slowpoke55 Posted October 25, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 110 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2012 By it's practitioners is the key element here... He's taking about his view of the New Atheists... Why don’t you actually read what Ruse wrote? Those “practitioners” of evolution promoted evolution as a “secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity” IN THE BEGINNING, ie., the beginning of the Darwinian myth of the 19th century and in the beginning there were only “old atheists”—the new hacks were not even born. What you grossly miss is that our traits are inherited… But inherited traits hardly prove man-chimp common ancestry. You remain very confused. Where is your science? What you have to show, instead of an appeal to authority quotemine, is how the methods that are used to discover life's past are different than the methods used to discover the universe's past, the methods to discover quantum mechanics, or any scientific endeavor. LOL – can you actually tell us what you think you might be trying to say here? You really have selected reading don't you, i.e. Morton's Demon. I thought you rejected a belief in demons? Are you admitting that you cannot tell us what you think you might be trying to say here? You understand "figure of speech" don't you? Let me put it in abc format for you. I presented two scientific papers and asked where the religion was in those documents, you replied with a quotemine from Ruse, a self-proclaimed Darwinian, this did not address my question. I then added to that, how are the investigative methods used in those papers different than the the methods used by cosmologists or physicists, etc... http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/ Ruse I am also a fanatical Darwinian — Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted October 25, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2012 Let me put it in abc format for you. I presented two scientific papers and asked where the religion was in those documents, you replied with a quotemine from Ruse, a self-proclaimed Darwinian, this did not address my question. Did you present those papers on this thread? Have you ever figured out what religion Ruse was referring to and why evolution started out as a religion from the beginning? I ask because you were confused. I then added to that, how are the investigative methods used in those papers different than the the methods used by cosmologists or physicists, etc... How exactly do they differ? Please be specific. Did you actually read the papers he posted. I did. Took me a while to get through it. Lots of information. So did you actually read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 25, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 25, 2012 lack of evidence does not mean scientifically impossible. If string theory were correct, those universes would exist. Lack of evidence means you are then believing in something based on faith. Faith that the evidence will one day be produced. String theory has zero scientific proof behind it. And even it it were proved, you are left with the question of the origin of the energy it requires. Thermal death means thermodynamic equilibrium. That is, the universe will be inhospitable for living beings. That does not mean it will die, unless you identify life with the universe. Saying that the universe will die makes so much sense as saying that a gas in thermal equilibrium is dead. "Heat death" means there will be no more energy available for work. The universe is winding down, reaching a state of stasis. Black holes or quantum fluctuations contained in our universe might. According to some models. True, no evidence, but not scientifically impossible, whatever that means. No evidence makes your point moot, then. The total content of energy in our universe is zero. So, it does not necessarily take any energy to create universes. That's ridiculous. It's simply speculation from some scientists who are uncomfortable with the universe having a beginning. Take a scale, each side going up to a count of 10. Place an object of equal weight on each side, and you will get "0" That doesn't mean the content of both sides have no weight, substance, or are somehow nonexistent. Our universe has no dynamics whatsoever. Therefore, it is not expanding, dying, beginning, or anything of the sort. No dynamics? Are you actually claiming the universe had no beginning and is not expanding? You don't believe the Big Bang theory? Please provide proof the universe had no beginning and is not expanding. We have proof via red shift radiation that the universe began, and we have proof the galaxies are rushing away from each other at an increasing rate via universal expansion. You seem to rely heavily on the A-theory of time. Unfortunately, this theory does not seem to mesh too well with modern physics. Verbs like "was", "will be", "had", "will have" do not make much sense within the framework of relativity and quantum theory. You own claims do not mesh well with modern physics by claiming the universe had no beginning and is not expanding. Also, we all live within the framework of time (past, present, future). "Was", "will be", "had", "will have" are perfectly applicable. You are more dependent on the theoretical instead of the actual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 27, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 27, 2012 You seem to be knowledgeable of things like thermodynamics and physics in general, so I am a bit concerned to bore you with lengthy textual explanations when we could just jump directly to the equations. Let me know. Please, make your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No, this space is not created. It does not pop-out out of nowhere. It is already there; we just come to see it as we move through the geodesics of a static and unchanging universe. Classic Pagan Philosophy: Duh Dude! Whatever Is, Always Was, Que Sera Sera It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:2 Classic Pagan Science: All Life Must Have Evolved From Simple Sloppy Copies Into Complex Mathematicians And Such Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?Isaiah 29:16 It Must Be Humbling To Know God Entrusted His Lab Journal To A Bunch Of Stubborn Working Class Ex-Slaves Who For Forty Years Marched Around Some Big Old Mountain In Some Dry And Dusty Desert And Not To A Slick And Pompous PhD Program In A World-Class City Huh.... And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:6-8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 29, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Well, probably the easiest way is to apply the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to the evolution of the state function of the universe (Schroedinger). Since the Wheeler equation reduces to a form in which the Hamiltonian operator of the state function is zero, we deduce immediately that the rate of evolution of the state of the universe is also zero. Therefore the universe does not change its state; it is not a dynamic object, which should look obvious considering that there are no external clocks to measure its evolution. This seems just another attempt of the debunked "steady state" theory. Even casual scientific observation concludes the universe is not in a state of stasis. The expansion of the universe is an established fact. Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess won the Nobel prize in 2011 for proving it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/world/europe/sweden-nobel-physics/index.html Most of what you posted is in the theoretical. One can "prove" almost anything statistically. Even Stephen Hawking "proved" the universe had no beginning using imaginary numbers. He's was wrong. The same way Einstein was wrong with his "cosmological constant." there is not such a thing as the present That's ridiculous. Nothing exists in the past and future simultaneously. what sense does it make to say that the universe is expanding or has any dynamics whatsoever? Again, the expansion of the universe is a proven fact. (See link above) The universe also had a beginning via the Big Bang, we have the proof from the cosmic background radiation, (Arno Penzias, and Robert Wilson won the 1978 Nobel prize for proving that), and it will have an end.. http://www.huffingto...-_b_993722.html The world still awaits the ToE.. Blessings! Edited October 29, 2012 by Tinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted October 29, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted October 29, 2012 the fact that this recession is accelerating might indicate that there is, indeed, a non zero cosmological constant, don't you think so? No. Again, the second law dismisses the idea of the eternalness of the universe. The singularity wasn't "just there" in the beginning. Where I really have an issue is the expansion of the whole timespace block. I mean, how can you measure rates of expansion of timespace if you use timespace to measure rates to start with? The whole point being, there is passage of time, on earth and in the entire universe. If not, there would be no attempt to even give an age to anything. But i suspect you are not ready to postulate the existence of external universes which would just postpone the problem and are, apparently, scientifically impossible Those pesky thermodynamic laws! i wonder what that means. If something is in our past or future cannot be simultaneous to us, by definition. However, it is possible (and even necessary) that something in our present is in the past or future of another observer. So, how do you define present? The here and now. And it's irrelevant whether it seems so or not to another observer. This seems just like another attempt of the debunked idea of an absolute time flowing equally for everybody, whatever that means If two people are standing toe to toe, and it's 3:00 PM, it's 3:00 PM to both of us no matter what either of us perceive. Btw, are you aware that it is physically impossible for you to interact with things that are in (your) present? Sorry, I'm just gonna have to shake my head at that one. This has nothing to do with ToE. That was my lame attempt at humor. I apologize. Blessings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted October 30, 2012 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2012 there is not such a thing as the present That's ridiculous. Nothing exists in the past and future simultaneously. It appears ridiculous but it's not actually that ridiculous when you think about it. I agree they can't exist in the past and future simultaneously but somwthing does exist in either the past or the future. Everything in your present is in the past. Took me a long time to get my head around it but i did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tina671 Posted November 12, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 1 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/11/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 12, 2012 First tenet of Theism - Hide your proof in the unknown. When the unknown is discovered, hide your proof in the next unknown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain2011 Posted November 14, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 82 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 602 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 233 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/15/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 1 Corinthians 1:20-30 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts