Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 174 of 687 (521457)
08-27-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by cavediver
08-27-2009 1:54 PM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
Unfortunately, no. The Universe at varying times is represented by the succession of circles of latitude, and space-time as a whole is represented by the *surface* of the beach ball. The interior of the ball plays no part in this analogy, nor does anything exterior to the ball.
Are you saying that the universe at T=10-43 does not expand in all directions by the space between the particles expanding?
Does the CMBR tell us that everything is receeding away from us in all directions?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 1:54 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 176 of 687 (521472)
08-27-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by cavediver
08-27-2009 2:32 PM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
No, why would I say that?
Because everything that exists at T=10-43 has to get to the surface of your beach ball.
Which to me would mean there is a whole lot of empty space in your beach ball at the present.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:11 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 190 of 687 (521531)
08-27-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by cavediver
08-27-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Information please
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
There is only the surface of the ball. T=0 is a point on the surface of the ball.
You lost me there I guess it was you rolling your eyes.
I thought the only thing we know that exists at T=O was math that did not work. Because there is a singularity there.
How can that point be on the beach ball when that point is all that there is?
I love the Wikipedia diagram. The first time I saw it I thought it was the most beautiful picture of God streaching out the universe. More beautiful than anything I had ever imagined.
But I don't understand how it represents space expanding in every direction at the same time.
It does represent space expanding directionally away from something and if I remember correctly that something is an instanton.
Regardless of how big or small the universe is at T=10-43 if space begins to expand between every quark, How can it expand as anything other than a sphere?
If everything is contained in that little universe at T=10-43, How can there be a surface as there is no outside?
If everything at T=10-43 was 1 quark thick how can we have a universe?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:11 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 193 of 687 (521540)
08-27-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
08-27-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Ignoring the difficulties of modern cosmology and the scientific meanings of tems for one moment - Can you explain to me how "eternal with no beginning" existence is superior in terms of observed phenomenon to an "uncaused beginning"?
Purely in terms of your own internal logic why is one more plausible to you than the other?
Since I am giving my opinion on creation I guess that would be in order.
Eternal existence. Never having to begin to exist.
I can accept that.
Uncaused existence. Beginning to exist where 'no thing' exists.
I can not accept that.
You ask why?
If there is no existence there is 'no thing'
'No thing' is something you have never been able to get you head wrapped around.
'No thing' means exactly that.
There is 'no space'
There is 'no time'
There is 'no gravity'
There is 'no energy'
There is 'no mass'
There is 'no vacuum'
There is 'no quarks'
There is 'no imaginary time'
There is 'no instantons'
There is 'no branes to fluctuate'
There is 'no place for any of this to exist'
Are you beginning to get the idea? There is 'no thing' period.
You want me to believe that out of 'no thing' came 'everything'.
You believe that if you choose to do so.
That is one pill I can't bring myself to swallow.
Can I believe the universe has always existed in some form? Sure.
Can I believe the universe began to exist? Sure
Can I believe the universe began to exist without a cause? Nope.
I hope this clears it up for you as to what my opinion is on the creation of the universe.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2009 3:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 194 of 687 (521548)
08-27-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by greyseal
08-27-2009 4:28 PM


Re:really really
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.
So why was it around so long without anybody using it to explain how the universe was created. It was around for well over 3000 years before anyone attempted to use it to prove how the universe was created.
greyseal writes:
The BBT explains the facts like the cosmic background, red-shifted and blue-shifted stars and galaxies and much more besides.
I know the CMBR is supposed to be the best support for the BB. But there is a lot of other things in the universe and one of them is said to produce the 3K radiation and it is not the bang. It is Hydrogen.
Everything is not as neat as a lot of people like to put forth.
greyseal writes:
woah there Nellie. expansion of the universe proves the universe is expanding. Nothing more. The age of the universe can be estimated based on a number of factors, but it's not quite that easy.
Are you saying the universe can expand forever and not run out of energy and die a cold death?
greyseal writes:
we have lots of evidence which has all been summed up (at least a large portion of it) in the BBT. It's not just an idea, it's got evidence behind it (get what a "theory" is right, kthxplz).
Sure we have. Read this thread and report back all the evidence you read about how the universe began to exist.
I find "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".
I also find Straggler's "it just is".
One is in the field of religion and the other is in the field of metaphysics.
greyseal writes:
er, you could be right about the CBR and expansion of the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, but again - it's not confirming anything in the bible.
The CMBR confirms the universe is expanding.
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
God said He spread out the heavens and commanded everything in them.
Looks like God claimed to cause expansion. Thus CMBR confirms that expansion.
greyseal writes:
...er...and? Quite apart from me not understanding at all how you got to that fact, it doesn't prove anything, and you haven't proved it.
The universe is very lumpy. That is the reason inflation is necessary to shore up the BBT. The BBT predicts a smooth universe because the space expands between objects.
If it was streached then there would be places that was empty, and stuff lumped together in other places. That is what is observed.
greyseal writes:
Otherwise you're stuck in an awkward position between literalists, YEC's, OEC's
I am the literalist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 4:28 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:21 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 198 of 687 (521576)
08-28-2009 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by lyx2no
08-27-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi lyx2no,
lyx2no writes:
All that Birds before plants stuff is later.
I guess you are too busy with school to read posts. Because I covered that Here
I have heaven and earth first.
Then man,
Then plants,
Then animals, and fowls
Then woman,
So no I don't get plants and animals mixed up.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 8:59 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 202 of 687 (521648)
08-28-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
The beachball is a representative of time.
I guess therein lies my problem.
I know what a beach ball is. What it looks like. What it is made of.
Other than right now I do not know what time is.
Therefore how can a beach ball represent time when I have no idea what time is.
Maybe some of you bright fellows could fix that and then I could get the picture.
I can not observe, touch, taste, smell, hear, or even experience time.
There is no physical scientific evidence for time.
Therefore time is a concept of man.
Is my conclusion wrong?
Is time a physical thing as put forth in this discussion?
In my opinion it is imperative that we have a understanding of time in order to come to a conclusion concerning the universe and life beginning to exist.
So straighten out my thinking.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:57 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 12:13 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 208 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 1:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 204 of 687 (521651)
08-28-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by lyx2no
08-28-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi lyx2n0
lyx2no writes:
I read every word you write with more un-restrainable glee then anyone's since Buzzsaw left us. And I don't start school till Monday.
I am glad my musing tickle your fancy and keep you entertained.
Apply yourself in school, learn all you can, then apply all you learn and be all you can be.
Don't waste too much time on us die hards we are too set in out ways to learn new tricks.
But maybe if I live long enough you will be able to present scientific evidence that will prove how the universe began to exist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 8:23 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 205 of 687 (521657)
08-28-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Straggler
08-28-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Internal Logic
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
You don't claim that eiether is any more evidenced than the other.
So knock yourself out and explain how a uncaused universe can begin to exist under these terms.
If there is no existence there is 'no thing'
'No thing' is something you have never been able to get you head wrapped around.
'No thing' means exactly that.
There is 'no space'
There is 'no time'
There is 'no gravity'
There is 'no energy'
There is 'no mass'
There is 'no vacuum'
There is 'no quarks'
There is 'no imaginary time'
There is 'no instantons'
There is 'no branes to fluctuate'
There is 'no place for any of this to exist'
Tell me how you get 'some thing' out of 'no thing'.
Straggler writes:
And on the basis of this incredulity you dipsute the highly observable and predictively evidenced theory that the universe is expanding from a prior hot dense state.
If this wonderful theory that is shored up by hypothesis, fudge factors and more hypothesis is so great. Why are scientist looking for a theory that fixes all the problems this wonderful theory has?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 1:27 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 207 of 687 (521673)
08-28-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Perdition
08-28-2009 12:13 PM


Re: Information please
Hi perdition,
Perdition writes:
Time is a dimension.
If they are the same thing.
Is a dimension a physical thing?
OR
Is it a concept of the mind of man.
If it is a physical thing, what is it made of?
Perdition writes:
Essentially, time is a measurement of change.
Is time a physical thing to measure change with? Just how does time measure anything?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 12:13 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 1:11 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 211 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 3:19 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 212 of 687 (521706)
08-28-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Straggler
08-28-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Internal Logic
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings?
I didn't claim anything.
If I have to I will claim that faith in an eternal infinity is a lot easier that faith that 'some thing' came from 'no thing'.
Now do you want to answer the question I asked in Message 205
ICANT writes:
So knock yourself out and explain how a uncaused universe can begin to exist under these terms.
If there is no existence there is 'no thing'
'No thing' is something you have never been able to get you head wrapped around.
'No thing' means exactly that.
There is 'no space'
There is 'no time'
There is 'no gravity'
There is 'no energy'
There is 'no mass'
There is 'no vacuum'
There is 'no quarks'
There is 'no imaginary time'
There is 'no instantons'
There is 'no branes to fluctuate'
There is 'no place for any of this to exist'
Tell me how you get 'some thing' out of 'no thing'.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2009 1:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 6:20 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 213 of 687 (521708)
08-28-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by lyx2no
08-28-2009 1:05 PM


Re: Information please
Hi lyx2n0,
lyx2n0 writes:
Is length a physical thing?
That was not the question. And is not an answer but a question.
I stated time is a concept of a man.
I came to that conclusion because, as I said I can not observe, touch, taste, smell, hear, or even experience time.
I then asked the question:
Is time a physical thing as put forth in this discussion?
You answered with a question. What does your question have to do with whether time is physical or my conclusion being correct that time is a concept of the human mind?
You then state:
lyx2no writes:
Time is not a concept of man. We merely measure it as we measure distance.
So what part of time do you measure distance with?
So you say time is not a concept of man.
Are you saying it is physical? If so what is it made of?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by lyx2no, posted 08-28-2009 1:05 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:50 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 239 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 9:05 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 214 of 687 (521709)
08-28-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Perdition
08-28-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
As Lyx2no said, a dimension is a measurement of a physical thing, it is not a physical thing itself.
We were talking about time being a dimension.
So time is not a physical thing.
What physical thing does time measure?
Are you agreeing then that time is a concept of man?
If not what is it?
When we talk about creation and the universe beginning to exist time seems to become very important for some reason.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 1:11 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 4:33 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 217 of 687 (521714)
08-28-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by greyseal
08-28-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Information please
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
A dimension is not a physical thing, it is a property of a physical thing. time itself measures nothing, it is something we can measure things WITH. I think you know this.
So are you agreeing that time is a concept of the mind of humans?
You stated it is not physical. If it is not the concept of the mind of man what is time?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 3:19 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 4:55 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 219 of 687 (521723)
08-28-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Perdition
08-28-2009 4:33 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
Correct. It is a property of a physical thing.
So what does the physical thing own?
Is time the concept of man or what since you say it is not physical.
Perdition writes:
Change. Duration.
You have already said time is not a physical thing. So
How does time measure change?
How does time measure duration?
Perdition writes:
It is a property of the universe and all things in it, just as the other 3 dimensions we are familiar with are.
So you are saying time is a property of the universe.
That would make the time dimension that is talked about a property of the universe. Along with length, width and height.
Is that what you are saying?
Perdition writes:
To you, who wants to talk about a "before" the universe.
According to your above statement time just got real important to you.
From all the information I can find time did not always exist. Therefore time began to exist.
If time is a property of the universe, time did not exist until after the universe began to exist. That makes things kinda messy.
But no time is not important to me as I live in a universe that exists in an eternal now. It has a thing we call time that is a concept in the mind of man. A tool invented by man to measure intervals and duration by a system that is based on the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 4:33 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:04 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 221 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 6:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024