My god's bigger than your god.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Odin defeated the Titans, but where did the Titans come from, and who did they beat?
Quote
Or the many true gods but mine is better than yours.
That's a reason why I can't affiliate myself to any particular religion. But then again, what if there is more than one God?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"What basis? The one you misunderstood? I didn't mention a science class, or any type of class for that matter. "
No I havent misunderstood at all . I was very clear that I objected to ID being taught in science classes. I also said I think it does have a role to be taught in other classes eg religious studies. If you follow the debate on this issue its about Id being taught as science in a science class. So of course that is the issue we should address.
I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen?
If infinite in space-time, was there even a creation?
Yeah, the Big Bang dude. What else was the creation. What, like, happened before the large pop, well, fuck knows man.
Seriously though; your statement is a paradox. So it's essentially crap but does make a slight point.
**OUR** part of space-time may have started with a "big bang", but our universe may just be a tiny part of an infinitite entity with no beginning. Maybe there never was a creation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
That's fairly hard to comprehend, yet makes some kind of sense too(!), it makes me feel that we're incapable of fully understanding the infinity of the universe and how it began; if, like you suggest, it ever did 'begin'.
What doesn't have a beginning?
Sod it - I'll have a think about that one tomorrow.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Coreece 190
Quote**OUR** part of space-time may have started with a "big bang", but our universe may just be a tiny part of an infinitite entity with no beginning.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuote**OUR** part of space-time may have started with a "big bang", but our universe may just be a tiny part of an infinitite entity with no beginning.
Now we're getting somewhere.
We are? I doubt that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jakee 1,254
QuoteOdin defeated the Titans, but where did the Titans come from, and who did they beat?
Odin defeated the Giants.
Zeus defeated the Titans by overthrowing his father Kronos. Kronos had gained power for the Titans by cutting his own father's (Ouranus) balls off. Ouranus (Heavens) and Gaia (earth) pretty much just spontaneously sprung up from Kaos (nothingness).
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,254
QuoteCOuld be more than one got it right. Many religions are very similar in their ideas of a supreme being/creator and the concept of life after death even though their societies were, at one time, separated by great distances with no interaction between them.
Similar in what ways?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,254
QuoteI don't understand you - do you mean only one could be right in regards to only one true God and religion?
Basically, yeah. In every religion God(s) have a different appearance and personality, creation happened differently, there are different criteria for going to different levels of the afterlife which are themselves different from each other... So since all but one are bound to be made up anyway it's not at all improbable that they're all made up.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
pirana 0
Quote>I think it would be more accurate to say singularities are a type of black hole.
A singularity is a mathematical concept where a variable goes to infinity or to an undefined number. A mathematical concept is not a "type of black hole."
A gravitational singularity is a region of space where gravitational metrics go to infinity. One sort of gravitational singularity is a black hole, which is a star that is compressed to such a degree that its gravitational force does not allow anything (including light) to escape.
>The only information that is carried out of a black hole is the temperature of
>the energy being radiated.
Not quite. Nothing - not photons, not particles, nothing - can escape from a black hole. Nothing is radiated from it.
However, we can observe certain things about it. We can observe its spin, because a spinning black hole shows periodic changes in the material it ingests and will often demonstrate axial features like jets. We can measure its charge, since it will affect an electric field.
We can also tell the temperature of the space around it, since it will be selectively absorbing half of the particle-antiparticle pairs that are spontaneously generated in free space. The "other half" of the particle is thus preserved and can be detected as radiation. This radiation, called Hawking radiation, can be measured and compared to a blackbody spectrum; this gives the equivalent temperature of the black hole.
>but I think they are a moot point when confronted with the hard stop of
>information, the Great Eraser that is . . .Singularity
I'd tend to agree, but keep in mind that singularities eventually evaporate.
Just because a singularity is a mathematical concept does not preclude said concept from including the characteristics that would it define it as a typre of black hole. I'd agree that one has never been observed, and would contend one will never be observed; but the fact that it is a mathematical concept does not logically preclude it from being, nor include it, as a type of black hole. Other characterisitcs, once observed, may include or exclude it from such classification; but just being a concept does not.
The radiation you speak of is not Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is theorized as coming wholly from inside a black hole; from beyond the event horizon. What you mention is one half of a particle pair disappearing over the event horizon, and the other never crossing it (and thus being observed). That is not Hawking radiation, and Hawking radiation has never been onserved.
I'll give you that we can measure the spin, charge, and temperature. My point still stands that such information will not help you determine what went in (or what came before - be it a donkey, hot fudge sundae, or God) a black hole; much less a singularity (theorized as being at the center of at least some black holes).
You end your post with an interesting comment about singularities evaporating. Hawking has theorized that black holes evaporate, and that mechanism, yet to be observed, is Hawking radiation. It is not likely to be directly observed in our lifetime.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteQuotes
Many people today think that the argument about the origin of life is between the scientific view of evolution and the religious view of creation - it isn't!
Darwin said before his book was published ...
1. 'You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.'
Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
SO, IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC?
2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
IS IT A FACT? OR A FAITH?
3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.
4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'
Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.
CAN EVOLUTION BE OBSERVED?
5. 'Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.'
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA). 'Palaeontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
CAN EVOLUTION BE TESTED?
6. 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'
Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.
7. 'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.'
Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352.
8. 'These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.'
Theodosius Dobzhansky (late Emeritus Professor of Zoology and Biology, Rockefeller University), 'On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1, biology'. American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957, p.388.
Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
I don't understand you - do you mean only one could be right in regards to only one true God and religion?
Or the many true gods but mine is better than yours.