Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Messages Thread Titles This Thread

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
 46 online now: PaulK, Son Goku, Tangle (3 members, 43 visitors) Newest Member: kanthesh Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat Post Volume: Total: 881,037 Year: 12,785/23,288 Month: 510/1,527 Week: 189/207 Day: 11/39 Hour: 1/0

 Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

EvC Forum Science Forums The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy

ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Thread  Details

Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4

 Message 241 of 687 (521812) 08-29-2009 10:53 AM Reply to: Message 234 by Sasuke08-28-2009 9:46 PM

Re: Information please
Hi Sasuke,

 Sasuke writes:How is passing existence in the now? why has your body changed? how are you 70?

The interval from 1939 until 2009 as measured by time based on the rotation of the earth taking 24 hours to complete a revolution and the earth taking 365 1/4 days to circle the sun constituting 1 year means that the interval was 70 years.

Now if man was to decide wait a minute there is 12 hours in a day and 12 hours in a night and there is 365 1/4 12 hour periods in a year. You then would have the interval that would mean I am 140 years old.

Man could decide it takes 365 1/4 mornings and evenings for the earth to circle the sun which equals one day. Then I would be 70 days old.

Man's concept of time determines the unit of measure, and is only relative to man.

Time is a concept of man which he uses to try to explain existence in an eternal existence.

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 234 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 9:46 PM Sasuke has acknowledged this reply

 Replies to this message: Message 244 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 3:38 PM ICANT has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4

 Message 242 of 687 (521813) 08-29-2009 11:08 AM Reply to: Message 239 by lyx2no08-29-2009 9:05 AM

Re: Information please
Hi lyx2no,

 {rhetoric} So, you don't experience time, ey? Then if I say wait a minute I can instantly pop out or wait 17 years and you'd not notice any difference? I somehow doubt the sincerity of your position; have you thought it out at all? {/rhetoric}

I would experience the interval but I would not experience time.

 lyx2no writes:Don't feed your dog on time and an see if he doesn't experience time.

I didn't know Jim Dandy made time and put it in a bag for my dog to eat. I thought it was dog food.

The dog would experience hunger.

 lyx2no writes:If you haven't noticed you're also always "here". Have you not experienced space either?

But space is physical.

Are you saying time is physical. If it is what is it made of?

God Bless,

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box. Oddly enough, the [rhetoric] pseudocode was throwing things of, so I changed the "" to "{}".

"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 239 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 9:05 AM lyx2no has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 243 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 12:30 PM ICANT has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3338 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008

 Message 243 of 687 (521825) 08-29-2009 12:30 PM Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT08-29-2009 11:08 AM

Lost in Time. Lost in Space. It's about Time I Slapped Your Face.*
 I would experience the interval but I would not experience time.

That interval you experienced: it's called time. That's the name of it. Yeah, two guys were sitting around one day and one asked the other "What should we call these intervals we're experiencing?", and the second guy said "Time." And the the First guy said "Okay?" And that's how we got the word that you keep confusing for the thing, which is called reification. I got a story about how that word came to be, too. Want to hear it? Two guys were sitting around one day and…

 Are you saying time is physical.

Hence the implication of my rhetorical question "Is length a physical thing?". Time and space are both equally physical. That is one reason it is dealt with in physics.

 If it is what is it made of?

What is length made of? Some kind of quantum field.

Okay, this is my best understanding of the situation. I'm not what one could call satisfied with this take yet, but It's what I've got and will be built upon as I study it more.

There are fields. I don't know exactly (spelled v-a-g-u-e-l-y) what a field is but I can work with that. I don't know what gravity is either.

How many fields there are I also don't know, but fields interact with themselves and each other. Different fields interact in different ways. Some of the fields interact to form the particles we know (and surly others we don't know). These particles can interact with other fields such as the dimensional fields. Of the three spatial fields we are familiar with we can interact with then forward and backward and willfully. These particles can only react to the temporal field in a forward direction.

There may be fields out there that can interact with the temporal field. It might interact with three temporal fields and react with only one spatial field. Where the ICANT in that universe understands it perfectly, and the cavediver is saying "But I'm always here, this and that."

These fields are drifting about in their version of time and space. Something we wouldn't necessarily consider time and space even if we could interact with it. 13.7 billion years ago, as we reckon time, the right combination of fields began to interact to form the Universe we live in. The didn't begin to react because of some reason more significant then the reason I kicked a hammer that my sister left lying on the floor last night: because it was there.

Yes, ICANT, this is all metaphysics. But it is exceptionally explanatory even at my rudimentary stage of understanding and construction.

What does "explanatory" have to do with anything? It gives me the ability to make things up and test them. Let me make up something right now. Lets say time is actually two fields that are pulling away from each other which we are reacting to. If the two fields somehow reversed maybe we could travel through time in the other direction. Or if the fields were lumpy they'd pull apart at different rates in different areas. Maybe the inflationary period was caused by time dramatically deforming so lots of events could occur in what looked to us like a short time just like distorted light looks like its coming from somewhere other than where it is. How do I test these things. Nobel first, answers second, dudes. I don't trust any of you shifty lot.

The point is, I can navigate through the conundrums of time and space almost as easily as I can navigate through Boston. Not that I'm great with Boston. I'm not stuck on the Blue line going "The subway had to exist before the rail, but then it wouldn't be a subway so the rail had to come before the subway in the eternal now."

*Playground rhyme. I've never understood the intent.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

 This message is a reply to: Message 242 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 11:08 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 248 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 7:32 PM lyx2no has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10327
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

 Message 244 of 687 (521842) 08-29-2009 3:38 PM Reply to: Message 241 by ICANT08-29-2009 10:53 AM

Re: Information please
 The interval from 1939 until 2009 as measured by time based on the rotation of the earth taking 24 hours to complete a revolution and the earth taking 365 1/4 days to circle the sun constituting 1 year means that the interval was 70 years.

 Time is a concept of man which he uses to try to explain existence in an eternal existence.

OK. If there was no man, if there was no Sun, if there was no Earth orbiting the Sun - Would other components of the universe still move, change etc. etc.

Would time not still exist?

 Are you saying time is physical. If it is what is it made of?

Is gravity physical? What is gravity "made of"?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 241 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 10:53 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 245 by Sasuke, posted 08-29-2009 4:24 PM Straggler has responded Message 250 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 8:39 PM Straggler has responded

Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3777 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009

 Message 245 of 687 (521844) 08-29-2009 4:24 PM Reply to: Message 244 by Straggler08-29-2009 3:38 PM

Re: Information please
straggler,

Ok I will agree that time and math have existed as long as our universe has existed.

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : clarity

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

 This message is a reply to: Message 244 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 3:38 PM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 246 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 4:30 PM Sasuke has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10327
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

 Message 246 of 687 (521846) 08-29-2009 4:30 PM Reply to: Message 245 by Sasuke08-29-2009 4:24 PM

Re: Information please
From past conversations with ICANT I am under the impression that he considers time specifically to be simply mans measurement of the Earth going round the Sun. etc. etc. He seems to think it has no meaning that is seperate from us as God's creations or whatever. Hopefully he can clarify his exact position.

 Is "time" not a symbolical word created by MAN that is defined by man?

Regardless of mans existence the universe has evolved. That requires "time" in some sense.

You really need to realise that reading posts of others talking to ICANT involves a history that you are generally unaware of.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 245 by Sasuke, posted 08-29-2009 4:24 PM Sasuke has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 247 by Sasuke, posted 08-29-2009 4:43 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3777 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009

 Message 247 of 687 (521848) 08-29-2009 4:43 PM Reply to: Message 246 by Straggler08-29-2009 4:30 PM

Re: Information please
Straggler,

I edited my last post.

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

 This message is a reply to: Message 246 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 4:30 PM Straggler has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4

 Message 248 of 687 (521863) 08-29-2009 7:32 PM Reply to: Message 243 by lyx2no08-29-2009 12:30 PM

Re: Lost in Time.
Hi lyx2no,

 lyx2no writes:Is length a physical thing?".

Physical things have length.

But I am not convinced length itself is physical. What is it made of?

 lyx2no writes: Time and space are both equally physical.

Is time made of waves or particles?

Is space made of waves or particles?

 lyx2no writes:13.7 billion years ago, as we reckon time, the right combination of fields began to interact to form the Universe we live in.

Did those fields begin to exist or were they infinite in all directions?

Where did these fields exist?

Why did they begin to interact 13/7 billion years ago rather than 27.3 billion years ago?

 lyx2no writes:How do I test these things. Nobel first,

If I don't run out of existence first I will look for the announcment.

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 243 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 12:30 PM lyx2no has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 249 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 8:00 PM ICANT has responded Message 271 by Perdition, posted 08-31-2009 3:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3338 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008

 Message 249 of 687 (521866) 08-29-2009 8:00 PM Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT08-29-2009 7:32 PM

Re: Lost in Time.
 But I am not convinced length itself is physical. What is it made of?

Then why have you not ragged on about length as you have time? You say you haven't experienced time. Have you experienced length? Why do you have a problem with one but not the other?

 What is it made of?

Fields. The joke was the bit about my being able to navigate the conundrums of time and space, not the bit about this being all that I garner right now.

 Why did they begin to interact 13/7 billion years ago rather than 27.3 billion years ago?

Why did the flower pot fall off the window sill just when it did? Why did the wave crash into the beach just when it did? The first is pretty much random. The second is fairly predictable. Neither is through intention.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

 This message is a reply to: Message 248 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 7:32 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 251 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 9:07 PM lyx2no has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4

 Message 250 of 687 (521868) 08-29-2009 8:39 PM Reply to: Message 244 by Straggler08-29-2009 3:38 PM

Re: Information please
Hi Straggler,

 Straggler writes:Is gravity physical? What is gravity "made of"?

Is gravity physical? Truth is nobody knows.

There are those who think it is made of gravitons, which would make it physical.

But in my opinion it is not physical. I can't smell it, taste it, see it, hear it, or experience it.

I can see the results of it. I can feel the results of it. I can hear the results of it, and I can experience the results of it.

What is gravity?

The effect one body of mass has upon another body of mass.

What is gravity made of?

No one knows.

Since it is not physical it must be something man constructed.

So the word gravity was introduced by man to describe the effect one body of mass has on another body of mass.

 Straggler writes:OK. If there was no man, if there was no Sun, if there was no Earth orbiting the Sun - Would other components of the universe still move, change etc. etc.

If there was no observer there would only be eternal existence.

Would things change?

In my opinion they would exist as they have existed for eternity past eternally into the future.

Now would you like to answer my questions?

Is time physical?

If yes.

Is it made of particles or waves?

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 244 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2009 3:38 PM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 254 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2009 7:13 AM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4

 Message 251 of 687 (521870) 08-29-2009 9:07 PM Reply to: Message 249 by lyx2no08-29-2009 8:00 PM

Re: Lost in Time.
Hi lyx2no,

 lyx2no writes:Then why have you not ragged on about length as you have time? You say you haven't experienced time. Have you experienced length? Why do you have a problem with one but not the other?

What does length have to do with 'some thing' beginning to exist?

Time is said to be an integral part of what happened at T=0 and very shortly thereafter.

 lyx2no writes:Fields.

What are those fields made of?

I notice you did not answer my two questions about those fields that you say interacted 13.7 billion years ago resulting in this universe.

 ICANT writes:Did those fields begin to exist or were they infinite in all directions?Where did these fields 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 249 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 8:00 PM lyx2no has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 252 by lyx2no, posted 08-29-2009 10:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3338 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008

 Message 252 of 687 (521871) 08-29-2009 10:00 PM Reply to: Message 251 by ICANT08-29-2009 9:07 PM

Re: Lost in Time.
 What does length have to do with 'some thing' beginning to exist?

It also came into existence with the Universe just like time did. By the way, you do know that 'some thing' in no different then "something" that normal people use. Same for 'no thing'. There is not extra meaning to saying it in a silly fashion to 'any one' but you.

 Time is said to be an integral part of what happened at T=0 and very shortly thereafter.

Nothing happened at T=0. There wasn't a T=0 any more then you see the timer get to 0:00:00 on a time bomb. There is only T>0.

 I notice you did not answer my two questions about those fields that you say interacted 13.7 billion years ago resulting in this universe.

You've failed to notice that I've answered it twice. Once before you asked.

 me writes:I don't know exactly (spelled v-a-g-u-e-l-y) what a field is…and,…not the bit about this being all that I garner right now.

You however keep making the mistake of putting things somewhere as you understand somewhere and in time as you understand time. These fields do not have the same constraints on them as we do. The fields don't need time to exist or space to exist as we know time and space.

Have you ever noticed physicist saying things like "branes colliding"? Isn't it kind of obvious that these things must be in motion? Isn't it obvious the motion requires both time and space? Do you really think physicist don't notice that too? The same physicists that say time and space came into existence with the Universe. Doesn't it occur to you that they are really just using familiar words, and that they don't have to make up a whole new lexicon so as not to confuse you? But that they must mean something else known to them, and not confusing to them, and not blatantly contradictory to a thought that they had only seconds ago

Like A. Square, you also don't know that there are things over your head.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

 This message is a reply to: Message 251 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 9:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2266 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 253 of 687 (521880) 08-30-2009 6:57 AM Reply to: Message 240 by ICANT08-29-2009 10:06 AM

Re: Information please
 I would like to read your thoughts on those things if you ever decide to come out of the closet. (closet pre-Big Bang believer)

You haven't a 1% grasp on what we're talking about, and yet you have the gall to claim to know what I believe! When I don't even know myself! In the same post you accuse me of believing both the no-boundary proposal AND a pre-Big Bang What sort of fool are you?

You do not change - you continue to wield terms and concepts with the confidence of an expert and the knowledge and ability of a 2yr old.

And what sort of divine inspiration is required to come up with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?? It's the most sodding obvious thing that any half-brained monotheistic priest could jot down. And you think this is some incredible revelation that is born out by science. FFS, this is pathetic.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 240 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 10:06 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 260 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10327
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

 Message 254 of 687 (521882) 08-30-2009 7:13 AM Reply to: Message 250 by ICANT08-29-2009 8:39 PM

Re: Information please
 What is gravity made of?No one knows.Since it is not physical it must be something man constructed.

So gravity is a physical force that isn't physical. Hmmmm.

 If there was no observer there would only be eternal existence.Would things change?In my opinion they would exist as they have existed for eternity past eternally into the future.

How pointlessly poetic. In the absence of humanity would things move? You cannot have motion (i.e. change) without time. Are you saying that time is a purely human construct with no physical basis independent from us? Or not?

 Is time physical?

It is as physical as length is.

 Now would you like to answer my questions?

Would you like to answer mine? As per Re: Internal Logic (Message 237). Your entire EvC campaign for years has been based on your objection to the universe having an uncaused "beginning" on the basis of such a thing never having been observed. Yet, even ignoring your various misapprehensions of modern cosmology, it turns out that your stated alternative has no more observational basis than the thing you are relentlessly railing against.

Even by the internal logic of your own misinformed argument you are applying selective logic to get the result that is philosophically desirable to you. And in doing so you are denying reams of evidence regarding the evolution of the universe. Evidence that has little to do with T=0 or any of your other conflations and distractions.

 This message is a reply to: Message 250 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 8:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 255 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2009 11:56 AM Straggler has not yet responded Message 265 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 12:08 PM Straggler has responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3831
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.9

 Message 255 of 687 (521902) 08-30-2009 11:56 AM Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler08-30-2009 7:13 AM

The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
 Your entire EvC campaign for years has been based on your objection to the universe having an uncaused "beginning" on the basis of such a thing never having been observed.

Unless some quality dispute of this comes from ICANT, I will have to take the above quoted as being ICANT's position in the creation debate.

In other words, he has no substantial dispute with the scientific findings about the history of the universe and everything of the universe, if it is granted that God is ultimately behind it all.

The prominent exception is that ICANT does seem to subscribe to a literal Noahtic flood somewhere in the past 5000 years.

Moose

 This message is a reply to: Message 254 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2009 7:13 AM Straggler has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 256 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020