Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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 ICANT
08-29-2009 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 replied

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

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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 ICANT
08-29-2009 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 replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 272 of 687 (522039)
08-31-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
08-31-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Information please
Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?
The Universe is finite yet unbounded. This you have been told countless times yet fail to bother to understand.
It does no good to answer your questions, ICANT, when you insist on shoving them into your framework of understanding and reading a chapter into every verse; as you did when the story of Genesis and even the creation story becomes Gen. 1:1; in the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth. (Or in this case a verse into a phrase.)
You need to digest the statements made to you and put them into a framework independent of you own. Your framework does not apply to what you are being told, and only leads to your greater confusion. Well, it would if you ever crossed referenced our words with your story.
Did the universe begin to exist?
Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms beginning or exist.
Can something come from nothing?
Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms something or nothing.
You said time was physical so, What is time made of?
You assume that something physical must be made of something as you understand every day things are made of something. The answer is fields. Fields are sets of numbers that can be manipulated to get answers that comply with empirical observation. This is the same way we work with gravity, and few people have a problem with it. If the fields did not represent an actuality, we’d not likely get answers that comply with empirical observation, but random nonsense like 300 cubit arks.
Actually on the authority of the Bible I declared and announced that God had cause the expansion of the universe by streaching it out. Stating that the Bible declared that over 2700 years ago.
And I predict that the New England Patriots will win Super bowls XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. And I say it with clarity: not with some nebulous words that can be fit to just about anything after the fact.
Now you may know more than they do.
It’s not a matter of us knowing more then they. It is a matter of us understanding what they say and not turning it into something the fits an erroneous framework.
Further, this is ICANT’s position in the creation debate. Why would you need Straggler to answer questions to explain your universe?
You will have to ask Moses that question.
These kinds of statement are only helpful in letting everyone else know that your avoiding thinking about the question.
Straggler was putting forth that I out of my ignorance was putting forth that the Cmbr was wrong.
This is a lovely example of someone saying X and you getting LMNO but not X out of it.
All I am pointing out is that scientist have questioned the source of the CMBR.
That’s not all you are pointing out. You are implying that the scientists have come to the wrong interpretation of their own words and work.

Hello kbertsche
It looks like you guys are getting tripped up on whether or not time and space are "physical." Could you clarify what you mean by this?
Of course they are physical. But ICANT needs them to be made of some kind of substance that we can put a name on; otherwise, he feels he has cause to treat them as one would properly treat love and beauty: products of the minds of men.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 5:05 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 281 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:16 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 277 of 687 (522059)
08-31-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Information please
I don't really know the answers to many of your questions. I've only been looking at this for a few months. I'm only at the stage of making statements that are as nebulous as possible, hoping something approaching reality will fall within my error bars, while still not being totally crap.
I'm well aware of the fact that I don't have much of a clue, but ICANT's misconceptions are grand enough for even me to improve upon.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 5:05 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 356 of 687 (522776)
09-04-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by ICANT
09-04-2009 7:53 PM


Re: time
I need to know what your definition of time is.
Time is the distance between events.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 7:53 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 359 of 687 (522817)
09-05-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Anything But That
This would have been so much easier if you'd just have said "My position in the creation debate is whatever doesn't say Gen 1:1 & Gen 2:7 are wrong. Outside that, anything goes." Then you wouldn't have to pretend you don't know what time is, or even that time has anything to do with your position.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:45 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 387 of 687 (523145)
09-08-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Time
Time exists as a tool of man which is used to measure duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth.
Length exists as a tool of man which is used to measure distance, measured with reference to the King's shoe size.
I hope you can see how stupid a statement that is. If not I'm hard put to know what can be said to get you to end your silly semantics.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 4:18 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 391 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 4:30 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 392 of 687 (523152)
09-08-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 5:41 AM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
This has not been "proven" under the definition of a sound deductive syllogism that leaves no holes or flaws possible. There is an induction present which has led to a scientific consensus that evolution happened, despite major facts and evidences that would normally lead to a paradigm shift.
I clearly wrote " 'proven' to the satisfaction of all but the most perverse" not "that leaves no holes or flaws possible." I wonder why I said it that way. It is possible that I was kidnapped by atheist fiends who forced me to say it in exactly that form because they suffer from a lack of confidence in their convictions, or because I meant "proven" to the satisfaction of all but the most perverse. But because the first is 'possible' I'm guessing it's the favored of the two.
There are not any major facts and evidences that would normally lead to a paradigm shift. Those are figments of your imagination. You've been asked to put them on the table on more then one occasion, and you, and the rest of the creationists, have failed to produce anything other then examples of a complete inability to understand what it is you're talking about.
Instead the answer is; "oh but we already know evolution happened, therefore let's find an evolutionary answer rather than look at another possibility".
Another figment of your imagination. People can only fool themselves for so long when their explanations must conform to reality. As you only have to conform to a story book you can fool yourself indefinitely.
There are neutral folk whom have big big problems believing in evolution, because of the problems with it.
No, there aren't.
I have not seen good enough logical answers to explain away such contrary facts.
That is because your standard of good enough is "conforming to the Bible." Contrary to the Bible is not the same as contrary to facts.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 5:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 412 of 687 (523199)
09-08-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
09-08-2009 6:20 PM


Re: Time
If it is continually accelerating that means it is getting faster and faster doesn't it?
You are confusing velocity with speed. Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is instantaneous speed and direction. So, changing either speed or direction is an acceleration. An orbiting body is always changing direction.

AbE:
Hi Straggler
ICANT this stuff is in text books available to 14 year olds.
Derision noted.

Ab2E:
Hi Ravin
Beat you
Beat me too, you child beater.
Edited by lyx2no, : PS to Straggler
Edited by lyx2no, : Ab2E to Rahvin.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 6:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 9:44 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 418 of 687 (523219)
09-08-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by ICANT
09-08-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Time
to me
"To me" is not the standard you need to appeal to.
Like I said I am old school.
Physics is older then you. Why did you go to all the trouble to learn it wrong.
But I am learning.
Not so long as you appeal to "To me " you ain't.

I have a Weatherby Mark V Deluxe in .270 with a 27" heavy barrel, adjustable cheek and Leupold VX-3L scope. And a Remington 700 BDL in .308 rebedded in a Bell & Carlson 2094 stock with a Swarovisk 3-9x36 American scope. At 50 meters I'll keep 7 mm three shot groups with the Mark V and 11 mm three shot groups with the Remington all day. .308 is a bit heavy for me yet.
Edited by lyx2no, : Forgot to enter range.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 667 of 687 (527849)
10-02-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by ICANT
10-01-2009 2:12 PM


Evolution
ICANT once writes:
But space is physical.
But here ICANT writes:
7. Is length, width, and height a property of the universe?
No, they are a concept of man invented to measure the size of objects as well as the space between objects.
I can only assume you've recognized that time is extremely similar to distance and so to preserve your desire for time to be a construct you now make distance a construct as well. And though I think you went in the wrong direction, that your position has evolved lends promise that you do get the occasional glimpse of the contradictions in your position. Given you live to 140 this issue may be resolve to the good. I hope for both.
That aside, I don't see where you ever took this thread past my Message 3. Your God created the Universe; you're not going to register any rebuttal to God having made life in any way differing from Gen: 2.7; and If it can't be know 100% you get to make up what ever suits your fancy.
Nice Universe if you can get it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by ICANT, posted 10-01-2009 2:12 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024