Silkroad Online Forums

A community forum for the free online game Silkroad Online. Discuss Silkroad Online, read up on guides, and build your character and skills.

Faq Search Members Chat  Register Profile Login

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:12 am 
Elite Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6423
Location: ____
Theories are theories.

Both sides argue over which theory is fact, when the most obvious fact is: that neither of these are facts, and neither has been 100% proven; yet.


Both can exist in their separate realms, and two blind men arguing about the color of the sky is a pointless debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:16 am 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 9250
Location: Sand
Grandpa don't bs my question with those answers. They where wrong then, past tense. What you seem to think is that science has to be right all the time. Think of a theory as a piece of technology or better yet; a game. When you first create an online game, there will be bugs and glitches, holes and several complaints. Eventually you get the desired results (i.e.) no gaps or missing links. Stop dwelling on the bloody past, no offense but every time we have a discussion that involves both religion and science you bring up times science threw a theory out or revised the theory.

Say you work on a math problem, then you check your work, and you notice that you made a slight error. What do you do? You find the error and fix it so it makes more sense. Of course you can't do that with religion, that gives all theist an advantage. The ideas are fixed, and infallible so when the enemy decides to revise their ideas for the better its a big deal. "THEY WERE WRONG! Well, no shit. Do they still use the ideas? No, they learn from mistakes and try to refine them.

READ THIS: At that time, those ideas were considered correct because we did not have the technology or knowledge we have today. Just as now, the current form of the big bang is considered correct. Theories are under constant scrutiny and revision, I can't say the same for religion.

Anyway, I'm done. I know your response so no point in arguing, I'll just avoid these bloody discussions like the plague.

_________________
Maddening
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:22 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
Barotix wrote:
I can't say the same for religion.
As far as I know, we've never really spoken about my beliefs. I've said that I believe that God isn't a liar but other than that I'm pretty open to opinion. Question, did you read the link to Converging Technologies that I posted? It's rather lengthy but you'll like it.

-me

[EDIT] I've never finished it myself, but started reading then skimming then reading through when we first met in that other religion thread. By the way, I was responding to dom's simplistic bifurcation, "There's two ways to take this as a religious person," when I entered this discussion. If others want to jump on the bandwagon, yourself included, fine by me. I took the gloves off, so to speak, because of the audacity of his speaking for 'religious people' and his name calling. In hindsight, I would apologize to you for any shrapnel that may have landed near your tender parts. :)

You will please note that nowhere in my response have I called names or even been disrespectful. It saddens me to hear the tone of your reply because I very much enjoy speaking with you, in fact, I considered sending my response to your /sigh in a Private Message and probably should have gone with my first thought.


Last edited by Grandpa on Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:23 am 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 9250
Location: Sand
I'm working on it, its like 10:23 and I want to play one last game of CA.

_________________
Maddening
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:40 am 
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: västkustskt
Barotix wrote:
I'm working on it, its like 10:23 and I want to play one last game of CA.


I don't approve of your pretend-slaughter of other people - it's immoral and wrong.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:51 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
dom wrote:
Barotix wrote:
I'm working on it, its like 10:23 and I want to play one last game of CA.


I don't approve of your pretend-slaughter of other people - it's immoral and wrong.
Hey, dom! I hope you know I still gots <3's for you and reply with force because to me you're one of the big dogs and I know that my 'yipping' doesn't hurt.

I named one of my dragons after you.

~Granps

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:57 am 
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: västkustskt
Grandpa wrote:
dom wrote:
Barotix wrote:
I'm working on it, its like 10:23 and I want to play one last game of CA.


I don't approve of your pretend-slaughter of other people - it's immoral and wrong.
Hey, dom! I hope you know I still gots <3's for you and reply with force because to me you're one of the big dogs and I know that my 'yipping' doesn't hurt.

I named one of my dragons after you.

~Granps



It doesn't really bother me. But when I post in threads like these I only post my opinion and leave it at that, I don't post to discuss - with the exception of a couple people, discussing on SRF is like trying to teach a hamster dog tricks.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:59 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
dom wrote:
It doesn't really bother me. But when I post in threads like these I only post my opinion and leave it at that, I don't post to discuss - with the exception of a couple people, discussing on SRF is like trying to teach a hamster dog tricks.


Which is quite sad because debate is the best way to learn. Sadly people attatch themselves emotionally to 99% of arguements in this world, and it makes it hard to debate. I'm actually a legend at my high school, because I had a "flawless victory" in debate club, and used to make all the girls cry in Theory of Knowledge. If you can take emotion out, debate is so easy.

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:05 am 
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: västkustskt
PuppetOfGaea wrote:
dom wrote:
It doesn't really bother me. But when I post in threads like these I only post my opinion and leave it at that, I don't post to discuss - with the exception of a couple people, discussing on SRF is like trying to teach a hamster dog tricks.


Which is quite sad because debate is the best way to learn. Sadly people attatch themselves emotionally to 99% of arguements in this world, and it makes it hard to debate. I'm actually a legend at my high school, because I had a "flawless victory" in debate club, and used to make all the girls cry in Theory of Knowledge. If you can take emotion out, debate is so easy.


I was flawless when I was in highschool too - it's nothing to be proud of considering that these days the vast majority of "young adults" aren't very "stimulated". I loved debating, and I still do. But, when you've discussed the same thing 50 times before on the same forum, it gets stale. I'm normally a very passionate person, but i'm not very motivated to type out pages and pages to entertain the few people on this board that are worth talking to. I rather just post my opinion and leave it at that, and that should be enough for anyone.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:07 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
dom wrote:
I'm normally a very passionate person


And there lies the problem ^.^

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:08 am 
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: västkustskt
PuppetOfGaea wrote:
dom wrote:
I'm normally a very passionate person


And there lies the problem ^.^



I disagree, passion is the basis for debate. I'm going to leave it at that, feel free to make witty remark if it helps you feel like a winner.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:11 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
Wow, nice jab there. I don't debate to "feel like a winner". I haven't made a "witty" arguement yet. Basically what you just said has no grounds for significance.

Passion about something SPAWNS debate, but, if you put two excellent debaters in front of a crowd, and one can remove their passion, that person will always come out in the crowd's favor (at least in my experience).

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:25 am 
Forum Legend
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7129
Location:
Venus
i suck at debating, and i feel like i'm intruding on something that's way above my level, but i gotta ask this question:

in debating, isn't the "winner" the one who wins the audience over? he can have his facts all wrong, yet if he's passionate and stimulating enough, the audience will 90% of the time side with him, right?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:27 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
TOloseGT wrote:
i suck at debating, and i feel like i'm intruding on something that's way above my level, but i gotta ask this question:

in debating, isn't the "winner" the one who wins the audience over? he can have his facts all wrong, yet if he's passionate and stimulating enough, the audience will 90% of the time side with him, right?


Yes and no. If someone shows passion about a topic, the audience will often begin to side with them yes. The problem lies when a good debater removes themselves from topic, and asks questions that target passion. There are many ways to do this. The result of this is USUALLY the passionate debater losing his cool, causing the audience to start doubting them, and ends up siding with the debater that removed themself.

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:34 am 
Forum Legend
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7129
Location:
Venus
this is some sick ass discussion, i luv talking about theories :love:

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:34 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
TOloseGT wrote:
this is some sick ass discussion, i luv talking about theories :love:


Theories that have been applied countless times.

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:36 am 
Forum Legend
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7129
Location:
Venus
ah well, what can u do? i would rather talk this over in vent. when i'm writing points get lost and i get distracted.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:47 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 640
Location: Oregon, USA
TOloseGT wrote:
ah well, what can u do? i would rather talk this over in vent. when i'm writing points get lost and i get distracted.


gimme a server lol

_________________
Image
Helping Granpz take over one signature at a time!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:49 am 
Forum Legend
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7129
Location:
Venus
no wai, i'm away from home =[

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:51 pm 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 9250
Location: Sand
Barotix wrote:
Grandpa don't bs my question with those answers. They where wrong then, past tense. What you seem to think is that science has to be right all the time. Think of a theory as a piece of technology or better yet; a game. When you first create an online game, there will be bugs and glitches, holes and several complaints. Eventually you get the desired results (i.e.) no gaps or missing links. Stop dwelling on the bloody past, no offense but every time we have a discussion that involves both religion and science you bring up times science threw a theory out or revised the theory.

Say you work on a math problem, then you check your work, and you notice that you made a slight error. What do you do? You find the error and fix it so it makes more sense. Of course you can't do that with religion, that gives all theist an advantage. The ideas are fixed, and infallible so when the enemy decides to revise their ideas for the better its a big deal. "THEY WERE WRONG! Well, no shit. Do they still use the ideas? No, they learn from mistakes and try to refine them.

READ THIS: At that time, those ideas were considered correct because we did not have the technology or knowledge we have today. Just as now, the current form of the big bang is considered correct. Theories are under constant scrutiny and revision, I can't say the same for religion.

Anyway, I'm done. I know your response so no point in arguing, I'll just avoid these bloody discussions like the plague.


O.O' where did this come from. Sleep deprivation plus dieing in CA makes for a bad combination. Sry, if I attacked anyone. It seems I got a little (lol, a little?) aggressive after reading Grandpa's response. I assure you, it wasn't your response that set me off, it was the 2:16 KDR I got on Snow Valley's Bravo. I'll re-read your post and type a sensible response. The above one is just to militant for my taste. I'm the type of person that gets passionate in the beginning of discussions and the longer it goes the more passion I lose. By that time, I realize that either way we won't be making any great changes. Its just, things like this have been discussed countless times, Grandpa you must understand what I mean. You're like 6x, so you've seen more. When people keep bringing up the same discussions, it gets to you. That and sucking in a match where you had an advantage but recoil made you miss all your shots. Damn, M60. Then the lack of sleep for 2 days because I was attempting to get back into modding on civilization.

_________________
Maddening
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:07 pm 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
WOOF
WOOF
WOOF
Who says size doesn't matter?

You quoted yourself. You may have been apologizing to self.
You may have been apologizing for the unapproved 'pretend-slaughter of other people', that dom spoke of earlier, but only metaphorically.

You stated, "Sry, if I attacked anyone." This is not an admission. You covered, blurred and fogged any wrong doing you 'may' have committed. My conclusion is that it is best to take you at face value. You have made a general public apology to anybody you 'may' have attacked. Likely case is that you re-read your message and understood that your tone didn't convey your intended meaning sufficiently. Because it didn't paint you in the way you'd like to have yourself seen, you posted part of your internal response to yourself. You suck at apology but that's beside the point. My point is made not to humiliate you, but rather as example of hermeneutics and application of principles of exegesis.

I am not opposed Big Bang. I am opposed to close minded people who have it all figured out. Especially people who hang out their shingle and state that they are experts when in fact they are not. People who cannot bring themselves to say, "Frankly, I don't know," or "I'm unsure." People who are certain that their blinders are in place every moment of every day. Funny though, this is exactly what they say of me and other members of the 'rabid religious'. I have been mocked brutally for my beliefs (but not by you).

The main reason I like you so much Barotix is because I have seen you do what you say you will do. You've stated, "I'll re-read your post and type a sensible response," and I for one would look forward to it. If you like, I'd like to enter into a discussion about something with you that may require another thread. It started at the 1962 world's fair, yeah, the one that Elvis attended. It's a story of two brothers and a tale of sister cities... but that too is beside the point.

~Granps

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:41 pm 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 9250
Location: Sand
Alright, now:

The, /sigh, and when were they wrong? was part sarcasm and part indifference. Earlier I typed I cba to get into another religion/science discussion. I understood when they were wrong but I wanted to point out is; even if they're wrong changes are always ready to be made.

"/sigh, and when were they wrong": I think it would have been better worded as; Yes, they were wrong and they're probably wrong now but what matters is they're constantly trying to find the truth. They're always ready to right those wrongs and there will always be skeptics; in and out of the community. I'm very critical of the mathematics behind the big bang theory because well, unlike evolution or gravity; it is all theoretical and after a certain distance you can't give an accurate reading. The same goes for methods of dating bones, such as: radio carbon dating. Not as accurate as it appears. So yes, they were wrong but are they wrong now? Well, they're right until evidence proving contrary appears.

Funny fact about me: I don't agree with the idea of a Universe. Multi-verse works out better but it'll be a long time before that idea becomes dominant and the term "Universe" becomes wrong.

Oh, and ignore the patronizers. They always complain about Christians(generic) pushing beliefs upon others then go around and do the same thing.

_________________
Maddening
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:01 am 
Banned User
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1496
Location: BEEN DERPIN ALL DAY DERP DERP
Grandpa wrote:
WOOF
WOOF
WOOF
Who says size doesn't matter?

You quoted yourself. You may have been apologizing to self.
You may have been apologizing for the unapproved 'pretend-slaughter of other people', that dom spoke of earlier, but only metaphorically.

You stated, "Sry, if I attacked anyone." This is not an admission. You covered, blurred and fogged any wrong doing you 'may' have committed. My conclusion is that it is best to take you at face value. You have made a general public apology to anybody you 'may' have attacked. Likely case is that you re-read your message and understood that your tone didn't convey your intended meaning sufficiently. Because it didn't paint you in the way you'd like to have yourself seen, you posted part of your internal response to yourself. You suck at apology but that's beside the point. My point is made not to humiliate you, but rather as example of hermeneutics and application of principles of exegesis.

I am not opposed Big Bang. I am opposed to close minded people who have it all figured out. Especially people who hang out their shingle and state that they are experts when in fact they are not. People who cannot bring themselves to say, "Frankly, I don't know," or "I'm unsure." People who are certain that their blinders are in place every moment of every day. Funny though, this is exactly what they say of me and other members of the 'rabid religious'. I have been mocked brutally for my beliefs (but not by you).

The main reason I like you so much Barotix is because I have seen you do what you say you will do. You've stated, "I'll re-read your post and type a sensible response," and I for one would look forward to it. If you like, I'd like to enter into a discussion about something with you that may require another thread. It started at the 1962 world's fair, yeah, the one that Elvis attended. It's a story of two brothers and a tale of sister cities... but that too is beside the point.

~Granps

We agree,your to smart for us (teens).

_________________
<<Account shut down to prevent sockpuppeting. New user accountname "hey">>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:02 am 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
It's difficult for me to express this but I too am constantly looking to reconcile things.
When I start speaking about religious beliefs it's almost like I'm talking politics or thanking others for the use of their wife. (By the way, Barotix - your g/f asked me to say 'hi' and she'll be home later).

You've asked in prior posts - the 'religion' thread - what I thought about the 6 days of creation. Essentially asking (and correct me if I am wrong), "Do you believe that the earth is 6,000 to 7,000 years old?" I replied with an analysis of a Hebrew word and hope that I was able to explain myself to your satisfaction.

From that discussion (and several since) I will be giving a bible study at my home soon. It's about trying to pin others down from what we think they have said. Pardon as I delve deeper into Scripture for the sake of reference but it works universally, not just in bible study. It's interesting to me to look deeply at what a 'conversation' is. To ponder what 'words' are. Somewhere inside each of us, in the deep parts, reside some form of ideas (for lack of a better word). When I read what you say, and as a good listener, there is a process where a comparison is made. Taking what I thought you said and comparing it to what I've experienced or thought about prompts me to search for a response.

What's of interest to me is that I respond differently to different people. If a person with a doctorate is discussing his thesis I'm probably going to try to step up my game. If somebody says, "it's <meh> to me" I might not want to tax his patience with a response. When I quote scripture the <meh> response is much more frequent than any other subject but this is understandable, yes? Okay... now more to the point of this response.

I've recently considered the 6 days of creation again. There are many arguments out there and I'm fairly familiar with all of them. Some insist that EVERTIME the Lord uses the YOM word (translated 'day') and includes a reference to specific times it MUST mean a 24 hour period. This is simply untrue.

Consider Genesis 1 again for a moment. We notice the refrain, "And the evening and the morning were the 1st day... or And the evening and the morning were the 2nd day... or And the evening and the morning were the 6th day... enough to be persuaded at first glance that God is speaking of 24 hour periods, right?

But then Genesis chapter 2 opens.
Gen 2:4 wrote:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens
Wait... did he just take the 6 days of creation and call them a 'day' ?? Hmmmm.... :roll:

I look further and try to figure out how many days there were in the garden prior to the fall. Problem is there are no time clues that I can find. When we study chapter 2 we can see the LORD bringing beasts of the field to Adam and this is followed by Him showing the birds as well. To me it's like, "Oh, and if you like these marvelous beasts... check this out" ----> and Birds of the sky appear. My first post in this thread started with, Creatio Ex Nihilo is Latin for 'Creation out of nothing'
For the purpose of this discussion it could be simplified to 'Ex Nihilo'

But the way that the Lord created man wasn't from out of nothing. Adam was made of the 'dust of the earth' and the intimate touch of His breath into the nostrils. That's a very, very intimate thing. I'm staggered by things like this. Imagine being brought into existence by the breath of God blown directly into the depths through the nostrils. So what I read is that man was 'different'. The 5th day of creation (out of nothing) doesn't mention hominids. That is not to say that they did nor did not exist. There are many things left unsaid but whispered directly to me. ME.

I hear Him and want to be like Him. Fact is, I am not.

From Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 I see creation encapsulated first into 7 days, then into a single day. I look and cannot find how many 'days' the Lord walked with man in the garden prior to the fall. One of the things that is said supports my view that days (as the Spirit of God inspires the writer to use) is unspecified periods of time is when he says, "In the day ye shall eat thereof, ye shall surely die." Adam didn't die that day, but he and his Isha departed from the presence of God, and in that way they did. It isn't until Gen chapter 4 where we see 'normal' time. "...And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD".

What I see from all this is that the life of man came out of God. God said, "It is not good that man should be alone." He was showing us something when He brought the beasts of the field and the birds to His unique creation. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." The man reacted again when he first say Eve and said something like, 'She is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (Isha), because she was taken out of Man. He noticed that she too was not created Ex Nihilo, but as he was. His life was given out from God and formed not 'out from nothing' just as hers was 'out from him'.

The theme is continued when Eve exclaims at the birth of her first son, quoted this time from the Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible

Quote:
Genesis 4 1-2

The man knew Havah his wife. She conceived, and gave birth to Kayin, and said, "I have gotten a man with the LORD's help." Again she gave birth, to Kayin's brother Hevel. Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Kayin was a tiller of the ground.
She too was shown in an intimate manner what it was that the Lord desired. I marvel at the intimacy of the Word of God and how He can speak sacred secrets with me, ME of all people and am staggered to my knees by this very fact.

Do I have time to discuss evolution and Big Bang and math and debate and do I care to? Yes, I do. When you speak to me about something that I relate to, I try to listen to what you have said. Then I search for things that relate to what I've heard you say. Within this search an 'idea' is formed anew and I pull this toward the forefront of my thoughts. Then... and in due time... I relate my thought, my part of me... to you.

This then is the same miracle of taking that which is almost from nothing (but not quite) and making it more. Relationships are built. Friendships grow. But you already know.

Christians are commanded to not throw their pearls to swine, I am relieved of this because I doubt that there are any more 'swinely' than me. "Who is blind like my servant???" <--- Me? Yeah.

~Granps

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:15 am 
Elite Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5136
Location: Final Fantasy Versus 13.
Grandpa wrote:
Do I have time to discuss evolution and Big Bang and math and debate and do I care to? Yes, I do. When you speak to me about something that I relate to, I try to listen to what you have said. Then I search for things that relate to what I've heard you say. Within this search an 'idea' is formed anew and I pull this toward the forefront of my thoughts. Then... and in due time... I relate my thought, my part of me... to you.

This then is the same miracle of taking that which is almost from nothing (but not quite) and making it more. Relationships are built. Friendships grow. But you already know.

Christians are commanded to not throw their pearls to swine, I am relieved of this because I doubt that there are any more 'swinely' than me. "Who is blind like my servant???" <--- Me? Yeah.

~Granps


Somehow the stories you tell streamline the train of chaos which runs derailed in my own head.

I Heart you're stories and posts Grandpa, and i hope you make many more.

_________________
Bmw 6 Series owner. Bleach fan. Music Fan.
Image Reise for Mod.
~ Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:28 pm 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
Okay, here we go... Elvis is in the building...
QUESTION: Why do we (mankind) have two eyes?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS to my post above:
To complete my thought about the length of days above, one more example is given, "In my grandfather's day, a day's wage was given for a day's pay." My "grandfather's day" is an unspecified period of time approximately equal to one generation. A "Day's pay" refers to a work day, which back then was 14 hours, today it's 8 hours - so the specific term "work day" is an example of a variable period of time. A "Day's pay" is a reference to an old fashioned notion, that people should be paid enough to survive, hence a 'day's pay' would be the amount of money that was required to live for a single day - 24 hours. Of course a 'day' could also refer to a 12 hour period of daytime vs. nighttime.

One mod here has stated, "Theories are under constant scrutiny and revision, I can't say the same for religion." What has been stated is true enough for dogma and my point is that religion doesn't have the copyright on dogma. Any person who says, '...believe my way or you are ignorant, if you are religious and don't believe the way I demand, you are neither rational nor sane,' is preaching dogma. He has been snared in the pit he dug for others; I shed no tear for this.

Another impediment to understanding (in addition to rigid thinking) is language. English has three basic tenses: past, present and future. Our choices are limited by language itself when we attempt to communicate time references. Greek (and other languages) easily allow the expression of what I call 'the continuing tense' to describe an action or process that - started sometime in the past, is still going on 'now' and will continue into the future. To express the same concept we are reduced to the cumbersome wording of, "I have loved you, am in love with you and will continue to love you for all of my days."

Her reply, "What do you mean when you say you love me :? " is more about miscommunication inherent in language than fidelity or his pledge of troth. Studying cultures and comparing languages gives Sociologists and Linguists surprising insights into the culture itself.

INTRODUCTION to Elvis, the 1962 World's Fair, a story of Two Brothers and a Tale of Sister Cities.

The title above is a little misleading. Yes, I was at the 1962 World's Fair and yes, I spent too much time in the Science Building and Food Fair and too little time on the rides with my girlfriend. I wasn't able to go to the World's Fair in Spokane several years later but my brother did, hence the title of this section.

When my younger brother returned after the fair he was excited about something he had seen. I remember his story (and will relate it here) and have searched to find more information but have failed miserably in it so I'd like to ask for your help. My brother set the stage as he spoke about a 'human experiment'. It was a study about human behavior.

We've seen open taste tests like The Pepsi Challenge® where product identity is concealed and the consumer is in effect 'blinded'. We may also know about the especially stringent methods of a 'double blind test' where they attempt to eliminate both subjective bias on the part of the testee and observer bias on the part of the tester. My brother described the environment of such a test. He had entered into and volunteered to be a 'test monkey' but of course that didn't prevent him from visiting the Spokane Food Fair. It only took an hour or so to complete.

He entered a room that was set up like a mini-theater. A screen was on the far wall, the lights were dimmed as he and one other participant took their place at the table. A divider was placed between them so that they could not see each other and in front of them were two buttons, one red, the other green. Small lights were located near the buttons and they too were red and green. Instructions were given and example slides were shown on the screen prior to the test. They were shown various close up views of different kinds of cells and were instructed to guess when mitosis (cellular reproduction) was about to occur. They were told that they would be given immediate feedback and their guesses should improve over time.

What they were not told was that the group on the right side of the partition would be given true feedback and the group on the left would receive random feedback. If one were seated on the left side of the partition all input from the testee was ignored and a purely random method of lighting the red and green lights was substituted. The first part of the test had begun.
Spoiler!

Not surprisingly, the group on the right with true feedback started with approximately 50% of their answers correct (they had a 50:50 chance afterall) and were able to improve toward 85% in a short period of time. But then the test was purposefully skewed. After the first test concluded the observer came in wearing a lab coat and carrying a clipboard. The partition was removed and the observer appeared to take copious notes as he asked each participant to describe how they came to their conclusions. My brother's answer was, "I dunno, it's kinda like when those squiggly things move a bit and when get close and shake a bit..." The right-side group (with true feedback) was always asked to speak first.

The "scientist observer" showed greater interest and got visibly excited when the second interviewee spoke. The answer given (from the theories that were formed by random feedback) was universally more complex and seemed more sophisticated.

The test was then repeated. Right side results (with true feedback) plummeted to less than 50% in all cases. My brother's score was reduced to 43% correct after he paid careful attention and 'learned' from his opponent.
_______________________________
QUESTION: Does anybody know where I can more information on tests such as this?

Answer to my first question: "Why do we have two eyes?" ---> For perspective. When the dogmatic Theist or dogmatic Atheist exclude all thoughts that don't agree with their own view they are in danger of succumbing to tunnel vision. Me? I'm proud to be a knowledge whore and don't care where good ideas come from. I just don't care. The legs of my mind are spread open wide and if they're not, just ask and well... some metaphors are better left unconcluded, but you may feel free to continue to pollute me with foreign concepts, I kinda like it.

I love language and words themselves, but although I have no religious objection, I only sometimes consider myself to be a Cunning Linguist.

~Granps

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 pm 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4599
Location: Studying Computer Science, Vienna
Grandpa wrote:
Wait... did he just take the 6 days of creation and call them a 'day' ?? Hmmmm....


2. Peter 3:8, King James Version:
Quote:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


This is enough reason for me to believe that God's measure of time is not like our measure of time. This cancels out, as far as I am concerned, any shallow contradictions people point out.

_________________
Carry your cross, and I'll carry mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:35 pm 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
Stress wrote:
Grandpa wrote:
Wait... did he just take the 6 days of creation and call them a 'day' ?? Hmmmm....


2. Peter 3:8, King James Version:
Quote:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


This is enough reason for me to believe that God's measure of time is not like our measure of time. This cancels out, as far as I am concerned, any shallow contradictions people point out.
Ut-oh... now you've done it. One Scripture triggers a thousand unto Grandpa and a thousand, well... triggers thankfulness.

The context of your quote is of interest too. There are those who are willingly ignorant and say "all things continue as they were from the beginning". This was addressed to religious students of creation, Peter wasn't speaking to atheists. I don't mean this in reference to you, Stress. Not one bit. We are servants when we don't understand the purpose of the master of the house, friends when we do. Our Father has 'another flock'. I appreciate the word you have given.

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:53 pm 
Ex-Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4599
Location: Studying Computer Science, Vienna
Let me further my point a little bit. I'll try to provide a different insight into time, and our perception of it.

Most of this post is highly theoretical, and the ilustrations I'll be using are strictly hypothetical.

We are part of a three-dimensioned (longitudinal dimensions) Universe. (Side-note: I'll go into the Minkowski 4-dimension theory later.) Let us suppose that a 2D enviroment exists, enhabited by 2D "beings" with the "ability" to percieve, feed and reproduce (basic traits of life). They can percieve each other in their 2D enviroment, but would they be able to percieve us, if their universe and our universe don't intersect? (If they did, they'd only percieve an infinitely thin section ('a slice') of everything we percieve as being; this discussion is redundant.)
Here's where I'm getting at: we could percieve them, but they couldn't percieve us.

Slightly off-topic, but nevertheless interesting:
Code:
Another ilustration. Consider a sphere, and name two random points on its surface: A and B. The sphere is curved. Taking into consideration (again) that only two dimensions exist, one must travel on the surface of the sphere to get from A to B. However, with the third dimension in sight, one can cut through the sphere, reaching directly from A to B.

Einstein has proven that our space is curved. I'll leave the rest to your immagination. :)


Back to where we were:
Extrapolating the topic to ourselves, let's relate space to time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

The Minkowski space blends time and our three dimensions beautifully. But, what if we, as three-dimensional beings, are inclosed in something of greater nature (multiple dimensions) as seen in the example above? That's one way of seing God for me. God might be a quadri- or multi-dimensional entity. Working in multiple dimensions, Minkowski's way of relating space to time obviously doesn't apply any more, hence the difference, noted by the Bible, between God's time and our time.

2. Peter 3:8 wrote:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Doesn't that make sense now?

_________________
Carry your cross, and I'll carry mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Existence of the universe
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:22 pm 
Active Member
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 867
Location:
Off Topic
Greetings Stress,

I've seen models of various theories regarding space-time and the curvature of the universe while studying age of the universe before. You've probably seen them too. That's part of how they came to conclusion that matter wasn't locked in an expanding / contracting cycle. Back before my day, in the 1920's there were many discoveries made regarding Physics in general and Astrophysics especially.

Einstein had shaken the world with his theories and new math that supported them. We thought that the Milky Way was the whole of the universe and that the galaxy was unique. I love the names of things and it was Hubble who was able to show that that there were galaxies other than ours. We had no direct way of measuring distance then but after Edwin Hubble discovered other galaxies he proposed an indirect way by comparing the brightness (luminosity).

His discovery of other 'things' out there needed a name. There were objects at the farthest reaches of his telescope. Stellar objects, not stars. Hubble had spent years cataloging stars and measuring luminosity and "Quasars" (Quasi-Stellar-Objects) and was able to show that these objects far surpassed local stars in terms of distance. Then he noticed something that would have consequences far beyond science - every galaxy was red-shifted, as if they were all universally traveling away from us. He noticed a strong correlation between the red-shift and distance and derived "Hubbles Constant" from his observations.

I'm not a scientist (the math is too complex) but I do appreciate the men who have gone before us. They've dedicated their lives so that we, almost a century later, can teach children things that dumbfounded the world. Consider this, if everything started at a single point of origin and began traveling outward at a constant velocity then solving for time would be a simple matter of measuring the distance and dividing by the velocity. A more accurate guesstimate would take into account how things like the gravity of matter and subsequent attraction would slow the outward progression down but it isn't really that easy. Nice if things could be as neat as that, right?

Stress, I liked your introduction to dimensional space-time, and I, like millions of others, was introduced to the math of "String" and "Chaos Theory" from the movie Jurassic Park. Since then I've read more about Ten (10) Dimensional math but come away with the thought, "this is sooo beyond me, is Elvis in this building too?" The concepts are very complex and sound so sophisticated. I wish I knew the name of the study my brother assisted in (as a test monkey) that one fine day in Spokane... (see above).

Image
The Dreams of Stick Figures...
Dotman dreams of existence beyond a single point in her universe.
Lineman intersects with "Dot" and her hopes are realized through him.
Dot falls in love and can be heard to exclaim, "O! His dreams... his dreams define me."

_____________________________________
Seems to me that the 'expanding / contracting' model that was proposed for our universe would have (and did for a period of time) answer the topic of this discussion perfectly.
Creation out of nothing? Not such a problem for the Theist
But matter out of nothing :?

Barotix wrote:
/sigh; and how were they wrong, grandpa?

They were simply wrong, the current model is 'The Ever Expanding Universe'. :D
To be fair, the 'champion' of Theists, Bishop Ussher, attempted to define the age of the universe as the time since its creation by God. He determined that the universe was created on Sunday, 23 October, 4004 BC. He too was W-w-wron-g.

~Grandpa

_________________
Click ~~> SRO GUIDE 4 Newbs
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group