Home icon Back to TheU.ca
FAQ FAQ
Search Search
Memberlist Memberlist
Banned Users List Banned Users List
Usergroups Usergroups
RSS Feeds RSS Feeds
Register Register
Profile Profile
Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
Log in Log in
 
 

Reply to topic

 
 
View previous topic
View next topic


 
 
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 vote in polls in this forum
 
 

 
 
 
Web theu.ca
xtalk.theu.ca
 
 
 
 
phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
phpBBlite template version 1015 by Jupix
 

TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Carbon bias? - Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Is evolutionary theory too narrowly defined?

No, I have no doubts that evolutionary theory as it stands is right on target.

33%

33%

[ 2 ]

Yes, I have heard discussion involving what other forms life could perhaps take.

16%

16%

[ 1 ]

No scientifically informed person could actually believe in a being made of light or fundamental energy.

16%

16%

[ 1 ]

I do find this discussion regarding other possible forms of life interesting and valuable.

33%

33%

[ 2 ]

Total Votes: 6

 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:07 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



DennisTate wrote:

Hey Pedal2000: OK, I admit it. I do tend to believe that an atheist who is dogmatic is their assertions that abiogenesis and evolution are more likely to have occurred in four dimensional space time, as opposed to eleventh, tenth or ninth dimensional space time, is lacking in basic mathematical aptitude.
Hey, Dennis, you want to explain this math?



 
 
DennisTate




Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Location: RR#2 Sherbrooke
Reputation: 11.6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:14 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lock wrote:
DennisTate wrote:

Hey Pedal2000: OK, I admit it. I do tend to believe that an atheist who is dogmatic is their assertions that abiogenesis and evolution are more likely to have occurred in four dimensional space time, as opposed to eleventh, tenth or ninth dimensional space time, is lacking in basic mathematical aptitude.
Hey, Dennis, you want to explain this math?


First of all, I admit that I could be wrong but I got the distinct impression from what I have read regarding Grand Unified Theory that SuperForce and/or SuperEnergetic Matter would be vastly more stable than anything that we observe here in four dimensional space time:

Quote:
"It was not until 1920 that the idea of linking electromagnetism
and gravity resurfaced. At that time a new theory of gravitation had
been proposed by Albert Einstein (1879-1955), called the general
theory of relativity. It was a replacement of Newton's theory, which
had stood unchallenged since 1687. Inspired by Einstein's work, a
young German mathematician named Theodore Kaluza was seized by a
curious idea. The theory of relativity links space an time together
to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum. What would happen,
mused Kaluza, if general relativity were formulated in five rather
than four dimensions? This is what Kaluza did, and to everyone's
astonishment it was discovered that five-dimensional gravity obeys
the same laws as four-dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell's laws
for the electromagnetic field. In other words, gravitation and
electromagnetism are automatically unified in five dimensions, where
electromagnetism is merely a component of gravity!"

....
The only drawback of the theory concerns the extra dimension. Why
don't we see it?
An ingenious answer was provided by Oskar Klein. A
hosepipe viewed from afar looks like a wiggly line, i.e. one-
dimensional. However, on closer inspection it can be seen as a narrow
tube. It is, in fact, two-dimensional, and what was taken to be a
point on the line is actually a little circle going around the tube.
In the same way, reasoned Klein, what we normally regard as a point
in three dimensional space could in reality be a little circle going
around a fourth space dimension. Thus Kaluza's extra dimension might
well exist, but be impossible to detect because it is closed
(circular) and rolled up to a very small circumference. In spite of
these bizarre overtones, it seems probable that in future a "theory
of everything" will make use of the idea of unseen higher
dimensions
." ....

Matter on its own is inert. To activate it, forces must act
between the particles. In spite of the extraordinary richness of
natural phenomena, all known forces can be reduced to just four basic
types: gravitation, electromagnetism and two nuclear forces known
simply as weak and strong."
....
"Although nature manifests four distinct forces, physicists believe
that each may be part of a smaller number of more primitive forces.
At high energy, the electromagnetic and weak forces appear to merge
into a single "electroweak" force. Some "grand unified theories"
suggest that a further amalgamation takes place between the
electroweak and strong forces at as yet unattained energies. The most
ambitious unification schemes envisage an amalgamation of all four
forces into a single "superforce" at ultra-high levels of energy
."
---------------------------
(All quotations are from the article "A Theory of Everything"
Volume 21 of "The World of Science,"
published by Equinox (Oxford) Ltd.).



_________________
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.(Genesis 11:6)
 
 
DennisTate




Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Location: RR#2 Sherbrooke
Reputation: 11.6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:21 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Also, I made some assumptions based on what Dr. Stephen Hawking wrote in his chapter The Anthropic Principle. He stated that there may have been an infinite number of unsuccessful universes in which there was no life, due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak or strong nuclear force not being properly tuned for life. In this infinite number of unsuccessful universes, would I suppose be an infinite number of Big Bang's, so why could not there have been a Big Bang in five dimensional Space Time, possibly previously to our Big Bang which included our fourth dimension. This would have been a Big Bang in which there is no material universe, only a fifthm, a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, a ninth, a tenth and an eleventh dimension.

I consider that a universe with no four dimensional space time would obvious be at a higher energy level than ours, and i suppose would be more stable than ours.

A Big Bang, in eleventh, and/or eleventh and tenth, and/or 11, 10, 9th dimensional space time could have been SPECTACULARLY stable and would be operating at unbelievably high levels of energy, trillions of times more than our scientists can actually experiment with.



_________________
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.(Genesis 11:6)
 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:22 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



That quote doesn't answer my question in any way.

Edit: Also, I'm not a physicist, but I think you're very confused about the relationship between dimensions, stability and energy levels. I guess that's what happens when you conflate new age silliness with physics.



 
 
DennisTate




Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Location: RR#2 Sherbrooke
Reputation: 11.6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:29 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lock wrote:
That quote doesn't answer my question in any way.


Which essentially verifies my original assertion that the people who are dogmatic in their athiesm are either intellectually dishonest or have intentionally hidden their eyes from this question because the implications are kind of scary until you wade through a lot of info to finally spot that dot of light at the end of the tunnel.

I personally went through a time when I was absolutely furious with YHWH because the negative NDE accounts fit all too well with that parable of Lazarus and the Rich man for comfort!

I must run but this may begin to give you an idea of all the cognitive dissonance I went through from 1990 to 2008!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tate4CentralNova/message/2076

Scientific explanation for hell, from Dennis Tate. Re: Update from S


Quote:
Mr. Roth, do you think that I am terribly misguided to strongly
suspect that HaShem/The Ancient of Days/The G-d
of Abraham is the Life Form who naturally evolved
in the eternally existant "Superforce?" I have came to
believe in evolution but I regard the traditional theory of
evolution occuring here in the fourth dimension as
astonishingly unlikely. On the other hand if SuperForce
by its very nature would always have exited, and if
there at the minimum had to be a sufficient supply of
this power to form the material universe, then we would be
talking about infinite time being the paradigm within
which life could "evolve" in the truly fundamental
space time dimension.

Dr. Hawking has been quoted as saying that "Super
strings" somehow exist in ten or eleven space
time dimensions simultaneously. He believes
that it will take at least ten if not eleven space time
dimensions to mathematically unify all four
forces that essentially explain all phenomena in
the observable universe.

If this theory is at all accurate then perhaps HaShem
may have required a rather lengthy "time period"
to INVENT planets, stars, the force of gravity,
grass, trees, ameboa, squirrels, the human
reproductive process, and whatever possible prototypes
may have been experimented with previous to the
creation of Adam and Eve that may well have been
created only about six thousand years ago. If indeed
there are ten or eleven space time dimensions and if
all higher dimensions are invisible then is it
possible that arch-angels
such as Gabriel, Michael, Phanuel, Uriel or Raphael
may well be beings who exist primarily in ninth
dimensional space-time?

Some gifted people report
seeing "nature spirits" who are used by G-d to
assist the grass and trees to grow. Could these
angelic beings be spirits who operate perhaps primarily in
the sixth or seventh space-time dimensional continuum?
If so this would explain why they are invisible to
we humans who are usually limited to observing
fourth dimensional phenomena.

OK, now back to Ms. Baxter's reports of observing
former humans being tormented in some sort of
hell. We human beings are truly children of
HaShem.

I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are]
children of the most High. (Psalm 82)

Actually, if the traditional story of the Nethilim contained in
the Book of Enoch has any validity
whatsoever (and I personally believe that it does) we
can understand this verse in Genesis
to state that even the fallen angels are also
sons of HaShem.

That the sons of God saw the daughters
of men that they [were] fair; and they took
them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6)

The Book of Enoch states that Azazel King of
the Watchers led I believe 208 angelic companions of his to
decide to marry daughters of men. They made themselves
appear very tall to the women, they had children
who were giants and these giants had voracious
appetites and eventually began eating humans. This
is when a number of the holy angels petitioned HaShem
to intervene and protect humans from the giant children
of the Watchers and the daughters of men.

The human spirit or soul or higher space time
dimensional hard drive within us seems to have
a tremendous desire to accomplish something
significant and truly altruistic with our earthly
lives. About one third of the people who report having
a near death experience say that they met a Being of
Light who usually asks them some version of the
question, "what have you done with your life that you
can show me?"

During this life review process it seems as if the only
things that count in our favour are acts of genuine
altruistic love and how much worthwhile knowledge we
have learned from our time here. We Christians often
report meeting Jesus/Yahushua and our faith in
his substitutinary sacrifice on our behalf seems to
give us a valid reason to avoid being thrown down to
"hell", (or perhaps this faith helps us to not throw
themselves there).

It seems to me as if our human psychology is ultimately
somewhat like the awesome individual (our Heavenly
Father) revealed in Isaiah 40:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa040.html#top
"All nations before him [are] as nothing; and they
are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness
will ye compare unto him?"

Our Heavenly Father is so great that all the nations
of the earth are like nothing in front of Him. Deep
down we know that we are His children, and so
psychologically we have EXTREMELY high expectations
for how we should live our human lives.

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,
and an holy nation. (Exodus 19)

And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither
shall ye eat [any] flesh [that is] torn of beasts
in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. (Exodus 22)

When we see our continual sins and errors we are hit
with intense SHAME. We feel such overwhelming guilt that
we tend to cast ourselves down into the horrible
place that was shown to Ms Baxter. I am not saying that
her visions were at all a halucination. Much to my own
dismay I am wide open to the possibility that her
visions are all too real.



_________________
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.(Genesis 11:6)
 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:33 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



DennisTate wrote:
Lock wrote:
That quote doesn't answer my question in any way.


Which essentially verifies my original assertion that the people who are dogmatic in their athiesm are either intellectually dishonest or have intentionally hidden their eyes from this question because the implications are kind of scary until you wade through a lot of info to finally spot that dot of light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm not being intellectually dishonest. I asked what math you were using to claim that there has not been enough time in the universe for life to evolve, and you responded with a big quote about physics that had nothing to do with biology or chemistry or any sort of explanation for your claim.

Why are you so fixed on near-death experiences, of all things? Have you had a bunch yourself?

Also, is it possible for you to respond without quoting a large block of something you've taken out of context?



 
 
Senther

Xtalk Drifter


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2296
Location: The Deadlights
Reputation: 131.9
votes: 42
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:59 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I find it strange Dennis that you are using the concept of higher dimensions to justify the existence of BOL, but neglect to properly consider the implications of our much simpler, 4 dimensional existence on the possibility of any higher order beings, such as God. Do you realize that a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle? A full rotated square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous 24 hour Day circles within only a single imaginary cubed Earth roation. This amounts to a spiraling quad helix of Earth as it revolves around the Sun - rotating as it revolves around the Sun, to induce the value of the Sun revolving about the Earth. This act demonstrates that both Sun and Earth rotate around each other simultaneously - thus creating Opposites existing only as Opposites with a zero value existence between the binary and canceling to nothing as One or God theism. All Creation occurs between Opposites, and exists only as Opposites - with a zero value existence. As One or as a Godism, all Opposite values cancel out to nothing. The Circle you see around Earth divides Earth into Opposite values equal to a zero existence. As One or God, both Earth and Human cancel to nothing. The whole of the Universe is composed of Opposites - with a zero value existence - that cancels to nothing as One or a God. Humans worship ONEness of DEATH, thus they are destroying the LIFE of all Opposites by which all Creation exists. Evil To worship God One, For Life Is Composed of Cubed Opposites -AntiOne. Simple Cube Divinity is the most perfect and life supporting form existing in the universe and on Earth - including Earth itself. While the Circle of Earth rotation is a perpetual embodiment as it is void of the Corner Time notches that accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner residents.

Have you mentality to know 4 Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?



_________________
To avoid complications, she never kept the same address
In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness
 
 
Nitz

The Last of the Mohicans


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 446

Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9
votes: 7
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:09 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Also Dennis, most of your sources are simply a lone person going against the scientific norm, and theorizing about things that may be complex and interesting, but don't fit within the realm of science, and we are given no results to back up claims, or do we hear about conflicts with current scientific theories, only how they are 'wrong'.

in concise, EMPIRICAL STUDIES ARE WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT.

If there's no empirical study, its hypothesizing, it's not science.



 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:19 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Unless you're talking about timecube which is all science all the time.



 
 
Chesty LaRue

X-Talk Pervert


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 4166
Location: Up Yours
Reputation: 43.4Reputation: 43.4Reputation: 43.4Reputation: 43.4
votes: 29
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:33 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I am God. QED.



_________________
Who said that?!
 
 
Nitz

The Last of the Mohicans


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 446

Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9
votes: 7
View user's profile

Post Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:35 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lock wrote:
Unless you're talking about timecube which is all science all the time.


reading this through a thick haze of smoke may have got me a little giddy, i won't lie:

"If scientist can't burn Bible, he is a liar, not scientist. "



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:11 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Is that a quote from a post? I had a hard time following.

Technically you can put forth a scientific hypothesis without an empirical study; is that not part of science? This is really just a side point, though..



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:56 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



A scientific hypothesis has to be testable. A scientific theory is derived from the testing of one or more (usually many more) hypotheses. A hypothesis can exist without being tested, but it is of absolutely no value. An untested hypothesis is just another unsubstantiated claim.



 
 
losethefire




Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Location: Off Campus
Reputation: 34.1Reputation: 34.1Reputation: 34.1
View user's profile

Post Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:26 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Dennis, are you a student? What are you studying? I'd love to be in the class where you offer your theories to a physics prof..., or any science prof for that matter.



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:34 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lance Uppercut wrote:
A scientific hypothesis has to be testable. A scientific theory is derived from the testing of one or more (usually many more) hypotheses. A hypothesis can exist without being tested, but it is of absolutely no value. An untested hypothesis is just another unsubstantiated claim.
It can be of value before it is tested, or before the means exist to test it. A number of scientific theories (including important ones) originated before people could test/demonstrate them.

I am not in complete disagreement with you but a hypothesis that is currently untestable need not be of no scientific value and can be part of science. That said, those which have ultimately turned out to be of value have been rooted in more science than appears here.



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:26 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



The scientific method is pretty inflexible in how it defines hypothesis, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing anyway. I don't have any problem with people forming their own ideas based on the existing evidence if there is an empirical basis to do so.

For example: if I were to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer and my rationale was that lighters and matches are the actual root cause, that could be a scientific hypothesis since I can observe that smokers use those products with each cigarette they smoke. If I were to argue that cancer in smokers is instead caused by negative energy sent toward them by the cosmos for polluting the air, that would not be a scientific hypothesis. They're both ridiculous and untrue, but one has an empirical basis and the other is just something I made up. One is unfortunately more representative of the type of thinking that predominates this thread.



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:24 am   Reply with quote           Send private message    



That's what our insect overlords want you to think.



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
dilly_sam




Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 236
Location: the margin
Reputation: 57.2
votes: 3
View user's profile

Post Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:09 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Jimmy Big Ears wrote:
That's what our insect overlords want you to think.


I

“Ladies and gentlemen, er, we’ve just lost the picture, but, uh, what we’ve seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over — ‘conquered’, if you will — by a master race of giant space ants. It’s difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to…toil in their underground sugar caves.”



 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:18 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Nice reference.

Can this thread be about The Simpsons from now on? I dropped this reference at least 5 times this week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2zXSaDFi7o



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:29 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I love that line.

"Lisa, I want to buy that rock from you."

That's what made them so great - they didn't just take an old joke and run with it, they added something to it that both fit Homer's character and worked.

For the record, we have a thread full of Simpsons quotes. It would be great if people posted in it again.




_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Carbon bias? - Reply to topic