Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rational people only (no yecs)
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 46 (6394)
03-09-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by quicksink
03-09-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
and einstein's principle that the speed of time is relative to the observer can be used in my argument- if there was no observer, than there was no time. time was moving at an infinite pace because nobody could define its speed.
First this is wrong Einstein had c constant in all inertial reference frames, i.e if you measure c standing still or moving you will always get the same answer....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 12:09 AM quicksink has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 46 (6395)
03-09-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 11:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
if the laws of physics were created at the moment of the big bang, wouldn't that mean that all time was decided from that point forward? if you think about it, the laws of physics have total control over every inanimate object- they move it- they make it- they destroy it.

You have unfortunately failed to take into account this wee little thing called Heisenburgs uncertainty principle....
Your view is one commonly put forwad by the empiricists of the 19th century who believed that witha proper derivation of all the laws and proper observations of the matter they acted on the future states of the system could be calculated.....
It was all looking rosy until quantum mechanics came along and put an inherant limit on our knowledge.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 11:37 PM quicksink has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 18 of 46 (6396)
03-09-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by quicksink
03-09-2002 7:04 AM


Topical discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 7:04 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 46 (6401)
03-09-2002 10:56 AM


i guess my theory is wrong... oh well- at least i was thinking out of the box
BTW- i have now done research on the special theory of relativity and understand it completely.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-09-2002 11:00 AM quicksink has replied
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 11:43 AM quicksink has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 46 (6402)
03-09-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by quicksink
03-09-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
i guess my theory is wrong... oh well- at least i was thinking out of the box
BTW- i have now done research on the special theory of relativity and understand it completely.

I doubt that you understand it completely after a (necessarily) less than 1/2 hour study of the subject...
Also its only one special case of general relativity which is a whole lot more interesting....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 10:56 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-09-2002 11:28 AM joz has not replied
 Message 22 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 11:31 AM joz has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 46 (6403)
03-09-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
03-09-2002 11:00 AM


Realitivy has the same inherent weakness in it as quantum mechanics. From what I have read, they work well for their respective scales, but run into problems when they broach into the opposite side of the spectrum. If I remember correctly, gravity at the quantum level seems to be a major stumbling block. My friend at UCSD was telling me something about gravity doing very strange things at that level.
I am really fascinated on both subjects, but am still early in my reseach into both theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-09-2002 11:00 AM joz has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 46 (6404)
03-09-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
03-09-2002 11:00 AM


well cut me a little slack
i'm 12 years old for god's sake!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-09-2002 11:00 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 8:42 AM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 46 (6405)
03-09-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by quicksink
03-09-2002 3:45 AM


"there are plenty of people who believe that the laws of physics were created randomly during the big bang. but then again, the big bang never happened."
--As you can observe from my post, this is not what I was addressing, ie, the point of the big bang. However, I was addressing your point that 'they did not exist in a vaccume' as it's support.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 3:45 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 46 (6406)
03-09-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by quicksink
03-09-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
and finally, i disclude creationists from this topic because their presence is irrelevant. the subject of this topic is based on the assumption that the universe did form with the big bang, so therefore this theory is not being debated.

A more appropriate title may have been "All who agree with the Big Bang" rather than singling out YEC's as irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 7:04 AM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 46 (6407)
03-09-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by quicksink
03-09-2002 10:56 AM


"BTW- i have now done research on the special theory of relativity and understand it completely."
--I have seen books in university libraries thousands of pages in length, and even in some cases, series of books on the subject (though usually also encompassing quantum mechanics). If my interest in quantum force or cosmology and cosmogeny, I would perhaps take the time to read them.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 10:56 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 11:51 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 46 (6408)
03-09-2002 11:46 AM


refresh problem again

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 46 (6409)
03-09-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 11:43 AM


i'm sorry-
i guess i stated it incorrectly... i understand the underlying concepts completely
of course, i don't know all the technical details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 11:43 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 46 (6545)
03-11-2002 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 11:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
i was thinking about the universe and i thought of this
if the laws of physics were created at the moment of the big bang, wouldn't that mean that all time was decided from that point forward?

The laws of physics did not spring into being ... ever.
They are creations of man which describe the observed behaviours
of the matter and energy within our limits of
observation.
quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
so that means that time was nothing- that is until living beings were factored in- we can are not controlled by the laws of physics, we are only restricted by them.

Time doesn't actually exist at all. It is convenient for us to
interpret out perceptions of the universe against a passage
of time.
Try measuring time.
By that I mean get a like-for-like comparision the way we do with
length or mass.
Read 'Slaughterhouse five' by Kurt Vonnegut ... I know it's
fiction, but he has an interesting slant on time
[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 11:37 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 29 of 46 (6547)
03-11-2002 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by quicksink
03-09-2002 11:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
well cut me a little slack
i'm 12 years old for god's sake!

If you are really only 12 ... keep thinking ... you're
pretty good at it already.
Read lot's too ... you always need something to think on.
.. and enter debates that challenge the intellect ... oh you are ..
er .. that's good then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 11:31 AM quicksink has not replied

  
jennacreationist
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 46 (11970)
06-22-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 11:37 PM


I actually understand your reasonning, but then doesn't your theory leave room for God?
because if "we are evolving into something other than what we are currently" then isn't it feasible to have a being a Creator that is more "evolved" and far more intelligent than those of us who are on earth?
See it is not so far fetched after all.
I don't understand why no one would believe me if I said that my computer came from a matter that randomly and over time created itself and evolved from a tic tac, something that is also inanimate, yet people of such great and wonderfully God given intelligence truly want to believe that any living matter even a microbe came from a non-living non source of nothing to form our beautiful land, seas, skies let alone an actual functionning breathing without thinking human being.
The Bible is full of Science and I know that it can be proven that their is a heavenly Father by using the scientific method.
I am a Biology major by brain and a Christian by heart. They can go hand in hand , not opposing beleifs but one and the same.
Have a great Day~
Jenn~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 11:37 PM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 06-22-2002 10:48 PM jennacreationist has not replied
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 06-23-2002 7:24 PM jennacreationist has replied
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2002 10:00 PM jennacreationist 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