Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 7:23 PM
207 online now:
dwise1, JonF (2 members, 205 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,095 Year: 18,918/29,783 Month: 863/2,043 Week: 415/386 Day: 72/107 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   How would you evolutionists explain this?
Jeptha
Unregistered


Message 16 of 29 (34418)
03-14-2003 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 8:35 PM


Hmmm....I'm doing great with the quote deal as all can see.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 8:35 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 03-14-2003 10:42 PM You have not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 17 of 29 (34434)
03-14-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 8:36 PM


Short Quoting Lesson
A guide to using the UBB codes can be found at:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/PresentHTML.cgi?action=html&file=dBCodes.html&title=dBCodes

A link to this guide can always be found to the left of the text window into which you type messages, it's called *UBB Code is ON.

To use the regular quote:

[quote]All the text you're quoting...[/quote]

This will end up looking like this:

quote:
All the text you're quoting...

There's also a shaded quote:

[qs]All the text you're quoting...[/qs]

This will end up looking like this:

All the text you're quoting...

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 8:36 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 29 (34751)
03-20-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 6:25 PM


Does time exist ... or is it just a convenient reference
frame for our method of perception?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 6:25 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 19 of 29 (34752)
03-20-2003 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 8:35 PM


If you have chosen to believe in God, then that's
fine.

I don't think you'll find many here who's intent is to
disprove or discredit the concept and/or belief in God.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible is the
literal truth you may have a lively discussion on your hands.

ToE is compatible with a God-created universe. It just depends
what you believe He created.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 8:35 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
Asgara
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 20 of 29 (42182)
06-05-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 6:25 PM


P1 - Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bang

P2 - The term 'pre-exist' is a nonsensical term when no time is present

Conc - Therefore, there is no such thing as 'pre-existing the big bang.'

It works both ways..hhmmm

___________________
Asgara

"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

edited - forgot signature

[This message has been edited by Asgara, 06-05-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 6:25 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
Number_ 19
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 29 (44306)
06-26-2003 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:36 AM


Well first off mr question marks some evolutionists believe that life is inevitable.Like me.I think that you MUST exist.By some law of nature that forces life to evolve from pure nothingness alone.But even though I believe in this evolution would crush the "god" theory anyway so I'm no Christian.You may have also caught yourself in a lie when you say energy wasn't created.If it was'nt created then your "god" sure did'nt create it.

------------------
The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:36 AM ????? has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 22 of 29 (44913)
07-03-2003 2:48 AM


interesting Question. and I like it However I can ask the same of you... where did your God come from?
    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 23 of 29 (47278)
07-24-2003 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 6:25 PM


Hmmm... let me try this with cucumbers.
(I'm borrowing your syllogisms, Jeptha.)

Syllogism 1.
------------
P1: If cucumbers 'caused' the big bang they would have had to pre-exist the big bang.
P2: Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bang.
Conclusion: Therefore, cucumbers pre-existed time.

Syllogism 2.
------------
P1: Cucumbers pre-existed time.
P2: The term 'before' is a nonsensical term when no time is present.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as 'before cucumbers.'

Can you see that if cucumbers do exist and there is no 'before cucumbers,' then it is quite logical to state that they always were?

All jocularity aside: your reasoning is just plain silly Jeptha, you should be ashamed.

Cheers.

Afterthought: in my fridge there is a cucumber which, by the looks of it, I am tempted to say has always existed.

[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-24-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 6:25 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 24 of 29 (47307)
07-24-2003 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 6:25 PM


Cutting my teeth....
Jpatha writes:

P2 Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bang.


This premise is untrue. Time is. Period. The Big Bang is simply the origin from which we arbitrate our relative temporal observations. It is the convergence of all of our temporal measurements into the past, which so happen to converge because of our uniform motion with respect to eachother.

If you imagine an ordinary x-y graph, where the x and y axes intersect, at the coordinates (0,0), is the graph's origin. In a parallel analogy, universal time then is the measure of distance from any point on the graph to the origin. Nothing "precedes" the origin on this graph in this sense, because the distance between any point on the graph and the origin will always have a positive value. The past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. The present, then, is a threshold of motion, with each persently existing thing moving uniformly away from the origin in all directions -- this is where cosmologists contrived the notion of an expanding universe. The uniformity of motion makes time appear constant and linear, but General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances.

Furthermore, there is no point where our graph can be said to "begin" since it extends infinitely in all directions. The origin (0,0) is simply where we choose to begin, and in fact that is how it acquired the coordinate label. Thus the notion that time was "created" at the Big Bang is erroneous.

If you imagine space-time as a flat graph (as physicists frequently do in order to conceptualize space-time curvature resulting from gravity), then the Big Bang is the origin of our graph, and the past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. Your premise presumes a erroneous unidirectional linear conceptualization of time, and instead time is better conceived as planar.

Blessings,

::


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 6:25 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by roxrkool, posted 07-24-2003 4:58 PM :: has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 07-24-2003 7:54 PM :: has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 25 of 29 (47326)
07-24-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ::
07-24-2003 2:36 PM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
You know, I actually understood everything you said ae.

It made perfect sense to me...

but then again, maybe it wasn't that difficult to understand in the first place... no matter, it was a well thought out and written post. Thanks, ae!

And welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ::, posted 07-24-2003 2:36 PM :: has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 26 of 29 (47340)
07-24-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ::
07-24-2003 2:36 PM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
::,

You said:
"The uniformity of motion makes time appear constant and linear [...]"

How exactly does time appear constant to you? Can you somehow measure the 'speed' of time? What is it expressed in? Seconds per second? Per second of what? Meta-time? And how fast does meta-time flow? Is meta-time constant? Is there a meta-meta-time?

Your seemingly innocent statement raises more questions than it provides answers. The notion of the 'flow of time' is problematic in that it implies an infinite regression of meta-times, each with its own contribution to one and the same problem. My conclusion would be that the flow of time is an illusion.

It is because of the irreversibility of the total sum of events happening in the universe that we experience an arrow of time. We experience one total quantum state of the universe, then we experience the next, then the next, and the next, and so on and so forth. To attribute uniformity (or acceleration, or even deceleration) to this succession of states is meaningless, because the succession doesn't take time. It can go one better: it defines time.

How about it? Take your time. (Nudge-nudge, wink-wink)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ::, posted 07-24-2003 2:36 PM :: has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ::, posted 07-24-2003 8:50 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 27 of 29 (47346)
07-24-2003 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Parasomnium
07-24-2003 7:54 PM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
Parasomnium writes:

How exactly does time appear constant to you?


It appears constant in that I can define specific, regular, rhythmic intervals that are invariant between all observing reference frames which are moving uniformly to the one in which I defined them. It appears that 24 hrs is an absolute interval independant of reference frames because you and I and everyone else are moving in motion that is uniform enough to create that appearance. IOW, the differentials in velocity that would reveal the relative nature of time, and that time is not constant, are not casually experienced by any human observers, and as a result it appears that a second to you is equal to a second to me. Of course, I went on to say that General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances.

Parasomnium writes:

The notion of the 'flow of time' is problematic in that it implies an infinite regression of meta-times, each with its own contribution to one and the same problem. My conclusion would be that the flow of time is an illusion.


And I would agree with you.

Parasomnium writes:

To attribute uniformity (or acceleration, or even deceleration) to this succession of states is meaningless, because the succession doesn't take time. It can go one better: it defines time.


I think I must work on formulating my thoughts clearer in the future because I don't see how what I said led you to believe that I would disagree with these statements of yours. Sorry for the confusion.

Blessings,

::


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 07-24-2003 7:54 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 07-25-2003 5:23 AM :: has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 28 of 29 (47384)
07-25-2003 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ::
07-24-2003 8:50 PM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
::,

If you had said that time appears constant between reference frames moving at moderate (i.e. non-relativistic) speeds with regard to each other, I would have understood and agreed immediately.

But I thought you meant that (the flow of) time appeared constant for an observer without reference to anything else, which is obviously nonsense.

When I explain this to myself (as I frequently need to do) I always liken our (illusory) experience of 'time as a flow' with that of sitting in a boat on a river, in a fog so thick that you can't see either shore. Because you have no way of seeing anything else than the water around you, you have no idea of how fast you are floating through the landscape. To know how fast you float you would need meta-river, i.e. the shores. Time as a flow would require meta-time to measure its rate of flow. And meta-time requires... well, you get the picture.

Cheers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ::, posted 07-24-2003 8:50 PM :: has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ::, posted 07-25-2003 3:23 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 29 of 29 (47457)
07-25-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Parasomnium
07-25-2003 5:23 AM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
Alright, I see where I could have phrased my statements a bit clearer.

Glad we're on the same page.

Blessings,

::


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 07-25-2003 5:23 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018