Origin, Philosophy & Atheism (critical thought)

[BrianC]

I have something I like to throw out there for atheists to get their logic/philosophy/viewpoint. This thread is philosophical, not scientific.

Foundation:
Science admits that it does not comment on what it cannot test (including other dimensions like heaven, and including what created matter itself so that there cold be a big bang, assuming that theory is accurate). Science only comments on the physical, and admits that it only theorizes on the origin of all things, because with out witnessing it first hand, one cannot know something for certain. Atheists choose to believe there is no God, and have no proof to show this, Agnostics simply choose to not make a choice and don’t know if there is a God, and Theists choose to believe in a God without physical evidence.

Logical Deduction About Origin:
Everything (except one thing) must have a beginning. And if everything has a beginning, it must have been created. And if it was created, it must have a creator. What is created is not eternal (ie. - Has not always existed). The source of all things must be eternal in nature, having always existed (otherwise, he/it too would have been created by something else). Therefore, philosophically, there must be an eternal creator who has always existed, that created everything and is all powerful.

Question:
How is it possible for someone to get around this fact? Explain how everything exists without having something or someone to cause the existence.

[flashstang04]

subscribing......sent you a PM Brian

[BrianC]

No takers?

[FSON]

How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?

[Denny]

How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?
Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.

[FSON]

Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.
I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).

[Denny]

I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).
Ya, OK. Here's exhibit B.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=339698

[Denny]

Exhibit C.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?

[Fastback]

I watched a great show the other night with Lee Strobel. It was called Case for a Creator. Apparently, the chance is too overwhelming rare for our existence. It's like one of those fraction of a fraction of a billion zillion eleventy trillionths! So scientists, in an effor to justify our existence, are saying that there must be "parallel universes". But, in the same vein as FSON's question, there is still the same question, "What, then, is the origin of those universes?"

I just don't see how science can entertain all these crazy unsubstantiated ideas (parallel universes), but totally shoot down God when there is only evidence that He exists. Nothing was created without Him. How tall will the Scientific Version of the Tower of Babel grow? That's cool, and now I see science in a new way. Like people, separated by color /race and language. Science is separated and classified; with the "holy grail" being the unification of the separate fields...Help me out here Casper. You could bring clarity to this thread.

[FSON]

Exhibit C.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?

Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).

[Denny]

When will people learn that there are things that are uncomprehendible to us? Just accept it and be happy.

[Denny]

Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).
It's not a personal attack, just pointing out the obvious.

[Muffrazr]

How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?



Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.

[Denny]

Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
Nice!

[exlude]

Yes, something must have been eternal. But who's to say that eternal "thing" is a god?

There are some false statements in your original argument. You ASSUME that what is "created" is not eternal. And ASSUME that it must have had a creator. Neither of which are necessarily true.

Further, given conservation of certain parts of the known universe...why can't those parts be eternal (e.g: mass, energy)?

[FSON]

Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
And the origin of originalis?

Edit:
We can go on like this for years and you will prove NO foundation.

[Fastback]

They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?

[Muffrazr]

I watched a great show the other night with Lee Strobel. It was called Case for a Creator. Apparently, the chance is too overwhelming rare for our existence. It's like one of those fraction of a fraction of a billion zillion eleventy trillionths! So scientists, in an effor to justify our existence, are saying that there must be "parallel universes". But, in the same vein as FSON's question, there is still the same question, "What, then, is the origin of those universes?"

I just don't see how science can entertain all these crazy unsubstantiated ideas (parallel universes), but totally shoot down God when there is only evidence that He exists. Nothing was created without Him. How tall will the Scientific Version of the Tower of Babel grow? That's cool, and now I see science in a new way. Like people, separated by color /race and language. Science is separated and classified; with the "holy grail" being the unification of the separate fields...Help me out here Casper. You could bring clarity to this thread.


I feel like we should start to see a growing number of people that see it both ways. We are just starting to open our minds to the ideas that maybe we came from a cocktail of bubbling goo forming a single cell ameoba from a bolt of lightening that God sent down because he knew that we would evolve into humans from said goo. Previously, you could only subscribe to one view or the other, according to society.

I have personally always felt like science was so close to a portion of the truth, but closed their minds to some possibilities. This is where I feel that being a specialist doesn't pay off. Sure, a specialist might make leaps and bounds with one field, but another person could look into this feild with an imagination and expand where the specialist couldn't.

[Denny]

They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?

[Fastback]

. This is where I feel that being a specialist doesn't pay off. Sure, a specialist might make leaps and bounds with one field, but another person could look into this feild with an imagination and expand where the specialist couldn't.

Have you been studying for the GRE?

[exlude]

They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?

There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.

[Muffrazr]

And the origin of originalis?

Edit:
We can go on like this for years and you will prove NO foundation.


I wasn't building a foundation. You asked for the origin of origin. Originalis is Latin, it comes from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise".

[exlude]

Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?

From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.

[Denny]

There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.

[Muffrazr]

Have you been studying for the GRE?


No, but after looking it up I would say it looks interesting.

[Denny]

From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.
We can jump light years ahead looking through things like the Hubbel Telescope. I'm sure any outward movement seen around the "edge of the univese" happened well before the telescope was even a thought.

[exlude]

Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.

If by decrease you mean increasing density, then sure, sounds plausible to me. But like I said, I'm no expert on universal origins. I tend to stick to evolution :p

[Fastback]

There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.

Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.

[exlude]

Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.

I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".

[Denny]

All you have to do is just start with a partical horizon and work your way backward mathmatically, given you know the distance you see the edge of the expanding universe for sure.

[Fastback]

I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".

It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?

[Denny]

It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.

[Muffrazr]

We can jump light years ahead looking through things like the Hubbel Telescope. I'm sure any outward movement seen around the "edge of the univese" happened well before the telescope was even a thought.



Intersting that you mentioned this in that way. I have had this wacked out theory of travel using refracted light as a path. Given the fact that we are simply looking at light being absorbed into matter for what we actually see, plus, the distance in which we can see with a telescope, and how fast light travels......ouch.....my brain just went on vacation for that type of thought. I'll be sticking with philosophy and welding for today.

[Fastback]

It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.

Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL

[Denny]

Intersting that you mentioned this in that way. I have had this wacked out theory of travel using refracted light as a path. Given the fact that we are simply looking at light being absorbed into matter for what we actually see, plus, the distance in which we can see with a telescope, and how fast light travels......ouch.....my brain just went on vacation for that type of thought. I'll be sticking with philosophy and welding for today.
But time and what you see are two different things. You can look into the past, but not be there.

[Denny]

Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL
Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.

[Murph Tang]

Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?

[Denny]

Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?
If you go with a Steady State Theory, it has no beginning or end, even though it constantly changes.

[Muffrazr]

But time and what you see are two different things. You can look into the past, but not be there.


Dang, that sounds much simpler than what I was attempting to say. I guess I was trying to sound smarter than I are.

[Denny]

Dang, that sounds much simpler than what I was attempting to say. I guess I was trying to sound smarter than I are.
That's just me... I can dumb almost anything down ;)

[Fastback]

Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.

Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:

If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?

[Muffrazr]

Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:

If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?



Your theory would seem to hold true if it could be tested. I've had similar thoughts as yours.

Sending light photons into the past sounds very difficult. You have intrigued me sir. I believe I will be putting down the welder to look into this.

[Denny]

You'd create a black hole. Not only that, but you'd need even more force to stop it. Not only THAT, but how would you stop it if you couldn't get past the event horizon?

[flashstang04]

Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:


If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?

I think you may be talking about teleportation, which you can read about here:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/beam-me-up-scotty-scientists-transport-a-hunk-of-matter-18-inches-205448.php


BTW, fastback, have you opened your config and changed your startup options to cut down on all that time?


The fact is Brian is that from an atheist standpoint, your question has no "answer" per se, because even the big bang theory started somewhere with dense material. (One of the most ridiculous theories around IMO).

So I don't think that you will get an answer, but then again, I think that was probably your point.

[Denny]

Have you guys heard of CERN's collider?

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

[Muffrazr]

You'd create a black hole. Not only that, but you'd need even more force to stop it. Not only THAT, but how would you stop it if you couldn't get past the event horizon?


I have often wondered when we will figure out how to use black holes for time travel. They have to go somewhere.


There is evidently quite a few people trying to see how light photons communicate with one another in their quest for sending photons to the past. Perceivably, this would allow you to recieve a message miliseconds before you send it.

[Denny]

I have often wondered when we will figure out how to use black holes for time travel. They have to go somewhere.


There is evidently quite a few people trying to see how light photons communicate with one another in their quest for sending photons to the past. Perceivably, this would allow you to recieve a message miliseconds before you send it.
Assuming that the photons aren't altered once they pass.

[Muffrazr]

Assuming that the photons aren't altered once they pass.


Seeing as light photons can be either waves or particles, I have started wondering if they change at a boundary of the space/time continuum. If there is a boundary at all. This could be the boundary that would keep us from changing time deminsions. If we were to try, then maybe we would be broken down to waves and particles, only to be re-distributed as light.

Heh....A different spin on reincarnation

[Denny]

Seeing as light photons can be either waves or particles, I have started wondering if they change at a boundary of the space/time continuum. If there is a boundary at all. This could be the boundary that would keep us from changing time deminsions. If we were to try, then maybe we would be broken down to waves and particles, only to be re-distributed as light.

Heh....A different spin on reincarnation
Given that we could withstand the massive gravitational force. Physical life wouldn't make it, I'm sure.

[Fastback]

I rebooted my computer. I am back now. LOL. It is hanging up in the BIOS screen failing to quickly launch Windows Xp for some unknown.
I am searching the internet now about Time travel, and the more I think about it, I believe I misspoke earlier. I think it was sound waves that some scientist at a major university sent back into time but only like 5 seconds (not photons). I can't find it on the WWW... atleast not yet. I guess I will shut up when I am not sure. :o

[Muffrazr]

Given that we could withstand the massive gravitational force. Physical life wouldn't make it, I'm sure.



I'm with you on that.


I'm sure that the edges of the petri dish will be as far as we go. ;)
I would imagine that boundaries were put in place because it was already understood that humans would push the envelope to every extreme by the time we use up this Earth.

[Muffrazr]

I rebooted my computer. I am back now. LOL. It is hanging up in the BIOS screen failing to quickly launch Windows Xp for some unknown.
I am searching the internet now about Time travel, and the more I think about it, I believe I misspoke earlier. I think it was sound waves that some scientist at a major university sent back into time but only like 5 seconds (not photons). I can't find it on the WWW... atleast not yet. I guess I will shut up when I am not sure. :o


No, you were on track to a degree. Here you go for a start: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html

[FSON]

I wasn't building a foundation. You asked for the origin of origin. Originalis is Latin, it comes from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise".
What is the origin of oriri?
What is the origin of the (any) origin.

[Denny]

What is the origin of oriri?
What is the origin of the (any) origin.
God. Now quit it.

[Muffrazr]

What is the origin of oriri?
What is the origin of the (any) origin.


The origin of oriri would be the beginning of the use of that word.

The origin of the origin is just that, or for any origin for that matter. Your questions are answers in and of themselves.

[exlude]

It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?

it seems that people, all too often, have the wrong view of how a theory works. It is not that a theory is "how it works" but "how it may work". God remains a possible theory, but there is more evidence to be taken from the natural world for other theories. Thus the general avoidance of theological discussions as science, by definition, doesn't deal with the supernatural.

And i dont get what you mean about darwin. His general theory stll stands and the arguments for evolution are only growing stronger. Yes he was wrong on points, but the theory developes. Most models in science have that "living" quality.

[BrianC]

Yes, something must have been eternal. But who's to say that eternal "thing" is a god?

There are some false statements in your original argument. You ASSUME that what is "created" is not eternal. And ASSUME that it must have had a creator. Neither of which are necessarily true.

Further, given conservation of certain parts of the known universe...why can't those parts be eternal (e.g: mass, energy)?

The simple fact that there is balance to everything shows intelligence. Intelligence must come from somewhere. You're saying everything just simple existed with no beginning and no end and no intelligence to create the perfect balance? Everything came from chaos? No offense, really...but that sounds really scientific; not to mention, statistically probable (extreme sarcasm). :D

[exlude]

The simple fact that there is balance to everything shows intelligence. Intelligence must come from somewhere. You're saying everything just simple existed with no beginning and no end and no intelligence to create the perfect balance? Everything came from chaos? No offense, really...but that sounds really scientific; not to mention, statistically probable (extreme sarcasm). :D

The simple fact is that there is no real balance. I see nowhere in this world where there is perfect balance, it seems to be a huge misnomer. The universe revolves around chaos and it is the property of the universe to fall into disorder, naturally.

Further, I was thinking about these "statistic probabilities" arguments a whole ago. These are the basis for the whole Intelligent Design argument. The problem with them is that people are considering things in the complete wrong order.

People look at the current human, as if that's what things were SUPPOSED to be and then OMG it's so improbably that things would ever end that way. They don't consider that the current state may be how things just so happened to end up.

[Fastback]

And i dont get what you mean about darwin. His general theory stll stands and the arguments for evolution are only growing stronger. Yes he was wrong on points, but the theory developes. Most models in science have that "living" quality.

More than 600 members of the scientific community with PhDs have signed the document entitled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

Here's an article I dug up:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

I didn't read the article in full but I scanned it and thought it was cool because it links to dicovery where their names are recorded. It is also on Wiki. even though the article says 400, it is more than 600 according to other sources.

[BrianC]

The simple fact is that there is no real balance. I see nowhere in this world where there is perfect balance, it seems to be a huge misnomer. The universe revolves around chaos and it is the property of the universe to fall into disorder, naturally.

Further, I was thinking about these "statistic probabilities" arguments a whole ago. These are the basis for the whole Intelligent Design argument. The problem with them is that people are considering things in the complete wrong order.

People look at the current human, as if that's what things were SUPPOSED to be and then OMG it's so improbably that things would ever end that way. They don't consider that the current state may be how things just so happened to end up.


If you don't see the perfect order and balance of things, then you really haven't studied much science.

Ever seen the video of how a cell works? Someone scientists made a video a while back that's computer graphics, and it shows the human cell and how it works in real time. It literally looks like an assembly line in a factory. You don't call that balance and order? A stem cell can turned into any one of the organs found in the body, or into any type of cell in the body, and the DNA tells each one what to turn into. You don't call that balance or order or intelligent? The tail of a flagellum has 72 parts in common with an outboard motor. They're biological parts, but they are exactly like the parts used in our outboard motors. But here's the thing... the tail of the Flagellum spins at over 100,000 rpm. Don't think we have any engines that can pull that off. Yeah, I'd say that's order and balance. Engines must be balanced in order to work properly, and they have a perfect order to the parts and how they work. So do the mechanisms in nature and physics.

The fact is this: people interpret scientific data from different worldviews. The science in favor of evolution is not increasing, actually. Evolution theory has to constantly adjust because of new finds. Why? Because they keep finding out that parts of their theory don't fit correction as they find out new things. We have no dating methods that work or are even remotely accurate at all, and all are based on uniformitarianism which has been long proven to be completely inaccurate and should not be used by any serious scientists. Sorry, but chaos creating order and balance makes absolutely no sense...

[exlude]

If you don't see the perfect order and balance of things, then you really haven't studied much science.

Ever seen the video of how a cell works? Someone scientists made a video a while back that's computer graphics, and it shows the human cell and how it works in real time. It literally looks like an assembly line in a factory. You don't call that balance and order? A stem cell can turned into any one of the organs found in the body, or into any type of cell in the body, and the DNA tells each one what to turn into. You don't call that balance or order or intelligent? The tail of a flagellum has 72 parts in common with an outboard motor. They're biological parts, but they are exactly like the parts used in our outboard motors. But here's the thing... the tail of the Flagellum spins at over 100,000 rpm. Don't think we have any engines that can pull that off. Yeah, I'd say that's order and balance. Engines must be balanced in order to work properly, and they have a perfect order to the parts and how they work. So do the mechanisms in nature and physics.

Well, my BS in Human Biology may not be studying it much. But I like to think I know a little bit about this.

First off, I have seen the video you speak of numerous times (both with and without commentary) and it is a HUGE simplification. That's just an FYI. Things working as they should is not perfect balance in order. For example, the fact that we use oxygen as the electron receptor in our electrochemical exchanges when oxygen is a very potent free radical that actually degrades our cellular mechanisms over time.

The whole world is based on the destruction of one thing to create/sustain another, and it isn't in a perfectly revolving "circle of life" kum-ba-yah fashion either. Things do not turn around perfectly circularly and there is no perfect balance.

First, most flagella spin to the tune of about 20,000rpm and they do not move distances proportional to manmade motors. Further, 72 parts in common in the tail of a flagellum? How? The tail is made of about 30k units of the SAME repeated protein calling flagellin and a pentameric cap protein. The flagellum in total is only about 25 different proteins (depending on the species). Many flagellar mechanisms can barely move in a semblance of a straight line, and even more simply tumble randomly in hopes of getting somewhere useful. The most common system is a combination of random tumbling and "straight" lines in hopes of getting somewhere. Random tumbling = perfect order? Not in my books.



The fact is this: people interpret scientific data from different worldviews. The science in favor of evolution is not increasing, actually. Evolution theory has to constantly adjust because of new finds. Why? Because they keep finding out that parts of their theory don't fit correction as they find out new things. We have no dating methods that work or are even remotely accurate at all, and all are based on uniformitarianism which has been long proven to be completely inaccurate and should not be used by any serious scientists. Sorry, but chaos creating order and balance makes absolutely no sense...

As I mentioned early, critics seem to think that modifying a theory makes it a weaker theory. Not true, it's just how the living models of science work: they are developing theories. Thus why so few things are called laws. I don't know who is lying to you, but the evidence for evolution is always increasing. Yes, the theory has to adjust because within the grand idea of macroevolution there are many different, sub-theories that explain different aspects. So, yes, those change. They get refined, the argument gets stronger. Until you get more specific, that's hard to address though. I am more than willing to discuss macro and microevolution in depth with you. We don't even have to have fossil models to prove evolution in the works, however. We can look at current cellular models, see them speciating...find evidence of this in past models (similar cellular mechanisms, a big one would be DNA) and conclude from that alone. Evolution is more a theory because we can't explain every nuance of the model, but it's a very strong theory as a whole.

Who said chaos creates order? Energy is applied to chaotic situations to make them less chaotic. For example, many enzymes in the cell act on their own and transform substrate spontaneously as doing so allows them to collapse to lowest state of energy. The only way for a cell to stop this and keep the enzyme from killing the cell is to bind a blocking protein to the enzyme that requires an ATP->ADP phosphorylation (a type of energy application). Within any cellular model there are countless controls to keep the cell at a certain state. The cell is having to fight the "natural way of things" to live how it lives. Want to leave a cell to the controls of nature? Sometimes the "natural way" gets control of the cell. Guess what happens. Cancer. Uncontrolled growth, chaos.

[exlude]

More than 600 members of the scientific community with PhDs have signed the document entitled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

Here's an article I dug up:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

I didn't read the article in full but I scanned it and thought it was cool because it links to dicovery where their names are recorded. It is also on Wiki. even though the article says 400, it is more than 600 according to other sources.

Of the 400 listed, less than 1/4 were Biologists. Nevermind it's produced by Discovery Institute, a group with an agenda to promote Intelligent Design and creationist beliefs.

From the wikipedia article:
[edit] Expertise relevance
On November 29, 2001, the National Center for Science Education produced a critique of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, describing the wording of the statement and of the initial advertisement as misleading. The NCSE also noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed, less than 1/5 were biologists, with the remainder including chemists, engineers, geologists, mathematicians, medical professionals, social scientists, physicists and astronomers, and that none of those listed was recognizable as a prominent contributor to the scientific literature debating the role of natural selection in evolution.[1]

A February 2006 New York Times article criticized A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, stating that only 25% of the signatories were biologists and a sampling of those signing "suggest(s) that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs."[4] The Discovery Institute responded that the NY Times article had missed the point, and that "engineers and other scientists have realized that the primary problems facing modern evolutionary theory are engineering problems"[24].

TIME senior writer Michael Lemonick describes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as "an attempt to divert your attention" by citing the opinions of scientists who have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology, which he describes as "intellectual dishonesty." For example, Lemonick, pointed out that another one of the more prominently described members of the list is a surgeon with no expertise relevant to evolution.[5] The Discovery Institute responded by labeling Lemonick "Times [sic] Magazine's Darwinist Thought-Cop ... who writes for a weekly news tabloid" and by questioning Lemonick's credentials and qualifications.[25]

Referring to the number of people on the Dissent list and their claimed relevance, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers writes, "Not only is the number that they cite pathetically small, but they rely on getting scientists whose expertise isn't relevant." Addressing a specific example, Myers says of one signer, "The Discovery Institute may like to trumpet his expertise in neurosurgery as an indicator of the significance of his dissent from evolutionary biology, but I think I'd rather trumpet his ignorance of evolutionary biology as an indicator of the uselessness of the Discovery Institute's list."[26] Myers continued to state that the signer "is not only wrong, but he's pretty damn arrogant about it — how else to explain someone who is proud of the fact that he knows nothing about a subject, and is proud of his inability to find sources that would correct his ignorance, even when they're pointed out to him directly? He's like Michael Behe, in that we can plop mountains of information in front of him, and he'll just blithely claim it doesn't exist."[27]

Writer Ed Brayton, co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the The Panda's Thumb website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."[28]

and
The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[1][40] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[41] However, Salthe prominently appears on the list as "Emeritus Professor, Biological Sciences, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York."

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis." "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." "When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[42]

A careful analysis of the 34 nominally British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list by the pro-evolution group British Centre for Science Education found similar problems with the list. The BCSE raised doubts about the claimed affiliations, commitment to intelligent design and relevant expertise of those on the list.[43]

There are obviously people who don't believe in any notion stemming from Darwinian evolution for various reasons, but I would be a little critical of a bunch of social scientists trying to argue it to me.

[Brain_Mach1]

This is the 750 year old question

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

[Brain_Mach1]

[QUOTE=Muffrazr]Origin was first recorded in 1563. QUOTE]

I though Origen was a thelogical author from the 3rd Century. Oh sorry, Origin not Origen.

[BrianC]

Well, my BS in Human Biology may not be studying it much. But I like to think I know a little bit about this.

First off, I have seen the video you speak of numerous times (both with and without commentary) and it is a HUGE simplification. That's just an FYI. Things working as they should is not perfect balance in order. For example, the fact that we use oxygen as the electron receptor in our electrochemical exchanges when oxygen is a very potent free radical that actually degrades our cellular mechanisms over time.

Of course it's an oversymplification. It's got to be. It's far to complicated to build a completely accurate video. The fact that what you see on the video is "simplified" means that the real cell activity is FAR more complex and impressive. You're proving my case here, man. lol

Oooh, ooohhh! You said oxygen! I got something you'll love since you're into biology. Check out the research on hyperbarics, and more specifically, check out the Creationists' research on hyperbarics. Let me explain a bit real quick.

You know that the blood hemoglobin only takes in 4 oxygen molecules, and is incapable of taking in anymore. It takes those to the brain. So the brain works off of oxygen, and a very small supply of it. In a hyperbaric chamber, they double the oxygen and the air pressure (the medical hyperbaric chambers add 100% oxygen, so you can't stay in them more than an hour or so at a time or you'll get oxygen poisoning).

Anyway, the Creationists simply double the air pressure and double the oxygen content (because that's how you find the atmospheric readings in prehistoric amber air bubbles). Currently, the human brain only works at 4% capacity at any given time. However, when a human goes into a hyperbaric chamber with twice the oxygen and air pressure, the brain activity jumps up from 4% to 87%-92%. The body begins to heal itself incredibly fast!

This is how it works: your blood plasma is saturated with tons of oxygen, so the brain suddenly gets much more than just 4 molecules per hemoglobin. And the added pressure makes the bloodflow more efficent and in larger supply. Very cool stuff. I know a couple of people who've been in medical hyperbaric chambers. One broke his knee cap, and after the hyperbaric treatment over a period of a month or two, a doctor took a look at his knee and said, "I don't see a new crack here. All I see is a very old crack that must've happened at least 15 years ago." My friend said, "This is the first time I've cracked my knee cap."

Hey, I'm not trying to belittle your intelligence with the stuff I type in this message, so please don't take it that way. If it comes off that way, I apologize. I don't always communicate properly. I'm just having a debate/discussion with ya'. Nothing more. And sorry for the length...

[BrianC]

The whole world is based on the destruction of one thing to create/sustain another, and it isn't in a perfectly revolving "circle of life" kum-ba-yah fashion either. Things do not turn around perfectly circularly and there is no perfect balance.

First, most flagella spin to the tune of about 20,000rpm and they do not move distances proportional to manmade motors. Further, 72 parts in common in the tail of a flagellum? How? The tail is made of about 30k units of the SAME repeated protein calling flagellin and a pentameric cap protein. The flagellum in total is only about 25 different proteins (depending on the species). Many flagellar mechanisms can barely move in a semblance of a straight line, and even more simply tumble randomly in hopes of getting somewhere useful. The most common system is a combination of random tumbling and "straight" lines in hopes of getting somewhere. Random tumbling = perfect order? Not in my books.


Flagella work like they're supposed to, actually, even with the interpretation of "tumbling randomly in hopes of getting somewhere useful." Here's an excerpt from Answers in Genesis (yes, biased, of course).

____________________________
These motorized bacteria are hardly ‘simple’. The bacterium swims about with a whip-like cord called a flagellum (plural flagella), driven by a fantastic motor embedded in the outer shell. The flagellar motor is powered by proton flow, and closely resembles microscopic electric motors, powered by electron flow. The motor generates waves in the cord, which drive the germ forward.

A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)! The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed. If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).

It is also very versatile, because it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse direction within a quarter of a turn.

Most man-made electric motors are up to 75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller. The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed. The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming...

There are no motors of any type that are as rapid, efficient, and small as flagellar motors in bacteria. Could such a motor that far exceeds man’s inventions be the result of a cosmic accident billions of years ago? Every example of man-made electric motors proves to be primitively clumsy compared to the superior complexity and efficiency of the flagellum motor.
____________________________

Flagella can change the speed of their tail, and even spin it backwards, and there are different types (we cannot change the rotational direction of our motors at will). When I looked up Flagella tail RPM, I found a huge array of different speeds, because the people doing the research are observing either different types of flagella, or they're observing flagella that are travelling at a lower speed with less rpm and apparently aren't in a situation or mode where they need to be at a higher speed.

Now, looking at the efficiency of the flagella tail mechanism compared to our motors, I'd say that's balance and order. A car's engine must be balanced to run properly. So must a flagella motor, or it doesn't work at all. We cannot even reverse the direction of our motors, but flagella can. Why no comment on that type of order and balance?

Sounds like they're far advanced to our motors when all things are taken into consideration. What the heck DO you call balance and order?? I have a feeling that this comes down to how you interpret balance and order.


As I mentioned early, critics seem to think that modifying a theory makes it a weaker theory. Not true, it's just how the living models of science work: they are developing theories. Thus why so few things are called laws. I don't know who is lying to you, but the evidence for evolution is always increasing.


No one's "lying" to me. lol I watch shows on Discovery Channel and my wife tells me about research papers she reads in regard to scientific studies through the University. I'm sure you've looked through the research papers and medical journals that you have access to when you're at a University. Everything I read about new scientific discoveries or things of that nature always make evolutionists go back to the drawing board and "fix" something they screwed up in their theory. They have to constantly FIT things into their theory. You can view it however you like, though... What I find funny is that the Creation model and Creation theory never change, really. They don't ever have to "fit" anything into them. The model they've set up and explanation for how everything got to where it is today shows that they're on to something. When your theory isn't constantly changing, and all scientific data keeps fitting right into the theory, you're obviously on to something.


Yes, the theory has to adjust because within the grand idea of macroevolution there are many different, sub-theories that explain different aspects. So, yes, those change. They get refined, the argument gets stronger. Until you get more specific, that's hard to address though. I am more than willing to discuss macro and microevolution in depth with you. We don't even have to have fossil models to prove evolution in the works, however. We can look at current cellular models, see them speciating...find evidence of this in past models (similar cellular mechanisms, a big one would be DNA) and conclude from that alone. Evolution is more a theory because we can't explain every nuance of the model, but it's a very strong theory as a whole.

It's not a strong theory at all. Why do think Creationists are so excited to jump into debates with evolutionists? Creationists know all of the reasons evolution isn't feasible. For instance, there are no working dating methods. Bones that are supposed to only be found in specific layers are found in all KINDS of layers, all over the place. The Geologic Column from textbooks exists in only one place, and loosly might I add, North Dakota; it's VERY different everywhere else. Go on one of my trips across the U.S. and I'll show ya'. :D We've never seen one species change into a completely different species.

And science's weak definition of a new species is laughable, and used only for the purpose of furthering the theory; scientists say that when an animal cannot mate with its own species, then it's a new species. Well, here's a new flash for those scientists: Darwin's birds that couldn't mate after being on separate islands for years actually migrated and intermingled with the birds of the island from which they originally came...and guess what. Over time, the birds began to mate again. It was all a simple change evoked by the DNA due to environment, and once the environment changed back, the bird's ability to mate changed with it, back to its original state.


Who said chaos creates order? Energy is applied to chaotic situations to make them less chaotic.

Alright, let's take some "chaos" like a junk yard. Let's add energy. Let's add a bomb. When that bomb hits that junk yard, are you telling me that the result is going to be cars majically putting themselves together? No, the junkyard will be in MORE disarray. I'll address this more after this next comment you made below.


For example, many enzymes in the cell act on their own and transform substrate spontaneously as doing so allows them to collapse to lowest state of energy. The only way for a cell to stop this and keep the enzyme from killing the cell is to bind a blocking protein to the enzyme that requires an ATP->ADP phosphorylation (a type of energy application). Within any cellular model there are countless controls to keep the cell at a certain state. The cell is having to fight the "natural way of things" to live how it lives. Want to leave a cell to the controls of nature? Sometimes the "natural way" gets control of the cell. Guess what happens. Cancer. Uncontrolled growth, chaos.

What you speak of, in regard to "adding energy to create less chaos" is very misused. A cell has organisms that perform specific functions. When you "add energy," you are simply giving power to something to perform its job. Everything has it's place in a cell and it is a balanced organism.

I apologize for what I am about to do... I have to get out of the realm of science to explain the chaos you're describing. The Bible says sin entered into the world, and with sin came death. This is the mechanism of "chaos" you see in the body. Autoimmune disease is when the immune system attacks good cells in the body. That's obviously not what the body was built to do. It's a result of the sin nature we all have due to the sin that's passed down to us and corrupts the body. 50% of the time, people came to Jesus and wanted to be healed of something like blindness or being lame or a disease of some sort, and he would not say, "You are healed." Instead, what He would say, "Your sins are forgiven. God and sin no more." Then, suddenly, they were healed. The absense of sin seems to have an effect on the body.

You should read a book by Henry W. Wright named A More Excellent Way. It's almost like a medical journal. The guy went through pre-med with a minor in psychology, then after he finished that, he decided to become a preacher instead. lol Kind of strange. He ends up deciding to read medical journals and see if there are any psychological causes for diseases. He ends up finding all kinds of "psychological" things that contribute to diseases. So, he starts trying a different approach. He would take a person and look at their physical symptoms and by those symptoms, he could deduce their psychological issues. He would tell them to correct the specific psychological issue, and suddenly the physical disease would go away.

Let's simplify it with stress. Doctor's know stress causes all kinds of problems in the body. When you get stressed or worried or even in really negative attitude, researchers have proven that it literally takes your body's pH level from an alkaline state to an acidic state. Once in a heavy acidic state, the body damages itself and there are some pretty bad effects from this. Your immune system goes to crap, and you can't fight off disease nearly as effectively. In fact, every cancer patient has one thing in common: they all have an acidic pH. Cancer requires an acid pH in the body in order to grow. Cancer cannot grow in an alkaline environment. Therefore, if you destress and eat foods that are more alkaline, your body's pH will lower into an alkaline state. When this happens, the body usually flushes out the cancer.

Wish I could remember this German doctor's name...I don't recall it off-hand. Anyway, he has the highest rate of curing cancer in Germany (it's a huge number), and all he does is stress therapy to teach people how to destress. To my knowledge, he doesn't even put them on alkaline foods... He JUST deals with the stress, and has a superhigh success rate with cancer being flushed out of people's systems due to this. You should check it out since you're into biology. I love health and the body and stuff like that. I've run across some interesting stuff throughout the years. The Henry W. Wright book is interesting. Can't say I agree 100% with all of his solutions, but the thousands of testimonies are a bit hard to refute... I'll try to remember the German's name sometime and give it to you if you want to check out that research.

[FSON]

The origin of oriri would be the beginning of the use of that word.

The origin of the origin is just that, or for any origin for that matter. Your questions are answers in and of themselves.

The first use of a word is not it's origin. Use is not origin. Words evolve from similar and/or different words... what is the origin of the origin (the word, and conceptually and actually)?

You see, the process here is to grind down your origins or foundations into nothing. After that, what happens? The sun comes out and play begins.

The process works faster if you don't use physical properties as analogy... you will become bogged down in many details that takes years to sort through.

[exlude]

Flagella can change the speed of their tail, and even spin it backwards, and there are different types (we cannot change the rotational direction of our motors at will). When I looked up Flagella tail RPM, I found a huge array of different speeds, because the people doing the research are observing either different types of flagella, or they're observing flagella that are travelling at a lower speed with less rpm and apparently aren't in a situation or mode where they need to be at a higher speed.

Now, looking at the efficiency of the flagella tail mechanism compared to our motors, I'd say that's balance and order. A car's engine must be balanced to run properly. So must a flagella motor, or it doesn't work at all. We cannot even reverse the direction of our motors, but flagella can. Why no comment on that type of order and balance?

1) Yes, our electric motors can reverse direction. 2) When our electric motors reverse direction, they can still move objects linearly. When flagella move CCW they propel the bacterium forward, when they move CW...they tumble. And it's not like this isn't something we can't recreate, as the flagellar motor has been recreated...we just have no use for random tumbling.

Sounds like they're far advanced to our motors when all things are taken into consideration. What the heck DO you call balance and order?? I have a feeling that this comes down to how you interpret balance and order.

As I was reading your response, I began thinking the same thing. As I mentioned earlier, nature is not about a cool, calm balance and order...it is about the destruction of one thing to get another. Now, I guess that could still be balance and order in the grand scheme of things...but that type of greater understanding is a good deal past our ability to understand/calculate.



No one's "lying" to me. lol I watch shows on Discovery Channel and my wife tells me about research papers she reads in regard to scientific studies through the University. I'm sure you've looked through the research papers and medical journals that you have access to when you're at a University. Everything I read about new scientific discoveries or things of that nature always make evolutionists go back to the drawing board and "fix" something they screwed up in their theory. They have to constantly FIT things into their theory. You can view it however you like, though... What I find funny is that the Creation model and Creation theory never change, really. They don't ever have to "fit" anything into them. The model they've set up and explanation for how everything got to where it is today shows that they're on to something. When your theory isn't constantly changing, and all scientific data keeps fitting right into the theory, you're obviously on to something.

Well, it's easy for everything to fit into your theory when the catch all is "god put it there" or "satan put it there to distract us". That isn't exactly critical thinking. Problem being, science and theology approach the subject in two different ways. Science: finding the explanation for why things are. Theology: finding evidence for a predefined conclusion. Unfortunately, watching shows on Discovery Channel and what not really are not a substitute for understanding the complexity of the cell let alone the complexity of cellular genetics. They are good for basic understanding, but not when trying to consider how genetics works evolutionarily.


It's not a strong theory at all. Why do think Creationists are so excited to jump into debates with evolutionists? Creationists know all of the reasons evolution isn't feasible. For instance, there are no working dating methods. Bones that are supposed to only be found in specific layers are found in all KINDS of layers, all over the place. The Geologic Column from textbooks exists in only one place, and loosly might I add, North Dakota; it's VERY different everywhere else. Go on one of my trips across the U.S. and I'll show ya'. :D We've never seen one species change into a completely different species.

Most often, the reason I find, is because they are uneducated/misseducated on the theory. For example, the idea that we have never seen a speciation event is simply a lie. I posted a long while back 3 specific speciation events found in lab or in nature. I'll see if I can dig them up. We have seen it in flies, we have seen it in bacteria, we have seen it in plants. Nothing in mammals conclusively, but given the much smaller reproduction rate and long gestation periods, that is not surprising. Too often, Creationists are taught by a person with an agenda (for example, a pre-med physchiatry major who has only taken the introduction to biology sequence and then turned evangelical Christian as opposed to upper level Biology PhDs who spend their lives studying such things).

I can't comment near as well on the geological side of the argument, really not my speciality (I believe Casper is fairly qualified in that). But in terms of evolutionary Biology and genome, macroevolution is a very strong and widely accepted theory among those who work in the field. Now, among evangelical America? I know it isn't, but from my experience...it's mostly out of ignorance.

And science's weak definition of a new species is laughable, and used only for the purpose of furthering the theory; scientists say that when an animal cannot mate with its own species, then it's a new species. Well, here's a new flash for those scientists: Darwin's birds that couldn't mate after being on separate islands for years actually migrated and intermingled with the birds of the island from which they originally came...and guess what. Over time, the birds began to mate again. It was all a simple change evoked by the DNA due to environment, and once the environment changed back, the bird's ability to mate changed with it, back to its original state.
Taking an example of mistaken speciation as proof there is no speciation is hardly conclusive. (I don't even know how true it is, honestly, but I digress). Yes, species is very hard to define. I took a class once that spent half a semester trying to define it, inclusively, across phylums. But it's very easy to criticize it, what's your definition of a species?


What you speak of, in regard to "adding energy to create less chaos" is very misused. A cell has organisms that perform specific functions. When you "add energy," you are simply giving power to something to perform its job. Everything has it's place in a cell and it is a balanced organism.

Not necessarily. You know how the human body has certain vestigial organs? Cells have similar items in the shape of certain, inert endosomes. They do nothing for the cell, but still exist generation after generation because they once did something but the genome has not completely gotten rid of it. Costing the cell precious energy. Same goes for plasmids that invade bacteria. Many plasmids offer immune benefits to pathogenic and floral bacteria, but many plasmids also halt metabolic activities and simply kill the bacteria. Keep in mind that plasmids are not living, so they are providing no survival benefit to themselves.

I apologize for what I am about to do... I have to get out of the realm of science to explain the chaos you're describing. The Bible says sin entered into the world, and with sin came death. This is the mechanism of "chaos" you see in the body. Autoimmune disease is when the immune system attacks good cells in the body. That's obviously not what the body was built to do. It's a result of the sin nature we all have due to the sin that's passed down to us and corrupts the body. 50% of the time, people came to Jesus and wanted to be healed of something like blindness or being lame or a disease of some sort, and he would not say, "You are healed." Instead, what He would say, "Your sins are forgiven. God and sin no more." Then, suddenly, they were healed. The absense of sin seems to have an effect on the body.

Here is where I throw my hands up in the air :p . There really is no argument here, I cannot argue against this nor could I argue for it. If the bad things in the world aren't things turning to a chaotic state but instead a supernatural belief of sin, there really is nothing to discuss there as neither of us can back it up. End state: it's a different word/background for the same thing.

You should read a book by Henry W. Wright named A More Excellent Way. It's almost like a medical journal. The guy went through pre-med with a minor in psychology, then after he finished that, he decided to become a preacher instead. lol Kind of strange. He ends up deciding to read medical journals and see if there are any psychological causes for diseases. He ends up finding all kinds of "psychological" things that contribute to diseases. So, he starts trying a different approach. He would take a person and look at their physical symptoms and by those symptoms, he could deduce their psychological issues. He would tell them to correct the specific psychological issue, and suddenly the physical disease would go away.

Let's simplify it with stress. Doctor's know stress causes all kinds of problems in the body. When you get stressed or worried or even in really negative attitude, researchers have proven that it literally takes your body's pH level from an alkaline state to an acidic state. Once in a heavy acidic state, the body damages itself and there are some pretty bad effects from this. Your immune system goes to crap, and you can't fight off disease nearly as effectively. In fact, every cancer patient has one thing in common: they all have an acidic pH. Cancer requires an acid pH in the body in order to grow. Cancer cannot grow in an alkaline environment. Therefore, if you destress and eat foods that are more alkaline, your body's pH will lower into an alkaline state. When this happens, the body usually flushes out the cancer.

Wish I could remember this German doctor's name...I don't recall it off-hand. Anyway, he has the highest rate of curing cancer in Germany (it's a huge number), and all he does is stress therapy to teach people how to destress. To my knowledge, he doesn't even put them on alkaline foods... He JUST deals with the stress, and has a superhigh success rate with cancer being flushed out of people's systems due to this. You should check it out since you're into biology. I love health and the body and stuff like that. I've run across some interesting stuff throughout the years. The Henry W. Wright book is interesting. Can't say I agree 100% with all of his solutions, but the thousands of testimonies are a bit hard to refute... I'll try to remember the German's name sometime and give it to you if you want to check out that research.

The studies on stress are fairly well documented, seeing how different stressors can cause hormonal fluctuations, metabolic fluctuations, immunosupression, and then some. But, sure, I'd like to know who you're talking about, that stuff is always interesting.

[BrianC]

1) Yes, our electric motors can reverse direction. 2) When our electric motors reverse direction, they can still move objects linearly. When flagella move CCW they propel the bacterium forward, when they move CW...they tumble. And it's not like this isn't something we can't recreate, as the flagellar motor has been recreated...we just have no use for random tumbling.

You got me with the eletric motor.

And yeah, I've seen our created flagella motors. We have use for creating biological motors for nanobots (either mechanical or biological in build).

As for "random tumbling," as I said before, there's plenty of research that shows how flagella do actually have direction, change speeds, and are headed somewhere, depending on what you're observing. I'm not saying that there isn't some random tumbling. I'm just saying that there is some direction as well. They literally choose to stop, start or increase or decrease the speed of their tails for a reason. It's not just random.


Well, it's easy for everything to fit into your theory when the catch all is "god put it there" or "satan put it there to distract us". That isn't exactly critical thinking. Problem being, science and theology approach the subject in two different ways. Science: finding the explanation for why things are. Theology: finding evidence for a predefined conclusion. Unfortunately, watching shows on Discovery Channel and what not really are not a substitute for understanding the complexity of the cell let alone the complexity of cellular genetics. They are good for basic understanding, but not when trying to consider how genetics works evolutionarily.

Ahhhhh, now here's where you go wrong in your understanding. You'd need to learn the Creation Theory and Creation Model in full before you try to debate it. Creationists never say, "God did it" in the way you're describing. What Creationists say is that in the beginning God created everything, and that's who it got here INITIALLY. Evolutionists say, "Everything existed in a tiny little dot of mass and that mass exploded creating everything." We have a God at the origin of creation, you have a dot of heavy dirt mass. LOL Which takes more faith to believe in?

Once God creates everything in six days, that's where the Creationists jump off of the "God did it" boat, and into the realm of the natural. Creationists never once say, "God did it" after the creation. Creationists don't even say God caused the flood (well, that depends on who you talk to). There are perfectly good, natural, scientific explanations for what caused the water to rupture the crust, producing the cracks in the ocean, when it shot out. The Bible does not say the flood started with rain. The Bible says the flood began when, "The fountains of the deep broke forth." Creationists believe that the earth was just a ball of water on the first and second days, but on the third day, it says the land came out of and over (on top of) the water). They think the crust had either no oceans at all, or maybe one ocean toward the bottom of the globe, but that it had many rivers that started at underground sources like natural springs or artesian wells that spring up on their own. This is only a part of the explanation of why there was no rain before the flood. The Bible even conveniently adds in how water came up in springs and mysts to water the plants. When it's humid outside, we still get humid fogs at night through to the morning. And the early morning is proven to be the best time to water plants.


Most often, the reason I find, is because they are uneducated/misseducated on the theory. For example, the idea that we have never seen a speciation event is simply a lie. I posted a long while back 3 specific speciation events found in lab or in nature. I'll see if I can dig them up. We have seen it in flies, we have seen it in bacteria, we have seen it in plants. Nothing in mammals conclusively, but given the much smaller reproduction rate and long gestation periods, that is not surprising. Too often, Creationists are taught by a person with an agenda (for example, a pre-med physchiatry major who has only taken the introduction to biology sequence and then turned evangelical Christian as opposed to upper level Biology PhDs who spend their lives studying such things).

LOL Where do you get this information about the credentials of Creation Scientists? Yes, there are a few that don't have degrees in subjects such as biology or anything related to science. But the majority of them do, actually. In fact, the Institution for Creation Research has a college out in California that teaches all of the required classes to obtain a bachelors, masters and PhD in most any type of natural science like biology, geology, paleontology, and so on. It's a state accredited school. They teach both views, evolution and creation, at this school. They actually show the holes in evolution, though, as they teach it, where as regular colleges don't.

As for speciation, yes, I know of the studies you're referring to. Please, by all means, look them up and post them. I guaranty I can show how they are not proof of speciation, but simply proof of adaptation or genetic mutation. The flies, for instance, are mutations (ie. - the loss of genetic data causing an inferior type of fly). And never once did a fly turn into something completely different than a fly. You'll have to show all of these studies for me to comment on them individually. Creationists talk about those studies in detail and show how it fits right into the Creation Theory and Model. However, it's simply genetic data loss, not the introduction of new genetic data. No scientists has ever proven a gain in genetic data. Have any studies like that? Let's see them.


I can't comment near as well on the geological side of the argument, really not my speciality (I believe Casper is fairly qualified in that). But in terms of evolutionary Biology and genome, macroevolution is a very strong and widely accepted theory among those who work in the field. Now, among evangelical America? I know it isn't, but from my experience...it's mostly out of ignorance.

If I see proof of macroevolution, (species changing into new and different species), then I have no problem believing it. However, I have never seen proof. I've seen horrible interpretations and bad science, like the whole genetic data loss mutations...but that's an argument for Creation, not evolution.


Taking an example of mistaken speciation as proof there is no speciation is hardly conclusive. (I don't even know how true it is, honestly, but I digress). Yes, species is very hard to define. I took a class once that spent half a semester trying to define it, inclusively, across phylums. But it's very easy to criticize it, what's your definition of a species?

Ahhhhh....now you're getting to the important question. Definition of "species." A donkey and a horse are still the same species. The only difference is that the donkey has lost the genetic data to mate with a horse (am I correct in saying that a donkey cannot even mate with a donkey?? I think I'm getting something mixed up). So, a horse is a horse is a horse, even if he's lost genetic data that caused him to be a horse with stunted growth and an inability to mate with horses.

But evolutionists say that if one species changes enough so that it cannot mate with the species it came from, that's putting an extremely loose and inaccurate definition to the word "species." And it's done deliberately to make the theory sound like it's stronger.

Here's what I call a species: Dogs. Dogs came from wolves, and we know this historically. MOST types of dogs were specially bread back in the 1800's in Britan, or in British colonies around the world in order to perform specific jobs. Terriers were purposefully bread to chase rats during the bubonic plague days since rats carried it. Beagles and hound dogs were bread and trained to hunt and track animals. Retrievers, well...that's obvious. St. Bernards were for rescue in cold climates. All of these used to be one single wild breed; a wolf. A wolf contains all of the genes for all of the characteristics of every dog we see today. The British simply figured out how to make the breeds of dogs conform to certain jobs. On a cellular level, what happen is that only the genetic data important for performing the tasks needed was utilized through the breeding. The genetic data that was not used either sat dormant, or was lost eventually. This is not quite like mutation, but close. Mutation implies a change so harsh that the result is an off-spring that is abnormal and it's ability to survive has decreased. Usually, the lifespan of mutations is very much shorter, as well.

So, Noah took two wolves on the ark. That's a species. You can blame the Chinese and the Brits for all of the other types of dogs we have. Darn those intelligent Brits and Chinamen! lol And what's funny is that most of the major discoveries of science that happened throughout 1,000AD-1900AD were made by creationists. And many of them wrote statements you can still find today where they praise a creator and acredit Him with the magnificence of His design in nature and in natural sciences and physics. You should look into this history sometime. It's interesting.


Not necessarily. You know how the human body has certain vestigial organs? Cells have similar items in the shape of certain, inert endosomes. They do nothing for the cell, but still exist generation after generation because they once did something but the genome has not completely gotten rid of it. Costing the cell precious energy. Same goes for plasmids that invade bacteria. Many plasmids offer immune benefits to pathogenic and floral bacteria, but many plasmids also halt metabolic activities and simply kill the bacteria. Keep in mind that plasmids are not living, so they are providing no survival benefit to themselves.

This is similar to the dogs losing traits they used to have due to their environments. As a dog is put into a different environment, his traits change due to what is needed to survive. The genetic data still exists, but is not utilized.

As for humans, we actually have no vestigial organs. That's a myth or flat out lie (not saying that you're lying, but whomever came up with that was simply an idiot). You name an organ that you believe is of no use in the human body, and I'll tell you what the use is.

And here is why this happens. As human diets change, certain organs do not get the nutrients they used to get to perform their task and they are underutilized.

Let me give an example of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells sit dormant in the body, in the bone marrow, if I'm not mistaken. They do pretty much nothing in adults. However, if you take a suppliment that has a particular blue-algae extract, the adult stem cells are released and go to work fixing the body. You'd be amazed at the things adult stemcells have cured and fixed in the body. It's quite amazing. Scientists used adult stemcells to properly complete an eye transplant earlier this year. The adult stemcells reconnected the cords/muscles that connected the eye to the brain (you'll have to correct my misused ocular terms there). On a cellular level, like you were speaking of before, scientists are not sure what would happen if people's diets were adjusted to properly intake all of the nutrients necessary for the body to function properly. It is possible those parts of the cells would function properly again in cases like this. They somehow put tracers on the adult stemcells to track them in and through the body. The did it first in rats, then in humans. Cool stuff. StemEnhance is the product a company puts out that funded all of this research over the past 7 years, approximately, I think.

The point is that as the environment changes and the body's diet changes, and the DNA adjusts for what is needed and for what is not needed. It's simple adaptation. Creation science has no problem with that. It's builds their case more strongly.


Here is where I throw my hands up in the air :p . There really is no argument here, I cannot argue against this nor could I argue for it. If the bad things in the world aren't things turning to a chaotic state but instead a supernatural belief of sin, there really is nothing to discuss there as neither of us can back it up. End state: it's a different word/background for the same thing.

Well, it is nearly impossible to test this theory, because there is always the "power of the mind" and the placebo effect. I should tell you an experience I had one time, though. You'll find this interesting. And I think the placebo effect was pretty much taken out of the picture.

I just happened to have learned about demon possession a few days before an old friend e-mails me. Hadn't talk to her in over two years. She was only 16 when I last talked to her and her boyfriend had died in an automobile accident on the way to pick her up for a date. At that point, I lost contact with her. We mostly talked on the internet. I was about 19 when she contacted me again, two years later. She always looked up to me like a big brother.

She e-mails me and says, "My life is horrible right now. I'm nothing like I used to be. In the last two years I've started drinking, smoking and even some drugs. I am 5'7" tall, and I weigh 87 pounds. I am at the end of my rope. I don't know what to do. What's going on? How do I get out of this?"

I realized what was going on. Told her that this all started the night her boyfriend died coming to pick her up. Told her that she blamed herself for this, because she said if she had not been dating him, he would not have been on his way to pick her up and would not have gotten in a wreck. Completely illogical placement of blame, but this is what lie she had believed.

I told her that when she believed that lie, she allowed a demon in and he probably brought some friends. I told her that he couldn't hurt her, but that she needed to have the demons cast out. She e-mails me back and said that she didn't know how to have them cast out. I told her to pray about it and ask God to cast them out. That didn't work for her obviously. I told her that she needed to understand first that it wasn't her fault that her boyfriend died. That's life, and that's traffic. Stuff like that happens, and she could not control when he left to come get her nor his driving habits and routes.

She e-mails me back and says, "I think what you're saying is probably correct, but I still don't know what to do. What do I do?" Here's where the timeline is important to rule out the placebo effect. This was the last e-mail she sent before she went to bed that night, so it was the last communication we had that night. Keep that in mind.

I have to explain some things you won't understand up front, and that's ok. It'll make sense later. I've sense learned ways around this, and learned how it happened with this girl. I was taught that demons cannot read your thoughts and that only God can read your thoughts according to the Bible. I was also taught that Jesus gave us His authority over demons, so we are to cast them out in Jesus' name, and they MUST obey. In fact, they must obey any command given to them in Jesus' name. But they have to be able to hear you so they can hear the command. I didn't know how I was going to cast this demon out without being right there in front of the girl, but I did it anyway. I figured out that God had to literally carry my voice to make it work, but it worked some how.

What I did was this: That night, I typed her up an e-mail, even though she'd already gone to bed. I said, "I'm going to pray before I go to bed here in a minute. I'm going to pray out loud and cast out the demons in Jesus' name. When I do that, you will be fine and the demons won't bother you anymore." Sent that e-mail, then went and did exactly what I told her I was going to do. In the morning, she wakes up and does not read the e-mail. Instead, she first realizes that she feels like she's gained weight. She then realizes that she's very happy, which she hasn't been in a long time. She also realizes that she has absolutely not desire to drink, smoke or do any drugs. She goes to weigh herself, and sure enough, she's gained 3 pounds since before she went to bed (she checked her weight every night before bed and every morning when she got up). She then gets online and checks her e-mail and sees what I prayed, and then realizes why she feels the way she does, and responds to me telling me of this stuff.

Two weeks later, she said that she gained 40 pounds with no unusual eating habits! She said there's no way she even ate 40 pounds worth of food! lol She went from 87 pounds up to 127 pounds in two weeks flat, and stayed at her normal weight of 127 pounds from then on out.

Six months later, her parents contacted me and said, "Thank you for giving us our daughter back and giving her her life back." I said, "Don't thank me. Jesus did that. I had nothing to do with it." They said that she had started college now, and found a good boyfriend with whom she attended church, and she was still the same 127 pounds. They said she was just like she used to be, before the accident happened, but she was even better now.

Now, I'm not scientists, and you may think I'm a kook for telling you that story, but I have no idea how anyone gains 40 pounds in 14 days, especially when they didn't even eat 40 pounds worth of food and had no odd eating habits! LOL You're the biology guy... any explanations for this?

I know...it's off-topic, sort of, and it's something you cannot comment on. I don't expect you to believe or trust that my story is correct, because you didn't see it with your own eyes or experience it first hand. But you must admit, it's a pretty freaky situation, right? I'll have to show you some little bitty excerpts from my working with multiples sometime. You will not believe some of the things that happen. For instance, I will pray a prayer to myself without their knowledge or while I'm not even talking to the multiple, and they will see the prayer answered immediately. Later, they'll tell me about this thing that happened and what time of day it was. Sometimes, I'll ask them about a particular event that happened, and they'll say, "How did you know that happened?" I'll say, "I prayed for it at exactly the time you say you saw it happen." You can see this in some of the chat logs. Sometimes, I'll be typing out a prayer, then I'll get a report back of something happening with the multiple immediately, but I haven't hit enter to send the prayer yet. Are they reading my mind from a thousand miles away? When I hit enter, they say, "Wow, that happened before you sent that message."

You should read a book called The Shining Man with Hurt Hands by Ellis H. Skolfield. Christian author that worked with multiples (people with Multiple Personality Disorder [MPD]) online for three years and helped over 100 of them fully heal and fully integrate all of their alternate personalities into a monomind again. That's completely unheard of in the medical world. The medical world understands almost nothing about MPD, admittedly, and they usually give multiples anywhere from a 5 - 15 year lifespan once a psychiatrist takes them on as a patient. One of their dark personalities will get out eventually and kill them. It'll happen while they're driving sometimes and the dark alter or child alter will cause a wreck. But the people are not insane. They're perfectly in their right minds, but they live under a lot of fear, though. Multiples are the way they are due to abuse before the age of 4.

The first half of the book is little chat logs mixed in with a lot of explanation about how MPD works. The second half of the book is all chat logs with little explanations for what's going on in the chat, and it's all about one woman. He follows her story from the moment he she first contacts him to three months later when she is fully healed and integrated. It's only 217 pages and is a quick read. Very good book. Multiples see an inside world that looks like our world without roads and buildings, except for the houses they've built. Otherwise, it's valleys, streams, oceans maybe, mountains and forests...things like that. They literally have to go through a door or gate in their mind to access this place. And here's the freaky thing... all multiples see the same things: demons (dark ones), angels (shining ones), false Jesuses and the real Jesus (the shining man with hurt hands). The woman he works with in the second half of the book is from Japan and has never heard of Jesus or Christianity before. Yet she sees angels, demons and Jesus inside without any prompting from the author, and interacts with all of them. Now how bizaar is that??

And from my work with multiples, I can prove everything in that book with my own chat logs from our conversations. I can actually show that there's a lot more that can be done than just what that guy was doing with multiples. Anyway...sorry...way off topic. You're gonna' hate me for my long posts. lol


The studies on stress are fairly well documented, seeing how different stressors can cause hormonal fluctuations, metabolic fluctuations, immunosupression, and then some. But, sure, I'd like to know who you're talking about, that stuff is always interesting.

Dr. Coldwell from Germany. Search in Google with these exact search terms, minus the parenthesis:

("dr. coldwell" "stress reduction" cancer)

I apologize once again for the length of my messages. We may need to get onto one single subject so this doesn't keep happening. ;)

[exlude]

You told me what you called a species, but did not define species for me. However, your example any many ways falls in line with the BSC definition.

Here is a decent article on speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[jones4stangs]

Logical Deduction About Origin:
Everything (except one thing) must have a beginning. And if everything has a beginning, it must have been created. And if it was created, it must have a creator. What is created is not eternal (ie. - Has not always existed). The source of all things must be eternal in nature, having always existed (otherwise, he/it too would have been created by something else). Therefore, philosophically, there must be an eternal creator who has always existed, that created everything and is all powerful.

Question:
How is it possible for someone to get around this fact? Explain how everything exists without having something or someone to cause the existence.
I didn't read all the replies, but here's my 2 cents.

I don't think it's necessary to assume one thing had to create everything. If it can be accepted that something can come nothing, then you should also be able to assume multiple things can come from nothing. Likewise, if it can be accepted that something always existed, then you should also be able to assume multiple things could have always existed. Why one source? Why not 10 or 10,000?

Even if we assume the source always existed, I don't see why that source needs to be all powerful. Nor do I see why that source must be more powerful than that which it creates.

Another thing, why is it necessary to assume that the source creates everything else? How about the source creating something else with the ability to create? Does the created get credit for anything or must it always default back to the source?

So, have I gotten around your origin argument? If so, I don’t think you can consider it a fact. I think you need to restructure your argument.

[Brain_Mach1]

I must say that the above is not very philosophical or scientific. I would suggest the book The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Razzi

[BrianC]

I didn't read all the replies, but here's my 2 cents.

I don't think it's necessary to assume one thing had to create everything. If it can be accepted that something can come nothing, then you should also be able to assume multiple things can come from nothing. Likewise, if it can be accepted that something always existed, then you should also be able to assume multiple things could have always existed. Why one source? Why not 10 or 10,000?

Even if we assume the source always existed, I don't see why that source needs to be all powerful. Nor do I see why that source must be more powerful than that which it creates.

Another thing, why is it necessary to assume that the source creates everything else? How about the source creating something else with the ability to create? Does the created get credit for anything or must it always default back to the source?

So, have I gotten around your origin argument? If so, I don’t think you can consider it a fact. I think you need to restructure your argument.

I don't accept that nothing can come from something. I accept that something can CREATE something else out of thin air if that something is powerful.

I also accept that everything must have a beginning, except for the source of all things, because there MUST always be a beginning for everything except the source of all things. And that source must be eternal. That's all there is to it. Everything tracks back to an eternal Creator.

[FSON]

If everything tracks back to the eternal then we are always already eternal.

[flashstang04]

If everything tracks back to the eternal then we are always already eternal.


You are correct to a point....where that eternity is.....that is the question.

[FSON]

You are correct to a point....where that eternity is.....that is the question.

Eternity relies on time which is a man made construct.

[exlude]

Eternity relies on time which is a man made construct.

The quantification of time is manmade, but time alone is natural.

[Mr Majestyk]

The quantification of time is manmade, but time alone is natural.

natural: being in accordance with or determined by nature
nature: a creative and controlling force in the universe

Both as per Merriam-Webster


From whence comes this creative and controlling force in the universe known as time?

[FSON]

The quantification of time is manmade, but time alone is natural.
Time itself is manmade.

[Mr Majestyk]

Time itself is manmade.

Really? Question for all the evolution proponents then, what exactly was the dinosaur age before this manmade item known as time was invented?

[exlude]

Time itself is manmade.

Like I said, the measurement of time is man made. Actual time is a manipulable dimension that can be affected, theoretically, by forces such as gravity and speed.

[flashstang04]

Like I said, the measurement of time is man made. Actual time is a manipulable dimension that can be affected, theoretically, by forces such as gravity and speed.


Right, it is only scaled down to a human brains perception so that we can perceive it..but it does exist...

Clearly there was an "in the beginning" so that we can perceive a small part of the whole concept that is "time"

[FSON]

Like I said, the measurement of time is man made. Actual time is a manipulable dimension that can be affected, theoretically, by forces such as gravity and speed.
Exactly, man made.

[flashstang04]

Really? Question for all the evolution proponents then, what exactly was the dinosaur age before this manmade item known as time was invented?



:D

[FSON]

It is only your perception, and that is man made and has no foundation.

[exlude]

Exactly, man made.
Despite what you may believe, repeating yourself ad nauseum with no argument does not reinforce your point.

[FSON]

Despite what you may believe, repeating yourself ad nauseum with no argument does not reinforce your point.
What is the foundation of time?
Can time exist solely by itself? If it can, it has a foundation. If it can't, there is something else that it relies upon for it's existence.

I wonder what Quantum theory and some Eastern and American Indian cultures have to say outside the "Classical" Eurocentric linear time theory.

[BrianC]

What is the foundation of time?
Can time exist solely by itself? If it can, it has a foundation. If it can't, there is something else that it relies upon for it's existence.

I wonder what Quantum theory and some Eastern and American Indian cultures have to say outside the "Classical" Eurocentric linear time theory.

Our spirit person is in eternity. Life in eternity means connected to God, the giver of life. Death in eternity means separation from God. So, the question is, is our eternal spirit person connected to God in eternity, or disconnected from Him?

Now, our mind and body are trapped in time. You can view time as if it does not exist, but the fact that our bodies are born, grow, deteriorate and then die means that the body "ages." But our spirit person is different and does not age.

Eternity is existence. You simply "are" in eternity, and you never cease to " be." But, on this earth you will not exist, then you will be born, and you will exist, and then you will die at which point you will no longer exist. Therefore, time is real and functional in our dimension. In the eternal dimension, though, you don't have that progression of non-existence, existence and then non-existence again. You just 'exist.'

Your mind has a link to your spirit person, to some extent, and your mind can learn and grow. Being that it's linked to your spirit person in eternity, your mind will perceive time as functional in the physical world, but nonexistent in the eternal dimension. You're believe that time doesn't exist is simply your mind's perception of your spirit person's existence in eternity.

That's my 2 cents, anyway... I'm no quantum physicist...but I am a thinker! :p

[FSON]

Our spirit person is in eternity. Life in eternity means connected to God, the giver of life. Death in eternity means separation from God. So, the question is, is our eternal spirit person connected to God in eternity, or disconnected from Him?

Now, our mind and body are trapped in time. You can view time as if it does not exist, but the fact that our bodies are born, grow, deteriorate and then die means that the body "ages." But our spirit person is different and does not age.

Eternity is existence. You simply "are" in eternity, and you never cease to " be." But, on this earth you will not exist, then you will be born, and you will exist, and then you will die at which point you will no longer exist. Therefore, time is real and functional in our dimension. In the eternal dimension, though, you don't have that progression of non-existence, existence and then non-existence again. You just 'exist.'

Your mind has a link to your spirit person, to some extent, and your mind can learn and grow. Being that it's linked to your spirit person in eternity, your mind will perceive time as functional in the physical world, but nonexistent in the eternal dimension. You're believe that time doesn't exist is simply your mind's perception of your spirit person's existence in eternity.

That's my 2 cents, anyway... I'm no quantum physicist...but I am a thinker! :p
You are a thinker in the realm of "Classical" thought, nothing wrong with that.

[Brain_Mach1]

Eternity relies on time which is a man made construct.The measurement of time is a construct, but time is real. It is a dimension. Two separate objects cannot occupy the same space and time.

[FSON]

The measurement of time is a construct, but time is real. It is a dimension. Two separate objects cannot occupy the same space and time.
Nothing physical in this realm is real, including time.

[Mr Majestyk]

So if nothing physical in this realm is real, explain the perceptable, quantifyable, and sometimes predictable, effects one entity can exert on another.

[FSON]

So if nothing physical in this realm is real, explain the perceptable, quantifyable, and sometimes predictable, effects one entity can exert on another.

Integrity is seen to be relational and not hermetic.

[exlude]

What is the foundation of time?
Can time exist solely by itself? If it can, it has a foundation. If it can't, there is something else that it relies upon for it's existence.

I wonder what Quantum theory and some Eastern and American Indian cultures have to say outside the "Classical" Eurocentric linear time theory.

The ideas that time is linear/cyclical/etc. is solely part of trying to quantify time, that is, the man made aspect of time: it's measurement.

However, time can/does exist by itself. It's an interdimensional aspect of our universe and something's movement through time is, theoretically, directly related to its movement through the other "physical" dimensions. As I said, gravity may even affect time.

As for it's "foundation", I'm not sure what you mean. What is mass' foundation? What is gravity's foundation? Or are you trying to infer that they are all founded in a god? Nevertheless, still not man-made.

Or if you're trying to say it's all just "perception" and nothing is real, then you're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms but is really irrelevant to discuss. However, it would be unlikely that all beings would perceive things such as time, gravity, mass the same way if they were not "real".

[Mr Majestyk]

Integrity is seen to be relational and not hermetic.

Mass and energy are not hermetic?

E=mc2

[Brain_Mach1]

Nothing physical in this realm is real, including time.
Um, no.

Knowledge comes from the senses, unless you follow Descartes who viewed the world from his mind outwards. Time can be sensed. The effects are obvious. We have knowledge of time. Time is real.

Physical items are real. I don't even know what the above was supposed to mean. This goes back to Aristitle and his ideas about substance, form, potential, etc. Modern science is based on physical items being real.

[flashstang04]

Um, no.

Knowledge comes from the senses, unless you follow Descartes who viewed the world from his mind outwards. Time can be sensed. The effects are obvious. We have knowledge of time. Time is real.

Physical items are real. I don't even know what the above was supposed to mean. This goes back to Aristitle and his ideas about substance, form, potential, etc. Modern science is based on physical items being real.


That is true...and here is the kicker..All things that are physical..at the center of all their molecules..are empty!!! Our whole physical world is made up of empty space!..Not to mention what holds all of the molecules together, which btw, is another thing that we cannot explain.

That is a little off subject, but is interesting.

Time, the physical world, and how they affect each other are very measurable. As long as we are on this plane..it is very real. Eternal is always, but can still have a beginning if the author of the creation is God.

[BrianC]

Um, no.

Knowledge comes from the senses, unless you follow Descartes who viewed the world from his mind outwards. Time can be sensed. The effects are obvious. We have knowledge of time. Time is real.

Physical items are real. I don't even know what the above was supposed to mean. This goes back to Aristitle and his ideas about substance, form, potential, etc. Modern science is based on physical items being real.

[backing up what you're saying, not refuting it...]
Animals, plants and humans all age. Rocks weather and erode. Things change. All are evidences of time.

Time is denoted by how quickly everything spins or revolves. On a cellular level, we have atoms that have orbited protons. On a universal level, we have planets orbiting stars, and we have an entire universe that spins around its own center. In other words, all galaxies are in an orbital pattern around the universe center. It just so happens that our solar system is right at the center of that orbit.

If you were to speed up the universe, it would speed up time, because it would reduce the time it takes us to get around the sun, and the speed at which our earth spins, because everything in the universe would spin faster. Time is very much about revolutions/circles....continuous circles.

And what is the physical representation of eternity. A circle that has no beginning and no end. Funny that the mechanism of time in the physical realm is the representation of the absense of time in the spiritual realm of eternity.

If you take time out of the equation, your spirit and mind simply learn and grow, and you figure out that the purpose of being on this earth, aside from loving God with all your mind, soul and strength is to learn from God so that your mind matures into what He wants to make you as a Child of God.

[BrianC]

The ideas that time is linear/cyclical/etc. is solely part of trying to quantify time, that is, the man made aspect of time: it's measurement.

However, time can/does exist by itself. It's an interdimensional aspect of our universe and something's movement through time is, theoretically, directly related to its movement through the other "physical" dimensions. As I said, gravity may even affect time.

As for it's "foundation", I'm not sure what you mean. What is mass' foundation? What is gravity's foundation? Or are you trying to infer that they are all founded in a god? Nevertheless, still not man-made.

Or if you're trying to say it's all just "perception" and nothing is real, then you're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms but is really irrelevant to discuss. However, it would be unlikely that all beings would perceive things such as time, gravity, mass the same way if they were not "real".

Science claims that space and time are interwoven. And they also claim they have stretched space, which accelorates time within that space. So, let's say you stretch the space around a planet, supposedly it would speed time for that planet causing aging. I haven't a CLUE if this is actually true or not. Just some stuff I read about one time. Could be completely false though. It's a widely help theory, though, so who knows? I'd like to see someone prove that one. Because in the Bible it says many times that God stretched the heavens with his wisdom. I wonder if He hung the stars outside our solar system then stretched the universe out, causing the age we think starts have. However, I think it's simply the time scientists assume light took to travel to earth from those stars where they get the age of stars as being old. Can't remember off hand right now. Interesting theory, though...

[BrianC]

Nothing physical in this realm is real, including time.

OK, I may as well skip your posts from now on, because you've just abandoned all logic and are just trying to throw out crazy theory now to distract from the actual topic at hand.