Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 8 of 15

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

CUDA77

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sorry guys... Just going to post what I can from a universe from a nutshell, see what Citizen makes of the quotes, then we can go back to worshiping the greatest food conceived by man.

Oh, we're gonna start talking about bacon now? I'm in!

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
[

Sorry - ignoring uncomfortable truths that don't easily fit into a category isn't in my nature. I'm neither religious or Republican.

arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal

Quote:
What is it about the platypus that has you confused? Is it the egg laying? Aren't there reptiles who give birth to live young, and others that lay eggs?

reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material

Quote:
Ditto amphibians and fish.

aphibians and fish are nothing alike. fish dont have hips, and they dont have ear drums, and they dont limbs. you cant explain how any of these distinctions arose, because they were designed uniquely

the differences between invertabrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are enormous. did each category have a common ancestor? we've not been able to determine how the first multi-celled organism began, let alone each one of these species.

let alone human beings.. the brain, which is still not fully understood. that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:10 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish

A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?

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

Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.

What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?

Quote:
did each category have a common ancestor?

Yes.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:38 AM

My contribution to the original thread is one of my fav quotations:

The doctrine of the material efficacy of prayer reduces the Creator to a cosmic bellhop of a not very bright or reliable kind.
-Herbert J. Muller, educator, historian, and author (1905-1980)

I am actually very religious, and I pray everyday. But I don't much see the point of a Santa-Clause-God. I believe in a Coach-God. He (or she or it) paces on the sidelines, shouts suggestions and pep talks at me and my teammates, but we are the ones who have to play the game, reach our own goals, and suffer the injuries. But Coach-God's help is still invaluable, given his accumulated experiences and his perspective of a bigger picture.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:20 PM

Bitemite:

Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Granted, the platypus is an odd critter, but I don't find any one particular thing about it that points to any kind of creator or designer, unless you're talking about a very, very, VERY stoned one.

The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal

And one who apparently benefited more from the public education system than some. Oh, that's right - you're a conservative evangelical. Shouldn't expect much in the way of "fancy book-learnin'" from your kind, should I?

Quote:

reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material

Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.

Quote:
that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things

As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Granted, the platypus is an odd critter, but I don't find any one particular thing about it that points to any kind of creator or designer, unless you're talking about a very, very, VERY stoned one.

The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

The platypus is "proof" of the existence of a creator or designer?

That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]

I know you can't see it,"Hero", but this is what you're doing. I hope you do a better job of lawyering in real life than you do here, because in here, you really, really suck at presenting evidence.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:18 PM

I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE