The Epic Thread of Random Off-Topicness

For general chat about anything else

Moderators: Pertex, Alex, sgreig, Cryophile

Re: There is no God.

Postby steve the gaming guy » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:02 pm

Wow, thanatos, you're anxious to end this one. lol....

Do you wanna discuss any errors or contradictions you might have discovered in the Bible? :D
User avatar
steve the gaming guy
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:47 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby Thanatos » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:03 am

... The Bible? (thats not asking what the Bible is :lol: )
User avatar
Thanatos
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby Elexxorine » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:04 am

XD that's a good one. But it's unfair to just pick on the christians. What about the poor misunderstood muslims, or something fun to laugh about like scienology? We can't be biased here....
User avatar
Elexxorine
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: uk

Re: There is no God.

Postby paul_one » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:05 am

Elex - you do waffle :P .

Entwined pairs *I* remember hearing/reading as being a split atom/particle with one of two states - up or down (sort of like a quark/whatever).
Anyhoo - this doesn't go on to say everything's related... Chaos theory however does, and the merest fact that ALL atoms sort of touch each other is kind of obvious....
... so infact I'm touching all of you :) .. I feel so dirty!! :P

As for the petrifying stuff - sort of the same idea behind fossilization except it uses minerals instead of sedimentary layers of dirt/rock.

Do they have proof of galaxies colliding? I thought they had a theory about how something around the horsehead nebula somewhere (yes, supernova, from ober 6 thousand years ago) has caused a mess, and some computer models show 2 galaxies colliding could be an answer.
galaxies collide due to gravity or whatever but it’s not proven
galaxies collide when their trajectories cross and the gravity wells of both screw with each other making one huge mess.

How about two different galaxies moving at different speeds?
Again, both speed and trajectory can be altered within a comfortable (read: reasonable) angle range (45 degree's from the original force, in all 360 degree's of the z'th dimention... think a 3D sphere with a traffic-cone pulled out of it). - don't take that as writ, I am making that 45 degree angle stuff up there - but sounds semi-reasonable to me.

I always like thinking of the end of the universe (read:edges of the universe) and the talking cows that are totally willing to die to save all that innocent veg :P .
If the universe is expanding (and it follows from the big bang it still is, else we'd be seeing the edge of it already because of the speed of light etc) then what speed is it expanding at first of all? Is it constant? .. The speed must be equal to or faster then the speed of light (unless it's slowing down) since - we can't see the edge. In either case, that can only be theorised.

What's it expanding into? As Elex pointed out, nothingness is a hard concept to grip - in my mind it's similar to an air-pocket, where the air travels faster over a wing casing the wing to lift - the void causes lift in order to fill it.

Now, the problem *I* have with an expanding universe is this: If it's expanding, where is all the EXTRA matter in the universe coming from? You can't suddenly create matter from nothing - it takes HUGE amounts of energy. You'd be having millions of mini big-bangs all along the outside edge of the universe over and over and over again...
The energy left over (microwave radiation - or TV static which you can see as an everyday person) is dying down - very slowly - but it is...
As the universe expands more, the energy within the universe will become less (ie more "spread out") until it can't any longer.
As for falling off the edge? If you ever actually reached the edge you wouldn't 'see' it, nor could you pass it.

I think this is where the change in the speed of light theory comes into play.
A theory says, change the speed of light, energy etc all change and another "big bang" ooccurs.

I don't try to theorise before the big bang, I've heard of no-time and the multiple universe collision theories but I don't care really. God - as a force - could have caused the big bang. And so, s/he/it as a result, would have 'created the Earth'.
But in 7 (6 actually) days, creating everything one step after another? Nah.

Now, let's throw this in to hurt your brain: are black holes stationary to the centre of the universe?
As everything is moving away from the centre of the universe - but black holes have become SO heavy they kind of tear a rip in space-time - are black holes (or maybe more precisely, the mass that forms the black hole) still moving?
Are they heavy enough to cause a static point in the universe?
Does/Should that effect the theories on galaxies that are moving apart (since I've heard it a few times that the centres of galaxies are thought to be major black holes).

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven
Please - that sounds a bit TOO creationist.
Are you telling me that with massive amount of regular background universe radiation, along with everything the sun checks out - and more (objects from other systems, radiation from other suns), could not alter or fuse atoms, chemicals and/or enzymes together to create the first ever sub-single celled life-form (I say life-form since an organism must have parts to work together - life-form may simply do an exchange process... water+suger->energy+CO2 for example)... which then mutated further into the first celled organism?

Out of all the things to happen, in all the time that can be observed from starlight etc, I find it to be one of the most likely things to have happened ever.
But, again, all theorized so what does anyone know? It could have been the magical cake-fairy who thought "I want someone to bake cakes in several million years" and so created the first bit of life.

I never said there was a system of chaos
No, you're right - but you did describe it.
If God is not here to control us, and he is not here to "deflect bad things" (his wrath actually means giving out bad things), and he gives out good things (rewards etc) then infact he IS here to control us - to some pre-conceived rules at that (what to reward, what to discipline, etc)! Yet, as I said, bad things happen to good men, which means that rules don't matter.. And infact God "has a plan"... And he 'Planned' that good things happen to bad men, and vice-versa... Which doesn't sound like any sort of GOOD plan to me - but of course he can't control anything since he's given us free will.... Except when he moved the continents etc.
Who says God wasn't overthrown by the Devil again? :P

Now that was hilarious. Thank you.
Good :)
You have to keep it interesting - but I do have to say, it's pointless trying to dis-prove God, since you can't disprove an un-proven thing.. Which is why I don't dis-prove God - I dis-prove unsupported theories and remarks concerning him - they're much easier :) .

Geology: sea critters in the mountains..
Mountains are formed (not always) where: two plates push together and they either BOTH rise up (also commonly creating volcanoes - which can also mean hot springs due to the thinner crust) or one slides over the other.
BOTH methods mean they were lower down then they used to be.
They could have actually been under the sea while life thrived - before any land-masses even existed.
Various fossilization methods could apply to them.

Neanderthal man… they are all fake.
I thought Neadertal man was proven to have co-existed with modern-man until they were wiped out?
Like, several (hundred/whatever) years worth of evidence?

The "fossil hat" is - as I commented earlier - petrified and not ACTUALLY fossilized.
I think that it's a difference in mineral's being deposited rather then sedimentary or lava methods.
Not really sure as I am not too interested in looking up these specifics.

Minor ice-ages... Have shown that water levels were higher when an ice-age struck and then warmed up again actually lowering the water levels.
This can be seen with the fiords/whatever in greenland, along with the locks in Scotland, and as I said earlier - the black sea is a prime example of the water level changing and trapping water into an area.

The fact most of man came from the European/Asian/African continent mass (probably more African) continent - not to mention Roman, Nordic and Egyption major cultural influences across the globe, I have no surprise there is a common story or two around the globe... Remember: COMMON.
They don't all marry up, none of them all say exactly the same thing.
It's like ALL religion's - they send out basically the same big picture, but then fight on all the little stuff, and go for broke with things like creationism - where everything's only been in existence for about 6 thousand years.

When you say Carbon14 being a constant, you actually mean "constant level of carbon14 in the atmosphere/foodchain".. So the level an organism absorbs would be comparable to it's size and the part of the animal that you've got (bones obviously store it differently to hair or tissue) not to mention how the object's been kept (heated/frozen/moved/soaked/etc) AND the part of the world it's from.

So to effectively carbon date something, you need to know what it is (wood? specifically what animal bone/part?), where it's come from (high up? Low under sea? etc), how it's been treated in the meantime, and the size of the animal.

Elex - Carbon14 is an isotope of a normal carbon atom - carbon with some extra protons/neutrons. These decay at a random rate back to normal carbon atoms.

Now, I just said random didn't I? .. Yes.
I hope everyone is familiar with half-lives, and how a large enough group of radioactive substances usually have an exponential halflife where after x time, roughly half the radioactive atoms have decayed to a stable form... Then after x time again half THOSE have decayed... etc.
A line on a graph slowly reaching 0 but never actually reaching it.

NOW, after a while the difference between those two states get's SO tiny, that you can't measure the difference:
40 million years gives no measurable difference to 100 thousand years for example.
This is because the levels of carbon14 will be about the same in both samples - again, ABOUT... It's all about measurable differences, and the degree of randomness of the decay.

The website provided is totally rubbish. Spouting things such as "blind tests prove" - they prove that you don't know what you're talking about.
Providing a shell sample which get's an incorrect age - with no /actual/ proof means nothing other then lead suspicion to what information was provided in the first place.
Blind tests, as I've commented before, don't work since you give little to no detail about what exactly is being tested.

Volcanic rock being tested is curious, although the very fact it's just errupted means that's the carbon14 in the top layer of the outer core/lower mantle.. The age of 'the rock itself' *IS* a few million years.... How is that 'wrong'?
If you find out what they do to measure lava flows age - and what they use as a point of age - that'll be interesting.

No, my point was that it is more likely that the entire herd of whatever animal died at the same time.
totally possible. Getting trapped in caves that collapse, caught in bad accidents (land slides, etc) or fires or poison gas etc (poison gas such as tar-pits and sulphur monoxide etc - naturally occurring stuff).
Were you trying to say that animals over many years died?

Again, it depends on the situation - large pools of water can hold many generations of fish/water life... Which can be buried under sediment easily.
Animals in herds sometimes live in the same areas (lions patrol areas, not uncommon to stick to the same areas), elephants pass on information such as travelling routes that are remembered all their lives (and so mass graveyards happen).
Not to mention monkeys/apes, meercats, etc..

I don’t believe God moves fossils.
... Only that he moves continents? :P
Again, first thing that popped into my head there... Sorry, cheap shot.

You help others but you also help yourself. I’m not getting the selfish reason you suggest.
No - you help others BECAUSE you're helping yourself.
It's ike going to Church every Sunday and giving money...
You help the Church out by donating money for them to do whatever with it.
.. You mainly go to pray and worship, listen to a sermon, whatever... Which you do 'knowing' it 'helps' you (may help out in numerous ways, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, spiritually, etc).
.. Therefore you do a charitable act based on a selfish act.
- I'm not saying I don't do it.. Sometimes when I get up to grab something I will offer to grab something else for other people too, etc.
BUT, surely the most charitable deed is to do it with no knowledge of gain to yourself until a while later.
And surely, we should live by the motto "help and help alike" meaning people help each other.

But anyway, my point was if your actions are motivated by your religion (religious outreach programme, giving money to the poor, washing a beggars feet, having unprotected sex, etc) then you need another look at your life and why you do them.

Oh, and Elex - firefox is king :P .
User avatar
paul_one
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: There is no God.

Postby Elexxorine » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:28 pm

Firstly, I am using firefox.

Tron goes straight into proving a lack of understanding of nothingness. EXTRA mass? You never learnt of consovation of energy did you? It's not making any extra mass as it expands! A balloon needs no extra mass as it expands (disreguard inside). You can't fall off the edge ofthe universe, in fact the universe is spherical. A ballon is actually the best model, I feel, take a new balloon and draw dots on it (these are galaxies), then blow the balloon up slowly. That's pretty much what's going on ignoring the gravity effects of very close galaxies. Some-one might pop up and say that so far that scietists have found the universe to be flat. Yup, they thought the earth was flat too. (Not that a valid arguement, but proves my point)

The speed of light is slowing down. Some guys got a PhD in proving it mathematically. It's a tiny amount like 0.00000001 scine the start of the universe or something like that. But it is slowing.

Who-ever said black holes rip holes in space-time? All it is, is that they have so much mass that it has a f*** huge gravity. Light cannot escape because light bends around mass even though it has no mass. When you watch the sun set, the sun is actually 6 sun diameters below where you see it. The greeks knew the world was round by measuring the movement of the sun and using wells, and came up with two resons for the suns movements: either the world was round with diameter of 40,000 km, or that the world was flat and the sun was 40,000km away. They chose the former, as it explained the horizon. If the world was flat, in fact, you'd see the land scape curve upwards away from you. :)

I'm not sure if they're moving or not though. I would assume they are folloing the same tragectory it was as a star.

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven
Hmm, well on earth there was no life, then there was. QED.

Btw Tron, I'll go with youon the idea that the Devil's running the show atm, makes more sense seeing as who screwed up everything this.

I know what carbon14 is, I had to study carbon dating. They never told us what makes it have two extra nuetrons in the firt place though.

Assuming that by giving the church money, god will like you better is simply anotherform of gambling.

Sorry for short post, got to go shower. Going away this weekend hunting rabbits and such (for food, not fun! Learning to survive in the wild). You guys can have fun discussing the morals of that though, and I'll join you monday. :)
User avatar
Elexxorine
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: uk

Re: There is no God.

Postby Thanatos » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:44 pm

:|
User avatar
Thanatos
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby steve the gaming guy » Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:15 pm

I'm going to preclude this by saying I totally didn't mean for it to be this long. haha

paul_one wrote:I don't try to theorise before the big bang, I've heard of no-time and the multiple universe collision theories but I don't care really. God - as a force - could have caused the big bang. And so, s/he/it as a result, would have 'created the Earth'.
But in 7 (6 actually) days, creating everything one step after another? Nah.

Biblically speaking, yes - 6 days. There is ongoing speculation and debate about the "proof" of this occurence.

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven
Please - that sounds a bit TOO creationist.
Is that the same as if one guy said to another, "hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male." :)
If I am taking the creationist viewpoint, it will sound resoundingly "creationist". I don't know how it can be TOO creationist.

Are you telling me that with massive amount of regular background universe radiation, along with everything the sun checks out - and more (objects from other systems, radiation from other suns), could not alter or fuse atoms, chemicals and/or enzymes together to create the first ever sub-single celled life-form (I say life-form since an organism must have parts to work together - life-form may simply do an exchange process... water+suger->energy+CO2 for example)... which then mutated further into the first celled organism?

This is assuming I believed in evolution and life had to come from something. Since I believe God created everything in 6 days, I don't believe their was a "first celled organism".
Further, but more related to the galaxy bit, why aren't we crashing into the sun? Why is the earth and every planet in our solar system flying around the sun in "perfect" orbit. Perfect meaning that we aren't occasionally losing planets when they get too far from the sun or other planets aren't flying into the sun when they get too close. There are a couple things that make me ponder about that with the whole expanding universe/ billions of years theory. Perhaps one may say that the amount of gravity brings the planet closer to the sun but then, I don't know, slingshots it past the sun to the planets maximum edge of the ellipse and then the sun's gravity brings it back again. I still don't see why it wouldn't crash into the sun. But thinking of that concept, why aren't galaxies spinning around one another as opposed to colliding? The solar system seems uniform to a degree and the rest of the universe seems to be flying around in mayhem due to gravity and black holes and such. I'm not trying to prove a point, just posing a puzzle.


I never said there was a system of chaos
No, you're right - but you did describe it.
If God is not here to control us, and he is not here to "deflect bad things" (his wrath actually means giving out bad things), and he gives out good things (rewards etc) then infact he IS here to control us - to some pre-conceived rules at that (what to reward, what to discipline, etc)! Yet, as I said, bad things happen to good men, which means that rules don't matter.. And infact God "has a plan"... And he 'Planned' that good things happen to bad men, and vice-versa... Which doesn't sound like any sort of GOOD plan to me - but of course he can't control anything since he's given us free will.... Except when he moved the continents etc.
Who says God wasn't overthrown by the Devil again? :P


I've had a similar conversation with someone about this recently and his final question was, so did God create humans merely to praise him. My answer in a nutshell was yes. In some cases, probably not all, God allows bad things to happen to good men to test their faith. It's talked about in the Bible. Job, for instance. Lost everything, wife, kids, house, animals, etc... sounds harsh but that's why people who study the Bible, try to learn from those things. God's plan? Although we can't know what his ultimate plan was, we can say, again Biblically speaking, that we were created to praise Him but we were initially created to live forever. Sin entered the world with the help of Satan tempting Eve with the forbidden fruit and Adam took it, then God cursed the entire creation. That was not his plan. Ok... so God knows all and he would have seen that Adam and Eve would screw things up and a few thousand years later, people would be debating it on the internet, so why did he still create us? In short, we can only guess.
Who says God was EVER overthrown a first time?

Geology: sea critters in the mountains..
Mountains are formed (not always) where: two plates push together and they either BOTH rise up (also commonly creating volcanoes - which can also mean hot springs due to the thinner crust) or one slides over the other.
BOTH methods mean they were lower down then they used to be.
They could have actually been under the sea while life thrived - before any land-masses even existed.
Various fossilization methods could apply to them.


Like a lot of things, we have been discussing, this is relative. If you look at this from an evolutionary standpoint (billions of years), this makes sense. If you look at this form a young earth (6,000 or so years) creationist standpoint, this also makes sense but in a different way. I could even agree that the critters were under sea first but the difference is how fast the events occurred.

Neanderthal man… they are all fake.
I thought Neadertal man was proven to have co-existed with modern-man until they were wiped out?
Like, several (hundred/whatever) years worth of evidence?[/quote]

Again. relative. Some think they were ape-like, some think they were humans.

Minor ice-ages... Have shown that water levels were higher when an ice-age struck and then warmed up again actually lowering the water levels.
This can be seen with the fiords/whatever in greenland, along with the locks in Scotland, and as I said earlier - the black sea is a prime example of the water level changing and trapping water into an area.


I do believe there could have been an ice age (or minor ice ages) after the earth had been covered in water for a period of time.

When you say Carbon14 being a constant, you actually mean "constant level of carbon14 in the atmosphere/foodchain".. So the level an organism absorbs would be comparable to it's size and the part of the animal that you've got (bones obviously store it differently to hair or tissue) not to mention how the object's been kept (heated/frozen/moved/soaked/etc) AND the part of the world it's from.

So to effectively carbon date something, you need to know what it is (wood? specifically what animal bone/part?), where it's come from (high up? Low under sea? etc), how it's been treated in the meantime, and the size of the animal.


Basically, I suppose. I had read a book about it but I don't recall some of the real intricate details. It was almost more than I wanted to know about Carbon 14, lol.

NOW, after a while the difference between those two states get's SO tiny, that you can't measure the difference:
40 million years gives no measurable difference to 100 thousand years for example.
This is because the levels of carbon14 will be about the same in both samples - again, ABOUT... It's all about measurable differences, and the degree of randomness of the decay.

The website provided is totally rubbish.


I had said.... "as an example but it’ll do for now." It was a quick reference in regards to the lava bit.

Volcanic rock being tested is curious, although the very fact it's just errupted means that's the carbon14 in the top layer of the outer core/lower mantle.. The age of 'the rock itself' *IS* a few million years.... How is that 'wrong'?


*IF* the age of the rock itself is a few million years...

Were you trying to say that animals over many years died?
No, relating it to the Flood event.

I don’t believe God moves fossils.
... Only that he moves continents? :P
Again, first thing that popped into my head there... Sorry, cheap shot.


I know you're partially joking, that's ok. But to clarify, God didn't move fossils because they were too heavy; I don't believe there was a need for him to do that.

It's ike going to Church every Sunday and giving money...
You help the Church out by donating money for them to do whatever with it.


I do that because the Bible says to in Malachi.

.. You mainly go to pray and worship, listen to a sermon, whatever... Which you do 'knowing' it 'helps' you (may help out in numerous ways, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, spiritually, etc).
.. Therefore you do a charitable act based on a selfish act.
- I'm not saying I don't do it.. Sometimes when I get up to grab something I will offer to grab something else for other people too, etc.
BUT, surely the most charitable deed is to do it with no knowledge of gain to yourself until a while later.
And surely, we should live by the motto "help and help alike" meaning people help each other.

But anyway, my point was if your actions are motivated by your religion (religious outreach programme, giving money to the poor, washing a beggars feet, having unprotected sex, etc) then you need another look at your life and why you do them.


That's kind of a weird way to think about it but if you think that's some form of selfishness, I'm not going to debate it. What you're saying in the end is that we should do good to others just because we should... not because our religion says to. I can't say that's 100% true. The Bible says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule was based off of that, I presume. Non-religious people abide by it. In some form, we are taught from others as children to be kind to others. It's an interesting concept but I don't feel like I need another look at my life in the sense you are presenting.
User avatar
steve the gaming guy
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:47 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby Thanatos » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:41 am

steve the gaming guy wrote:Is that the same as if one guy said to another, "hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male."


You can never be too Male! :twisted:

Buuuuut I don't swing that way :P
User avatar
Thanatos
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby paul_one » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:29 pm

It's not making any extra mass as it expands! A balloon needs no extra mass as it expands (disreguard inside).
What? Disregard the inside?
That's like saying "pig's can fly - forget that they can't!"

For something to expand then it needs to be able to do so, in which case it's mass is growing (ie, the universe IS getting bigger and gaining mass somehow) OR the mass is getting thinned out (heavy lumps like stars, planets, etc, are breaking up).

IE: a balloon is only as big because of the pressure on the outside... Less pressure means the balloon get's bigger... Until the air cannot expand any more.

That's all for now, will be back to say more :P .
User avatar
paul_one
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: There is no God.

Postby paul_one » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:36 am

OK, more:

The speed of light is slowing down. Some guys got a PhD in proving it mathematically. It's a tiny amount like 0.00000001 scine the start of the universe or something like that. But it is slowing.
No they haven't.
A creationist physicist (if you can believe such an oxymoron) put forward some bizarro proof that the speed of light went from 303,000->300,000m/s from 1700-1800 (ish) and 300,000->298,xxx/s from 1850->2000 (again, ish)..
Not to mention the various balls-ups (speed of light can't change in m/s speed since metre's are defined by distance covered by light in a second and light is now defined as 297,xxx or 298,xxx m/s) while a second is set by the decay of an atom.
Again, the decay is actually predicted FROM the speed of light.

Now if you ignore that part of it and basically say "speed of light slowing", outside of the creationist circle and the theory put forward and supported by creationists (I see no other references on AiG and google returns a very slim set of actual hits).
The only proof I've seen is the red-shift *cough*proof*cough*.

Can I also laugh at the fact all visible light is appearing is a roughly spherical ball AROUND US... Please, if all light travels at the same speed (and it does - whether that is constant through time or not) then of COURSE we'll be in a roughly spherical ball - anything outside that is still on it's way.

A ballon is actually the best model, I feel,
Why? Who says the expansion is uniform anyway?
I can't honestly think of any 'best model' apart from a computer simulation or imagining in your mind the expansion of an object.

Who-ever said black holes rip holes in space-time?
I've heard of it as discussed like that - but I did put the term right after that (more specifically the mass)..
It distorts space-time so much that it has : [b]"an infinite space-time curvature."[b].
It is an "infinite mass'd, zero-volume, singularity.
It distorts space-time so much that AL time/space curve in towards it.

... I call that "a rip in space-time" since anything travelling across that space instantly ceases to exist (ie, matter becomes mass with no volume and may or may not eventually leak out as thermal+extra radiation).

Light cannot escape because light bends around mass even though it has no mass
Incorrect (mass has a mass). Bending isn't such a nice word there IMO. Imagine light as a wave - or particle. It has energy, and a direction (no mass). Mass bends space-time. The direction of the light particle/wave follows space-time, if it is distorted, the wave/particle doesn't know any difference.
OR, you can think of it as a gravitational pull (external force) action upon the wave/particle (except light has no mass so this is a slightly incorrect way to think about it) changing the initial direction until it collides with the singularity.

When you watch the sun set, the sun is actually 6 sun diameters below where you see it.
Longitude, latitude and time of the year please.
That does not apply to ALL of the worlds inhabitants. Maybe at the centre of the Earth.
Not to mention that you're more talking about the TIME light takes to travel to us rather then bending round the Earth.
And a Sun-diameter.. I'm sure that is wider then our Earth's circumference.. Do you mean from a standpoint of a person (however wide the sun is if you could look at it directly - I'm guessing one or two inches).

in fact, you'd see the land scape curve upwards away from you.
Is that the new polite way of saying someone's fat?
"Well, I'm not saying you're fat - but - if the world was flat the Earth would curve away from you.."
.. Surely, from a POV, the Earth would NOT curve... It would be flat... Until you reached the edge and then it would curve quite a lot until you realised it was the radial edge.

I thought the Greek's calculated the circumference/radius of the Earth by the curvature of it - using the well stuff simply for calculation the distance of the sun from the Earth?

I'm not sure if they're moving or not though. I would assume they are folloing the same tragectory it was as a star.
And that's the problem see?
An object going through normal space time has a volume and directional force, it distorts space-time a little but continues to move through it.
A singularity bends space-time so much that it has no volume and so infinite mass, meaning that the curves of space-time are curved infinitely towards it... Meaning surely it can't travel or else the curve of space-time isn't sufficient to be called "infinite".
(yes, I know I'm slightly simplifying the fact and there are multiple types of 'black holes')

They never told us what makes it have two extra nuetrons in the firt place though.
Sometimes proton's get knocked out, sometimes extra neutrons get put in. It's been ages since I did it a A-level.

"hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male."
What girl? Where!?
:P
... Yes it is. The guys who do that are so blind that they don't understand that it's the girl that counts, not how big her 18th century torture device is (yes yes, the only thing I could come up with).

This is assuming I believed in evolution and life had to come from something.
No it's not. I think I challenged "you're saying it's not possible at all?" which would mean you would have to NOT believe in evolution to confirm my comment..
Also notice that evolution IS a proven fact based on what humans have done (human-selected evolution of numerous plants and animals: peas, dogs, wheat, grass, hay, cattle, sheep, turnips, carrots, potatoes, the list goes on!) using it... It's more the "natural selection-based evolution" or perhaps the massive times based around this fact that creationists have issues with?
So even the creationists have to acknowledge the fact God didn't create everything as it stands today and that things have changed over the course of time... And that we have been playing God for much longer then GM stuff (don't really wish to bring this into the convo too much) since God allows us to choose our own actions and so change the animals/plants as we see fit (yes I know the subtle difference which is why I don't want GM coming into the convo).

Further, but more related to the galaxy bit, why aren't we crashing into the sun?
Physics 101. Mass, distance, and combined directional forces mean we are in 'freefall'... IE: we ARE falling towards the sun. Constantly, as are **all** 'Orbiting' objects.
Their orbits will eventually decay and crash into the objects they orbit - as can be seen around the universe (I'm sure there's gotta be some evidence somewhere other then small asteroids which probably won't satisfy your needs).

we aren't occasionally losing planets when they get too far from the sun or other planets aren't flying into the sun when they get too close.
By it's very definition, a planet is required to be an orbiting "planetoid" of a certain mass that goes round the/a solar-star (Sun).
Saying that, even if it has been such a short period of time (let's say 10,000 years) - that's more then enough time for any extra planets to be removed (via throwing out into space preferably - since hitting the sun would be bad and wouldn't fit into 10,000 years).
Now look up at the stars - at the very way THEIR star systems, THEIR supernova and planets are in different stages of creation (some forming planets still, others dying, again I may try and look for planets external to our system colliding/etc).
On EiG (evidence in genesis? ..) I read just now that the creation of the stars, with the light being created 99% of the way to the Earth is somehow "misleading" and as such, they have problems with it....
Number 1 - why? Since having evidence of evolution, and external evidence that planets and stars form in the exact same way everywhere except from 6000-years ago is in itself a misleading fallacy.
Number 2 - Why is that any WORSE then creating everything as it is (fallacy) and letting the light come to us in it's own time?
One simply means that light travels to the Earth faster.
Anyway, why - if EiG is so prudent to rule out fallacies - should we treat the creation of other "solar systems" differently to our own?

It seems EiG and all creationist "physicists" seem to be forgetting the most major scientific part: that rules are universal.
If you see a rule which fits one - but not ALL things - then the rule needs refining..

why aren't galaxies spinning around one another as opposed to colliding?
I don't know if they can or can't actually - but that is sheer size. Billions or stars/systems manage to spin around in the shape of galaxies (still crashing into each other). The Earth is pelted by loads of space-rubbish, every single day.
Most galaxies are flying apart - why would God do that instead of having them all rotate around the centre of the universe?

BUT - getting back to your text just before that: Orbiting objects.
Physics 101: an object with a force will keep moving with that force until an external force changes it.
So, an object is flying PAST the sun, the sun effects it, pulls it slightly towards it. Object moves in a SLIGHTLY different path. Sun keeps effecting it, till the object has moved around the sun, where the combined forces mean the object moves further away from the sun (force X minus force Y can still mean X is larger then Y).

In some cases, probably not all,
OK, and here are numerous paradoxes in which the church can ONLY explain as "we don't know" or "we have to keep faith".
Let's start out with your sentence verbatim: that indicates 2 classes of people, which I don't like anyway. It implies the "one rule for us, one rule for them" which as I said earlier is just plain silly, and much more complex and improbable when compared against the "simplest, one rule fits all" solution.

BUT, back to the paradoxes: God creates humans to have their own choice... But God creates people to be who they are, gives them their skills etc, so in fact he makes them who they are and so TAKES AWAY that "free choice" that they have supposedly got.
God "allows" bad things to happen. Indicating he has some sort of control, and he also gives you good things (in times of need, good fortunes, luck, miracles)... BUT he cannot control your life. That is a self denying rule (he does bad/good things for a reason - but also doesn't do them because then that would be controlling you).
And personally, my favourite is the praise of God, and the fact that creating us to praise him and keep faith, but actuaaly giving us the choice to do so... Which means he's actually not bothered if we do or not - which means he couldn't have created us for praise (since he doesn't care - whether we praise or not)... If he does care (as before) then he wouldn't have given us the choice and as such controlled us.

All three only answerable by what I said before "because he wants us to keep the faith" (or some minor variant) or "we can only guess at what he has planned".

I could even agree that the critters were under sea first but the difference is how fast the events occurred.
So a creationist would rather have God:
lying, bending time - but not bending time (or contributing to more of the lying), moving earth/etc, setting up our solar system exactly but none of the others,
Rather then believe that:
God created all matter (big bang), gave it rules by which to build itself in a timely manner (physics / quantum mech), and so built everything over time, and applied everything on a universal level.

... And they criticize the scientific world for not following scientific practice?

I was going to say something about neadertal man - but it was gonna be totally opinionated saying "I think-I think-I think".
So I cut it.

It was a quick reference in regards to the lava bit.
I did take note of that.
If you want reasons why I think EiG is rubbish then please do say so.

*IF* the age of the rock itself is a few million years
The only way to *prove* so is to test it, and the only way to test it is based on our physics work... We may come up with more full tests in the future.
Again, it comes back to God lying to our faces - he knew our tests would be these and yet altered the carbon14 in the ground?
I'm not going to say anymore on that because I don't know about ground carbon dating.

I do that because the Bible says to in Malachi.
But surely you've put more thought behind it? Like "I am /also/ doing this because it helps the church out".
As you said before, you don't mind going against certain viewpoints of your religion/sects... For instance, kicking a goat each third Saturday of the month if it were written in the Bible then you wouldn't do so simply because it said so.
Or else my point was made before: you do something as commanded by the religion and as such you need to look at your life.
Yes I've changed my words slightly from the first message (from love/whatever to just actions as commanded)... I'm sure the rough gist is in there somewhere.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
best thing I've ever heard from the Bible, and yes has shown up in many different forms.
It's basic common sense too - don't thump others cos you don't want them thumping you.
but I don't feel like I need another look at my life in the sense you are presenting.
I'm not saying do it my way.. I was simply trying to provoke some thought into the "why you do acts from the bible and reference them".. So you do this - because it's in the bible... You do that - because it's in the bible... Which means you're blindly following (even if you only do the ones you agree with) because it's in the bible.

I am just someone who questions most things, evaluates the options available to me, and likes to pick things based on which *I* personally hold to be true (which changes as I go through life) rather then a religious book, and although the book may present good stuff, I see way too many people using the book incorrectly as a rulebook instead of a book of guidance.

To clarify things, I have a brill poem from some church somewhere which is all about how a man should be.
I think I'll write it up in my next post - it's lovely.
User avatar
paul_one
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: There is no God.

Postby Elexxorine » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:50 pm

Actually a metre is defined by vibrations of caesium atoms.

The balloon is obviously a simplification!

With black holes, you will never actually reach it as time slows down more the closer you are to it, such that you with never reach the singularity.

You miss understood me, light has no mass but is still affected by gravity, such that it's path curves slightly as it passes close to stars, planets, etc...

With the sun set, as far as I know it doesn't matter where you are, it's the earth's gravity curving the light beams.

If the earth was flat, the horizon would go up, you'd see the land keep going, curved upwards slightly (just as it curves downwards normally, stopping up seeing any further).

The greeks used the curvature, yes, but the same measures would told true if the sun was really close too. They used a well to see when the sun was directly above and at another location measured what angle the sun was to the horizon.

A singularity has a set mass, and a volume (volume is just really really small), the density can be considered near infinite though. And yes it could still move, the space-time curvature would move with it, as it does with every other object. In fact, as the centre of many galaxies have black holes and the galaxies are moving, then black holes can move fine.

Indeed the reason we don't crash into the sun is because of the earth's orbit. The earth is actually trying to move in a straight line (newton's laws, people!), but the sun's gravity keeps pulling it in, resulting in a orbit. Orbits eventually decay and stuff crashes, yes, the moon will hit us soon (in physics term, 'soon' doesn't mean that near in human terms).

Btw anyone wondering, they did not add a leap second this year. It was decided that it's so small and it'd be better to correct the time in big chunks less often. For those who don't know what the leap second is about, it's that the earth's orbit is slowing slightly and every few years or so, means the addition of an extra second, like feb29th but more accurate still. The mayans never had a problem with this, their calendar still works better than ours (dispite the time after it was made), and has the slowly of rotation and orbit of the earth factored in already. You can calculate the phases of the moon today with an inaccuracy of... 13 seconds! Truely amazing; yet it seems to suddenly stop 21st dec 2012.... :)

Some galaxies spin around each other if the conditions are just right, just like stars can and planets too (if the moon were any bigger it'd make a binary planet with us, some planets/moon in our solar system have this already).

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
best thing I've ever heard from the Bible, and yes has shown up in many different forms.
It's basic common sense too - don't thump others cos you don't want them thumping you.
But if they start it, show them no mercy. Eye for eye!
User avatar
Elexxorine
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: uk

Re: There is no God.

Postby paul_one » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:16 am

Actually a metre is defined by vibrations of caesium atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
References at the bottom of the pages.

With black holes, you will never actually reach it as time slows down more the closer you are to it
Only from the POV of an external observer. If you are the object itself time does NOT slow, and you crash into the singularity at a speed approaching the speed of light.

You miss understood me
Nah, just a bit picky on words..

With the sun set, as far as I know it doesn't matter where you are,
In southern England for instance, during winter, the sun is very low in the sky wince the Earth is tilted with the north pole away from the sun - while during summer the sun barely 'dips' below the horizon as the north pole is tilted towards the sun.
Therefore, the sun cannot be 6 suns below the horizon - possibly more of less depending on the time of year.
This obviously must change depending on the location of the observer on the Earth's surface (more north? Then the winter months mean the sun is more than 6 suns below the horizon).

Or do you mean that the sun actually set a certain time ago (which I definitely can't see as being 6 'sun widths').

If the earth was flat, the horizon would go up, you'd see the land keep going, curved upwards slightly (just as it curves downwards normally, stopping up seeing any further).
That doesn't make sense,
If you're on a sphere it curves down.
If you're *IN* a sphere it curves up.
... If you're on a PLANE (a flat disc) then.... by your non-explanation the world curves upwards to be inside a sphere.

On a spherical plane, where the observer is high in the sky, the disc is simply a circle - the horizon infront.
As the observer get's closer to ground-level (let's say to the middle) the horizon get's further apart until you hit the floor - at which point the horizon is level with the Earth.
I can find no logical proof for this.

A singularity has a set mass, and a volume (volume is just really really small)
....yes... ZERO.
the density can be considered near infinite though.
That's because ANY mass in a space of nothing (zero) is an infinite density.

many galaxies
... Is the key word.
They haven't been able to prove supermassive black holes yet as far as I know (since they can only detect it from what radiowaves are NOT sent out, or something similar).
But even then, not all galaxies would have them - are those galaxies still or do they look like they're moving because our galaxy/solar system is moving?

they did not add a leap second this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/07/oracle_leap_second/
I've not heard of any cancellation.
yet it seems to suddenly stop 21st dec 2012
That's like saying "the binary system mystically stops at 65536 - which it doesn't.. Simply because 16-bit computing may use that, you can still extend it.
Mayan's using the long-calendar (that's what they used to record their 52-year rotary combination of the 260-day and 365-day calendars.
It's a base-20 system in the form of: number.number.number.number.number (actually is base: 20x20x20x18x20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoameric ... t_calendar
Some mayan text show dates well into the future.
.. and the calendar (from what I've read there quickly) doesn't END on that date, but rather some predictions have been made concerning the 13'th whatever they call in.

some planets/moon in our solar system have this already).
Like what?
But if they start it, show them no mercy. Eye for eye!
Nah, if you have to fight - win :P
User avatar
paul_one
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: There is no God.

Postby Thanatos » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:31 am

... puppies... tortured... *drowns under text*
User avatar
Thanatos
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: There is no God.

Postby Elexxorine » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:17 am

Yes, the sun has actually set before you think it has from looking at it (ignoring the 8 minutes it takes the light to get here). I think the 6 widths is around here at this time, if it makes any difference.

With the horizon, I'm taking about how it would look! If the world was flat, the gravitional curving of light would mean that it would APPEAR to curve upwards.

Blackholes do have a volume, just infinitly small. God I hate using the word infinite unless I'm using it in its true sense. If you wish for me to explain infinity to you, and the different infinities, I will.

I read about the leap second thing in the paper a while ago.

I know how the mayan calender works, silly! What really 21/12/2012 is a new age in the mayan calender, we should enter a new level of consciousness. I think we're moving from galactic to universal, can't remember.

Eye for eye is quote from the same bible that says to turn the other cheek, it's so full of contradictions, you can use it to back up anything you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012
User avatar
Elexxorine
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: uk

Re: There is no God.

Postby paul_one » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:20 pm

If you wish for me to explain infinity to you, and the different infinities, I will.
Infinity is infinity.
(or "infinity is as infinity does" :P )
There are no different infinities - infinity x infinity is NOT a different infinity... 0 x 0 is NOT a different zero somehow... 1 x 1 is NOT a different 1 somehow.
infinity (an UN-BOUNDED NUMBER) x infinity (an UN-BOUNDED NUMBER) doesn't not mystically turn into some sort of... super-unbounded number.
Nor does inf+1 work.. Since inf+1 = inf. They are no different than each other since they have no real-number value.

is a new age in the mayan calender,
No it's not.
The "Mayan Calendar" has nothing to do with it other then a dating system.
It's like me saying "OH MY, THE WORLD WILL END DEC 31ST 2009!!" simply because I have a calendar which has "Dec29-Dec30-Dec31-END OF YEAR".
User avatar
paul_one
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest