NationStates Jolt Archive

*yawns* it's 3.18 in the morning here, and I've got a science project due three days ago I need to get to work on. Bye, everyone.

Aw, man. You're going to be working on a science project after reading 20 pages of "Sons of Tarsonis: This Time Its Asinine"?

Aw, dude...

JApan doesnt have an army because we protect them... germany has no army why...treaties.....so whats the answer.....we protect them....


Germany doesn't have an army? Wow that must be news to them......

Okay, yeah, I think you're on it. Large population, no drift, random breeding, little mutation, bunch of others, I think.

Forensic engineering? Like, when buildings fall over, you investigate why? Or Forensic Engineering in biology? Sorry, I haven't heard the term.

Yes, this is the case love.
If people were to being to evolve at higher rates like at a rate we could notice, I'd be very sporadic as there is no "set" line of mutation. so one semi-human baby here.. one there.. etc. It is happening already, it is just so minute it is undiecitable... less body hair evolution (although my brothers are really hairy.. so maybe they arent as evolved lmao!) And also we should take into account that if something pushed evolution along in the near history the baby could be aborted or euthanised in european countries as the parent(s) may think it is deformed.

ADD ON: Forensic engineering? Like, when buildings fall over, you investigate why? ROFLAMO!

EDIT: "Less body hair is evolution"

BUT IT HASNT BEEN PROVIN WRONG!!!! ITS FAR FROM IT!! EVOLUTION ISNT A SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!!!!

Ok you have shown you don't understand science. Here is a hint.

A law does not hold more value then a theory.....

but does YOUR interpretation coincide with the writen word of the christian religin??
...wondering which word version .... *whistles innocently*

Forensic engineering? Like, when buildings fall over, you investigate why? Or Forensic Engineering in biology? Sorry, I haven't heard the term.

Failure analysis on the structural engineering side. Most of the field has nothing to do with catastophic failure though. It's more to do with loss of serviciblity issues and remeadiation.

Time*Rate of Mutation I think dear.. something along those lines.. I used to know it I'm so keen after I graduated 11th grade ^^;

EDIT: was what they could tell how evolution happened, like how long it took in those birds?

Ahh that still doesn't make it a law. In fact it is a misnomer to suggest a law is more powerful then a theory.

Theories are very powerful.

I'll give it a go.

If someone can tell me what is position was other than "ure all rng...commiez...pepul dieded fur free speech.....and you cannot pruve God si rong...LOL."

It bothers me that your sarcastic caricature of him is essentially indistinguishable from one of his actual posts.

This whole thing has been like sand-blasting a soup-cracker.

Who am I? What the hell is my life about, what have I done to earn my place in the world? I want to be a physicist, to work on energy issues, but it will be ten years before I'm qualified clean my professor's tobacco pipe, and by then, Sons of Tarsonis will be the Senator from North Carolina...

I need a drink...'scuse me a sec.

ive give up....obvioulsy this is going no where.....im tired and im goin ta bed because monday ill join the real world where people dont live in a delusional atheistic society where every ones nice to eachother and theres world peace....


Question: How many wars were fought over athiesm? Now how many wars were over religion?


when are people gonna learn its a shitty world and if were ever gonna change it someone might have to die

Change is constant. You think there will ever be a perfect world that everybody accepts?


...get over your self and start honoring are fallen soldiers instead of protesting their deaths... concidering all of the soldiers there think theyre doing a good thing and cant stand the fact that the democrats are saying we lost this war...you people need to stop listening to micheal more and fricken howard dean swallow ure pride and actually listen to what the administration and congress are saying
It's a pity they had to die for the shrubs personal vendita.

So if we are winning. When will it be finished?

ADD ON: Forensic engineering? Like, when buildings fall over, you investigate why? ROFLAMO!


My bad, I was showing my ignorance, not trying to be funny...but I'll take any laugh I can get.

Failure analysis on the structural engineering side. Most of the field has nothing to do with catastophic failure though. It's more to do with loss of serviciblity issues and remeadiation.

Is it considered a subset of Civil Engineering?

On topic, as an engineer, do you feel your education would have suffered if scientific information or practices had been removed to make room for Intelligent Design?

...wondering which word version .... *whistles innocently*
Hehe, I wouldn't even go there Straughn ;)

I doubt the kid ever read the bible. Judging by his grasp of his native language, I wager it would be impossible for him to read any of the translations.

- And good to see you as well mate :)

You know, whenever someone says that something will not turn into a debate, it turns into a debate?

Yeah.

You know, whenever someone says that something will not turn into a debate, it turns into a debate?

Yeah.

No it doesn't.

(innocent eyes)

No it doesn't.

(innocent eyes)

Don't you use them there innocent eyes at me! Mother KNOWS!!!

*spanks*

be proud your son died in the service of his country...not protest to the president cause your son died for a cause you dont believe in
There is approximately ZERO reason, give or take a few percentage points, why there has to be a mutual conflict. Many, MANY people already actively engage these viewpoints simultaneously.
Singular viewpoints in this matter tend to betray a myopic perspective of the issue and not much of understanding of cause and effect and/or consequences/responsibilities.

Hehe, I wouldn't even go there Straughn ;)

I doubt the kid ever read the bible. Judging by his grasp of his native language, I wager it would be impossible for him to read any of the translations.

- And good to see you as well mate :)
Well, i did offer my services to help out ... i even posted a few things from more than one bible here tonight!
Good point about the native language, though. Baby steps, baby steps ...

Is it considered a subset of Civil Engineering?

On topic, as an engineer, do you feel your education would have suffered if scientific information or practices had been removed to make room for Intelligent Design?

My undergradute degree is in Civil Engineering. But it's not an absolute necessity, people with backgrounds in Mechanical Engineering can do well also. It all depends upon the issues involved and the type of failure. Also, it depends upon which areas you specialize in at the gradute level. Its a complex area involving lots of disciplines (and too often lawyers). I don't really practice that much anymore though.

In answer to your second question, certainly, young earth creationism would have had a large impact on my engineering education, because so much of civil engineering deals with soil mechanics and engineering geology (geotechnics). Doubtless pretending the earth was only a few thousand years old, would hinder a proper understanding of these subjects.

As a larger matter, I don't think that ID prepares you to think the way that you need to to be a successful engineer. In other words it gives you the wrong mindset.

Also, Engineering , especially civil, touches on a lot of scientific disciplines. You even need to have some understanding of biology and ecology if you branch into some parts of the field. It's hard enough to absorb all the background as is, without giving stuff up to make way for ID. So yes, I would effect the education. Particularly for those who want to specialize on the environmental side of Civil Engineering.

The Hardy Wienberg equation? (p² + 2pq + q² = 1).

Of course, it's been fifteen years since I took a biology class, so I could be wrong.

Even that is not absolute as HW says that the allele's frequency will stay the same if the population is in HW equilibrium and if it is not in euilibrium then selection forces are operating on the allele to influence it's frequency.

Dominate alleles do not dominate a population unless natural selection makes it happen.

Take a look a polydactylism. It's caused by a dominat allele. Yet, it is very rare in humans. Negative selection forces are at work here. Extra fingers in a primate may affect it's ability to grasp branches or manipulate objects. In humans it tended to work against them since society basically viewed such people as freeks. As such less chance of finding a mate.

Damn that was scary. My old prof might be smiling now. :)

Tsk tsk, posting on topic? Come now, this is NS General, and we're 33 pages in. Bad form, bad form!

*lowers head* Sorry! :D

Even that is not absolute as HW says that the allele's frequency will stay the same if the population is in HW equilibrium and if it is not in euilibrium then selection forces are operating on the allele to influence it's frequency.

Dominate alleles do not dominate a population unless natural selection makes it happen.

Take a look a polydactylism. It's caused by a dominat allele. Yet, it is very rare in humans. Negative selection forces are at work here. Extra fingers in a primate may affect it's ability to grasp branches or manipulate objects. In humans it tended to work against them since society basically viewed such people as freeks. As such less chance of finding a mate.

Damn that was scary. My old prof might be smiling now. :)

So mating is not at random, HW equilibrium is not met, and therefore evolution is occuring in human gene pool. (Or something).

All right, I've had a few drinks, and I'm ready to take up the flag of the celebrated debater called "Sons of Tarsonis". I call upon those still awake to present me with 3 to 7 axioms presented by Sons of Tarsonis, they must be consistent with his arguments (which were not always reconciled with themselves, but nevermind).

Once these Tenets O' Tarsonis are laid down, I shall fight for them, tooth and nail!

oh another great question.....what is reality but prejudice developed from what u have been told....
....wondering if the same argument works when word reality is replaced with "truth", as is commonly purported by certain "-ists" .... same integrity?

All right, I've had a few drinks, and I'm ready to take up the flag of the celebrated debater called "Sons of Tarsonis". I call upon those still awake to present me with 3 to 7 axioms presented by Sons of Tarsonis, they must be consistent with his arguments (which were not always reconciled with themselves, but nevermind).

Once these Tenets O' Tarsonis are laid down, I shall fight for them, tooth and nail!

Tenet One: Understandable language skills are not prerequisites to good debating.

Tenet Two: There are no facts so solid or profound that they can't be ignored.

Okay...that's enough for me. Reading the kid's stuff was headache inducing enough. Trying to think like him gives me brain damage.

Tenet One: Understandable language skills are not prerequisites to good debating.

Tenet Two: There are no facts so solid or profound that they can't be ignored.

Okay...that's enough for me. Reading the kid's stuff was headache inducing enough. Trying to think like him gives me brain damage.

Wait, they need to be axioms that he really believes (if he's not a puppet)...wait, no, he believes that first one...

How about, "The Judeo-Christian God is real and has a political affiliation".

lmao. you can tell he's a diehard christian than.. ^^;
Mantra alert!!

KJ
1 Corinthians 1:19, 1:21, 1:27
(19)For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring nothing to the understanding of the prudent.
(21)For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
(27)But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
--
To wit, he's indeed worthy of some respect to some aspect of christianity, then!!!
I don't feel like typing up the other translations. I'm too busy feeling extremely lascivious while following WITH KEEN INTEREST Shakira's performance on Saturday Night Live tonight!!!!
It might seem i have a light conflict of interest ... or not, depending on your point of view, i guess.

*drool*

Wait, they need to be axioms that he really believes (if he's not a puppet)...wait, no, he believes that first one...

How about, "The Judeo-Christian God is real and has a political affiliation".
Well, that would stand in contrast to the above biblical passage (KJ at least)
The Repubs are quite obviously in power, especially influenced by "christian" fundamentalists .... (personally i see it as the obvious conclusion) ...
Maybe ... heh ... there's no wisdom in it?

It bothers me that your sarcastic caricature of him is essentially indistinguishable from one of his actual posts.

This whole thing has been like sand-blasting a soup-cracker.

Who am I? What the hell is my life about, what have I done to earn my place in the world? I want to be a physicist, to work on energy issues, but it will be ten years before I'm qualified clean my professor's tobacco pipe, and by then, Sons of Tarsonis will be the Senator from North Carolina...

I need a drink...'scuse me a sec.
You know, almost every single post i've read from you rocks or makes me laugh out loud ... but the sign off on this one just depresses the sh*t out of me. :(

Well, that would stand in contrast to the above biblical passage (KJ at least)
The Repubs are quite obviously in power, especially influenced by "christian" fundamentalists .... (personally i see it as the obvious conclusion) ...
Maybe ... heh ... there's no wisdom in it?

Wisdom in what, Sons of Tarsonis and his rants? No, no, I don't want to defend wisdom, I want to carry his banner, and know for myself the surging power of not having to make any informed reply whatsoever...

So, how about #2, "The United States is superior in any conceivable regard, and the views of other nations and nationals is shite." It also lacks wisdom, but it accounts for several of his tangents...

Ah sweet fucking christ right after I make an intellegent on topic post you pull this hemmorrage of poor grammar and a blob of thoughts. Thats it I want my 3 minutes of my life back bud.
You do, indeed, have my most sincere sympathies.

You know, almost every single post i've read from you rocks or makes me laugh out loud ... but the sign off on this one just depresses the sh*t out of me. :(

You are very kind, and I apologize for being maudlin. I'm drinking something I found in the fridge called "Smirnoff". I have to finish it before the bottle is not cold anymore.

No, some of my posts on this thread have been nothing more than juvenile poo flinging...I feel bad, but it was my fault.

Wisdom in what, Sons of Tarsonis and his rants? No, no, I don't want to defend wisdom, I want to carry his banner, and know for myself the surging power of not having to make any informed reply whatsoever...

So, how about #2, "The United States is superior in any conceivable regard, and the views of other nations and nationals is shite." It also lacks wisdom, but it accounts for several of his tangents...
Yes, but that would make sense. That's a dangerous precedent if you truly want to carry his banner. ;)
Not bad at all so far though!

You are very kind, and I apologize for being maudlin. I'm drinking something I found in the fridge called "Smirnoff". I have to finish it before the bottle is not cold anymore.

No, some of my posts on this thread have been nothing more than juvenile poo flinging...I feel bad, but it was my fault.
Well, i've got good news ... i just saved a bunch of $ on my ....
Nah, no worries, nothin' to apologize about. Besides, i'm still kinda funnily buzzed from Shakira. I'm only slightly bothered that she has been largely successful in her mission statement about the US, at least as far as i'm concerned.
I'm serious about your posts though, they rock. *bows*
I'm also serious though that it's an excruciating possibility that a person seriously possessing that fella's midset would seriously consider pursuit of "public service". And i wonder what effect the discourse here has had so far on him, especially his resolve. :eek:

Yes, but that would make sense. That's a dangerous precedent if you truly want to carry his banner. ;)
Not bad at all so far though!

Kay, we need one more. Um...

Shit, what was he on about...let's see, he said Native Americans got conquered, so that's why he didn't recognize their indiginous spiritual beliefs as being equal in consideration with Christianity...he mentioned a bunch of people that he thinks suck, but I can't remember any of him...

I'm serious about your posts though, they rock. *bows*
I'm also serious though that it's an excruciating possibility that a person seriously possessing that fella's midset would seriously consider pursuit of "public service". And i wonder what effect the discourse here has had so far on him, especially his resolve. :eek:

Well all tried to build some kind of bridge to that dude, including you. *bows back*.

I bet we just fueled and ignited his own little Christ complex. He's right, and the more people he can't convince, the more right his position is.

Really, though, I feel bad for all the Christians who have this guy posturing himself as the spokesman for God.

My undergradute degree is in Civil Engineering. But it's not an absolute necessity, people with backgrounds in Mechanical Engineering can do well also. It all depends upon the issues involved and the type of failure. Also, it depends upon which areas you specialize in at the gradute level. Its a complex area involving lots of disciplines (and too often lawyers). I don't really practice that much anymore though.

In answer to your second question, certainly, young earth creationism would have had a large impact on my engineering education, because so much of civil engineering deals with soil mechanics and engineering geology (geotechnics). Doubtless pretending the earth was only a few thousand years old, would hinder a proper understanding of these subjects.

As a larger matter, I don't think that ID prepares you to think the way that you need to to be a successful engineer. In other words it gives you the wrong mindset.

Also, Engineering , especially civil, touches on a lot of scientific disciplines. You even need to have some understanding of biology and ecology if you branch into some parts of the field. It's hard enough to absorb all the background as is, without giving stuff up to make way for ID. So yes, I would effect the education. Particularly for those who want to specialize on the environmental side of Civil Engineering.
EXCELLENT point. *bows*

Well all tried to build some kind of bridge to that dude, including you. *bows back*.

I bet we just fueled and ignited his own little Christ complex. He's right, and the more people he can't convince, the more right his position is.
Maybe that's another take on that "wisdom" passage from earlier .... ;(


Really, though, I feel bad for all the Christians who have this guy posturing himself as the spokesman for God.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by Straughn

Originally Posted by Saint Curie

Really, though, I feel bad for all the Christians who have this guy posturing himself as the spokesman for God.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.

We accept your sympathy. I would put much of what this young guy has said up there with Jerry Falwell and the like (See my signature for significance.).

Jesus never spent much time in politics. The politics he did go into were spent denouncing some of the rules implimented by the religiously-based sub-government of the Jews within the Roman empire known as the Sanhedrin. Funny. Jesus said it was not good for them to force their own man-made laws onto people as a government.

Interesting, isn't it?

You want Jesus message and the overall message of Christ?

"Love God and love others." How you love God is doing as best you can to follow His commands (Why I think Christianity is so unpopular.). It is also by loving the people He allowed around you. It is NOT, however, trying to force these commands on said people that are around you.

Goddistan']We accept your sympathy. I would put much of what this young guy has said up there with Jerry Falwell and the like (See my signature for significance.).

Jesus never spent much time in politics. The politics he did go into were spent denouncing some of the rules implimented by the religiously-based sub-government of the Jews within the Roman empire known as the Sanhedrin. Funny. Jesus said it was not good for them to force their own man-made laws onto people as a government.

Interesting, isn't it?

You want Jesus message and the overall message of Christ?

"Love God and love others." How you love God is doing as best you can to follow His commands (Why I think Christianity is so unpopular.). It is also by loving the people He allowed around you. It is NOT, however, trying to force these commands on said people that are around you.

Sanhedrin...that sounds familiar, from either a movie about the story of Christ, or a commercial for sinus relief...

I'm sorry, I've imbibed, um...one pint of this thing I found in the refrigerator.

Is Christianity unpopular? Lots of people don't like how its practiced or politicized in America, so I get what you're saying. In a different sense, though, it seems like its popular in many places...

Originally posted by Saint Curie
Sanhedrin...that sounds familiar, from either a movie about the story of Christ, or a commercial for sinus relief...

Pseudophedrine . . . beautiful! You had me chuckling out loud, and I don't laugh at things on a computer too much.

I'm sorry, I've imbibed, um...one pint of this thing I found in the refrigerator.

Did that with a liter of Jack when I was younger. Nearly died, so be careful.

Is Christianity unpopular?

I think true Christianity is, for a variety of reasons. One, I think it says things that would piss off both major political parties. I think that the natural inclination of human living is doing what feels best, when living according to Christianity calls people to live a life of sacrifice. Christ said that living a life of following Him would not be easy, which is what most people I know seem to want. Is the name popular? Absolutely. People want to further agendas or gain instant trust throwing the name "Christian" around. It has gotten to the point that I wish there was another word by which I could go, not because I would want to cut ties with the Christ, but because I hate to be associated with some people that profess that name.

However, I still love those people that make my beliefs look ignorant and blind. As much as I want to tell them to quit "helping," it's not my place and I am called to love them anyway.

So I do.

I would classify myself as,

Evolutionist

However I will also freely admit I should also be called a,

Strict Christian

Yes I am a Scientist and a Christian (wow hows that supposed to work!)

Simply, it does.

Goddistan']Did that with a liter of Jack when I was younger. Nearly died, so be careful.

I don't think this stuff has the kick of Jack Daniels, but I know very little about alcohol, except for dim recollections about nomenclature rules from organic chemistry, and something about how a hydroxyl group contributes to the polarity of a molecule.

Various things I care about are supported at times by people who I feel detract from what they are trying to support...

I wonder if I do that...

I would classify myself as,

Evolutionist

However I will also freely admit I should also be called a,

Strict Christian

Yes I am a Scientist and a Christian (wow hows that supposed to work!)

Simply, it does.
Thomas Aquinas didn't seem to have a problem making it all work!

Thomas Aquinas didn't seem to have a problem making it all work!
OR for a local version: Neither does Dempublicants

OR for a local version: Neither does Dempublicants
DAMN good point!!!!!
*bows*

Thomas Aquinas didn't seem to have a problem making it all work!

The Blessed Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the four most well respected Philosophers of the Catholic Church to this day.

Just thought I'd expand a little on that.

The Blessed Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the four most well respected Philosophers of the Catholic Church to this day.

Just thought I'd expand a little on that.
Credit certainly given where credit certainly due, in good measure!

Straughn, Summa Theologica was a great read into the mind of a Christian who was also a scientist. Isn't it funny how that works?

Another person who seems to be that way, though more of a philosopher (but still a relatively objective one, as far as philosophy is concerned), is J. P. Moreland. His book Love Your God with All Your Mind was excellent, and I am just beginning Scaling the Secular City.

I know this was brought up awhile ago, but I thought I would maybe say a piece on it.

The idea that God always existing cannot be applied to the universe unless you are willing to say that the universe transcends natural law and anything studiable by science.

That may have sounded a little muddled. What I mean is that the universe, as is claimed by those who believe in a lack of supernatural design, is investigated by using natural observable laws. Thus, it is dictated, at least to our knowledge, by those laws. Since this is the case, a universe existing independent of the realm of time is self-contradicting.

However, the assertion that God has always existed meshes with the thought that He is not confined by anything within nature (time, space, age, etc.).

Something bearing characteristics indicating that it lies under the authority of natural laws cannot be assumed to have supernatural characteristics. A God which is supposed to exist without natural laws and independent of anything else could have, ideally, always been.

The Blessed Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the four most well respected Philosophers of the Catholic Church to this day.

Just thought I'd expand a little on that.

I'm not asking this to be glib, and I'm not asking because I can't think straight, right now, I'm asking 'cause its interesting o me.

Is "Blessed" in this sense an actual part of the title, like Saints who have achieved a certain prominence in the hiearchy of a religion's figures get to be called "Blessed Saints", but less accomplished ones are just regular Saints?

Goddistan']The idea that God always existing cannot be applied to the universe unless you are willing to say that the universe transcends natural law and anything studiable by science.

That may have sounded a little muddled. What I mean is that the universe, as is claimed by those who believe in a lack of supernatural design, is investigated by using natural observable laws. Thus, it is dictated, at least to our knowledge, by those laws. Since this is the case, a universe existing independent of the realm of time is self-contradicting.

However, the assertion that God has always existed meshes with the thought that He is not confined by anything within nature (time, space, age, etc.).

Something bearing characteristics indicating that it lies under the authority of natural laws cannot be assumed to have supernatural characteristics. A God which is supposed to exist without natural laws and independent of anything else could have, ideally, always been.

Does something always having existed and always existing violate natural law necessarily?

Can we call time a dimension that can curve, like space, and can the universe saturate the available domain of that temporal dimension without violating natural law?

That is to say, can something not occupy the entirety of time without being considered "independent of the realm of time"?

EDIT: Sorry, again, if I knew somebody was going to be on topic, I wouldn't have started drinking, and now I can't meaningfully explore what's to be presented here...dammit

Hmm . . . I think I was being unclear despite my attmept to clarify. Dammit. ;)

Does something always having existed and always existing violate natural law necessarily?

I can't really reconcile something natural as infinite. Think, for instance. In order for something to be measured, weighed, or studied scientifically, it must be finite. Thus, if the universe was infinite, it would stand to reason that studying it scientifically would be a moot point. Science studies that which we are able to observe. We cannot observe infinity. We can observe the universe.

That is to say, can something not occupy the entirety of time without being considered "independent of the realm of time"?

Ah, but when you say "the entirety of time" you even limit time to finite, giving it an entirety. If indeed, the universe occupies all of a finite realm of time, then one must ask from what did time come?

If one is to denounce a Creator, I've found the cyclical time theory the most interesting. However, I have a hard time wondering how or why someone would conjure up such a possibility other than simply refusing to come to grips with a Creator. Then again, I think Christians conjure ways to justify themselves as well, so I am not picking on all the evil, godless pagans. ;)

And I'm in that boat with you. I had about four or five beers tonight. Just enough to relax, but maybe too much to be discussing philosophy.

Does something always having existed and always existing violate natural law necessarily?

Can we call time a dimension that can curve, like space, and can the universe saturate the available domain of that temporal dimension without violating natural law?

That is to say, can something not occupy the entirety of time without being considered "independent of the realm of time"?

Zimzum ... the art of contraction ....
what if god pulls up stake and the universe has no choice but coalesce around it ... including the accomplishment of temporal presence?
The Judeo-Christian god has plenty of biblical references to patterns of halting, to the extent that an intermediary be involved with further human dealings, after trying (and failing????) to slay us all (and, to be fair, other species besides sapiens-sapiens) .... kind of akin to, say, Howard Hughes? ;)

EDIT: It should probably be noted that just because someone knows what something is supposed to do, by seeing it from an emic perspective, doesn't mean someone knows how it does it, being the etic perspective.
For example, obviously, a car is supposed to fulfill a certain function, and people (in the more industrious nations) generally recognize the function of the car without knowing the specifics. When that car breaks down, the people that bothered to figure out the nuts & bolts of that function, in order to FULFILL that function, can do something about the issue of the car not fulfilling its function - an auto mechanic or someone of the like.
A being who hasn't utilized the mechanical understanding of the car isn't likely (note: not impossible, just highly improbable) to revamp the car into its position of ideal fulfillment by simply yanking on wires, tweaking things that weren't tweaked before or by laying their genitals across the contact points for the battery cables, or even by yelling and cursing at it and smacking it, shunning it and ostracizing it (declaring war on it?) ... might want to see the part about Jesus cursing the Fig Tree, btw .... but by golly they might learn a thing or two, even usable/actionable information (somewhat like the Trinity project, but yes i'm stretching) for future reference.
Somewhere in all there is where we're at as a species, i surmise ....
and the mechanics are bloody well likely to be the scientists.
That's why the pragmatists and the semanticists in this issue need to have their own boundaries unviolated ... and as has been said MANY times before, in much shorter fashion ... if it functions best/wholly as a philosophy or religion, it belongs in a class meant for those kinds of things. If it functions through rigmarole, study, testing, and definable results, it belongs in that kind of environment.
ID doesn't do anything but throw the hands of the observer into the air and bereave them of the mechanical responsibility of working, testable, predictable knowledge.

Straughn, using such grammar after my being up all night was downright mean.

:p

Goddistan']Straughn, using such grammar after my being up all night was downright mean.

:p
You know, that actually occurred to me ... as an afterthought.
My apologies, it just comes out as such sometimes.
If nothing else, *bump* the thread a few times 'til you're more cognizant!


Besides, i like to attempt to do physical things like bike riding and guitar playing after a few snifters .... the challenge is amusing and it takes up more of my coordinative mental faculty to focus.

Haha, I was floored by that edit Straughn :p

Anyway, perpetual things doesn't by default violate the mechanisms of the universe (more accurate than calling them laws). For example, the Great Almighty Thermodynamica probably did exist prior (if you can use that word about something devoid of time) to the universe, and there's no reason to believe that an 'end' to this universe would affect TGT. While it's strictly speaking just conjecture that TGT is perpetual, it's accurate for all intents & purposes - as far as we can tell anyway.

The kicker is that without time, what is?

Goddistan']Straughn, using such grammar after my being up all night was downright mean.

:p
Verily, Morpheus beckons.

Good luck/providence to you.

*bows*

Haha, I was floored by that edit Straughn :p

Anyway, perpetual things doesn't by default violate the mechanisms of the universe (more accurate than calling them laws). For example, the Great Almighty Thermodynamica probably did exist prior (if you can use that word about something devoid of time) to the universe, and there's no reason to believe that an 'end' to this universe would affect TGT. While it's strictly speaking just conjecture that TGT is perpetual, it's accurate for all intents & purposes - as far as we can tell anyway.

The kicker is that without time, what is?
Thanks! That's probably my best explanation so far. :)
-
Ah ... time is by that nature, defined AS a dimension. Succintly. Without time intertwined (in its Planckish measure) there isn't enough boundary to know how to measure anything (or know to measure) in the first place, i would think!
All things to have definition have boundaries, and as the "universe" at this point in general human knowledge doesn't have a defined edge to it, remains infinite, even if a procession of logical conclusions with a *smidge* of testable theory have surmised that there is a boundary to the nature of the universe ... to my chagrin, infinity is still used as a viable function in higher math equations (even random has rules) ... but also, to be fair to these folks, the Large Hadron Collider might come up with a few interesting quirks here in '07 - if, of course, containment isn't breached and we don't end up disintegrating a good portion of the planet since we're still working on assumptions of acceleration and the hierarchy problem. Oh well, as i'd alluded earlier .... Trinity still made glass. :(

I'm loathe to split, but IRL is a harsh mistress ....
and the reality is my body will need sleep soon to make up for the morrow's activities.

G'night y'all.

*bows*

*bump* ..... ;)

The kicker is that without time, what is?

Exit science. Enter philosophy.

Sim, thank you for the word. For the life of me, I could not come up with 'mechanism'. It was pissing me off to no end.

Infinite perpetuality, I think, does violate the existing mechanism of the universe. There is the theory for a self-perpetuating energy source, but it has been proven to be unsuccessful every time. Natural things do not sustain themselves or cause themselves. This was Aquinas' point. In nature, nothing is spontaneous. Everything natural is caused. To say, as they used to, that frogs were born from the mud and flies were born out of old meat is absurd, as we would all agree. Thus to have something go uncaused is to have something unnatural or supernatural. To have a starting point but no ending point is a little different, because there is at least the ability to measure in one direction. If the universe began, but was endless, it would still be finite, because there would be a beginning (Gosh, this is getting heady, as this conversation always does.). However, to say that the universe had no beginning both creates it to be above the mechanisms involved in nature and also goes against the majority of what modern science claims (that there is evidence of a central point, from which the universe started and began moving outward). According to scientists, this is the supposed epicenter of the "Big Bang." Even that explanation would call for a beginning.

Dammit. I love church, but 10:00 AM is coming too quickly.

All I will say here is Teach ID keep it in the relegious studies or anyother part of the academic area. Teach Natural Selection in the Science classes.

Goddistan']Exit science. Enter philosophy.

Sim, thank you for the word. For the life of me, I could not come up with 'mechanism'. It was pissing me off to no end.

Infinite perpetuality, I think, does violate the existing mechanism of the universe. There is the theory for a self-perpetuating energy source, but it has been proven to be unsuccessful every time. Natural things do not sustain themselves or cause themselves. This was Aquinas' point. In nature, nothing is spontaneous. Everything natural is caused. To say, as they used to, that frogs were born from the mud and flies were born out of old meat is absurd, as we would all agree. Thus to have something go uncaused is to have something unnatural or supernatural. To have a starting point but no ending point is a little different, because there is at least the ability to measure in one direction. If the universe began, but was endless, it would still be finite, because there would be a beginning (Gosh, this is getting heady, as this conversation always does.). However, to say that the universe had no beginning both creates it to be above the mechanisms involved in nature and also goes against the majority of what modern science claims (that there is evidence of a central point, from which the universe started and began moving outward). According to scientists, this is the supposed epicenter of the "Big Bang." Even that explanation would call for a beginning.

Dammit. I love church, but 10:00 AM is coming too quickly.
Infinite is such a tricky word, at least when undefined.. Which I suppose in some way it can't be (excuse me while my mind boggles). That's why I substituted it with perpetual. Or eternal, if you prefer. There's a big problem with things being in more than 2 dimensions, especially when those dimensions probably aren't eternal.

Anyway, the argument that things don't sustain themselves isn't anymore right than it's wrong. At least to the best of our collective knowledge. Matter/energy (aka TGT) doesn't sustain itself per se, because it just is. Its properties can change, but that's about it. In some weird way, that could probably be called infinity or eternity. There isn't anything supernatural about it.
There's also a difference between cosmos (everything) and the universe. We're pretty sure we know how the universe came to be, and we can even say with a high degree of certainty how the process worked & what wasn't involved.

Time is one of the things the Big Bang caused. Distance is another. But it would seem that mass isn't a property of our universe. That's the dominant hypothesis right now anyway.

But.. Is it actually possible for critters like us to comprehend something without distance & time? I'll be the first to admit that my brain simply gives up on it. I understand (largely) how the hypothesis works, but I think it just makes it harder to fathom.
Try this: Imagine something devoid of time. I can't. It is, of course possible that time was simply frozen, but that's no good either, as it's a logical impossibility.. At least if it's observable.
What about: Mass without volume. I can't imagine that either. We're not talking about something infini-small here, we're talking about something beyond formless, something that simply isn't there (and the 'there' isn't there either). Execpt it weights a whole fucking lot.

Anyway, the universe being infinite is open to interpretation. It depends very much on just how you define infinity.

So, in all honesty, we've essentially now come to the point where it is no longer debatable and only speculative . . . hence my use of the word "presuppositions" in regards to how we view the universe, science, life, purpose, and philosophy.

Oh, but . . .

We're not talking about something infini-small here, we're talking about something beyond formless, something that simply isn't there (and the 'there' isn't there either). Execpt it weights a whole fucking lot.

Hilarious way to finish a well-thought-out, coherent statement. :D

Well, 'til any facts actually get checked in past the level we're at, we're kinda stuck wanting ....
waiting for the sequel ....

Not a bad ending to the thread, i might add. :)

I can't really reconcile something natural as infinite. Think, for instance. In order for something to be measured, weighed, or studied scientifically, it must be finite. Thus, if the universe was infinite, it would stand to reason that studying it scientifically would be a moot point. Science studies that which we are able to observe. We cannot observe infinity. We can observe the universe.

Ah, but when you say "the entirety of time" you even limit time to finite, giving it an entirety. If indeed, the universe occupies all of a finite realm of time, then one must ask from what did time come?

If one is to denounce a Creator, I've found the cyclical time theory the most interesting. However, I have a hard time wondering how or why someone would conjure up such a possibility other than simply refusing to come to grips with a Creator. Then again, I think Christians conjure ways to justify themselves as well, so I am not picking on all the evil, godless pagans. ;)


In modeling rectilinear motion, we frequently use limits that arise as various elements go to infinity, and it allows for a great deal of measurement, observation, and study. See the "Infinite Powers Series Theorem" and its applications; in fact, review mathematics in a broad sense and you may find that many of the forumlae that allow us to make predictable observations of the natural world include infinity. I'm finding that a lot of creationists seem to think infinity=supernatural, but I find that axiom itself unproven.

Why can time not be as ontologically primal as any God might be? "Conjuring the possibility" of time as an "a priori" aspect of existence is no more suspect than conjuring a God. (Also, I never proposed a "cyclical time" concept, I'm not sure where that's from :) )

Natural things do not sustain themselves or cause themselves. In nature, nothing is spontaneous. Everything natural is caused. To say, as they used to, that frogs were born from the mud and flies were born out of old meat is absurd, as we would all agree. Thus to have something go uncaused is to have something unnatural or supernatural. To have a starting point but no ending point is a little different, because there is at least the ability to measure in one direction. If the universe began, but was endless, it would still be finite, because there would be a beginning (Gosh, this is getting heady, as this conversation always does.). However, to say that the universe had no beginning both creates it to be above the mechanisms involved in nature and also goes against the majority of what modern science claims (that there is evidence of a central point, from which the universe started and began moving outward). According to scientists, this is the supposed epicenter of the "Big Bang." Even that explanation would call for a beginning.


Check out "spontaneous" as its used in thermodynamics. Its pervasive in nature. Also, conceptualize time as something along the lines of the real number line, and extend its unbounded properties both ways (if you can accept the idea of it being endless, being without beginning is then as simple as accepting a line being as reasonable as a ray). Thus, the "causes" go back indefinitely. That's all you have to do to escape the necessity of the supernatural (once you follow that infinity is not supernatural by definition).

Speculative cosmology aside, all of this would fit squarely in a church, philo class, or internet forum, but none of these "God or Alternative Explanations for the Infinite" would belong in a true science curriculum. I'm responding to discussion of them because I believe it is deeply fallacious to say God is a necessity to any reasonable cosmology, because its not.

Well, neutrino research as well as a few other ideas of things spontaneously occurring and disappearing does have some precedent, but the pertinence to the limits of universal boundary is an issue when applying the *random* facility of infinity in an equation - especially in instances of evidential conflict of whether the universe is accelerating or decelerating in expansion.

I'll punch a blurb and link, look it up at your behest.


Quintessence
Feature: November 2000
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/8

Cosmologists have proposed that a mysterious substance called quintessence can explain why our universe is accelerating. But what is it made of?

A revolution is taking place in cosmology. New ideas are usurping traditional notions about the composition of the universe, the relationship between geometry and destiny, and Einstein's greatest blunder. As numerous observations and experiments reshape the field, many cosmologists are exploring the possibility that the vast majority of the energy in the universe is in the form of a hitherto undiscovered substance called "quintessence".

Quintessence has the striking physical characteristic that it causes the expansion of the universe to speed up. Most forms of energy, such as matter or radiation, cause the expansion to slow down due to the attractive force of gravity. For quintessence, however, the gravitational force is repulsive, and this causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.

The name has historical precedents. In philosophy, quintessence refers to the fifth element - after air, earth, fire and water - proposed by the ancient Greeks to describe a sublime, perfect substance. In literature, Quintessence is the queen of a land of speculative science in Rabelais' Gargantua.

In cosmology, quintessence is a real form of energy distinct from any normal matter or radiation, or even "dark matter". Its bulk properties - energy density, pressure and so forth - lead to novel behaviour and unusual astrophysical phenomena. So far its existence has only been inferred indirectly from a range of observations, but a number of current and planned experiments will make direct searches for this elusive form of energy.

Although cosmological quintessence bears some superficial resemblance to the historical version, there is plenty of substance in the modern invocation of this classical name.
(cont'd at link)

as well as

Further reading
General

N Bahcall et al. 1999 The cosmic triangle: revealing the state of the universe Science 284 1481

A Einstein 1917 Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 142 English translation in A Einstein 1924 The Principle of Relativity (Dover Publications)

A H Guth 1997 The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (Addison-Wesley, New York)

M Rowan-Robinson 2000 Astrophysics and cosmology: the golden age Physics World December pp25*29

S Weinberg 1989 The cosmological constant problem Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 1

Evidence for a flat universe

BOOMERANG: P de Bernardis et al. 2000 Nature 404 995

MAXIMA: S Hanany et al. xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005123

MAT/TOCO: A D Miller et al. 1999 Astrophys. J. 542 L1

Evidence for an accelerating universe

The Supernovae Cosmology Project: S Perlmutter et al. 1998 Astrophys. J. 517 565; home page at SNAP.lbl.gov

The High-Z Supernova Search: A G Riess et al. 1998 Astron. J. 116 109; home page at cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html

Quintessence

C Armendariz, V Mukhanov and P J Steinhardt 2000 xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0004134

R R Caldwell, R Dave and P J Steinhardt 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1582

J P Ostriker and P J Steinhardt 1995 Nature 377 600

I Zlatev, L Wang and P J Steinhardt 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 896


Links
CMB experiments: www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/cmb/experiments.html

CMB theory: background.uchicago.edu

DEEP: tarkus.pha.jhu.edu/deep/

LSST: dmtelescope.org

MAP: map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/technical_info.html

Planck: astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/

SNAP: SNAP.lbl.gov/


----
There are a few more cited publications that are good for review, here's a few possibly worth pursuing.
I realize that some pursuits don't get far but a lot of this isn't that hard to get.

Abramowicz, Marek Artur. ''Black Holes and the Centrifugal Force Paradox." Scientific American 266, 3 (1993) 74-81.

Barrow, John D. ''Unprincipled Cosmology." Quarterly Journal Royal Astronomical Society 34 (1993) 117-134.
The role of ultimate principles in cosmology.

Bucher, Martin A., David N. Spergel. ''Inflation in a Low Density Universe." Scientific American 280, 1 (1999) 62-69.

Burns, Jack O. ''Very Large Structures in the Universe." Scientific American 255, 1 (1986) 38-47.

Cartlidge, Edwin. ''Microwaves Map Cosmic Origins." Physics World 14, 6 (2001) 5-6.
Recent data from the cosmic microwave background add further weight to the inflationary big-bang model.

Chown, Marcus. ''Before the Big Bang." New Scientist 166, 2241 (2000) 24-27.

Conradi, H. D., H. Dieter Zeh. ''Quantum Cosmology as an Initial Value Problem." Physics Letters A 154 (1991) 321.

DeWitt, B. S. ''Quantum Theory of Gravity I: The Canonical Theory." Physical Review 160 (1967) 1113.

Dicke, R. H. ''Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle." Nature 192 (1961) 440-441.

Drees, Willem B. ''Philosophical Elements in Penrose's and Hawking's Research in Contemporary Cosmology." Philosophy in Science. 4 (1990) 13-46.

Earman, John, Jesus Mosterin. ''A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology." Philosophy of Science 66 (1999) 1-49.

Einstein, Albert. “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen der Physik, 49 (1916), 769.
The principal paper expounding general relativity, essentially laying out the modern view of gravitation.

Ellis, George F. R., G. B. Bundrit. ''Life in the Infinite Universe." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 20 (1979) 37-41.
Discussion of a peculiar implication of an infinte universe: Anything that has a finite probability of happening should be happening infinitely often elsewhere in the Universe at this moment.
Ford, Lawrence H., Thomas A. Roman. ''Negative Energy, Wormholes, and Warp Drive." Scientific American 282, 1 (2000) 46-53.

Gott, III. J. R, D. N. Schramm, B. M. Tinsley, James E. Gunn, “An unbound universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 194 (1974), 543-553.
A pioneering paper that considered the details of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang to show that the density of the nucleons in the universe was too low to give a closed spatial cosmology. This paper remains the basis for claiming that either there must be a substantial amount of dark matter of unknown esoteric composition, or a cosmological repulsion component to gravitation.

Gödel, K. ''An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution of Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity." Reviews of Modern Physics 21 (1949) 447.
The first discovery that Einstein's theory of general relativity have solutions which describe universes that permit time travel to occur. No factual contradictions occur.

Greene, Brian, Andrew Strominger, David Morrison. ''From Black Holes to Quarks." Astronomy 23 (1995) 24.

Grib, A. A. ''Time and Eternity in Modern Relativistic Cosmology." Studies in Science and Theology 1, 1 (1993).
The concept of finite eternity as UR of events in Minkowski space-time.

Guth, Alan, Paul Steinhardt. ''The Inflationary Universe." The New Physics (1989) 34-60.

Guth, Alan. “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,” Physical Review D23 (1981) 347-356.
Introduction of the inflationary universe idea and explanation of how it solves the horizon, monopole, and flatness problem. It theorized about an inflationary moment in the first split second of the universe, an idea that simultaneously solved several of the problems inherent in the pure “Big Bang” scenario.

Halliwell, Johnathan J. ''Quantum Cosmology and the Creation of the Universe." Scientific American 265, 6 (1991) 76-85.

Hartle, J. B., S .W. Hawking. ''The Wavefunction of the Universe." Physical Review D 28 (1983) 2960.
Introduction of the 'no boundary condition' which allows the Universe to avoid a beginning because the nature of time becomes identical to that of space when the Universe is small.

Hawking, S. W. ''Black Hole Explosions." Nature 248 (1974) 30.
The discovery that quantum black holes are thermodynamic black bodies and radiate particles by quantum tunneling in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics. The first theoretical discovery uniting the relativistic, quantum, gravitational, and thermodynamic characteristics of reality.

Horowitz, Gary T., Saul A. Teukolsky. ''Black Holes." Reviews of Modern Physics 71, 2 (1999) S180-6.
A review of the status of black hole physics at the end of the 20th century.

Hoyle, Fred. “Recent Developments in Cosmology,” Nature, 208 (1965), 111-114.
Here Hoyle abandoned the steady state cosmology that he had earlier espoused, giving evidence from the distribution of quasars and the background radiation to decide that the universe is evolving and has a history.

Kaloper, Nemauja, Audrey Linde. ''Inflation and Large Interval Dimensions." Physical Review D59 (1999).

Kiefer, C., H. Dieter Zeh. ''Arrow of Time in a Recollapsing Quantum Universe." Physical Review D 51 (1995) 4145.

Klapdor, H. V., K. Grotz. ''Evidence for a Nonvanishing Energy Density of the Vacuum (Or Cosmological) Constant." Astrophysical Journal 301 (1986) L39-L43.

Krauss, Lawrence M. ''Cosmological Antigravity." Scientific American 280, 1 (1999) 52-61.

Linde, A. D. ''The Self-reproducing Inflationary Universe." Scientific American 5, 32 (1992).
Elementary discussion of the radical extension of the inflationary universe that implies that it has neither a beginning nor an end.

Linde, A. D. ''Life after Inflation and the Cosmological Constant Problem." Physics Letters B227, 3-4 (1989) 352-358.

Linde, Andrei and Dmitri Linde. “Topological Defects as Seeds for Eternal Inflation,” Physical Review D50 (1994), 2456-2468.
Highly speculative and controversial, yet increasingly influential, this work describes “eternal inflation” leading to multiple universes with random physical properties and constants, thereby furnishing an alternative to the anthropic evidences being used as an argument for a Designer. Topological defects as the reality which initiates an internal inflation.

Linde, Audrey. ''Quantum Creation of an Open Inflationary Universe." Physical Review D58 (1998).

Magueijo, Joao. ''Plan B for the Cosmos." Scientific American 284, 1 (2001) 58-59.

Matthews, Robert. ''Can Gravity Take a Quantum Leap?" New Scientist 143 (1994) 28-32.

Powell, Corey S. ''Inconstant Cosmos." Scientific American 268, 5 (1993) 110-118.

Rees, M. ''Black Holes, Galactic Evolution and Cosmic Coincidences." Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 14, 2 (1989) 148-161.

Riess, Adam G. et al. “Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,” Astronomical Journal, 116 (1998), 1009-1038.
If the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as this paper shows the first observational evidence for, there are implications for the age of the universe, and for the balance of unknown dark matter versus an Einsteinian-type cosmic repulsive force. Independent results from Saul Perlmutter et al., also using distant supernovae, soon corroborated this result.

Seife, Charles. ''Big Bang's New Rival Debuts with a Splash." Science 292, 5515 (2001) 189-91.

Singh, A. ''Small Nonvanishing Cosmological Constant from Vacuum Energy: Physically and Observationally." Phys. Rev. D 52, 12 (1995) 6700-7.

Spergel, David N., Neil G. Turok. ''Textures and Cosmic Structures." Scientific American 266, 3 (1992) 52-59.

Steinhardt, P. J., I. Zlatev, L. Wang. ''Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant." Physical Review Letters 82 (1999) 896-899.

Tangherlini, F. R. ''Schwartzschild Field in N Dimensions and the Dimensionality of Space Problem." Nuovo Cimento 27, 3 (1963) 636-651.

Tangherlini, F. R. ''Upper Bound on the Cosmological Constant for a Recollapsing, Closed Universe." Nuovo Cimento B 103, 3 (1989) 311-317.

Tarle, Gregory, Simon P. Swordy. ''Cosmic Antimatter." Scientific American 278, 4 (1998) 36-41.

Tipler, Frank J. ''Cosmological Limits on Computation." International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 25, 6 (1986) 617-661.

Turner, Michael S., J. Anthony Tyson. ''Cosmology at the Millenium." Reviews of Modern Physics 71, 2 (1999) S145-64.

Vilenkin, A. ''Creation of Universes from Nothing." Physical Letters B 117 (1982) 25.
Study of how a mathematical description of creation out of a limited version of 'nothing' can be worked out in quantum cosmology.

Wang, Limin, R. R. Caldwell, J. P. Ostriker. ''Cosmic Concordance and Quintessence." Scientific American 530, 1 (2000) 17-35.

Weinberg, S. ''Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant." Physical Review Letters 59, 22 (1987) 2607-2610.

Weinberg, S. ''The Cosmological Constant Problem." Reviews of Modern Physics 61, 1 (1989) 1-23.

Weiss, Rainer. ''Gravitational Radiation." Reviews of Modern Physics 71, 2 (1999) S313-28.

Zeh, H. Dieter. ''Emergence of Classical Time from a Universal Wave Function." Physics Letters A 116 (1986) 9.

Zeh, H. Dieter. ''Time in Quantum Gravity." Physics Letters A 126 (1988) 311.