|
Post by Phantom Zero on Jan 20, 2011 3:06:49 GMT
Anon, as Qwerty said, please get your facts straight before you post here again. I can disprove all of what you just said... I can acknowledge that humans (simply put in lay-mens terms seeing that you don't know anything about science..) "Changed over time" AKA Evolution I can point out why the million year old "Ape" man had larger eyes than a nose. Furthermore scientists have (Mostly) proved evolution. Its also basic 7th grade science that evolution happens. Right now I don't feel like going full blow on you right now...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 20, 2011 4:50:23 GMT
@phantomzero. I am in 6th grade. Therefore, because i do not know these things, I must not be posting here. But I am. Do you see the paradox? @others Please be polite. If you ever lose your etiquette, please edit your post until it is composed of entirely polite inferences and information. And perhaps a touch of sarcasm. Let's just skip the first comment for now. #2: I meant, that if the Big Bang was true, then therefore there must be no God. Therefore, it would be impossible for ancient peoples to know such things. Confusion solved. #3: Yes. Obviously. Especially because of thousands of health precautions mentioned in the Bible. #4: Technically, I was at first stressing on the fact that they knew about orbits and gravity. But that may be true. #5: Here are some links: www.associatedcontent.com/article/18297/pork_is_it_worth_the_health_risk.html?cat=51www.giveshare.org/Health/porkeatdanger.htmlthefoodwatchdog.com/category/mrsa/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosisislamic-world.net/sister/h1.htmI realize the last link is referring only to Islam, however because it is an Abrahamic belief, I choose to include it. Due to your extreme craving for data, please only focus on the part labeled "Medical Health". #6: More links! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematophagybooks.google.com/books?id=63BP9RPm26sC&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq=ancient+consumption+of+blood&source=bl&ots=kEp_v6fsyw&sig=BLdyZhrnrQnSHzIVvID_1Xqa37I&hl=en&ei=KLc3TZCKN4S4sAOw6I3KAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ancient%20consumption%20of%20blood&f=falsewww.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandblood.htmlPlease note, that without the idea of consumption of blood, the mythological vampire would also have been impossible to think of. #7: Knowing that bleeding was associated with death. True. However, that does not explain why this "no great logical leap" was not known to all of Medieval Europe. All of Medieval Europe, remember, and even until the American colonies, practiced bleeding as a "cure" for their diseases. And they were led by this verse. #8: Whatever. I may have acted crazy then. What I mean to say is that, most likely, over the, I don't know, 10,000 years, the water may have sunk into the soil, or evaporated away, such that the total of water on Earth right now is much less than it was at the time. Don't forget the Ice Age, anyway. #9: Meh, whatever. #10: And how do you know such bones are simply not difference in height? There is a lot of room to wiggle, if you think about it. #11: I meant most likely from a different fossil, not created from scratch. You're very literal. #12: I know what evolution is. It is known, however, that virtually all "fossils" were from mixed species. I know that evolution is the gradual change of fossils over time. And that CERTAIN people have combined them. For instance, a "fossil" was once simply the Jaw of a monkey and the face of a human. Most likely, the fossils you are showing are models of "fossils". And knowing that no fossil has actually been discovered and proven to be correct by 2 different labs without modification or combination, I can safely infer that there has been no discovery of a true fossil of a stage in evolution. #13: That's fine. #14: Those were artifacts from Atlantis. You know, the earliest hominid civilization on planet Earth? And I never said that it was such a short time scale. Sure, they may be a hoax, but there is no disproving them either. Oh yeah, and where did I say it happened in a couple thousand years? *presses ctrl-F* Oops, not there, maybe you assumed? #15: Ok then... Facts are most likely straight. And, no, please don't assume as such. I do not think at all that "evolution takes place over a couple thousand years". Every 7th grader knows that. Oops, I knew that in *cough*fifth grade*cough*. And evolution is DEFINITELY not only about intelligence. Who thinks that? Oh yeah, the fake me. Oh yeah. And millions of years for a slight change? That ends up being approximately 3000-6000 slight changes, which are about 3 HUGE changes. And that ends up for, maybe bacteria as the most complex organisms. I see a problem here. Also noticing the fact that if you cannot refrain from insulting me, notice the fact that I do not insult as much as most do.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 20, 2011 4:58:11 GMT
Getting better. First, I'll apologize for the fact that I can get quite rude when I overestimate human intelligence, and second, I'm done with the topic, except to say that God can very easily exist alongside the Big Bang.
Now to start afresh and hopefully organize this debate: the Big Bang, for instance. The idea that a universe may appear from nowhere is supported by the scientifically sound principle that the energy must equal zero for such an event to occur, and thanks to gravity the universe's total energy equals zero. Additional universes are created each time, but due to the nature of their dimensions instantly split apart from ours.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 20, 2011 5:04:24 GMT
I see. And I also agree that it may be possible for God to coexist with the Big Bang. Now let us contemplate the possibility of alternate universes. First let us define the dimensions. According to my studies, the 7th dimension must be the realm of alternate universes.
|
|
|
Post by GoldAlchemist on Jan 21, 2011 0:57:03 GMT
For this, I'm going to stand by what I said before about separate yet encompassing realms. And can someone explain simply the whole "dimension" thing? [lulz]Also while you're at it, please simply explain string theory.[/lulz]
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 1:19:31 GMT
A dimension is a measure, and can either be spatial or temporal.
Zero spatial dimensions correspond to a point, which has no measure and can only specify a spatial position.
One spatial dimension corresponds to a line, which only has length. A finite one dimensional entity has definite length and an infinite number of points.
Two spatial dimensions correspond to a plane, which has length and width. A finite two dimensional entity has area and perimeter/circumference and an infinite number of one dimensional entities.
Three spatial dimensions correspond to 3-space, which has length and width and depth. A finite three dimensional entity has volume and an infinite number of two dimensional entities.
One could argue that we know of two temporal dimensions: a zero dimensional entity (an instant) and a one dimensional entity (a duration).
Zero temporal dimensions correspond to an instant, which has no measure and can only specify a temporal position.
One temporal dimension corresponds to a duration, which only has duration and an infinite number of instants.
|
|
|
Post by GoldAlchemist on Jan 21, 2011 1:48:08 GMT
Hmm...Well if that's all there was to it, then I feel kind of silly now, as I already knew that. But I was under the impression that there was some kind of whole "alternate reality" theory where "alternate dimensions" would be found.
If that's all there is to it, though, then never mind.
Anyways, I'm still going with my idea.
....And I'm putting this out there because I would very much like someone to comment on it - I was for a while remaining low about it, not wanting to seem like I thought that I had "figured everything out, and any other ideas are wrong" and shut off my mind to anything else, but now I want people to find its flaws or just places where it doesn't make sense. Please?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Jan 21, 2011 1:49:18 GMT
Ah, interesting stuff.
@anon: Seriously, I am Christian, yet I mock the validity of your inane statements. They are founded on principle more often than evidence.
@qwerty: First off, take a Ricola. Second, some minor facts blow evolution's core out of the water. No organism has been found between 1 and 20,000 cells. Evolution COULD hold water if there were 2 celled, 3 celled, and such small gaps that it could bridge properly. As well, it oddly implies population from a single organism, presenting that as possible. No being is known that attains abiogenesis. That is, no being can have inanimate form fabricating a form of sentient life. Also, the idea of evolution REQUIRES transpecial, transfamilial, transorder, transphylal, and transdominal mutation. That is a species, family, order, phlyum, kingdom, or domain of sentient life becoming a new species, family, order, phlyum, kingdom, or domain. The problem with that? Try cross-breeding a lizard and a tomato, and please tell me if it works. It, by nature, can't. Because amino acids aren't a brick-and-mortar, they are a blueprint. You can't take random data, mash it together, and say you have something. Evolution requires science of the gaps. It says what has not been discovered has explanation lying in unknown science. Sounds to me like scientists have a technical God: Science. It supposedly explains everything, but not itself. See, since science is bendable, breakable, mutable, malleable, and such... It's a thing able to be manipulated. So, let's us ASSUME God has ability to modify physics. Therefore, matter and energy can be made in that case. In short... I'd say that evolution needs to explain all of it's own faults. Yes, I believe adaptation and such are solid principles, but the idea of evolution needs much work to work sans a Creator.
@veers: You refered to time as a fourth.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 4:24:58 GMT
I looked over my post, and I can't find where I did that. Temporal dimensions and spatial dimensions are two different forms of measures, as I indicated, where we know of four spatial dimensions and possibly two temporal dimensions. I have not indicated that time of any form is a fourth spatial dimension, which is absurd...
|
|
|
Post by speedyclock on Jan 21, 2011 4:35:32 GMT
Is it...
Is it truly absurd?
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 21, 2011 5:44:28 GMT
Time may be a spatial dimension, but it is not observable to be so in our current dimension.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 5:47:33 GMT
What do you mean by "current dimension"? You seem to have a different definition for that than "a form of measure"...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 21, 2011 5:48:11 GMT
I mean the dimension we are currently confined to.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 6:07:51 GMT
That fails to define what you mean by the word "dimension." Using a word to be defined in its definition is very unhelpful. What do you mean by "dimension," which is apparently different from "form of measure"?
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 21, 2011 6:20:19 GMT
Ahh.. I see what you mean. A dimension, as in the context here, is an infinite extension in a certain direction, of which there are infinite pieces of the last, all aligned together. It is measurable. So, essentially, it is the same as your definition but more elaborate. What I meant by my statement was that time could be a spatial dimension, simply not viewable at our current viewpoint in the dimension we are confined to.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2011 6:28:23 GMT
How would that work with the random nature of quantum physics? The idea of a spatial time dimension suggests the rest of time already exists, when it cannot according to quantum physics. I'm sure this relates to God somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 6:44:02 GMT
First of all, space != time, and spatial != temporal. Spatial implies space, and temporal implies time. Time cannot be spatial if it is temporal, and it is necessarily temporal because temporal means "of or relating to time"...
How does quantum mechanics forbid the existence of time in either extension? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, indicating that the product of an entity's percent tolerance in position and percent tolerance in velocity is less than or equal to the Planck constant, seems to imply that nothing can ultimately be known, and yet we seem to be able to make accurate predictions about the state of any general thing. Given enough time, a knowledge of physics and its prerequisites, and no distractions, an immortal could potentially predict all time into the future, implying that a current state will necessarily imply a future state, and that that state will imply another one, etc. If the future has the potential to be known, does the future exist?
Also, with the assumption that the future can be known, things are therefore predetermined (bringing Calvinism into new light). Although this in no way proves or refutes the existence of God, it would certainly indicate that one doesn't need to start out omniscient to become omniscient, just very bored...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2011 6:46:46 GMT
We can make accurate predictions about the state of some things, sure, but the concept of quantum physics states that God does, in fact, roll dice, doesn't it? Or did I somehow misinterpret the entirety of the base and history of quantum physics?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 6:51:20 GMT
I would imagine that, assuming a finite start to time, the initial "creation" of the universe had to have been random, but that the result would necessarily result in a single timeline of events. In essence, I am considered intelligent by people because the universe started out in some particular permutation. We as humans may be able to conduct limited "what if" scenarios, and we may be incapable of predicting what things will happen, but one event will necessarily result in another one. Just because we don't know the position and velocity of an electron, doesn't mean that the electron does not have a specific position and velocity at some instant...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 21, 2011 6:52:26 GMT
I don't know much about quantum physics anyway. Why can time not be space? Why is there a sudden clear line between spatial and temporal? In my opinion, temporal simply means to be above the dimension we are in (3rd). So then what is the 4th spatial dimension, and where do alternate universes come in? Wait, aren't there infinite (well not infinite, but at the limits of our imagination) alternate universes? Bah. Electrons have a position. And everyone knows they travel near the speed of light.
Now an instant can be regarded as a single moment. Therefore, in effect, it is wholly 3-dimensional, of only height, width, and length. Therefore, the dimension above that must be the fourth, which is the course of time. Now about the fifth?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 7:19:37 GMT
Well, words are merely labels for meanings, and as mere representatives cannot truly convey the full meaning to anyone (Google "deconstruction theory"), so it will always be difficult for one word to have the same meaning to everyone. As such, I understand that, although your definition of "temporal" seems unconventional from my perspective, it is still valid. I hate the implied result of the combination of deconstruction literary theory and Einsteinian relativity...
Anyhow, from my definitions, spatial relates to physical measures while temporal relates to times. Is the length of time 3 metres, or does it have an area of 23 square inches, or does it have a volume of 18 parsecs cubed? Time cannot be measured with the spatial units, and as such, from my perspective with my definitions and label-meaning pairs, cannot be spatial.
An instant is analogous to a point, only marking a position (temporal for the instant, spatial for the point), and would therefore be better treated as being a zero dimensional temporal entity. The instant does not replace the point as being zero dimensional, nor vice versa, but exist side by side in different categories of measures.
A duration is analogous to a line, marking length and being composed of an infinite number of zero dimensional entities (infinite instants for a finite duration, infinite points for a finite line segment), and would therefore be better treated as a one dimensional temporal entity. The duration does not replace the line as being a one dimensional entity, nor vice versa, but exist side by side in different categories of measures.
I would also like to argue that we are not solely in the third dimension, so to speak, but also in all lower dimensions. Our three dimensional world is composed of an infinite number of two dimensional entities, and each of the infinite number of two dimensional entities is composed of an infinite number of one dimensional entities, and each of the infinite number of one dimensional entities is composed of an infinite number of zero dimensional entities, and each of the infinite number of zero dimensional entities are composed of absolutely nothing. It is quite possible that, since the a two dimensional entity is a component of a three dimensional entity, our 3-space might be one of the infinite number of 3-spaces that comprise an individual 4-space (henceforth, "tetraspace"), and that 4-space might be one of the infinite number of tetraspaces that comprise an individual 5-space (henceforth, "pentaspace"), and so on ad infinitum. With that in mind, we could also be in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and all other dimensions if they exist.
As for the electron, yes, each one instantaneously has a position that we can never know exactly if we know the velocity exactly, and each one instantaneously has a velocity that we can never know exactly if we know the position exactly: regardless, they do in fact have a definite position and a definite velocity, and therefore can affect something in a definite way. Also, the speed of an electron varies with its orbital, its energy, and so many other things...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2011 14:27:33 GMT
So, basically you're suggesting the basics behind testable quantum physics are entirely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 14:53:57 GMT
I may or may not, but that depends on what specifically quantum physics says. What does it say that is mutually exclusive with my own inferences?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2011 15:15:05 GMT
That individual particles generally speaking run on a random and unpredictable path, and as such has no set future. There's also something about them having no set past.
Basically, the changes would occur such that things are, by their very natures, unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 21, 2011 15:31:07 GMT
Does unpredictable imply random? Complete information about the kinetic properties of a subatomic particle can never be known, but does it truly act randomly, or pseudo-randomly?
|
|
|
Post by speedyclock on Jan 21, 2011 19:08:53 GMT
I don't think it's random at all. Just random to us. Because we don't understand them.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Jan 21, 2011 21:13:56 GMT
Uh, this isn't the topic... lol.
|
|
|
Post by awesomeness2312 on Jan 21, 2011 22:28:31 GMT
No, be cause you can't make humans out of nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by GoldAlchemist on Jan 21, 2011 22:36:10 GMT
You can't make anything out of nothingness. Thermodynamics, remember.
So where did things come from, or was the matter always there in a random configuration, or did some being organize said matter into special configurations? Personally, I'm with both for the configuration within realms to be random while God organized said realms, and, because God's a sentient being, found meaning in select realms, took charge and made plans for the things within the realms as well as organizing things into a form that was pleasing for him. But otherwise, where did these things come from, if at all?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 22, 2011 0:17:46 GMT
Yes you can make things out of nothingness, GA. Of course you can make stuff out of nothingness, when the sum total of it is nothingness.
Take the universe, for instance. When you add up all the energy in the universe, taking into account gravity, the energy equals zero. As a result there is nothing wrong with making a universe out of nothingness, but there is about making something else out of nothingness. That's according to Stephen Hawking, anyway, and personally I'd rather trust his view.
|
|
|