in god. Of course, I suspect that’s the complete opposite of the ID agenda.

Creationism – the universe was created by God, as defined by belief in religious texts; some variation in the details (age of the universe, etc.), but absolutely contrary to evolution; a religion

Intelligent Design – entity/entities played some part in creation, as concluded by reason rather than adherence to religious texts; covers a lot of possibilities, but largely coexists with evolution (entity/entities set up evolution, subtly guide it, etc.); a philosophy

Irreducibly complex systems don’t disprove evolution any more than not having every single transitional fossil. Again, rather than proof of ID, it's percieved problems with evolution. At best, they may show the theory needs some minor tweeks. Here’s how I think of it:

Under creationism, my laptop would have popped into existence with no previous forms. No punch cards, no rooms filled with tapes, no desktop computers. Just my Inspiron 6000. Under intelligent design, many changes were attempted at each step of the modification, and customers created a natural selection, but the designers only tried those changes they thought would be an improvement. Because the designers showed some degree of intelligence, we went from the Difference Calculator to my Inspiron in less than 200 years. Computers could have developed via random changes, with designers trying all ideas regardless of merit, followed by the same customer-based selection, but then my laptop would be on pre-order for something like the next 10 billion years. Complexity is not evidence of intelligent design, even if you can’t imagine how it came about. However, if pigs develop wings in the next 100 years I will definitely convert to your camp.

If you want to know what I do for a living, read my other posts. Maybe you’ll learn some thing about this thing we call Firefly…

CITIZEN

Friday, January 13, 2006 10:03 AM

Quote:
Orignally posted by Dreamtrove:
Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.

Dreamtrove, my comment was not based on your not accepting the theory; it was based on the fact that you said it was because you saw it all as mathematical posturing.
To be honest this tired old argument that gets dragged up every time someone disagrees with you for more than two posts is annoying and somewhat insulting. It's not just me you level this at either, it's seemingly anyone who disagrees with you, so either I'm to believe everyone on this site is constantly lying to beat your perfect argument, or that your as fallible as the rest of us, and tend to back up your arguments with personal attacks, and accusations that your opponent is lying.

Quote:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.

Your theory isn't all that different to creationism over eons either, DT, so I'm not at all sure how you can refute the theory on this count.
But please continue to paint me as someone who says yay Jesus and jumps on the bandwagon of this crazy non scientific creationism, that happens to be supported by prominent physicists, who are also obviously crazy creationist nuts.

Quote:
That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.

It doesn't necessarily have to have spontaneously come into being. There's lots of ways that the original singularity could of come into being, this statement shows a fundemental misunderstanding, wilfully or un-wilfully, of the big bang theory.

Quote:
I think I just gave you half a dozen things.

I'm asking for evidence Dreamtrove, not your say so.

Quote:
Now you're just being absurd and offensive because you have no answers to any of the problems I suggested with the theory, and all of these points have been raised by scientists before, so I'm not making them up.

No you’re stating a theory as fact that not only is there scant information on but you've shown me nothing to back it up yourself. So okay here's the answer to your original point, we know black holes aren't like our universe because our universe is not inside a black hole. That statement is every bit as valid as yours.

Quote:
I assume you know that the universe is a black hole since you seem big on the math, I would assume you already did the math and found that to be the case.

Neither the Schwarzschild or Kerr geometrics support that.

But thanks for proving how low an opinion you have of me. If any mathematics I had done or seen supported you I'd of said so.

Quote:
You're argument that god created the universe and that he does exist is based on nothing and related to nothing.

Right okay I'm doing the twisti

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:32 AM

Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.

But, speaking of time, I work in excess of 80 hours a week, and I really don't have time for this. I gave you the items which shake the theory, there is a ton already written on the subject by people who can do the material better justice than I can.

Ojectively, Citizen, I judge everything from an ultra-pragmatic position. I look at the data, and apply common sense. Clearly I have no scientific degrees and am no kind of professional, but I did go through all that accepted science, and the accepted science is mathematical posturing, it's a model which explains behavior, and that in itself does little to support the idea that the underlying assumptions are correct. I reviewed the data and the competing theories, and have no axe to grind, and nothing to gain, and no absolute answers to give, but I have a serious hunch that the accepted science is wrong, in the way that Mr. Monk walks into a murder scene and has a hunch that the Captain's conclusions are flawed.

The theories are not my own, I said I assembled all this of stuff I read, and these are the individual pieces which strike me as being in the direction of correct, and I was applying them to oppose certain absurdities in the accepted theory. A singularity is everybit as absurd as infinity, as is an infinite mass particle. It's like God. If you have theories which explain what we see and don't require this sort of divine intervention and made up fantasyland stuff, then they are worth taking a look at.

Finally, I posted this stuff because I thought you and others might be interested in what some scientists outside of the mainstream but not over in looneyland like space wizard are saying, and the thought that maybe interested people could look into it. It benefits me zero to win this argument, so I'm not arguing.

If anything were worth arguing for me on this board right now, it would be to see if Fletch can present me with a system that provides for the needs of the people that he thinks need providing for without creating a giant web of government control.

So, Fletch,

I hope you see my connection on the govt. control. Socialism is govt. control, and it's cooperative in nature, and so sure, it could work, but it's always going to be far easier to drive in the wrong direction as a well ordered system is, than a more independent and individualistic one would be, should something untoward happen. Equality, social safety net, correct me if I'm wrong, but the things you think a govt. should provide, healthcare, housing for the homeless, welfare for the poor, whatever it be - can you see that this demands a government power structure which then in turn threatens those civil liberties we both cherish?

It happens all the time here in New York. The democrats propose a new social program to help poor people, which they do all the time, and faster than you can say 'beaurocracy' that same program is being used by the same people to interfere in those people's lives on a drastic level, from telling them what type of education (liberal slanted) they're children must have and sending them to counseling, to taking their children away and making them wards of the state and forcing them onto medication, - and all of this for behavior which might seem relatively innocuous, and would not lift an eyebrow if a wealthier person did it (ie. we're not talking about child abuse here, but joining religious groups, going out to a bar or even restaurant, leaving the kids with an aunt for a night, - and my personal favorite - not fastening a seven year old in the back seat into a child restraint device (not free to the family) - a crime which resulted in all of the kids being taken away (the child in question was not injured in spite of the absense of the device)) And that last was just one story from

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:48 AM

Okay Dreamtrove, I don't want to have a 'falling out' with you. I will only reply to one thing, and then I will drop it. I promise.

Quote:
Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.

Space-Time IS the fabric of space. Under Relativity Space is four, not three, dimensional, with the fourth dimension being time. It is wholly correct to talk of Space-Time, and not Space. It is, under relativity, Space-Time that is warped, not space. There is no misunderstanding of time there.

No properly worded description of Relativity will say 'Space is warped' it will always refer to 'Space-Time'.

But as I promised I'll leave it there.

If I can ask a question though, and feel free to ignore me, some of your assertions seem to suggest you think Relativity is wrong, while others suggest that you think it is right. Where do you stand on Relativity, I won't argue the point, I'd just like to know?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:49 AM

Citizen,

Thanks. I think that time is more complex, or perhaps simpler, but what i meant was strands fluctuate from A to B creating frequency and wavelength, in so doing they create space. In so doing they also create time, but time and space build on that initial fluctuation in different ways. It's like languages come about by the interaction of humans, and societies also come about by the interations of the same humans, but that's not the same as saying languages and societies are the same thing. That was my only point, not arguing that time is entirely separate from space, but it is also not entirely the same. The semantic point I thought was nitpicky when you posted it elsewhere, so I ignored it, which was this: if someone is talking about the spacial properties of space-time, it's perfectly fine to say space, because this is a language issue, not a science one, and everyone understands what they mean.

Next,

Relativity is essentially correct. Correct is not an absolute though. I believe the truth is an unreachable ideal, and in that sense, everything will always be "wrong" in that it will fail to explain everything that could conceiveably be derived from it. I consider something to be essentially "right" if it is closer to the truth then what came before, and that no one will ever have a need to 'undo' it in order to get closer to the truth.

Newton isn't wrong. It's right, because it explains the way things work, and no explaination requires that physics would be better off without newton. But in cosmology, Newton is not *as right* as Einstein.

Relativity is a mathematical model, it never predended to be anything more, and as a mathematical model it is more applicable to cosmology than is Newton. I argue with some of the assertions and derivations because they are inconsistant with other laws, but I don't argue the theory of "this is generally how things interact, according to these formulas."

Where Relativity breaks down is when it approaches quantum mechanics. Einstein was very well aware of this, and was not able to find a way to reconcile the problem. In his later years he became quite bitter about it, and argued that quantum mechanics must be absolutely wrong, because if it weren't, Relativity could not be absolutely right.

But there are no absolutes, and Quantum Mechanics is far from absolutely wrong, in fact it is right, because it explains the interactions of things on a very small scale to a much greater degree than anything which came before, in the same way that Relativity explained things on a very large scale, and no one in science would benefit from undoing quatum mechanics.

So the problem which presents itself is when forces of cosmology have to operate on a very small scale, and then they break down, and quantum mechanics becomes more the guiding model. It's roughly analagous to when Newton is applied on a somewhat large scale, say one such as the Solar system, where it can be generally correct, but the more you need to involve elements of the cosmos, even planets, Newton needs to give way to Einstein in order to get accurate results.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.

But it's so much more fun to ignore that and continue the thread. That's why I say, give him the benefit of the doubt, not because I think he is a Browncoat, but rather because bringing up trolling will get us sidetracked.

Of course we are sidetracked, but in a different way.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding!

Thanks.

Quote:
I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution).

The thing is, the important thing is, that it is not. The similarity has led some (a Pope included) to believe it to be a vindication of Genisis' "Let there be light" but it is hardly creationism.

It is no more creationism than the belief that the big bang was caused by a "big crunch" is Hindu.

-

I don't know where to stand on it, it is over my head, but I do know it is firmly science.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finally, I posted this stuff because I thought you and others might be interested in what some scientists outside of the mainstream but not over in looneyland like space wizard are saying, and the thought that maybe interested people could look into it. It benefits me zero to win this argument, so I'm not arguing.

We are interested in what the scientists are saying, we are interested in what you believe, Citizen included, we just want references.

Please, provide links to these scientists outside of the mainstream, tell us where we can find the papers the published and the results of experiments they preformed.

No theory can be adequately explained on a message board, you need to let us see what you have seen, show us where to find the data of competing theories.

If you are not linking to it because it is not online tell us the names of the papers, books or journals that you found the data in.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 14, 2006 7:46 PM

Doug, I would never waste my time to check out your silly little website. Evolution has made us what we are today. It only sucks for those who have become extinct, I would guess. But to deny evolution is to deny the Earth goes around the Sun.

Sorry I missed this thread when wasn't so absurdly large like it is now. Seems pretty pointless now.

Oh well, perhaps in another thread.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:15 PM

Did anyone notice that Darwin believed in God? Darwin studied to be a preacher, and even on his sea voyage to discover evolution, he quoted his Christian Bible, in regards to morality (not Creation dateline). That's the point, is it not?

Quote:
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our SIN."
-Charles Darwain

Do religious fanatics really believe that God is such a wimp that he cannot work with time? Why can't God use time like any other tool? Why can humans use time but God can't? Is it not possible for God to live forever?

All scientists and textbooks agree, that all protons, neutrons and electrons have been in existance since the Big Bang, about 15-billion years ago, including all the atoms in your body. Before that, they were subatomic parts, for who knows how long. These atoms in our bodies will last "forever". How is that different than eternal life in the religious sense?

DNA passes from generation to generation, morphing just a little each time. How is that different than reincarnated "eternal" life in the religious sense?

It seems to me somebody has been yanking our chains to divide and conquer. Could it be... the JEWS?! To be more specific, the Satanic/Luciferian Masonic Mafia Communist "atheist" sociopathic gangsta Khazar AshkeNazi Caballistic "Jews" who intend to ram their Luciferian one-world-religion down all our throats by the year 2025. So get ready to perform child sacrifice to Molech at Bohemian Grove Hell and in Jerusalem, just like our presidents and world dictators do.

Or, get over this dead argument and realize we all agree on the same thing, that time is eternal, regardless of God-induced evolution or god-less evolution. Period. Let's fight the Luciferians, instead, before they kill us all.

Quote:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
-Charles Darwin

PS - Most of the so-called "Christian" preachers selling anti-evolution are members of the Masonic Mafia that worships Lucifer... And most of the senior scientists selling evolution are members of the Masonic Mafia that worships Lucifer... Hmmm... Do you see a pattern here?

Quote:
Dialectical Materialism.
A philosophy founded by (Masonic Luciferian "Jew") Karl Marx which forms the basis of Communist doctrine: it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegelian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level.
-Lexicon Webster Dictionary

What is communism?

The Dialectic: Fomenting the Revolution
The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time. It is simply that of opposite positions: Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue. For example, if my thesis is 2 + 2 = 4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false. Georg W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. All things are now relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis. This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.

This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian world-view prevalent in the Western world for the better part of two millennia that held that God existed, that He existed outside of the material creation and that man had a moral obligation to Him and His laws. God was transcendent and thus truth was absolute and transcendent, outside of our ability to manipulate it. This all changed with Hegel and modern man was born. Man could now challenge any authority and position, even God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry I missed this thread when wasn't so absurdly large like it is now. Seems pretty pointless now.

It has moved onto other things, not totally sure what those things are, but it has been quite interesting.

MINIME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Minime:
Welcome to fireflyfans.net...

Thanks, Citizen - I've been around for awhile, actually; but dropped off the face of the earth (well, the parts of the earth with internet access) in about April, so been mostly lurking since then... and before that I was fairly new to the online community thing... but the fans here have been amazing. (As, for example, your good self.)

CARTOON

Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I was under the impression that 1+1=2 has never been successfully proven.

I used to get my 11th grade math teacher so mad at me.

Q: If you have one pile of sand, and dump another pile of sand on top of that first pile of sand, how many piles of sand do you have?

A: One pile of sand.

Conclusion: 1 + 1 = 1

Okay, I'm being facetious about this. But, I agree with Doug about evoltion. And while I freely admit that I'm a believer in God, I found evolution to be just as unprovable before I became a believer, as I do now.

CARTOON

Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.

If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow.

I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

CARTOON

Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
And what of you? You strike me as a Christian, as you might have noticed, so I've just picked up a copy of the bible. Tell me, are you loving your enemies? Can one of your enemies, say a Samaritan for those were the enemies of Jesus' people in the time of your Christ, be good? (CLIP)

Your point is well taken, Christhecynic. Being a "Christian" (as Christ describes those who follow Him) doesn't mean a person is perfect. Far from it. We believers in the Lord are sinful, and still struggle with our fallen sinful nature -- and will, for the rest of this life. Sometimes, through His grace, we will momentarily win over it. Most of the times, unfortunately, we rely in our own strengths and fail, and in the process blaspheme our Master.

Please, don't judge our God by we who follow Him. We are broken vessels who need His forgiveness just like everyone else.

Regarding if Stalin repented -- yes, according to the Lord, he would've been forgiven. In our eyes, that may not seem fair. But, we have to realize that we are not God. In God's eyes, we've all sinned, and all deserve punishment. We cannot please God in our strength, or by our own merits.

I once heard it put like this. Let's assume the requirement for life is to jump the ocean. Now, there are undoubtedly some very athletic folks who could jump several meters. Others much less. Some wouldn't be able to jump at all. Many would laugh at the whole concept of jumping the ocean and not even try.

Okay. So who has met the requirement? Has the person who jumped the furthest (but still fell several thousand miles short of the goal) achieved the requirement?

No. Everyone failed.

God's requirement was sinless obedience. We've all failed. But, the Lord came and fully met the requirement, and has graciously offered to take any who would, with Him.

Now, we can try to jump the ocean the best we can. Or we can laugh at the people who are trying to jump the ocean. Or we say that the ocean doesn't even exist, and therefore needn't be jumped. Or we can take the ride on the back of the One who did jump it.

In God's eyes, Salin was a sinner. So am I.

We both equally need His forgiveness.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Your point is well taken, Christhecynic. Being a "Christian" (as Christ describes those who follow Him) doesn't mean a person is perfect.

This I know.

Quote:
Please, don't judge our God by we who follow Him.

Don't worry, it isn't my place to judge God. Not my place to judge people either but I'm hardly perfect (which is, more or less, the point.)

Quote:
In God's eyes, Salin was a sinner. So am I.

We both equally need His forgiveness.

I have to say, I like and respect you a lot more than DOUGP59, he has come across to me as a closed-minded semi-hateful individual, you have not. I have infinite respect for people of faith provided they show respect for others.

-

My point actually was that Stalin would be forgiven, since Doug’s argument was that the punishment of those like him was a valid reason for belief, I was pointing out that Christianity does not advocate the human ideals of punishment because no one is unworthy of redemption.

Though I am not a Christian, at least not in most forms of the word, I do believe that is a very noble belief. More noble than I am, there are some I don't think I can forgive.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:11 AM

Chris,

This is the problem with being old, my info is less online-y and all from a while ago, much came from professors, a lot from little articles in science news, or science magazines, journals. I'm sure someone has arranged a good attack site out there, saying some of this stuff. The distribution of matter problem is a big one that just about everyone who isn't a big banger brings up, ie. the makeup of the universe towards the edge is not any different from how it is close up. Everyone takes pretty much Quasars to be young galaxies, and galaxies otherwise to be judged in age by the pronouncement of the arm, but looking out into space we don't see a progression towards strong arms and quasars, but instead the universe seems to exhibit similar age properties all around. But again, I'm totally sick of arguing this. All this info is out there to be found by anyone interested in looking.

It's not 'what I believe,' that's not fair to me, it paints me like some radical theorist. It's what I suspect, based on the data. My general feeling is that the big bang *IS* a simple creation myth. If you leave it, you find out a great deal more, and eventually you come back to that there was a big bang, but it has little to do with what they say it is. The universe, or this portion of it, as a black hole must've started at some point. But it would've started slowly. The reason for rapid expansion is *NOT* that the data supports it, *OR* that the theory lends itself to it. Rapid expansion is a patch to try to cover for the matter distribution problem, but I still think it fails, because of the current expansion that would still be happening.

In short, I have no links for you, because I haven't studied cosmology in years. Back then, I think big bang was pretty much shown to fall way short of the actual data, and my rough guess would be that a detailed study now would reveal that the case has gotten worse. I'm sure it's out there and can be found by anyone reasonably interested in finding it. If I google it and furnish you with links that wouldn't be fair, because then everyone would hold me to those links as not supporting my argument or whatever, when actually my sources weren't links because prior to the early 90s sources didn't come in link form. I don't have time to do this subject justice right now.

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow.

I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

With God morals aren't consistent. They're seldom good either.

Under god and in gods name we've had some of the worst atrocities the Human race has ever seen. Morals still changed to; otherwise the pope would still be calling for crusades and Inquisitions.

The Qur’an says that Christians and Jews are people of the book, and it is as bad to kill them as it is to kill a follower of Islam. Yet current extremists ignore this completely and say it is gods wish that these people be killed. Real consistent.

Quote:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there is a God who decides who it is that gives us Gods 'will', and who decides how that 'will' should be interpreted.

The Bible was written by people, not God. It contradicts itself and its own Morals on every page. God is infinitely forgiving, but not above a bit of Genocide when the mood takes, but it’s alright, they're not real people, they have a different faith.

Under Gods law people were executed, maimed or imprisoned for life for the heinous crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving family.

If there is a God let God meter out the punishments and forgiveness, because we are obviously woefully unable to understand or enforce Gods will.

DT:
You did bring this back up…

Matter is not moving, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that threw matter out in all directions. The matter isn’t moving, space-time is expanding, and thus it is perfectly possible for matter to be uniformly distributed. In fact temperature variations (such as the ones seen in the cosmic background) explain why matter would tend to clump together as galaxies, planets, stars etc…

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:32 PM

Quote:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good? If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow. I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

I'm sure many priests justified their morals this way. "Why, if we hold back on our sacrifices/ prayers/ wars for Illapa/ Moloch/ Chac/ Tlaloc/ Yhwh/ Allah/ (god's name here) who knows what will happen? We can't let human judgement interfere with our measure of right and wrong or society will fall apart!"

The point that I'm trying to make is that the biggest driver of evil is not atheism but the MORAL CERTAINTY of religion. ALL religions claim moral certainty, and belief was used to justify everything from sacrificing babies to killing Muslims during the Crusades to 9-11. And because religions are belief systems (cannot be proven) there is absolutely no way to prove that one is right and the others are wrong. I could claim that a six foot white rabbit named Harvey is telling me to sacrifice chickens in my backyard and that is no different from Robertson saying that Sharon suffered a stroke as punishment from god, or prayer warriors storming heaven with pleas to cure a child... or the fanatics of 9-11 killing 3000 people. We all deeply believe we're doing the "right thing".

The fact is that morals have shifted throughout the ages, and the gods have shifted with them to represent the power structure. In fractured tribal societies (like ancient Greece) the gods squabble like sibling rivals, as kingdoms centralize (ancient Egypt) a single god becomes supreme. In ancient civilizations where women had considerable power, the gods are female, and in societies where the power shifted to patriarchy the religion reflects that transition (ancient Sumer: Apsu and Tiamat). Today, we have a strong adherence to the worth of "the individual" and thus we have a religion that values a personal relationship with god.

The only way to create ethics is to take responsibility for them.

NOAHINHISCUPS

Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:08 PM

Evolution in western religion:

Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism circa 18th century ios the world's first monotheistic religion, based on the words of prophet Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, and becomes the first philosophy that would later provide the backbone of Judeo-Christian philosophy and the way of the Eastern Bodhi-Dharma.

Judaism, the basis of Christianity, Samaritanism, and arguably most of Islamic thought, arrives circa 4000 BC. The religion focuses on a single omnipotent creator and emphasises a lifestyle of scholarship, and adherence to dogmatic principles that remain largely unchanged in the modern forms of religious practice.

Christianity forms with the arrival of what is purported to be the savior of mankind, and "Christ's teachings" are recorded, by intermediaries in the new testament of the Bible, often referred to as the gospel. The living words of Christ are suspiciously missing from the text, because it was written, not by eye-witnesses, but by scholars. Oh, and not to mention the fact that Christian experts can't even agree as to the language it was originally printed in.

"I hope your mind is free enough to take a step back from scientific dogma and R-E-A-L-L-Y consider the evolution questions posed here."

What you really mean I think, is "I hope your mind is simple enough to discard hundreds of years of study based on testable theories, and have enough faith to believe in another system of dogmatic ideals based on a series of superstitions and ancient folklore, based on the existence of a savior who is more of a literary figure than a real person, all taken from a book, that was (to quote the most poignant comedian on earth) WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO WHEN PEOPLE WERE EVEN DUMBER THAN WE ARE NOW.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:44 PM

Don't forget that the Pope, head of what many (I am not a member of that many) consider to be the very symbol of Christian ignorance and stubborn refusal to accept science, has already said Evolution is true. Actually the Catholics did that last Pope, I have not heard much from the current guy.

An attack on Christianity is hardly a way to support Evolution, an attack on any religion isn't the way to support evolution.

The way to support evolution is with science, not character attacks, no matter how much we may feel they are warranted.

CARTOON

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
With God morals aren't consistent. They're seldom good either.

God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Anyone can take any passage out of context and get it say just about anything they want it to.
Without going into an entire study of hermeneutics, one has to read the Scripture as a whole, and not snip and chose parts out of it.

While most believers believe that it's all inspired and true, obviously, didactic passages carry more weight than historical narrative, when it comes to what we should and should not do. For example, the multitude of passages where God personally (and very unambiguously) prohibits adultery carrys more weight in determining that adultery is a sin, than a passage from historical narrative (eg. Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, Genesis, etc.) about a biblical character who committed adultery.

And for those who may claim that Jesus changed the laws of the OT, Jesus, Himself clearly stated that He did not come to change the tiniest portion of the Law (in most cases, He had to clarify it after it had been misused by the leaders of the Temple who had bastardized it).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Under god and in gods name we've had some of the worst atrocities the Human race has ever seen. Morals still changed to; otherwise the pope would still be calling for crusades and Inquisitions.

Again, please don't judge the perfect Creator by the sinners who follow Him (or claim to). Jesus said many will come to Him in the last day and say how they served Him, and He will say He never knew them. Elsewhere: You will know them by their fruits. From such passages, I would assume that apparently not everyone who calls themself a believer may indeed be one.

RUE

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:15 PM

Quote:
God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Which god? There are so many.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:25 PM

I'm sure there were believers through time and around the globe who followed the rules as best they could, and in need prayed desperately to heal a sick child, or to not be killed in battle, or for good weather.

They could have been praying to Aries or Ra or Mithra or any number of gods modern people dismiss as ridiculous. You see those gods as markers of ignorance and superstition.

But their religion was just as real to them as yours is to you.

Don't you get just a little uneasy thinking of all that faith and belief, sincerity and effort that blew away in the dust?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Then I'm not really sure what your point is. Whether we follow Gods rules or we make our own the end result is the same, they still change down here just as much.

Quote:
Again, please don't judge the perfect Creator by the sinners who follow Him (or claim to). Jesus said many will come to Him in the last day and say how they served Him, and He will say He never knew them. Elsewhere: You will know them by their fruits. From such passages, I would assume that apparently not everyone who calls themself a believer may indeed be one.

Killing of the first born

.

And yeah, I think it's safe to say that not everyone who says they are religious actually follow that religion or understand what it has to say.
But couldn't this passage also say you have to be a Christian to be saved?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:04 PM

Amerikans have evolved into... what?

Quote:
citizen said:
Killing of the first born

We have 50-million aborticides, since genocide was relegalized by US Supreme Court in 1973.

We have medical doctors genociding 2.5-million Amerikans every year, including 1-million adults, in medical Death Camps, without fear of arrest.

We have a US govt, in collusion with state and local govts, that bombed NY City, Washington DC and New Orleans, without fear of arrest.

We have fed, state and local govts that loot $70-trillion/year from govt "pension funds" (CAFR), without fear of arrest.

We have fed, state and local govts that export millions of jobs and imported 30-million criminal aliens, so far, without fear of arrest.

We rank almost last among Western nations for education and infant mortality.

We have Amerikan sheeple who watch TeeVee, spectator sports, drink alcohol, do CIA drugs, who worship govt, with fear of arrest for everything they do, since everything has been "criminalized".

We have US presidents and other dictators performing "mock" human sacrifice to a 50-foot-tall idol of Molech/Baal/Satan/Lucifer, running around nekked in the woods and holding each others weewees while they pee on the redwoods, and plot world domination, at Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, California, every Summer Solstice, without fear of arrest.

Undercover videos from inside Bohemian Grove:
www.piratenews.org/video-archive.html

Quote:
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."
-Leviticus 18:21

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people."
-Leviticus 20:2-5

"The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the 19th Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"
-General Albert Pike, Soverign Grand Commander "Jewish" "pope" of Masonic Mafia, "Morals and Dogma - Scottish Rite of Freemasonry" Masonic bible, page 321 (most politicians, "Christian" preachers and "Jewish" rabbis are members of the Masonic Mafia)

"All religions have issued from Kabalah: everything scientific and grand in the dreams of the illuminati is borrowed from Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols. The Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason and the Devine Word."
-General Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma" page 744

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer! Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish! ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR". BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?
www.av1611.org/niv.html

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:25 PM

I'm not sure how you're points link in, but as far as you're signicture picture goes, lol.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

HIXIE129

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:34 AM

Citizen

If you created the verse, could you please bring back the Firefly series.

Thanks in advance
hixie

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:39 AM

I'm afraid not, God must move in mysterious ways

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

PROGDEM

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:40 AM

Sure it has. Part of the problem here is that people don't seem to be thinking too much about what it takes for X to prove Y. Go to any mathematician with a PhD, and they will show you the proof for things like that. It won't be such as to convince you of the claim 1+1=2 if you were already inclined to beleive it. More in my area of expertise, you can prove that syntactic operations like addition (x therefore x and x) preserve truth, but only by appealing to other syntactic operations. If you are in the business of questioning things like that addition rule, there will be no proof to give you, because you are choosing to not recognize the only tools by which something like a proof is possible. The same thing goes for 1+1=2. If a you get a freshman who thinks that math is all an illusion or a social construct or something, you cannot really convince him if he digs in his heels. But who cares if you do?

ARAWAEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by progdem:
More in my area of expertise, you can prove that syntactic operations like addition (x therefore x and x) preserve truth, but only by appealing to other syntactic operations.

Can you explain this sentence in a way that I, someone outside your area of expertise, can understand?

Not being snarky here, I really want to know.

Plus, I expressed doubts in the statement "General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two." due to the thirteen year old recollection of a math PhD saying that the proof for 1+1=2 was hundreds of pages long and still highly debated. My recollection could be faulty due to time, poor memory, or even having misunderstood the professor at the time.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

due to the thirteen year old recollection of a math PhD saying that the proof for 1+1=2 was hundreds of pages long and still highly debated. My recollection could be faulty due to time, poor memory, or even having misunderstood the professor at the time.

I've been poking around this thread from time to time over the past little while. Although I have no desire to become involved in the ID debate (I tired of debating with irrational people), as someone who is mathematically inclined, I thought that I'd point out that 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven straight off the set theoretic construction of the natural numbers with one definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_numbers

Using the above, I believe this should work (hopefully I won't embarrass myself

).

We want 1 + 1 = 2

So, since 1 is the successor to 0 by definition,
1 = S(0).

Then,
1 + 1 = 1 + S(0)

But, by definition
1 + S(0) = S(1 + 0)

But, a + 0 = a by definition. So,
S(1 + 0) = S(1)

But, S(1) = 2 by definition.

Thus,
1 + 1 = 2

QED

I hope that sheds some more light on 1 + 1 = 2, as the link earlier in this thread used the Peano axioms. The above is based off the set theoretic construction (aka the standard construction) of the natural numbers.

Either way, 1 + 1 = 2 has been shown. So, could people please stop doubting that it's true please?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:28 AM

I have one (1) apple. I add(get(+)) one(1) more apple.
How many apples do I have?

Exactly...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I have one (1) apple. I add(get(+)) one(1) more apple.
How many apples do I have?

Exactly...

Um, what?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:37 AM

Try it. I have one apple. I add one apple, how many apples do I have...

Proof enough no?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Try it. I have one apple. I add one apple, how many apples do I have...

Proof enough no?

Ah, this is indeed true... for apples. But, what about for numbers in general? This is called being mathematically anal

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:40 AM

Since the numbers comprising the real world finite set are symbolic constructs of real world quanitities, and apples are such real world quanitities, it is mere narrow mindness that says you can't prove 1+1=2. You have to ignore the fact that they are symbolic representations of real world things, which is why why they're called real world numbers.

Now if you said -1 + -1 = -2 then you'd have something, since it's impossible, as far as we know, to have negative quantities, so the number are meaningless outside of mathematics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SHEPARD

Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:53 PM

Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And bring a towel.

A few thoughts:

The 'Verse did have an intelligent designer. His name was Joss Whedon, & we all worship him.

In the RL, when people so strongly believe the universe was created by an all powerful being, why are they so arrogant as to always believe it's THEIR omnipowerful being?

I understand this is a hotbutton topic, but I do wish we could conduct our discussion in a civil manner. When we degenerate into denegration and insults, we show that designer or none, we don't come across as very intelligent.

Religion is well explained by the "God of the Gaps" theory. Basically, this states that when people were unclear on why an event or phenomena occured, they credited/blamed a higher power for it. Thus, the god(dess) made the rain come, babies be born, the sun rise and people die for no obvious reason. As humanity's knowledge grew, the gaps closed and the deific interventions grew less numerous. Cosmology, meteorology, gynecology (snicker), biology and the other sciences now explain the 'why' for a large number of previously mysterious occurrences. As our knowledge and understanding grow "God" will become less important in our understanding in the "hard" sciences and instead will focus more on the social science aspects of society, which is what religions were originally conceived to do anyway.

As for gaps, all science is a theory that could be overturned by a single event. Theoretically, the sun could rise in the West tomorrow, fire could cease to burn, and gravity could go on vacation. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm going to go mix up a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster & rewatch Serenity.

WWJD: What Would Joss Do?

Hell. It's Special.

SHEPARD

Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually if we follow through on that argument the only thing I can state with certainty is that *I* exist. I think, therefore I am. I cannot prove that you exist any more than I can prove that God exists. All I have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but even that could be self delusion.

Actually, all you have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but that could be a more egotistic self delusion.

Hell. It's Special.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since the numbers comprising the real world finite set are symbolic constructs of real world quanitities, and apples are such real world quanitities, it is mere narrow mindness that says you can't prove 1+1=2. You have to ignore the fact that they are symbolic representations of real world things, which is why why they're called real world numbers.

Now if you said -1 + -1 = -2 then you'd have something, since it's impossible, as far as we know, to have negative quantities, so the number are meaningless outside of mathematics.

What about negative charge on a battery? What about negative flow of electricity? Negative acceleration? There is a number of things that have negative value in the real world.

And from the wife. Do not put metal things in the frying pan. Or at least I shouldn't... apparently

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:48 PM

Quote:
What about negative charge on a battery? What about negative flow of electricity? Negative acceleration? There is a number of things that have negative value in the real world.

None of things are really negative, that is less than nothing, they are called negative as an opposite to what we call a positive, but they aren't really negative.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

None of things are really negative, that is less than nothing, they are called negative as an opposite to what we call a positive, but they aren't really negative.

The whole point was to find a number that was negative in the real world. I showed that they exist.

The whole point is to abstract beyond quantity. Once you do that, you'll see I'm right.

Please stop thinking in terms of things, objects.

EDIT TO ADD: Math is all about abstraction. This is what I think that you're not seeing.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 6:45 PM

I'm seeing perfectly fine, those aren't negative numbers in the real world, they aren't something less than 0. They're a further abstraction to make things easier for us to understand.

You can have a negative balance on your account but that doesn't mean that you have negative money, it's an abstraction for showing that you have a positive debt to the bank.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:08 PM

@citizen:
To get back on topic.

You really don't seem to understand that you are applying mathematics and not actually doing mathematics. There is a whole world of difference.

Using your apple example only proves that 1 apple plus 1 apple gives you 2 apples. But, what about pears? What about cars? Do we have to always count in terms of apples or something else?

Basically, mathematics is about abstracting beyond the need for having something sitting there in front of you to count.

So, you're not seeing fine.

You're not seeing that proving something mathematically is very different than giving an example. Look any university text on mathematics and you'll see what I mean.

Regarding negative numbers (which is off topic to the discussion of 1 + 1 = 2).

I have shown that negative numbers exist and have meaning in the real world. You are just giving more examples of the application of negative numbers.

What you have to see is that mathematics is beyond example, it is its own thing. And when applying mathematics, there will be different opinions about its interpretation. You interpret these examples in terms of not being able to have negative something. When there actual meaning is what you stated ie owing money.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:50 PM

I did this stuff at university as well Sigma, please stop patronising me.

I know that mathematics grew out of trade, meaning that it's origins are in the real world, and it is wholly appropriate to draw comparisions between mathematics and the real world.

Apples, pears, cars, it makes absolutly no difference, and you know it, apples can be a place holder, just like an x in algebra.

You're negative numbers are not really negative in the real world, they're a different way of expressing a wholly positive number that is opposed to another positive number. For the bank example it would be just as valid to say you owe negative money to the bank if you're in credit, or to say that when you're in credit you have positive credit, and when your in debt you have positive debt.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I did this stuff at university as well Sigma, please stop patronising me.

Patronising you was not my intent. If you took it that way that I now suggest that you go back and re-read my posts with that in mind. I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm just pointing out that you have not taken my posts as intended. Thus, you have clearly received a message other than I intended.

But, if you did this stuff at university, in all seriousnes, and with all due respect, you should know better. Mathematics as a disipline did historically grow out of a need from the "private sector." But it has become something very different than just counting apples.

Clearly, if you think that 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples is a proof for 1 + 1 = 2, then either it has been far too long since you've taken a math class/done any actual mathematics, and/or you didn't understand what the prof. was saying, and/or you weren't taught properly and/or... Because, that apple "proof" is no mathematical proof at all.

Mine and the linked proof above are mathematical proofs.

Sorry, but that is just the fact of the matter.

If you don't believe me, just email a math prof. at you local university and ask him/her if your apple "proof" is a rigorous mathematical proof of 1 + 1 = 2. I know that you'll be sorely disappointed.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I know that mathematics grew out of trade, meaning that it's origins are in the real world, and it is wholly appropriate to draw comparisions between mathematics and the real world.

I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate to draw analogies from the real world to understand the concepts of mathematics. Quite to the contrary, I beleive that it is necessary to do so, as a child's mind isn't developed enough to understand a rigorous mathematical proof as above.

I think that there is a strong possibility that you are confusing the pedagogy of mathematics with mathematics itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Apples, pears, cars, it makes absolutly no difference, and you know it, apples can be a place holder, just like an x in algebra.

Prove it.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1 something plus another 1 of that something gives you 2 of those somethings.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1 something plus 1 something else, gives you 2 things.

This is where mathematics comes in. It generalizes such things so that we know that the statement that you just made is actually true. If you don't have a rigorous proof, then it might not be true in all cases.

But, because many many people did these things long ago, we know it to be true and take it for granted that it is true now adays.

ie
You can say something is true all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Prove it to me. In mathematics we can do this... in society, maybe not. But that is a different thread all together

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You're negative numbers are not really negative in the real world, they're a different way of expressing a wholly positive number that is opposed to another positive number. For the bank example it would be just as valid to say you owe negative money to the bank if you're in credit, or to say that when you're in credit you have positive credit, and when your in debt you have positive debt.

I actually stated this. But, you have to understand that this is applied mathematics and not pure mathematics. The proof of 1 + 1 = 2 is pure matematics.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

FLETCH2

Monday, January 23, 2006 6:48 AM

1+1 doesn't obviously equal 2 in the real world. I add a pile of sand to another pile of sand, how many piles of sand do I have? I have one pile of sand!

There are mathmatical proofs for all kinds of "obvious" things. While it seems 1 +1 is OBVIOUSLY 2 the pure maths proof for it is quite involved as is the one for the number of degrees in a triangle etc.

The question can be asked if this is a nescessary abstraction given that in most real world situations it appears 1 + 1 = 2 but I suppose mathematicians need something to do with their time.

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, January 23, 2006 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

1+1 doesn't obviously equal 2 in the real world. I add a pile of sand to another pile of sand, how many piles of sand do I have? I have one pile of sand!

This is the interpretation thing that I mentioned above. Although it is true that you still have only one pile of sand, you do have more sand.

One could also insist that you only have piles of sand that are of equal value. Then you would have twice as much sand.

But, how are you interpreting add? Here you seem to be interpreting it as actually pouring the second pile of sand on the other pile of sand. Where we could just as easily have addition meaning adding to your ownership, a pile of sand.

Thus, if you own one pile of sand and then "add" (ie purchase) a pile of sand, then you would have two piles of sand.

The interpretation is quite important, and necessary to properly apply mathematics. If one doesn't have the rules laid out before hand, then you can get to some pretty wacky conclusions. ie Your 1 + 1 = 1.

Practially speaking though, sand is sold in yards (I believe), not in piles. So, volume is used.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

There are mathmatical proofs for all kinds of "obvious" things. While it seems 1 +1 is OBVIOUSLY 2 the pure maths proof for it is quite involved as is the one for the number of degrees in a triangle etc.

The question can be asked if this is a nescessary abstraction given that in most real world situations it appears 1 + 1 = 2 but I suppose mathematicians need something to do with their time.

I would think that if you ask any physicist or chemist or biologist, that they would tell you that these abstractions are quite necessary.

I think that you'd be suprised just how often group theory, which is very abstract, shows up in real world things. ie classification of molecules, orbital calulations, etc.

Analysis is also very important in "higher level" probability and statistics. Which allows us to do many many things.

Without numberical analysis we wouldn't be able to build suspension bridges, etc.

Just because mathematics is far removed from reality, doesn't mean that it is useless, nor a waste of time.

Hell, where would science be if it weren't for the language of mathematics?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

JHANCE11

Thursday, February 2, 2006 2:39 AM

A silly statement but an interesting premise. As A firm beliver in A divine being(call it what you want)I find creationist do'nt give god enough credit. IF he created all living animals of today, why do such A poor job. Hundreds of thousands of animals have become extinct since creation and this wil continue to happen long after we are gone.

I also believe God does not belong in the science classroom because defies explanation from science but it is my belief he set the laws of phisics is motion as well as evolution. does god know how it will end, your guess ais as good as mine. It's my belief he set it all in motion and like A good father step's in from time to time without medaling to much. We are his children who are growing but have A long way to go. Having said all that gotta tell you fundamentalist bother the hell out of me too. I'm generaalizing here but then again we all are.

they are arrogant, presumpuous, closeminded to any idea outside their doctrine in theology and seem to have no problem with the fact their reading of christianity condemms millions of good and decent people to hell simply because there beliefs defer from there's...End

jhance11

PARTICIPANT

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:22 PM

Why Is American Science Being Represented by Christian Dogma?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/111992

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, December 7, 2024 2:17 AM

Flat Earth and The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism
https://www.volcanocafe.org/flat-earth-and-the-rise-of-anti-intellectu
alism/

Woman saves Chicago man's life with stem cell transplant, and she says he saved her life too
https://www.aol.com/woman-saves-chicago-mans-life-212911562.html

Stem cell transplant research breakthrough gives hope to those with blood cancer
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/stem-cell-transplant-research-b
reakthrough-gives-hope-to-those-with-blood-cancer

Living mouse created with stem cells that predate animals
https://www.earth.com/news/living-mouse-created-with-stem-cells-that-p
redate-animals/

Carl Froch doubles down on Flat Earth beliefs and claims moon landing was faked by NASA
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1979316/Carl-Froch-flat-Earth-m
oon-landing

Pastor taking flat earthers to Antarctica to end the debate
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pastor-taking-flat-earthers-antarctica-
171800339.html

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, October 20, 2025 9:09 PM

‘The modern flat-Earth society’: Rep. Khanna takes aim at Trump’s CDC
https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/modern-flat-earth-society-rep-030615
471.html

The DEADLIEST Pattern in Nature

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, July 27, 2026 4:36 PM

Humans will evolve differently on Mars. This is how science says our bodies will transform on the Red Planet

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/how-humans-will-evol
ve-on-mars

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2