What's More Logical & Scientific? - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 07:44 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
What's More Logical & Scientific?

Science has never observed anything appearing from nothing, created out of thin air. Therefore, to say such a thing occured would clearly be illogical and unscientific in nature. Pure irrationality. Science has, however, witnessed people creating things from what they already have. That is observable.

"I think therefore I am" means that I exist because if I did not exist, I could not think. If something exists, it must have had a point at which it was created. Therefore, we know everything was created at some point. Scientists go back as far as the Big Bang, but they'll never follow logic back any further than that and postulate what created the matter of the Big Bang, because they cannot prove it since no one was there to see it firsthand.

Here is my question:

From where did the first matter in existence come? There are only two options:

1 - The matter magically appeared out of nowhere with nothing to created it.

or

2 - An eternal source, having always existed, transferred some of its power into creating the matter of the Big Bang.

To simplify:

1 - Something (the matter of the Big Bang) came from nothing.

or

2 - Something or someone created something else (the matter of the Big Bang).

Which is more logical and scientific?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 07:55 AM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
I only read your first sentence; I'm headed out the door.

r
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Science has never observed anything appearing from nothing, created out of thin air.
Go read on quantum mechanics. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence all the time.


"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment. "

To summarise, due to the uncertainty principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they dissapear again"


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #3 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 08:09 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I only read your first sentence; I'm headed out the door.

r

Go read on quantum mechanics. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence all the time.


"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment. "

To summarise, due to the uncertainty principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they dissapear again"
Sorry, but your article's writer is mistaken. The particles are not popping in and out of existence. The particles are popping in and out of this physical realm and into another realm. They never cease to exist - they simply move from one realm to another. This is how the spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm. They are connected.

Remember when I said which makes more sense, someone transferred their energy into matter to create this universe? Well, I am of the opinion that a Creator transferred energy from Himself to create both physical and spiritual realms at the same time, made to co-exist, both interconnected, affecting one another.

Just to give some imagery: Imagine a bucket of oil. Now, take a rock and drop it in the bucket of oil. You can see the rock as long as it's above the oil barrier. Once the rock drops into the oil, it cannot be seen until thinging brings it back up out of the oil. That's what you're seeing when you see those particles come out of seemingly nowhere. You're seeing the rock immerge from the oil, figuratively speaking.

Keep in mind, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that matter, nor the energy equivalent, can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus, there is no other possibility other than the scientist writing the article is witnessing particles coming in and out of another dimension (the spiritual realm, in my opinion).

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Last edited by BrianC; 06-05-2010 at 11:52 AM.
BrianC is offline  
 
post #4 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 06:13 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Sorry, but your article's writer is mistaken. The particles are not popping in and out of existence. The particles are popping in and out of this physical realm and into another realm. They never cease to exist - they simply move from one realm to another. This is how the spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm. They are connected.

Remember when I said which makes more sense, someone transferred their energy into matter to create this universe? Well, I am of the opinion that a Creator transferred energy from Himself to create both physical and spiritual realms at the same time, made to co-exist, both interconnected, affecting one another.

Just to give some imagery: Imagine a bucket of oil. Now, take a rock and drop it in the bucket of oil. You can see the rock as long as it's above the oil barrier. Once the rock drops into the oil, it cannot be seen until thinging brings it back up out of the oil. That's what you're seeing when you see those particles come out of seemingly nowhere. You're seeing the rock immerge from the oil, figuratively speaking.

Keep in mind, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that matter, nor the energy equivalent, can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus, there is no other possibility other than the scientist writing the article is witnessing particles coming in and out of another dimension (the spiritual realm, in my opinion).
Come on dude, you're better than that. "Sorry, that's wrong. Here is the truth" with no more evidence than "because I say so." ?

I'm not going to go into a super-deep philosophical/religious debate because I have my beliefs and opinions and you won't change them. But I will discuss (discuss, not debate endlessly) some of the more tangible aspects. Do me a favor though... try to use fact and "science" (dirty word?) and not just bucket-of-water metaphors. I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying, I just think you need to have some more meat in it.

Your "other realm" postulate is actually similar to the concept of a multiverse (M-Theory). In it, some have hypothesized that the Big Bang was actually a collision between our [mem]brane and another. By the laws of physics, there did not have to be "matter" in the beginning of our universe. All you need is energy (imparted from a collision?); mass will be a by product (E=mc^2 works both ways). Yeah, yeah, what/who created the multiverse, blah blah, you'll go on forever.

Sidebar: Actually, after the big bang the universe was too hot (energetic) for even light to exist. The universe was dark. That is, until it cooled enough (to 3000 Kelvin). Before then there was just a mix of photons and electrons in such a state of chaos that the photons (light) was literally trapped in the mass of the universe. When the temp dropped below 3000K (where photon energy is ~1 electron volt) the electrons in the mess were of sufficiently low energy to be able to bind into stable orbits around hydrogen and helium. No free electrons = photons free to travel. (Let there be light!... in the electromagnetic sense at least. Or maybe "And God separated between the light and the darkness"?)

Anyway, in this theory there are also 11 dimensions, one (or more) of which are interacting with the gravitational force in the 4 dimensions we cognizant of; basically, gravity is 'leaking' to one of these dimensions which explains its incredible weakness when compared to the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces.

As for this, though:
Quote:
Keep in mind, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that matter, nor the energy equivalent, can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus, there is no other possibility other than the scientist writing the article is witnessing particles coming in and out of another dimension (the spiritual realm, in my opinion)
Virtual particles actually do not violate any laws of thermodynamics. I suggest some light reading on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and perturbation theory. While I won't pretend to grasp all of it, the brightest minds in the world assure us "there's nothing to see here"


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #5 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 08:49 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Some food for thought:

What if I were to state that the universe formed from a state of zero energy; that all positive energy is offset by negative energy for a net of zero?

Quote:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

(Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, 129)
Quote:
"There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all."

(Davies, 1983. God and the New Physics., 31-32)

So:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
1 - Something (the matter of the Big Bang) came from nothing.

or

2 - Something or someone created something else (the matter of the Big Bang).

Which is more logical and scientific?
Well, based purely on the above quotes I would say the "proven field of quantum mechanics allows for purely random, and without energy input, creation" choice is a bit more scientific than "someone just put it there."
But more logical? Well, you might as well ask which one you have more faith in (Ahhh, that magical word). Because in the end neither you nor I, nor anyone else, can prove anything.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-05-2010 at 09:00 PM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #6 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 10:20 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Come on dude, you're better than that. "Sorry, that's wrong. Here is the truth" with no more evidence than "because I say so." ?
What I said was, the guy is not fully understanding what he's seeing. He's only seeing one side of something. He's only seeing what's happening in our dimension when the particle comes into it and goes out of it. He cannot see what's happening to that particle as it appears to stop existing. He can only observe it from our perspective.

Quote:
I'm not going to go into a super-deep philosophical/religious debate because I have my beliefs and opinions and you won't change them. But I will discuss (discuss, not debate endlessly) some of the more tangible aspects. Do me a favor though... try to use fact and "science" (dirty word?) and not just bucket-of-water metaphors. I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying, I just think you need to have some more meat in it.
I stick strictly to the science. In these types of discussions, the only time I go into something that is not scientific is when I am discussing the origin of the creation. That's it. The rest is strictly science.

I cannot give you more "meat" because we cannot observe the other realm from which the particles are coming from. All we can do is see this realm and the particles as they pop into our realm. And scientists can merely theorize about that. They cannot know what's actually going on from what they're seeing until they see where those particles are actually going when they disappear. Particle physics and theory is very "out there". Our knowledge is limited and our understanding is pretty minimal right now. The theories are just that: theories. We have no way, as of yet, to really proof any of them. So, when it comes to theories like that, best not to invest too much into them since they are theories. Best to stick with what can be proven.


Quote:
Your "other realm" postulate is actually similar to the concept of a multiverse (M-Theory). In it, some have hypothesized that the Big Bang was actually a collision between our [mem]brane and another. By the laws of physics, there did not have to be "matter" in the beginning of our universe. All you need is energy (imparted from a collision?); mass will be a by product (E=mc^2 works both ways). Yeah, yeah, what/who created the multiverse, blah blah, you'll go on forever.
You'll only go on forever until you reason that there must be an original eternal source. That's what you, I'm guessing, won't do?

And as for theories, again... if they cannot be proven, best to leave them alone.

Quote:
Sidebar: Actually, after the big bang the universe was too hot (energetic) for even light to exist. The universe was dark. That is, until it cooled enough (to 3000 Kelvin). Before then there was just a mix of photons and electrons in such a state of chaos that the photons (light) was literally trapped in the mass of the universe. When the temp dropped below 3000K (where photon energy is ~1 electron volt) the electrons in the mess were of sufficiently low energy to be able to bind into stable orbits around hydrogen and helium. No free electrons = photons free to travel. (Let there be light!... in the electromagnetic sense at least. Or maybe "And God separated between the light and the darkness"?)
Again... all of that is just gibberish. lol It's theory. We haven't a clue what actually happened during the Big Bang. All we can do is theorize from what we have observed at a distance in the point at which we believe the singularity was. Since no one observed what happened back then, we can only theorize, and wow, we can be WAY off so incredibly easily.

Quote:
Anyway, in this theory there are also 11 dimensions, one (or more) of which are interacting with the gravitational force in the 4 dimensions we cognizant of; basically, gravity is 'leaking' to one of these dimensions which explains its incredible weakness when compared to the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces.
Yeah, I know the multiverse theory. Where they get these ideas from I'll never know. lol I mean... how did they come up with 11 dimensions?? I think I saw an explanation for that one day, and they were calling smaller particles a different dimension, incorrectly so. Has to do with string theory. Again, all theoretical, so it's totally useless information. lol

Quote:
As for this, though:

Virtual particles actually do not violate any laws of thermodynamics. I suggest some light reading on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and perturbation theory. While I won't pretend to grasp all of it, the brightest minds in the world assure us "there's nothing to see here"
I'm sorry, but if they are claiming a particle is coming into existence, then it is violating the law of conservation of mass and energy. HOWEVER, I don't believe it's violating that law because it's switching dimensions, in my theory, anyway. In their theory, though, it's coming into existence, and thus, violating the law, no matter how they try to explain it away.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #7 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 10:36 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Some food for thought:

What if I were to state that the universe formed from a state of zero energy; that all positive energy is offset by negative energy for a net of zero?
Assuming that were possible, I'd say that order cannot come from chaos. But, again, we're sitting in the realm of theory and that proves nothing. We're dancing around pointlessness, really.


Quote:
Well, based purely on the above quotes I would say the "proven field of quantum mechanics allows for purely random, and without energy input, creation" choice is a bit more scientific than "someone just put it there."
But more logical? Well, you might as well ask which one you have more faith in (Ahhh, that magical word). Because in the end neither you nor I, nor anyone else, can prove anything.
Exactly - in the end, when it comes to the origin of creation, none of us can prove HOW it happened. But when it comes to proving that there must be someone who created everything, we can know for certain that there was someone or something which created.

The theory you posted which theorized that the universe could just simply come into existence without a source is still completely absurd. lol Again, is something exists, it was created, and if it was created, something HAD to have created it. Period. There is no way around that. They can twist the theories and science all they want, but the fact is, something has to create the particles coming in. They do not create themselves.

And I am still of the opinion that the particles are simply coming from another dimension. That makes the most logical sense.

It is not my goal to change your beliefs. My goal is to challenge people to truly consider things and reason them out and research them for themselves.

You research, which is good... but your research seems to be in theories. Theories are an enless sespool of idiocy, though. lol They are constantly proven wrong and mislead tons of scientists whom should be concerned about facts, not theories.

I stick with things we can prove for certain. The only time I go into theory is when it is in regard to creation and how things got to be the way they are now. For instance, check out this video:

http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov

It's hydroplate theory. Makes way more sense as to how the plates got to where they are now. That type of theory, I'm okay with, because we have a lot of observable facts we can use, and things fit very well. It's different with astrophysics and their theories. I stick with more tangible stuff.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #8 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 10:45 PM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post

http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov

It's hydroplate theory. Makes way more sense as to how the plates got to where they are now. That type of theory, I'm okay with, because we have a lot of observable facts we can use, and things fit very well. It's different with astrophysics and their theories. I stick with more tangible stuff.
This is one of the most geologically retarded theories in the history of mankind.



.02
SlowLX is offline  
post #9 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 10:55 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
This is one of the most geologically retarded theories in the history of mankind.



.02
That's funny, because it actually solves a ton of problems that tectonic plate theory can't solve. I think you just don't understand how it works. It makes total sense as to how the world managed to get the way it is today.

Think about it... what would the evidence be if there were a worldwide flood? There would be millions of dead things, buried in layers of sediments, all over the world. Why? Because standing flood waters lay down layers of sediments, and things die, sink and are caught in those layers. When the water flows back into the earth, the objects fossilize. Very simple.

That's why we find some skeletons going through multiple layers of the geologic column. That's millions of years of layers, supposed, according to theory, and yet a skeleton not only died and was partially buried. The skeleton managed not to decompose for a few million years till it was completely buried and fossilized. LOL That's absurd. You leave a skeleton on the ground, and over time, it will fully turn to dust. It doesn't sit there for millions of years waiting to be fully buried so it can fossilize. Millions of years is about the most unscientific, illogical, irrational theory I've ever heard.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #10 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 11:33 PM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
As far as your polystrate fossil hypothesis... most creationist science would have you believe there are only 3 options available for how they got where they are...
1) These tree's stood upright for MILLIONS of MILLIONS of years
2) They grew through hundreds of feet of rock
3) That they were deposited by a massive flood

IF these are the only options you present your audience in an evangelical way no shit they're gunna assume option 3 is the most logical.
Let's cover option 4 which is always left out because it makes way more sense than a world wide flood.

We can see tree's in swamps all across America gather feet upon feet of sediment in just a few years, and we know that there are trees in these swamps that are even thousands of years old and still growing. At face value, especially to a creation "scientist" this would seem to disprove evolution because we know that all "geologist" say layers of rock have to take MILLIONS of years to be laid down.....unless of course you actually crack open a geology book we can look at most of these sedimentary layers and see that they were all deposited very rapidly in old flood zones. As a matter of fact, the reason geology all together ignores your dumbasses when you bring this subject up is because it was solved over a hundred years ago by JW Dawson. If you want to look at a recent experience that completely debunks your retarded ass, look at Mt St Helen's there was a literal LAKE of "polystrate" fossils created by feet upon feet of ash that are going to create similar scenes thousands of years from now that we have in eastern US and scotland where most of these supposed evolution debunkers of yours are found.

Now on your hydroplate bs

How about the fact that for one if all that water was trapped 10 miles under the surface of the earth, when it "ruptured" through it would have been steam and not water subsequently frying the earth

Now if we "assume" that in some unfounded awesome miraculous way that this water did come up as steam we would expect all this sedimentation to appear on the mid atlantic ridge where new ocean crust is still being formed....is there such evidence? No, the only rock we fucking find is volcanic rock...and do you know why? Because it's cooled magma.

Hydroplate theorists are some of the biggest nutbags on earth, it requires way more magical bullshit to happen for that theory to work over say....Plate tectonics.
SlowLX is offline  
post #11 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-05-2010, 11:56 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
I stick strictly to the science. In these types of discussions, the only time I go into something that is not scientific is when I am discussing the origin of the creation. That's it. The rest is strictly science.

I cannot give you more "meat" because we cannot observe the other realm from which the particles are coming from. All we can do is see this realm and the particles as they pop into our realm. And scientists can merely theorize about that. They cannot know what's actually going on from what they're seeing until they see where those particles are actually going when they disappear. Particle physics and theory is very "out there". Our knowledge is limited and our understanding is pretty minimal right now.
"I stick strictly to the science"
"... the other realm from which the particles are coming from."
Your theory is just as "out there" so I'm going to discount it accordingly.


Quote:
The theories are just that: theories. We have no way, as of yet, to really proof any of them. So, when it comes to theories like that, best not to invest too much into them since they are theories. Best to stick with what can be proven.
Replace "theory" with "religion" there.
We have no way, as of yet, to really prove religion. When it comes to theories like that, best not invest too much into them since they are theories. Best stick to what can be proven.
Hi pot, I'm kettle... my dog ate my proof.


Quote:
You'll only go on forever until you reason that there must be an original eternal source. That's what you, I'm guessing, won't do?
I'll go on and on... but it will bring me back to the same spot.


Quote:
Again... all of that is just gibberish. lol It's theory. We haven't a clue what actually happened during the Big Bang. All we can do is theorize from what we have observed at a distance in the point at which we believe the singularity was. Since no one observed what happened back then, we can only theorize, and wow, we can be WAY off so incredibly easily.
Gibberish? Maybe you're refering to Planck Time, so we'll ignore the first 10^-43 second (the smallest meaningful measure of time). The rest of this can be recreated in particle accelerators. The cooling period that followed and led to the reaching of this 3000K threshold was ~300,000 years... *pause*
Are you a creationist? Did that whole sentence blow right by you because it's on a scale larger than 6500 yrs?


Quote:
Yeah, I know the multiverse theory. Where they get these ideas from I'll never know. lol I mean... how did they come up with 11 dimensions?? I think I saw an explanation for that one day, and they were calling smaller particles a different dimension, incorrectly so. Has to do with string theory. Again, all theoretical, so it's totally useless information. lol
So... M-theory = bunk
BrianC's particle-dimensional-switching theory = solid

I enjoy your "incorrectly so" commentary, btw. I look forward to reading your published research.

BTW, how did you come up with your other dimensions... err, realms?


Quote:
I'm sorry, but if they are claiming a particle is coming into existence, then it is violating the law of conservation of mass and energy. HOWEVER, I don't believe it's violating that law because it's switching dimensions, in my theory, anyway. In their theory, though, it's coming into existence, and thus, violating the law, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I realize that beliefs are beliefs and everyone's are just a bit different but to steadfastly state that everyone else is wrong because you have your own baseless theory is asinine. Baseless is the keyword there.
Here's is a 3700 word explanation of virtual particles: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ...particles.html Compare that to your two words and you can see why i'm a bit skeptical.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Assuming that were possible, I'd say that order cannot come from chaos. But, again, we're sitting in the realm of theory and that proves nothing. We're dancing around pointlessness, really.
Based on your first post, it seems that you do believe that the big bang happened, you're just questioning the catalyst.
But here you state that order can not come from chaos. In the entropic sense, sure. But you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with the notion that life is quite orderly in comparison said bang.


Quote:
Exactly - in the end, when it comes to the origin of creation, none of us can prove HOW it happened. But when it comes to proving that there must be someone who created everything, we can know for certain that there was someone or something which created.
If we are so accepting all of the mysteries of God, religion, the universe, etc that are just plain unexplainable, why is it so important that there be a beginning to everything. Why can everything not have existed forever and continue to exist forever? Is it because the human mind simply can't comprehend such concepts? Why MUST there be a start and how are you CERTAIN? (your words).


Quote:
The theory you posted which theorized that the universe could just simply come into existence without a source is still completely absurd. lol Again, is something exists, it was created, and if it was created, something HAD to have created it. Period. There is no way around that. They can twist the theories and science all they want, but the fact is, something has to create the particles coming in. They do not create themselves.
Replace "universe" with God.
The theory that God could just simply come into existence without a source is completely absurd. lol Again, if something exists, it was created, and if it was created, something HAD to have created it. Period. There is no way around that.

Since we're CERTAIN that everything MUST have a source, dare I ask where God came from?


Quote:
You research, which is good... but your research seems to be in theories. Theories are an enless sespool of idiocy, though. lol They are constantly proven wrong and mislead tons of scientists whom should be concerned about facts, not theories.
Again, you have no physical proof either. Maybe we should revisit when one of us can switch to 'theorem'?

Quote:
I stick with things we can prove for certain. The only time I go into theory is when
... is when you talk about particles coming from other realms, but at the same time discard the one of the most all-encompassing scientific theories that would allow for this?


Quote:
It's hydroplate theory.
That's a subject for a whole other thread.




For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and while I would not call myself a practitioner at the moment, I am a believer... but I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-06-2010 at 12:46 AM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #12 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 07:23 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
As far as your polystrate fossil hypothesis... most creationist science would have you believe there are only 3 options available for how they got where they are...
1) These tree's stood upright for MILLIONS of MILLIONS of years
2) They grew through hundreds of feet of rock
3) That they were deposited by a massive flood

IF these are the only options you present your audience in an evangelical way no shit they're gunna assume option 3 is the most logical.
Let's cover option 4 which is always left out because it makes way more sense than a world wide flood.

We can see tree's in swamps all across America gather feet upon feet of sediment in just a few years, and we know that there are trees in these swamps that are even thousands of years old and still growing. At face value, especially to a creation "scientist" this would seem to disprove evolution because we know that all "geologist" say layers of rock have to take MILLIONS of years to be laid down.....unless of course you actually crack open a geology book we can look at most of these sedimentary layers and see that they were all deposited very rapidly in old flood zones. As a matter of fact, the reason geology all together ignores your dumbasses when you bring this subject up is because it was solved over a hundred years ago by JW Dawson. If you want to look at a recent experience that completely debunks your retarded ass, look at Mt St Helen's there was a literal LAKE of "polystrate" fossils created by feet upon feet of ash that are going to create similar scenes thousands of years from now that we have in eastern US and scotland where most of these supposed evolution debunkers of yours are found.
I have been very respectful and yet you come in here and are very rude to me for no reason at all.

First, I'll correct your assumptions spoken in ignorance of the truth. Creation scientists actually use all of the facts you said they misinterpret in order to support their theory. That is why it is so amusing that your "cleverness" just caused you to set yourself up to look absolutely stupid. If you had been more civil, you may not have looked like such an idiot. You'll see why in a sec:

Creationists use Mt. Saint Helens to show that layers are laid down very quickly in most cases, but only due to things like Volcanic erruptions and standing flood waters. This proves that what appears to be thousands or millions of years of layers can be laid down in just a few weeks. Mt. Saint Helens laid down the equivalent of 360,000 years worth of layers in two weeks in lake bottoms (i.e. - standing water, which apart from lakes and ponds, only occurs with massive floods which do not drain away for quite a long time, and that is rare).

In Swamps, Creation Scientists are not stupid enough to use the mud piling up against tree bottoms as proof for anything at all, because anyone with half a brain knows that the sediments are not going to cover the entire tree. lol And yet you said JW Dawson has explained how this apparently proves how trees could be buried in flood plains? LOL That's freakin' hilarious! So, what you're saying is, JW Dawson says there were floods which would not only cover tree tops (which I could buy that in some places), but also which deposited enough mud to cover all of the tree tops (that part is just absurd!). lol And because we see exactly the same types of layers worldwide, not just in flood plains, shows the guy's theory to be just downright sad. Unless there were a worldwide flood, we would not get all of those layers everywhere worldwide like that.

The evidence of a worldwide flood is millions of dead things, buried in sediment layers, all over the earth. And that's exactly what we see. Please, if you're going to insult creationists, learn more about what they actually teach and use rather than just claiming random stuff with nothing to back it up, because what you said about what they teach is completely untrue.


Quote:
Now on your hydroplate bs

How about the fact that for one if all that water was trapped 10 miles under the surface of the earth, when it "ruptured" through it would have been steam and not water subsequently frying the earth
Incorrect. Water under pressure does not turn into steam. Ever watched what happens when a radiator cap is pulled off early after an overheat? The water spews out as a liquid and cools exceptionally quickly, while in the air, and does not turn to steam. The steam only comes after the initial water is spewed out and the remaining water boils in the radiator. The water spewing up through the crust would've cooled exceptionally quickly as it went into the air, especially since the atmosphere in the upper layers is super cold.

You just do not have a very scientific mind, boy. lol

Quote:
Now if we "assume" that in some unfounded awesome miraculous way that this water did come up as steam we would expect all this sedimentation to appear on the mid atlantic ridge where new ocean crust is still being formed....is there such evidence? No, the only rock we fucking find is volcanic rock...and do you know why? Because it's cooled magma.

Hydroplate theorists are some of the biggest nutbags on earth, it requires way more magical bullshit to happen for that theory to work over say....Plate tectonics.
Incorrect, yet again, scienceboy. lol You said assuming the water DID come up as steam, which makes no sense as I just explained earlier, so that's just a moot point.

If what you meant to say is that the water came up as water, not steam, then it would have, as stated, gone up around 20 miles in the air because it was under the pressure of the entire crust pushing down on it. That kind of pressure would eat the crust away as it was spewing out, and shoot the crust's sediments into the air. That would cause the places where the water spewed out to be thinner than the rest of the crust, so when those thinner parts settled on the mantle, they would have dropped lower, and parallel to the soon to be oceans, you'd have mountains popping up, because the crust would have to break for the thinner parts to settle down on the mantle. As the water fell back to the earth, it would begin covering the earth, and those sediments would start to settle as the waters got higher. As the waters continued rushing out for a long time, more than a mile worth of water covered the surface (secular scientists confirm that if all water were above the crust, it would be just over a mile worth of water).

Sometime, while the water was rushing out, the thinner parts of the crust broke, like I was saying above, and now the diameter of the crust must fit on the mantle. So, naturally, as it brakes, it has to push up under the part which just broke upward. So, as the crust settled down onto the smaller diameter (circumfrence) mantle, you get breaks causing mountains.

In the next post, I'll explain another way we know this happened...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #13 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 08:30 AM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Matt, you are one smart mofo.
talisman is offline  
post #14 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 09:00 AM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
1) If your theory on polystrate fossils is right we would find these things uniformly covering the entire earth. The fact that most of these are only found near old sites of volcanic activity and swamps in about 8 distinct parts of the world doesn't do good enough. Find me a shitload of your evolution debunkers our in west Texas or Nebraska.

2) The layout of fossils around the world absolutely does not support your theory on so many levels.
- If every animal that wasn't on the ark went extinct at one time, the heaviest most dense animals such as whales, mammoths,....dinosaurs would have sunk to the bottom while smaller life like trilobites and small reptiles would be found near the top. Is that how they're found?

- You're fossils would be more evenly distributed. Did all the small life die off first, followed by the dinosaurs, followed by ice age mammals all in one convenient 40 day schedule. I'm sure the mammoths were willing to swim around with all the heathens for about 3 weeks while all the helpless dinosaurs took a nosedive. Knowing how fragile and physically inferior to most of the animals in history we as humans are it doesn't make sense that all these men were able to escape a violent world wide flood longer than some of the earths best known sea and land life, such as prehistoric birds. The fact is with fossil records we have defined time frames for life


- The marsupial population of Australia contains animals found nowhere else on earth - not even in fossil form. Are we to suppose that those marsupials managed to travel from the landing place of Noah's ark to Australia? What a long perilous post-Flood journey. I guess God guided them. But you don't hear about that miracle in the Bible. Why not? It's at least as good as the story about God herding the Israelites through the desert, only these marsupials were herded through a denuded post-Flood earth undergoing cataclysms galore. This menagerie of wombats and koalas, bandicoots and kangaroos had to keep ahead of lions, tigers, and other predators all the way to Indonesia, and then although the superior mammals could not manage it - reach the continent of Australia. If this isn't bad enough, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form a perfect union, able to fill all the ecological jobs needed So, we have marsupial moles, ant-eaters, mice, grazers, carnivores, etc. - not one of which can be found anywhere else in the world. If this highly diversified marsupial population evolved from one or a few primitive generalized marsupials that reached Australia millions of years before it separated from Indonesia, then this peculiar situation is understandable. But if all these creatures had to journey from Turkey to Australia as an ensemble, it is incredible

Last edited by SlowLX; 06-06-2010 at 09:16 AM.
SlowLX is offline  
post #15 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 09:55 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
As far as your polystrate fossil hypothesis...
Every human, plant and animal has an interal rhythm called the Circadian Rhythm. This was first discovered in the 1700s by the French scientist Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan. Light restarts the circadian rhythm over each day, and so de Mairan placed things in complete darkness for extended periods of time in order to get their circadian rhythm to reset to default.

Plants, animals and humans all have a 24 hour and 21 minute circadian rhythm (body clock). In a human, you simply track when your body does its cycle to test each organ. So, every 24 hours and 21 minutes, the same organ would be tested by the body.

So, how is this significant? Well, the default circadian rhythm should be the same length of a day in which humans, plants and animals originated. That being the case, we'd need to see how many days there would be in a year if days were 21 minutes longer.

(keep in mind, no one lead me through this process or connected these dots for me. I just put things together on my own. I simply realized that a 360 day calendar would mean longer days, and when I learned of the circadian rhythm is longer than a 24 hour period, I realized that it is very likely that the human body might have originated in a world with 360 days a year. So I did the math...)

Here's how you do the math: You take 365.24 days for a year and you multiply that by 24 hours. So your total hours will be 8765.76. Then you divide that by 360 and you get 24.35. We need to turn the .35 into minutes so we know how many minutes that is in an hour. Multiply .35 x 60 minutes and you get 21 minutes. So, 24 hours and 21 minutes is the lenght of a day if the world is spinning slightly slower then it is now as it goes around the Sun, exactly the length of our circadian rhythm.

Think back to seeing an ice skater spin in circles. When she pulls her arms in, she spins faster. Thus, bringing mass in closer to the center causes a faster spin.

Now, remember what I told you about the water being under the crust, just as the Bible describes it in Genesis. If that were the case, the circumfrence of the earth would be larger due to the water taking up probably a mile or two between the mantle and crust. Water obviously doesn't weight nearly as much as stone. So, as the water comes out of the crust, just like the Bible said it did in Genesis 6, the crust comes in closer to the center of the earth, meaning the mass shifted toward the center like when an ice skater pulls her arms toward her body to spin faster. Thus, the earth's rotation would pick up speed. That means a day would be shorter - 21 minutes shorter, to be exact. Which means the earth would now spin eactly 5.24 days faster per year from that point on. Which means a 360 day calendar were no longer work. Only a 365.24 day calendar would work to track the year properly. It took around 2200 years after the flood for mankind to finally change over to a 365.24 day solar calendar from the 360 day calendar, because they were just adding in a month, every few years, to compensate for the days gained each year.

If this is not what happened, then it is an awful big coincidence that our body clocks and the calendars and the flood all fits together perfectly. The odds of this being strictly coincidence are astronomically high. You may think the theory is ridiculous, but the evidences and the math show otherwise.

Besides, this conversation was not meant to be about this stuff. I posted that link just to show another theory which is far better than any other theory out there.

Oh, and, uhhhh... the reason there's volcanic rock down there now is because the earth is, well, spitting up lava that cools down there. Everyone knows that. That doesn't conflict with the hydroplate theory at all. The hydroplate theory supports that. No offense intended, but your arguments were really illogical.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:15 AM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Where the fuck did you go to college, the basement of Jim Jone's summer house?
SlowLX is offline  
post #17 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:18 AM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
but your arguments were really illogical.
That's rich, because it's not like we can't track the spread of magma coming out of the Atlantic ridge and use this thing you were never taught called math to track how long it's been going on. Wanna take a guess on the time frame? I'll give you a hint, it's not 6500 years.
SlowLX is offline  
post #18 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:29 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
"I stick strictly to the science"
"... the other realm from which the particles are coming from."
Your theory is just as "out there" so I'm going to discount it accordingly.
Exactly. It's theory. Just as your theories are "out there" and so I discount them accordingly. Glad we agree on something. You are the one which brought up particle theory and so I played along and threw up theories as well. I'd much rather go to the science. Everything you posted was all about "out there" theories, and yet you make it like I am the one that started that. lol


Quote:
Replace "theory" with "religion" there.
We have no way, as of yet, to really prove religion. When it comes to theories like that, best not invest too much into them since they are theories. Best stick to what can be proven.
Hi pot, I'm kettle... my dog ate my proof.
Oh, really? I admitted that I was talking about theory, and that we cannot prove theories. The best we can do is see what the evidence points to. And so I said I stick to the science.

No, creation theory is just that - theory built off the same evidence your evolutionists go off of.

Go to www.creationscience.com. You can read an entire textbook style explanation of the evidences used to support creation model & theory. The author of that book there states at the beginning that he uses ONLY data from SECULAR scientists so that no one can accuse the scientific findings to be biased!

Every single evidence that evolution scientists use to support their theory, the creation scientists use EXACTLY the same evidences, but they have a far better interpretation for how they got to be the way they are.

Creation Theory & Model are 99.999999999% science. The .000000001% that is not is, "In the beginning, God created...". That's it. All creation scientists are doing differently than regular scientists is they're going one step further and theorizing on WHAT created all matter. That's it! Once matter is created, they're going off of the same evidences secular scientists go off of to create their theory.

So you can drop the lame "it's religion" argument.

The author of the book on that website, Dr. Brown, has been around for a LONG time, and he has put out a challenge to ONLY debate the science. He offers a HUGE cash prize to anyone who can prove evolution and disprove creation. He says the person who debates him MUST sign a contract that they will stick only to science and never bring up religion.

The challenge has been there for a long time, and only one scientists took the challenge for public debate, and when they explained that the contract stated he could not bring up religion, the scientist backed out because he knew that if they debated just from scientific facts, he woud lose.

If it were so easy to disprove creationists, why has no scientists taken Dr. Brown up on his challenge and made a fat ton of cash?? If you're so smart, why don't you challenge him? Set up a debate time and sign the contract to never bring up religion and stick strictly to the facts. If you are so certain of what you know, then you should be jumping at the chance to make that money, am I right?


Quote:
I'll go on and on... but it will bring me back to the same spot.
Yes, the same spot - denying the logical requirement of there having to be an eternal source from which all things were created.

Quote:
Gibberish? Maybe you're refering to Planck Time, so we'll ignore the first 10^-43 second (the smallest meaningful measure of time). The rest of this can be recreated in particle accelerators. The cooling period that followed and led to the reaching of this 3000K threshold was ~300,000 years... *pause*
Are you a creationist? Did that whole sentence blow right by you because it's on a scale larger than 6500 yrs?
LOL

Now, we cannot recreate the big bang in a particle accelorator. We can't even begin to create that kind of energy. It is just arrogant and irrational for us to believe the tiny little experients we do are anything even close to the big bang. Just crashing particles together is not what happened with the big bang anyway. lol

Also, the secular scientists performing those particle accelorator experiments theorized that when they do this, they see particles come into our dimension and go out of our dimension, just as I stated in my theory of what they were seeing. I call the other dimension the spiritual realm, the scientists call it another dimension. That's fine with me. I have no problem with that. I call it another dimension too, but I choose to theorize about what kind of a dimension it is. They agree with me, though, that the particles are coming from or going to another dimension. If you didn't know this, you must not have done much reading about it when they started these experiments.

Quote:
So... M-theory = bunk
BrianC's particle-dimensional-switching theory = solid
Never said my theory was solid. I said it is the most logical since it adheres to the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Quote:
I enjoy your "incorrectly so" commentary, btw. I look forward to reading your published research.

BTW, how did you come up with your other dimensions... err, realms?
I came up with it from secular scientists which theorized the exact same thing, as I explained above. Secular scientists claimed that the particles were coming from or going to another dimension.

Dude, don't you get it? I'm going off the same evidences you are! It's not about religion. It's about interpreting the exact same evidences differently. That's it. If you had actually done your research on Creation Theory & Model, you'd know this... You're smart enough to understand the theory. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it. Yes, it's a lot of data and I spent years learning that stuff. But anyone can learn it all and put it all together.

Quote:
I realize that beliefs are beliefs and everyone's are just a bit different but to steadfastly state that everyone else is wrong because you have your own baseless theory is asinine. Baseless is the keyword there.
Here's is a 3700 word explanation of virtual particles: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ...particles.html Compare that to your two words and you can see why i'm a bit skeptical.
This is not "my theory" alone. Your secular scientists theorized this themselves! Sure, I had theorized about the spiritual realm simply being another dimension before scientists started doing experiments such as this, but they are the ones who came out and said this stuff. I just figured it confirmed my theory. But they had this theory first, not me. Tell them they're idiots, not me.

Quote:
Based on your first post, it seems that you do believe that the big bang happened, you're just questioning the catalyst.
But here you state that order can not come from chaos. In the entropic sense, sure. But you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with the notion that life is quite orderly in comparison said bang.
I believe the big bang was just the point at which God created the universe in a controlled fashion. And I do not think it was 14-20 billion years ago. If you actually want to study, rather than scoff at, creation theory and you want to read some high level stuff, you should read The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. He goes into particle physics and quantum physics and all kinds of higher level stuff most people wouldn't really understand. You'd understand it just fine. He starts out by explaining how time is relative to where someone is in the universe. We track time in this galaxy by trips around the sun, but elsewhere, time is tracked differently. And when a universe is expanding, it would definitely be tracked differently. By page 70, he's already laid out the secular scientist's calculations of how long it took for the big bang to expand, and, due to time being relative, he shows the mathmatics of how the universe would've expanded in 6 days, our time, but for the universe, billions of years. The reason? Because secular scientists say they've not only proven that space and time are interwoven, but can simulate it with gravity accelerators. They say if they stretch space, the time within that space accelerates. They have a mathmatical equation for this. The guy uses this mathmatical equation to show that in six days, the billions of years of "expanse" happened in the universe. The math works out perfectly with all of the observable data from the secular scientists.

Please, show me where religion is involved in that. He's examining strictly the science of what happened when the big bang exploded and is using secular scientists' data and their equations. The calculation comes out to six days. Now, all he did was say that it's awful interesting how the expansion of the universe in the beginning calculates out to taking 6 days and the historical record in the Bible claims six days.

You should read his stuff if you're actually interested in learning the science behind the theory. I have a feeling you couldn't care less, though, because you like to twist the argument by always crying "religion! religion!" Well, sorry, but we're not talking about religion here. We're talking about science. What does it point to? What is the logical explanation? I didn't say God in my original question. I simply said that someone or something created. That's not religion. That's just an attempt at figuring out what is more logical in regard to the origins.

When a scientist theorizes and has no proof, it's the same thing. He believes it's a possibility just like I believe someone creating things is a possibility. Science involves tons of "religious" beliefs, because they believe their theory that everything came from nothing withour proof, solely on faith.


Quote:
If we are so accepting all of the mysteries of God, religion, the universe, etc that are just plain unexplainable, why is it so important that there be a beginning to everything. Why can everything not have existed forever and continue to exist forever? Is it because the human mind simply can't comprehend such concepts? Why MUST there be a start and how are you CERTAIN? (your words).
Because logically, it is the only possibility. We know we exist, because we can think. And if something exists, it has to have been created. There is no way around that... except with the origin of all things, because logically, there must be something which first created the things which exist. It is the only thing that's logical. Everything else makes no sense. I am 100% certain. There is no other logical explanation.


Quote:
Replace "universe" with God.
The theory that God could just simply come into existence without a source is completely absurd. lol Again, if something exists, it was created, and if it was created, something HAD to have created it. Period. There is no way around that.

Since we're CERTAIN that everything MUST have a source, dare I ask where God came from?
Dude, are you dense or something? I explained this at the beginning of the conversation. I told you, you would ask where God came from, and there would be only two possibilities - always in existence or something/someone created Him. I said that we'd go with the logic that God was created by another God and that other God was created by another God, and so on and so forth, until we got back to the fact that we must eventually acknowledge that one of these Gods was the original source and has always been in existence. And then I said that it is my opinion that God creating another God creationg another God creating another God makes no sense, and so I believe there is one God and He's the original source.

And what do you do? You say, "DARE I ask where God came from?" as if that's a completely new question, one which I was hoping you wouldn't ask. LOL I mean, really? Are you even pating attention to the conversation man?

Logically, we must always come back to there needing to be one origin of all created things which has always been in existence, even though we cannot wrap our minds around eternal existence. It is required because there has to be a source from which all things come. Their energy has always existed, and that is eternal, sure, because it came from the Creator's energy and the Creator's energy is eternal. I have no problem with that. A creator of some sort is required no matter how you look at it.

Quote:
Again, you have no physical proof either. Maybe we should revisit when one of us can switch to 'theorem'?
Exactly! I never said I had physical proof. I agreed that I have theory, as well. This conversation started with a simple question: which makes more logical sense - that matter came from somewhere or nowhere, to put it simply. That's it. The question was posed in order to cause someone to logically deduce what makes more sense then give their conclusion. That's it. It was never meant to get into particle physics, because that is still under heavy debate and there are tons of theories out there. You went off into theories. I only went off in that direction to accomidate your tangent, but I keep trying to pull you back to the question at hand. I'm only continuing to talk about it because people keep bringing up questions or accusations, etc.. I would much rather examine the science in a different thread and keep it to one specific subject alone instead of jumping all over the place as this thread has begun to do.


Quote:
... is when you talk about particles coming from other realms, but at the same time discard the one of the most all-encompassing scientific theories that would allow for this?
Actually, I stuck to the science. I said that the law of conservation of mass and energy cannot be defied, and thus, it is more logical to theorize that the particles are coming in from or going out to another dimension. And that is exactly what the scientists thought in the first theories they gave during these experiments.

I was just telling you the same things those scientists were saying. Look up the beginning of those experiments and read the theories. I'd direct you a little better, but it's been quite some time since I looked into that stuff. You're a big boy, though - you can find it on your own.

I have no problem admitting I went into theory, but I did so because I had to show an alternate theory after presenting the necessity of perserving the law of conservation of mass and energy. I could've just said that the theory breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy, and thus, it is not a sound theory. I chose, instead, to give an alternate, more logical explanation which scientists gave initially when doing these experiments. Had I left it open ended, it would not have been as strong an argument.

Quote:
That's a subject for a whole other thread.
I agree.


Quote:
For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and while I would not call myself a practitioner at the moment, I am a believer... but I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.
I must say, I am quite surprised, simply because of the direction from which your stances seemed to come.

And I agree - science and God are wholly reconcilable. Which is why I offered up Gerald L. Schroeder's The Science of God. And Creation Model & Theory are also reconciliation of science and God. They've taken all of the secular data and put it into a theory which happens to fit with the historical record of the Bible. Tainted historical record with lies? That's is of course a possibility that one must admit. I have no problem admitting that's a possibility.

Catholicism has been twisted since as early as its inception around the Nicene Council in AD 325. Constantine, a Pagan, went and not only mixed Paganism with Christianity and called it Christianity, but he also hated the Jews and so took all of the normal gathering type traditions they had and changed them to a Pagan style of service. Then, after years of screwing it all up even worse, the Protestant Reformation comes and we cut out a lot of the bogus mysticism, but unfortunately, we still carried lots of things from Paganism over and never went back to the Jewish roots of how services should've been - with no leader, but rather everyone being used by God as tools to help each other. It's so backward nowadays in Christianity and Catholicism. I just hope you didn't have to grow up with the Roman Catholic masses and such. Those are awful to have to sit through and participate in. LOL And they are worshipping/praying to dead people (Mary) and angels (Michael) when the Bible tells us not to do those things. lol If you ever go to websites about cults, Roman Catholicism comes up as fitting the bill perfectly for a cult. lol American Catholicism is at least a bit of a mix of Protestantism and Catholicism, so it's not exactly a cult or anything like that. But man, they still protray God, a lot of times, as this cruel, judgmental tyrannt.

I'm a non-demonational Christian. I have done my own heavy research for years in order to combat the things I was taught growing up. Some things I found to be true and some things to be false. I just want to know the truth. That's what I care about. And so I seek it honestly and openly. I love to be proven wrong, because I know I can pursue the truth and correct a misconception when this happens. I do not like religion at all, and the Bible is actually mostly about God directing His prophets and apostles to fight against religion in order to free people from religion's legalism. Most people don't understand that though, because they do not look at the Bible as a whole, but rather, in bits and pieces. That is something a lot of people do with science, too. They take lots of little things here and there and try to place it in a puzzle and build a certain picture without knowing what the big picture is like. The brain is designed to learn from the big picture first, then insert the pieces into it. The problem is that evolution and big bang are the "big picture" they're told, and then they try to fit all the pieces into that big picture when the pieces don't necessarily fit so well.

You and I are not so different, you know? It would seem that the only difference is that you place a lot of credence in secular scientist's theories where as I have seen them disprove their own theories constantly, time and time again. Thus, when they come up with theories, I don't just assume they're correct. It would be unwise to do so. I only believe the theories I believe, because I really do see all the evidences from secular science come together in a big picture way in this theory and it makes perfect sense.

You appear that you actually seek out the truth, and that's what I do too. We just come from slightly different angles is all. If anything I said in this post above offends you, take it lightly. I was just playing your game with you about taking shots at one another. lol I don't mean it personally. I think you actually would possibly read Gerald L. Schroeder's stuff after that last statement. He has a book about the science of the body too called The Hidden Face of God. Haven't gotten to read through that one yet. I haven't gotten through the other one yet. I love his assemilation of facts, but his stuff puts me to sleep sometimes. LOL I have to work a little harder than normal to keep all of his info in my head to comprehend what he's talking about, and so after reading for an hour or so, it gets tiring and I have to rest my eyes. LOL It's not light reading by any means.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #19 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:34 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
That's rich, because it's not like we can't track the spread of magma coming out of the Atlantic ridge and use this thing you were never taught called math to track how long it's been going on. Wanna take a guess on the time frame? I'll give you a hint, it's not 6500 years.
LOL You should really do some studying on what creationists say about this. They explain the timeline of the magma, and you're correct. It doesn't come out to 6500 years, because that would go back further than the 6000 year mark of creation (which you would know if you'd ever actually researched the theory & model). Most things on the earth track back to 4400 years ago, actually, when the flood occured. For instance, the Amazon rainforest receeds a couple of feet per year, on average, causing the Amazon desert to grow a bit. Thus, when we track it back at that rate, we get the start of the desert starting right about 4400 years ago, right after the flood waters receeded. As for the magma, to be honest, it's been so long since I read up on that, I forget what they teach about it. I'd have to go look it up again.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #20 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:36 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
Where the fuck did you go to college, the basement of Jim Jone's summer house?
LOL I'm not the one screwing up my information and presenting facts which help the opposing debater's argument. So, I could as you the same question. lol Your critical thinking skills leave much to be desired...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #21 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:36 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
I don't want to post anymore long posts. I'd like to keep this on topic. I just want to know which is more logical and no one will answer the question. lol

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #22 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:49 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
That's rich, because it's not like we can't track the spread of magma coming out of the Atlantic ridge and use this thing you were never taught called math to track how long it's been going on. Wanna take a guess on the time frame? I'll give you a hint, it's not 6500 years.
What's funny is that you just conveniently skip over the fact that I just showed an excellent scientific theory as to how the earth had water under the crust before.

And with that, I'm done answering your posts. You got owned and you just skipped over it. Thus, it's not worth bothering with you.

Good news, though - I think I found your problem. I think this story explains it well:


The Dead Cow and Vet School

First-year students at the UC Davis Vet school were receiving their first anatomy class, with a real dead cow.

They all gathered around the surgery table with the body covered with a white sheet. The professor started the class by telling them, 'In Veterinary Medicine it is necessary to have two important qualities as a doctor: The first is that you not be disgusted by anything involving the animal body.' For an example, the Professor pulled back the sheet, stuck his finger in the butt of the dead cow, withdrew it and stuck his finger in his mouth.

'Go ahead and do the same thing,' he told his students. The students freaked out, hesitated for several minutes, but eventually took turns sticking a finger in the anal opening of the dead cow and sucking on it.

When everyone finished, the Professor looked at them and said, 'The second most important quality is observation. I stuck in my middle finger and sucked on my index finger.' 'Now learn to pay attention. Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid.'

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #23 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 11:51 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Some food for thought:

What if I were to state that the universe formed from a state of zero energy; that all positive energy is offset by negative energy for a net of zero?
By the way, I think you and I would do better to figure out what all we agree on. Not sure if this is the topic in which to do it. I'm willing to discuss it in PMs, I suppose. I get tired of dealing with a bunch of people in these threads, especially those whom really have no desire to actually search out the truth, but rather, want to just be annoying. lol I lost my patience for that stuff long ago.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #24 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 01:20 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Every human, plant and animal has an interal rhythm called the Circadian Rhythm. This was first discovered in the 1700s by the French scientist Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan. Light restarts the circadian rhythm over each day, and so de Mairan placed things in complete darkness for extended periods of time in order to get their circadian rhythm to reset to default.
This "default" you refer to is the endogenous clock.

Quote:
Plants, animals and humans all have a 24 hour and 21 minute circadian rhythm (body clock). In a human, you simply track when your body does its cycle to test each organ. So, every 24 hours and 21 minutes, the same organ would be tested by the body.

So, how is this significant? Well, the default circadian rhythm should be the same length of a day in which humans, plants and animals originated. That being the case, we'd need to see how many days there would be in a year if days were 21 minutes longer.
But all flora and fauna do not all have the same 24:21 cycle time.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...ioclock24.html
Quote:
” Czeisler et al. at Harvard found the range for normal, healthy adults of all ages to be quite narrow: 24 hours and 11 minutes ± 16 minutes”
Here’s another study that show’s a 12.6 minute discrepancy in endogenous period based strictly on race.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0006014

From the Biological Rhythms Research Laboratory, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Quote:
The average circadian period was 24.24±0.22 (SD) hours (Fig. 1a). The stepwise linear regression analysis indicated that a model including race, month of assessment, and age was a significant predictor of tau [F(4,55) = 8.98, p<0.001]. Tau in African American subjects was significantly shorter (by 12.6 minutes) than for other subjects (Fig. 1a & b) [t = −3.85, p<0.001; unstandardized coefficient B = −0.21].
According to this you can’t even claim that one whole species is identical, much less every living thing.

Quote:
Here's how you do the math: You take 365.24 days for a year and you multiply that by 24 hours. So your total hours will be 8765.76. Then you divide that by 360 and you get 24.35. We need to turn the .35 into minutes so we know how many minutes that is in an hour. Multiply .35 x 60 minutes and you get 21 minutes. So, 24 hours and 21 minutes is the lenght of a day if the world is spinning slightly slower then it is now as it goes around the Sun, exactly the length of our circadian rhythm.

Think back to seeing an ice skater spin in circles. When she pulls her arms in, she spins faster. Thus, bringing mass in closer to the center causes a faster spin.

Now, remember what I told you about the water being under the crust, just as the Bible describes it in Genesis. If that were the case, the circumfrence of the earth would be larger due to the water taking up probably a mile or two between the mantle and crust. Water obviously doesn't weight nearly as much as stone. So, as the water comes out of the crust, just like the Bible said it did in Genesis 6, the crust comes in closer to the center of the earth, meaning the mass shifted toward the center like when an ice skater pulls her arms toward her body to spin faster. Thus, the earth's rotation would pick up speed. That means a day would be shorter - 21 minutes shorter, to be exact. Which means the earth would now spin eactly 5.24 days faster per year from that point on. Which means a 360 day calendar were no longer work. Only a 365.24 day calendar would work to track the year properly. It took around 2200 years after the flood for mankind to finally change over to a 365.24 day solar calendar from the 360 day calendar, because they were just adding in a month, every few years, to compensate for the days gained each year.
I know "proof" has been tossed around a lot in this thread and generally there isn't any for the discusison so far... But there can and should be for this one .
Proof in this case, means ANY discussion of Newtonian physics beyond simile. Using words like ‘exact’, followed shortly thereafter by ‘about’ makes this a hard pill to swallow.

Yes, if mass is shifted inward rotational speed will increase. How much mass? How much did it shift? Exactly 21 minutes? EXACTLY 5.24 days? It’s like you deleted multiple paragraphs of proof and didn’t realize it.

I’m going to say that it is impossible for you to use the word exact and prove that without invoking the law of conservation of angular momentum and providing equations. You'll also bring in geology references to accurately calculate the density and weight of the proposed "super impermeable absolutely water right crust", you'll need to determine the temperature and pressure of the trapped water, etc.

And what comes of your math if it is done by an African American man whose cycle is 12 minutes shorter? Does his earth spin at a different speed?

Quote:
If this is not what happened, then it is an awful big coincidence that our body clocks and the calendars and the flood all fits together perfectly. The odds of this being strictly coincidence are astronomically high. You may think the theory is ridiculous, but the evidences and the math show otherwise.
But they don’t fit together perfectly. The odds of any respected scientific journal printing any of our posts are just as astronomically high. As for the math that shows otherwise, I would love to see it.


Quote:
Besides, this conversation was not meant to be about this stuff. I posted that link just to show another theory which is far better than any other theory out there.
You are right on this one. I much prefer the cosmological talk to the biological.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-06-2010 at 01:30 PM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #25 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 01:25 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Exactly. It's theory. Just as your theories are "out there" and so I discount them accordingly. Glad we agree on something. You are the one which brought up particle theory and so I played along and threw up theories as well. I'd much rather go to the science. Everything you posted was all about "out there" theories, and yet you make it like I am the one that started that. lol
True, I did. And, true… it’s all theory.


Quote:
Oh, really? I admitted that I was talking about theory, and that we cannot prove theories. The best we can do is see what the evidence points to. And so I said I stick to the science.

So you can drop the lame "it's religion" argument.
I brought up the religion aspect to simply to show that it is a two way street. In the search for truth you do have to question both sides… so if we can question the scientific theories that attempt to explain a beginning then aren’t we required to also question the idea of a single omnipresent creator? (questioning and investigation does not imply shunning or disbelief). If you are searching for answers, from either side, "best stick to what can be proven" leaves you with nothing.

In the end if we simply “stick to what can be proven” we’d all still be in the dark ages.


Quote:
If it were so easy to disprove creationists, why has no scientists taken Dr. Brown up on his challenge and made a fat ton of cash?? If you're so smart, why don't you challenge him? Set up a debate time and sign the contract to never bring up religion and stick strictly to the facts. If you are so certain of what you know, then you should be jumping at the chance to make that money, am I right?
My guess? Because the PhDs and research scientists who would provide the best debate are all off doing more important shit. I’m doing it here because it’s Sunday afternoon, I’m bored and it’s too hot to get on my bike.


Quote:
Yes, the same spot - denying the logical requirement of there having to be an eternal source from which all things were created.
I don’t think I’d call it denying. It’s a hypothetical. A ‘what if’. What if… everything were around foreeevvveerrrrrrrr? Because we are trained in a cause-effect, beginning-end, world, does that mean that everything works like that?
What if the alpha and omega are one point on a universally scaled mobius strip?

Quote:
Now, we cannot recreate the big bang in a particle accelorator. We can't even begin to create that kind of energy. It is just arrogant and irrational for us to believe the tiny little experients we do are anything even close to the big bang. Just crashing particles together is not what happened with the big bang anyway.
I don't need to drop an asteroid into an ocean to know that big waves will result. I can learn the exact same thing with a pebble and a bowl. The beauty of physics is that the rules are universal (let's stay away from newtonian v quantum for now) and that makes it scalable. 4 trillion degrees is 4 trillion degrees. At those temperatures protons and neutrons break down into their constituents (quarks, gluons, etc) allowing the study of the particles that would be the predecessors of all known matter? You would say that this cutting edge science is completely a waste of time?

Quote:
Never said my theory was solid. I said it is the most logical since it adheres to the law of conservation of mass and energy.
They say their theory adheres to those laws as well.

Quote:
I came up with it from secular scientists which theorized the exact same thing, as I explained above. Secular scientists claimed that the particles were coming from or going to another dimension.
To be fair, we’re talking different particles. Gravitons are theorized to “leak” from dimension to dimension. That is a different mechanism than the virtual particles.

Quote:
Dude, don't you get it? I'm going off the same evidences you are! It's not about religion. It's about interpreting the exact same evidences differently. That's it. If you had actually done your research on Creation Theory & Model, you'd know this... You're smart enough to understand the theory. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it. Yes, it's a lot of data and I spent years learning that stuff. But anyone can learn it all and put it all together.
I get it. That’s why I’m still sitting here. Everyone is pulling from the same limited pool of resources. It’s entertaining, and dare I say enlightening, to see what everyone gleans from the same stuff.

Quote:
I believe the big bang was just the point at which God created the universe in a controlled fashion. And I do not think it was 14-20 billion years ago. If you actually want to study, rather than scoff at, creation theory and you want to read some high level stuff, you should read The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. He goes into particle physics and quantum physics and all kinds of higher level stuff most people wouldn't really understand. You'd understand it just fine. He starts out by explaining how time is relative to where someone is in the universe. We track time in this galaxy by trips around the sun, but elsewhere, time is tracked differently. And when a universe is expanding, it would definitely be tracked differently. By page 70, he's already laid out the secular scientist's calculations of how long it took for the big bang to expand, and, due to time being relative, he shows the mathmatics of how the universe would've expanded in 6 days, our time, but for the universe, billions of years. The reason? Because secular scientists say they've not only proven that space and time are interwoven, but can simulate it with gravity accelerators. They say if they stretch space, the time within that space accelerates. They have a mathmatical equation for this. The guy uses this mathmatical equation to show that in six days, the billions of years of "expanse" happened in the universe. The math works out perfectly with all of the observable data from the secular scientists.
I actually have it on my shelf in my “to read” pile. I’ll recommend Genesis and the Big Bang (Another Schroeder book) to you. It’s quite good, and yes the relativistic explanation of the early universe is nothing short of awesome. I have laid awake many nights with my mind racing around the whole thing.
Can I ask this though? After reading it, why do you discount the 14 billion year number? You seem to agree that he does a great job of tying together two seemingly incongruous fields but then choose that number to disagree with?


Quote:
Please, show me where religion is involved in that. He's examining strictly the science of what happened when the big bang exploded and is using secular scientists' data and their equations. The calculation comes out to six days. Now, all he did was say that it's awful interesting how the expansion of the universe in the beginning calculates out to taking 6 days and the historical record in the Bible claims six days.
Again, I have not read The Science of God yet, butin Genesis and the Big Bang he actually cites many early biblical scholars and ties in a good deal of religion… with no complaints from me.

Quote:
You should read his stuff if you're actually interested in learning the science behind the theory. I have a feeling you couldn't care less, though, because you like to twist the argument by always crying "religion! religion!" Well, sorry, but we're not talking about religion here. We're talking about science. What does it point to? What is the logical explanation? I didn't say God in my original question. I simply said that someone or something created. That's not religion. That's just an attempt at figuring out what is more logical in regard to the origins.
As I said earlier: “I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.” Force of habit. Two sides of the same coin; might as well just talk about the whole damn coin.
If I get to talk to the Big Guy when I kick the shitter down here, I would like nothing more than to print out this thread, or a number of others, or grab a couple of my horribly dog-eared and highlighted books to sit down for a Q&A session. Until then though, I think I’ll always be in my investigative “why can’t we combine them?” mindset.


Quote:
I must say, I am quite surprised, simply bec[ause of the direction from which your stances seemed to come.
Disclaimer: I think devil’s advocacy is highly entertaining and a great way to try to see both sides.

Quote:
science and God are wholly reconcilable.
Agree. But I’ll never get a satisfactory solution around here and that bothers me to no end.


Quote:
You and I are not so different, you know? It would seem that the only difference is that you place a lot of credence in secular scientist's theories where as I have seen them disprove their own theories constantly, time and time again.
That’s just called growth. And “scientists” are not one body contradicting themselves, by disproving their own theories. “Scientists” are all individuals working toward common goals, disproving others’ theories, albeit on different paths (sounds familiar?)
Peer-review is a beautiful thing.

Quote:
Thus, when they come up with theories, I don't just assume they're correct
This is part of what I was getting at earlier though. You can’t imply that yours are 100% correct either, which is how you have come across. (ie. “Sorry, but your article's writer is mistaken. The particles are not popping in and out of existence”).





Anyway, all this flying spaghetti monster talk has made me hungry.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-06-2010 at 02:03 PM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #26 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 02:40 PM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
I'd be tempted to call your dumbass out on things like radio carbon dating or to move onto a method not so riddled with bullshit propaganda about how "inaccurate" it is like Potassium- Argon dating or Rubidium to Strontium dating which can verifiably date igneous rocks to 4billion years. But you'll probably come back with some unfounded bs based off genesis.org and combine it with the same half assed math that hasn't been taught in school yet, because the last 200 years of mathematicians are just scared of your revolutionary guesses that you've put forth in this thread so far. I've put mounds of evidence to support my theories and when you haven't been able to argue them you call me the ignorant one because I obviously haven't "researched" your quasi-scientific bullshit. If you actually did some real research into the math involved in sea floor spreading, accurate radio carbon dating, and magnetic pole reversals you'd see that your young earth model is without a doubt out-dated and verifiably wrong. Yet all you bring to this argument is to keep reposting a crackpot theory that isn't believed by a single real geologist not because it's revolutionary like continental drift, plate techtonics, and uniformitarianism, it's because its fucking wrong.

But rather than trying to reconcile your religion with the beauty and complexity of science and see that it is so complicated that there's probably a greater power at work, you continue to make up science to fit exactly in a book that is based on the social experiences of a group who came to be thousands of years ago, and was then gutted by the early church to fit their needs.

By all means continue to live in your "scientific" world ignoring the facts that were presented to you in both arguments, at the end of the night you'll still goto bed with a lack of math but somehow with a full understanding of geology, quantum physics, and circadian rhythms. But, Hey if your science career doesn't pan out I've heard your pretty good at curing asthma with exorcisms maybe you can talk to Obama and include exorcisms in the new universal healthcare.
SlowLX is offline  
post #27 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 07:56 PM
Banned
 
poopnut2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 20,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Science has never observed anything appearing from nothing, created out of thin air. Therefore, to say such a thing occured would clearly be illogical and unscientific in nature. Pure irrationality. Science has, however, witnessed people creating things from what they already have. That is observable.

"I think therefore I am" means that I exist because if I did not exist, I could not think. If something exists, it must have had a point at which it was created. Therefore, we know everything was created at some point. Scientists go back as far as the Big Bang, but they'll never follow logic back any further than that and postulate what created the matter of the Big Bang, because they cannot prove it since no one was there to see it firsthand.

Here is my question:

From where did the first matter in existence come? There are only two options:

1 - The matter magically appeared out of nowhere with nothing to created it.

or

2 - An eternal source, having always existed, transferred some of its power into creating the matter of the Big Bang.

To simplify:

1 - Something (the matter of the Big Bang) came from nothing.

or

2 - Something or someone created something else (the matter of the Big Bang).

Which is more logical and scientific?
What's more logical? Something (God) coming from nothing?

Or matter eternally existing, expanding and contracting thoughout infinity?

What's more logical? Giving a being that nobody knows anything about a gender, and morals, and ideals? Or, accepting that you're not part of some plan of some diety that you've never seen or heard?
poopnut2 is offline  
post #28 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-09-2010, 06:56 PM
Pushed to the limit
 
PWTRTXSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In the shadow of a big mountain
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnut2 View Post
What's more logical? Something (God) coming from nothing?

Or matter eternally existing, expanding and contracting thoughout infinity?

What's more logical? Giving a being that nobody knows anything about a gender, and morals, and ideals? Or, accepting that you're not part of some plan of some diety that you've never seen or heard?
Yeah but God is different.

I don't really know why or how but I know God is different.

I just know...

Buying dogs kills.
PWTRTXSS is offline  
post #29 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Trying to pigeonhole God into the confines of human "logic" is futile at best and arrogant at worst. Logic is and will forever be limited by human perception.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #30 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Banned
 
poopnut2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 20,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by PWTRTXSS View Post
Yeah but God is different.

I don't really know why or how but I know God is different.

I just know...
Fair enough dude.
poopnut2 is offline  
post #31 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-09-2010, 08:06 PM
Banned
 
poopnut2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 20,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk View Post
Trying to pigeonhole God into the confines of human "logic" is futile at best and arrogant at worst. Logic is and will forever be limited by human perception.
That's a pretty big cop-out considering religion tries to explain God and what God wants/expects from us.
poopnut2 is offline  
post #32 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-09-2010, 08:12 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnut2 View Post
That's a pretty big cop-out considering religion tries to explain God and what God wants/expects from us.
What I am saying is that He is not limited to what human logic can explain.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #33 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 09:05 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnut2 View Post
What's more logical? Something (God) coming from nothing?

Or matter eternally existing, expanding and contracting thoughout infinity?

What's more logical? Giving a being that nobody knows anything about a gender, and morals, and ideals? Or, accepting that you're not part of some plan of some diety that you've never seen or heard?
Makes more sense that there is a single creator whom was never created and thus has always existed. Why? Because we see everything in existence and it has laws and a balance and an order to it. For you to say that no one created the laws, the balance and the order of things makes no sense. Someone with extreme intelligence had to have ordered those things, created the laws, and set up the balance. So, yes, an eternal creator makes more sense, logically.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #34 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 09:16 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
I'd be tempted to call your dumbass out on things like radio carbon dating or to move onto a method not so riddled with bullshit propaganda about how "inaccurate" it is like Potassium- Argon dating or Rubidium to Strontium dating which can verifiably date igneous rocks to 4billion years. But you'll probably come back with some unfounded bs based off genesis.org and combine it with the same half assed math that hasn't been taught in school yet, because the last 200 years of mathematicians are just scared of your revolutionary guesses that you've put forth in this thread so far.
Oh, no, by all means, I'd LOVE to discuss Potassium-Argon dating and absolutely any other dating method. Because I know how every single one of them works and I know that every last one of them is dependent upon the same factors as carbon dating, first and foremost being, knowing the original amount of all of the elements in the item being dated, which is impossible to know.

So, please, explain exactly how Potassium-Argon dating works! Let's see that big brain of yours work, buddy. Let's hear it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
I've put mounds of evidence to support my theories and when you haven't been able to argue them you call me the ignorant one because I obviously haven't "researched" your quasi-scientific bullshit.
I have done nothing but debate your BS with secular science, reason and logic. Complain all you want, but you suck at science it would seem. That's not my fault. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
If you actually did some real research into the math involved in sea floor spreading, accurate radio carbon dating, and magnetic pole reversals you'd see that your young earth model is without a doubt out-dated and verifiably wrong. Yet all you bring to this argument is to keep reposting a crackpot theory that isn't believed by a single real geologist not because it's revolutionary like continental drift, plate techtonics, and uniformitarianism, it's because its fucking wrong.
Then by all means, science-boy, prove me wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
But rather than trying to reconcile your religion with the beauty and complexity of science and see that it is so complicated that there's probably a greater power at work, you continue to make up science to fit exactly in a book that is based on the social experiences of a group who came to be thousands of years ago, and was then gutted by the early church to fit their needs.
Actually, I believe science and God can be 100% reconciled. And I don't use any science that is not confirmed by secular scientists. Theories, on the other hand, are a different area. I don't agree with many of their theories on origins or their dating methods because the dating methods are so easy to show as completely inaccurate - which is why I love to debate them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX View Post
By all means continue to live in your "scientific" world ignoring the facts that were presented to you in both arguments, at the end of the night you'll still goto bed with a lack of math but somehow with a full understanding of geology, quantum physics, and circadian rhythms. But, Hey if your science career doesn't pan out I've heard your pretty good at curing asthma with exorcisms maybe you can talk to Obama and include exorcisms in the new universal healthcare.
Wow, what a fruit. Nice job with the grammar and syntax, buddy.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #35 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 09:57 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
This "default" you refer to is the endogenous clock.



But all flora and fauna do not all have the same 24:21 cycle time.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...ioclock24.html
I read the article you posted, but I did not see it say that flora and fauna do not have the same 24:41 minute cycle.

Also, the tests they ran in those studies were all flawed, unfortunately. The only way to get an accurate read on the body's circadian rhythym is to put a person into completely darkness for a minimum of two weeks, at which point the body resets itself back to "default". This is what was done in the 1700s when these things were first researched. But they can't do that nowadays, because we have laws which would prevent doing that to someone, if I'm not mistaken. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Here’s another study that show’s a 12.6 minute discrepancy in endogenous period based strictly on race.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0006014

From the Biological Rhythms Research Laboratory, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America


According to this you can’t even claim that one whole species is identical, much less every living thing.
Like I said before, unless these studies emmerse someone in complete darkness for over two weeks, they will never get an accurate read on their circadian rhythym. That's why the research always varies. That's why I refer to the original studies done on this in the 1700s where people actually did submerges people into darkness for over two weeks. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I know "proof" has been tossed around a lot in this thread and generally there isn't any for the discusison so far... But there can and should be for this one .
Proof in this case, means ANY discussion of Newtonian physics beyond simile. Using words like ‘exact’, followed shortly thereafter by ‘about’ makes this a hard pill to swallow.

Yes, if mass is shifted inward rotational speed will increase. How much mass? How much did it shift? Exactly 21 minutes? EXACTLY 5.24 days? It’s like you deleted multiple paragraphs of proof and didn’t realize it.

I’m going to say that it is impossible for you to use the word exact and prove that without invoking the law of conservation of angular momentum and providing equations. You'll also bring in geology references to accurately calculate the density and weight of the proposed "super impermeable absolutely water right crust", you'll need to determine the temperature and pressure of the trapped water, etc.

And what comes of your math if it is done by an African American man whose cycle is 12 minutes shorter? Does his earth spin at a different speed?
Again, I'm just going off the experiments done in the 1700s where they actually submerged people into complete darkness for over two weeks to get an accurate read. That's all. I don't know what else to tell you. Scientist Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan is the one who did the original research on this stuff. Look him up and read his research. You may possibly find what you're looking for in his research. I would not do it justice. I haven't researched this in years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
But they don’t fit together perfectly. The odds of any respected scientific journal printing any of our posts are just as astronomically high. As for the math that shows otherwise, I would love to see it.
I may be able to regurgitate this stuff from memory, but this is not meant for scientific journals. I gave you a theory. Nothing more. The theory works perfectly if one uses the data from the 1700s, and I believe that may be the most accurate strictly because they really did eliminate all of the things which reset the endogenous clock. And for that, I showed the math. It comes out perfectly. But again, it's strictly theory. I never showed math for the water shifting from mostly under the crust to mostly over the crust, though. That is something about which you would need to consult creation scientists' data.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
You are right on this one. I much prefer the cosmological talk to the biological.
For me, I don't mind just shooting the breeze about cosmological stuff, but I don't like discussing it for purposes of proving anything since it is difficult to pin down anything, ya' know?

Biological stuff is a bit more easy to pin down. Regardless, though, it's complicated.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #36 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:05 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Sorry, but your article's writer is mistaken. The particles are not popping in and out of existence. The particles are popping in and out of this physical realm and into another realm. They never cease to exist - they simply move from one realm to another. This is how the spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm. They are connected.
Fucking hilarious

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #37 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:21 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Incorrect. Water under pressure does not turn into steam. Ever watched what happens when a radiator cap is pulled off early after an overheat? The water spews out as a liquid and cools exceptionally quickly, while in the air, and does not turn to steam. The steam only comes after the initial water is spewed out and the remaining water boils in the radiator. The water spewing up through the crust would've cooled exceptionally quickly as it went into the air, especially since the atmosphere in the upper layers is super cold.

You just do not have a very scientific mind, boy. lol
This is like a 7th grader explaining thermodynamics. If I was Jesus I wouldn't want you to argue my case for me.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #38 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:26 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Makes more sense that there is a single creator whom was never created and thus has always existed. Why? Because we see everything in existence and it has laws and a balance and an order to it. For you to say that no one created the laws, the balance and the order of things makes no sense. Someone with extreme intelligence had to have ordered those things, created the laws, and set up the balance. So, yes, an eternal creator makes more sense, logically.
As long as "logically" you assume that all of those things had to be "set up" in the first place.

Nice "logic"

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #39 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:34 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I brought up the religion aspect to simply to show that it is a two way street. In the search for truth you do have to question both sides… so if we can question the scientific theories that attempt to explain a beginning then aren’t we required to also question the idea of a single omnipresent creator? (questioning and investigation does not imply shunning or disbelief). If you are searching for answers, from either side, "best stick to what can be proven" leaves you with nothing.

In the end if we simply “stick to what can be proven” we’d all still be in the dark ages.
I disagree. Scientists, when researching things, must come up with theories, then test them in order to prove them. I have no problem with that use of "theory". It's when people go into discussing origins and things which cannot be proven at all that I do not care for. I would rather stick with the things we can prove and see with our own eyes right here, right now, and the things we can prove from the past, but nothing more. Yes, I don't mind theorizing about origins, but to shape science around the theory which cannot be proven is just scientific suicide. Better to keep an open mind and strictly test to prove things rather than test to try to conform to a theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
My guess? Because the PhDs and research scientists who would provide the best debate are all off doing more important shit. I’m doing it here because it’s Sunday afternoon, I’m bored and it’s too hot to get on my bike.
There are tons of scientists out there who actually get off on debating Creationists, both online and in public forums. If you are certain you can disprove Creation Theory and Model, you should take him up on the challenge. You're a smart guy. The worst that could happen is you are not successful - and if you are, you make a TON of money. That sounds important enough to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I don’t think I’d call it denying. It’s a hypothetical. A ‘what if’. What if… everything were around foreeevvveerrrrrrrr? Because we are trained in a cause-effect, beginning-end, world, does that mean that everything works like that?
What if the alpha and omega are one point on a universally scaled mobius strip?
If scientists try to prove something which cannot be proven, then, of course, it is a waste of time. But if they want to keep proving smaller particles of matter and energy, etc., that's not a waste of time. One is science and the other is philosophy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I don't need to drop an asteroid into an ocean to know that big waves will result. I can learn the exact same thing with a pebble and a bowl. The beauty of physics is that the rules are universal (let's stay away from newtonian v quantum for now) and that makes it scalable. 4 trillion degrees is 4 trillion degrees. At those temperatures protons and neutrons break down into their constituents (quarks, gluons, etc) allowing the study of the particles that would be the predecessors of all known matter? You would say that this cutting edge science is completely a waste of time?
No, the scientific knowledge which can be gained from this is great. But to theorize philosophiscally as to the origin of things is a whole other matter, and is a complete waste of time. Unless we can recreate the Big Bang with ALL things exactly the same as in the beginning, then it is pointless to theorize on it. We can try to learn all the physics we want, but to philosophically try to figure out what happened isn't gonna' work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
They say their theory adheres to those laws as well.
Forgive me if I don't believe someone's claims that there is no law of physics being broken when they claim a particle simply comes into existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I get it. That’s why I’m still sitting here. Everyone is pulling from the same limited pool of resources. It’s entertaining, and dare I say enlightening, to see what everyone gleans from the same stuff.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I actually have it on my shelf in my “to read” pile. I’ll recommend Genesis and the Big Bang (Another Schroeder book) to you. It’s quite good, and yes the relativistic explanation of the early universe is nothing short of awesome. I have laid awake many nights with my mind racing around the whole thing.
Can I ask this though? After reading it, why do you discount the 14 billion year number? You seem to agree that he does a great job of tying together two seemingly incongruous fields but then choose that number to disagree with?
I never said I disagree with him. In fact, I think he's correct on the 14 billion years. But you have to understand what he's saying when he presents that. He is saying that 14 billion years of galaxy expanded in 6 of our solar days. So, 6 solar days went by here for us, but for the universe, 14 billion years went by.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Again, I have not read The Science of God yet, butin Genesis and the Big Bang he actually cites many early biblical scholars and ties in a good deal of religion… with no complaints from me.
I haven't read that one yet. The Science of God may be a similar book, possibly an updated version of Genesis and the Big Bang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
As I said earlier: “I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.” Force of habit. Two sides of the same coin; might as well just talk about the whole damn coin.
If I get to talk to the Big Guy when I kick the shitter down here, I would like nothing more than to print out this thread, or a number of others, or grab a couple of my horribly dog-eared and highlighted books to sit down for a Q&A session. Until then though, I think I’ll always be in my investigative “why can’t we combine them?” mindset.
Yeah, I think they're wholely reconcilable. The science and God, I mean, not the theories and God, if you get my meaning. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Disclaimer: I think devil’s advocacy is highly entertaining and a great way to try to see both sides.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Agree. But I’ll never get a satisfactory solution around here and that bothers me to no end.
I totally agree. lol

I just stumbled across creation science and theory. It sort of brought everything into a nice neat little picture for me and it all made perfect sense, where as with secular theory, things didn't quite fit together nearly as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
That’s just called growth. And “scientists” are not one body contradicting themselves, by disproving their own theories. “Scientists” are all individuals working toward common goals, disproving others’ theories, albeit on different paths (sounds familiar?)
Peer-review is a beautiful thing.
Again, I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
This is part of what I was getting at earlier though. You can’t imply that yours are 100% correct either, which is how you have come across. (ie. “Sorry, but your article's writer is mistaken. The particles are not popping in and out of existence”).
True. What I should've said is that many would say that the article's author is most likely mistaken.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #40 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:37 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
This is like a 7th grader explaining thermodynamics. If I was Jesus I wouldn't want you to argue my case for me.
It sounds like a 7th grader explaining it, because I was having to relate to a guy that has the intelligence of about a 7th grader. LOL

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #41 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:38 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
As long as "logically" you assume that all of those things had to be "set up" in the first place.

Nice "logic"
Thank you for showing us what stupidity and a lack of common sense is.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #42 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 12:09 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Thank you for showing us what stupidity and a lack of common sense is.
You have demonstrated that pretty well already in this thread. Everything from your preposterous explanation of the ideal gas law to claiming to understand the behavior of subatomic particles. I'd wager that you have formulated your own opinion in regard to just about any subject and then substituted that for fact.

Yet you own a 1992 SHO taurus and believe your wife was possessed by "demons!". Hilarious.
AL P is offline  
post #43 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 12:11 PM
Packin' up...
 
Skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 18,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
You have demonstrated that pretty well already in this thread. Everything from your preposterous explanation of the ideal gas law to claiming to understand the behavior of subatomic particles. I'd wager that you have formulated your own opinion in regard to just about any subject and then substituted that for fact.

Yet you own a 1992 SHO taurus and believe your wife was possessed by "demons!". Hilarious.
My old roommate saw horns on his head, maybe it was the shrooms though? I wonder what this guy was/is on?
Skidmark is offline  
post #44 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 12:15 PM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
THis thread is too technical for DFWS

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #45 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-17-2010, 10:52 PM
Lifer
 
jnobles06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lake Worthless
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
I only read your first sentence; I'm headed out the door.

r

Go read on quantum mechanics. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence all the time.


"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment. "

To summarise, due to the uncertainty principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they dissapear again"
i kind of agree with this but i dont think the particles just appear and disappear. i think that they are, the best word it can think of is "teleported naturally" if you will. like jumping through space time. we just cant explain how or measure it.

we are a product of our own environment. so naturally we cant explain the mysteries of the universe because there are obviously things we have not and will never see. if a human is left with dogs from early childhood they are unable to speak and can only comprehend things that a dog can because their brain wasn't able to develop. so the question i ask is do they have a soul? or can they go to heaven? personally i think no, because there is no heaven.

i believe our soul is part (an extension) of the collective unconscious. the collective unconscious contains all the knowledge and experiences that will ever happen in the entire universe. right now we are experiencing the 3rd dimension which is the physical dimension. we will eventually move (when our soul is ready) to the fourth then the fifth dimension. until then we are just reincarnated. in the bible when it talks about how god took enoch to heaven (hebrews 11:5). that was referring to him ascending to the next dimension.

if you think about it the bible is science. it is the human explanation for our existence. its just back then they didn't have any sort of knowledge on actual science, so the most popular theories each society came up with was adopted as fact instead of proven. just like how they thought the earth was flat.

1995 Cobra

8.8 1/8th mile on stock motor (225k miles) w/exhaust 3.73's and drag radials.

Last edited by jnobles06; 06-18-2010 at 12:32 AM. Reason: spelling > me
jnobles06 is offline  
post #46 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-18-2010, 08:00 AM
Every day is.............
 
cobrajet69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Keller
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
"... but I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.
I concur, completely!

Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman View Post
Matt, you are one smart mofo.
Now that's a compliment (and one also concur with).



David
cobrajet69 is offline  
post #47 of 47 (permalink) Old 06-23-2010, 07:57 PM
Factory Issue
 
Yale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shippensburg, PA
Posts: 12,295
Quote:
BrianC has not made any friends yet
.

Give me a dollar.
Yale is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
brainwashed bible thumper, lol at world is 6000yrs

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome