Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 12:13 PM
41 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, Faith, FLRW, JoeT, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (11 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,159 Year: 5,196/19,786 Month: 1,318/873 Week: 214/460 Day: 30/29 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Crack-Pot Ideas that still hold water
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 46 of 54 (246555)
09-26-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


God R Us
My "God R Us" theory is supported by both science and religion, though only in fragmentary ways because both remain so primitive.

Please accept my airy dismissal of your objections in advance.

We (home sapiens deus) are destined to evolve into God(s)--we have done it before, explaining (1) why Adam and Eve were created in "Our" image, (2) why we pre-Gods should avoid provoking jealousy by worshipping no other Gods (i.e., the last cycle's losers, Republicans), (3) why the Kingdom of Heaven is "within" us, and (4)why the universe seems precisely tuned for our emergence and survival.

Furthermore, there is no logical limit to evolution:
mutation + selection + a-very-long-time-indeed = God R Us.

Many religions describe a Creator God who in some future time will return. In reality, this refers both to our former status as our own Creator as well as the future in which we have again fully evolved our God-Nature.

In the face of the Big Rip, Big Crunch, or Big Freeze, etc. (hey, We can change it each time, who's to know?), We, at long last fully Gods again, will look around and say, "Whoa! Nice ride! Over already!?" [Note that the evangelicals are the back-seat kids constantly asking, "Are We there yet? Are We there yet?" They will be selected out somewhere in the demigod state for the Unforgivable Sin of Tedium...]

Out of boredom, We will gloriously expend Our God energies in one Organismasmic burst to again birth the universe (yes, God is Omnisexual): note the primitive religions where the "God" is slain to engender new growth and harvests--like the afterglow of Creation, this is a faint echo of the truth. Again, our primitive religious texts have it a bit wrong--God (in the evolved phase) gets the Rapture, we (in the evolving phase) get the genes.

Then We roll out the Whole Enchilada again just for fun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:54 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nighttrain, posted 09-26-2005 8:30 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2103 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 47 of 54 (246660)
09-26-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Omnivorous
09-26-2005 1:26 PM


Re: God R Us
That was refuted by Croizat`s take on Gladyshev`s explanation of Gould`s polygod ploy at Cornell------

Airy dismissal accepted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Omnivorous, posted 09-26-2005 1:26 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 09-27-2005 9:05 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 48 of 54 (246687)
09-27-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Nighttrain
09-26-2005 8:30 PM


Re: God R Us
Nighttrain writes:

That was refuted by Croizat`s take on Gladyshev`s explanation of Gould`s polygod ploy at Cornell------

Airy dismissal accepted.

Don't make me show you the math. Or the drawings. Both have driven strong men mad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Nighttrain, posted 09-26-2005 8:30 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 49 of 54 (246694)
09-27-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 2:47 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Perhaps you'd like to make a donation?
I've spent money on worse things! :) Sure..here is a twenty. Now when do I get to meet the weasel that goes with the Pop?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:47 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 09-27-2005 12:24 PM Phat has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 50 of 54 (246729)
09-27-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Phat
09-27-2005 9:55 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Because the government has not yet spent the money necessary for me to prove my theory, you'll have to make due with what I have.

I have no Pop Weasel.
I have a Snap Weasel and I have a Crackle Otter.

The rest can be infered


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 09-27-2005 9:55 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 09-27-2005 12:33 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 51 of 54 (246732)
09-27-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Nuggin
09-27-2005 12:24 PM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
No wonder they call it Battle Creek! :) No intelligent beaver designed THAT one! And you thought that all they made was cereal!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 09-27-2005 12:24 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
strickjh2005
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 54 (258834)
11-11-2005 12:00 PM


Uniformity?
"{2) Upside Down Evaporation - Many of the features of the Great Flood don't stand up against modern geology, however, this is because geologists are assuming that the waters of the Flood behave like water we see today on Earth. My assertion is that these waters actually evaporated from the bottom up - thus salt deposits could form underneith other layers, erosion could happen backwards, etc."

The book [u]The Elegant Universe [/u] describes universal symetry (from what post-posters have stated it seems very similar to uniformity). This basically refutes the Greek idea that terrestrial and extrateretrial matter behaves differently.


  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 53 of 54 (263856)
11-28-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


I'm thinking this should slide on into "Is this science?"

I've recently, and repeatedly, had a few of my ideas flat out ridiculed by people who called them "ridiculous" and "idiotic". Perhaps these ideas aren't "scientific" but I personally feel that they stand up perfectly well by certain standards of YEC science.

I'd like to present a few of them here to see if anyone can disprove them. Also, if you have any ideas, I'll try to knock those down if you like.

1) Downward Pusher - Gravity is not a law. What we "believe" is gravity "attracting two objects with mass" is simply the downward force exherted upon us by the Intelligent Pusher. It is through his devine providence that we don't go spinning out into space.

2) Upside Down Evaporation - Many of the features of the Great Flood don't stand up against modern geology, however, this is because geologists are assuming that the waters of the Flood behave like water we see today on Earth. My assertion is that these waters actually evaporated from the bottom up - thus salt deposits could form underneith other layers, erosion could happen backwards, etc.

3) Random Species POP-ulation. New species randomly POP into existance. (usually with the audible sound). This accounts for why so many species that exist today don't exist in the past. It also allows for different species without macro-evolution.

Anyone wanna take a stab at these.

By the way, I know some of you think I'm being silly here, but I honestly KNOW these to be true, so good luck proving me wrong.

Also, I read these in a book.

1) If this were true than the divine presence would have to be a mathematical geenious or aumniciant. I personally believe that God created the world and then let it run. However, I do also believe that God can violate physical laws at any time he wishes.

2) The laws of physics don't change. They remained the same since they were created. It is possible though that maybe through more fundamental mechanisms the constants changed.

3) Cross-Breeding and Natural Selection, but NOT evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:54 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Nighttrain, posted 11-28-2005 5:55 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2103 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 54 of 54 (263862)
11-28-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Guido Arbia
11-28-2005 5:31 PM


zap!
2) The laws of physics don't change. They remained the same since they were created. It is possible though that maybe through more fundamental mechanisms the constants changed.

Unconstant constants? What a novel idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-28-2005 5:31 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019