Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design on a Dime
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 91 of 113 (415838)
08-12-2007 1:50 PM


Back to the present...
Thread restored to today.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 113 (415861)
08-12-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 1:39 AM


Your Ad Hoc Arguments Have Gotten Tangled Together
An actual infinite cannot exist.
And yet some people still go on believing in an eternal and infinite God, strange, isn't it?
Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not.
These infinite things which don't need a cause ... are they the same infinite things which, according to you, cannot exist? That is, are they actually infinite?
Or do you merely mean that potentially infinite things can exist without a cause, like, ooh, let's say a universe which has a begining in time but no end?
Furthermore, Aristotle made the argument ...
Ah, Aristotle. He's right on the cutting edge of scientific thought, unless possibly I'm mixing him up with someone who hasn't been dead for two thousand years. I don't know what I admire most about him --- his discovery that women have no souls ... or his impeccable armchair demonstration of why heavy things fall faster than light ones ... or his geocentric model with the planets embedded in crystal spheres ... or his proof that God would never take on human form ...
He was a real all-round guy, wasn't he?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 93 of 113 (415878)
08-12-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kuresu
08-12-2007 2:31 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Kuresu:
No. The opposite of eternal is not "never existing". It is non-eternal. Transient. Existing for a finite period of time.
I actually agree with you man... Just thought you'd like to know.
I do however think that NJ was trying to make a different point. He just didn't do it too well. He can correct me if I am wrong. I don't even know that it can be made well.
Assuming it's existence for the sake of argument here, 'the eternal, supreme, and ultimate reality (God) is absolute'. Therfore, it's opposite is 'non-existence' or 'non-being'. Even so, it is quite true that 'relative reality' exists temporally (which is your point).
So... the question is really one of whether once having been finite and then becoming non-existent is ultimately equal to not having existed at all. Personally I think it is worse.
Those who existed, yet do not exist?
Somewhere in there is the frightening reality of eternal seperation from God (hell). To have once been and then to have been banished from existence altogether; and don't ask me how... but also being conscious of this while not existing.
Though it is contradictory (or paradoxical) on at least some semi-perceptable level, with the concepts in theoretical physics of dark matter and the positing (of some) that the quantum points to the possiblity of something coming from nothing, who knows! Perhaps I am only touching on the real solution to these questions without actually reaching it. Or could it be that some of these things are simply beyond our reach and I am just making a mess?
Nobody hold me to this one... I am thinking out loud. It may well be a theological if not a practical nightmare, but there is something there. And it has probably already been written and enuciated by men smarter than I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 08-12-2007 2:31 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 94 of 113 (416467)
08-15-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anastasia
08-04-2007 12:17 AM


$.02
How long did the creation event last?
Six days, six weeks, six years, six hundred years, six thousand years, etc. Some established increments of time divided into six equal parts equaling less than six thousand or so years as we presently calculate them. Any seem plausible, or at least non-contradictory to the Word.
When did it occur?
Around six thousand years ago, with the Earth being formed by materials billions of years old already in existence, outside of the “Heavens”, before "the beginning".
Do you believe it is 'finished', or ongoing?
On going in the development of the Spirit of humans. Finished as far as the non-scientifically observable in the physical realm. Ongoing, as to the scientifically observable, by the Laws of Nature (including the ones not yet discovered or identified) set forth by God in the physical realm.
How much intelligence or preplanning went into the creation itself?
Infinite.
How much was left to chance?
None. Although some things seem as a by-product . like a pothole or a snow bank is to a road that’s being plowed. Natural, yet not purposed or designed.
Did God build up the design in small stages which are observable by science, or create 'whole' specimens?
Yes and yes. Both. A handful of ”whole’ specimens created, non-observable, followed by the mutation and evolution of other forms with root to the former, yet in accordance with the Laws of nature (including the ones not yet discovered or identified)...observable.
Is God in any way part of the creation, guiding its progress?
Yes. Hands on to create intimate co-existence between the Presence of God and the Spirit of humans (the original purpose for all creation), with the Laws of nature (including the ones not yet discovered or identified) guiding the physical realm.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anastasia, posted 08-04-2007 12:17 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 113 (416599)
08-16-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kuresu
08-12-2007 2:31 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
quote:
The opposite of eternal would be never existing.
No. The opposite of eternal is not "never existing". It is non-eternal. Transient. Existing for a finite period of time.
If we're playing with existential meaning here, it certainly would seem that the opposite of existing for all time, would be never existing for all time.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 08-12-2007 2:31 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 113 (416619)
08-17-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
08-12-2007 3:46 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
First, nobody said there was nothing "before" the singularity. Second, I didn't say anything about the singularity.
Yes, I'm aware you didn't mention. I'm suggesting that perhaps you should have, being that you used a rock, which is material, and therefore cannot be eternal.
The universe has to be temporal, not just because of observable evidence, but because you cannot add to an infinite.
You were the one who said, "Let's philosophize." Remember? Anything to do with the singularity is irrelevant to this discussion.
Its not, so long as you bring temporal objects in to play. Aside from which, who says you can't philosophize by using scientific arguments? People do that all the time in here.
The opposite of eternal would be not eternal - i.e. temporal - i.e. having a beginning and/or an end.
I would think, from an existential point of view, that always existing and never existing are the furthest from synonyms.
1. There could be an uncaused "creator",
OR
2. The "creation" could be eternal.
If creation were eternal, then everything in creation would be eternal as well. And you would have always existed. You can't add to infinity. You and I are additions. Therefore, if we were to go by Occam's Razor on this one, it seems more plausible that something outside of time/space/matter is the only thing that brings about causation because it is separate from the creation, and indeed, has to be, in order to be eternal.
If science has proven that pile of bullshit "fact", please give us a link.
Everything that exists in the physical world, including time/space/matter, has a beginning that is contingent upon the causation of something else. This is axiomatic. All observable evidence, started by Hubble, lends credence to the philosophical theory.
And then tell us what the @#$% science has got to do with this philosophical discussion.
Philosophical arguments borrow from scientific reason in order to corroborate the claim.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 08-12-2007 3:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2007 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 11:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 99 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2007 7:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 113 (416621)
08-17-2007 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2007 1:20 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Everything that exists in the physical world, including time/space/matter, has a beginning that is contingent upon the causation of something else. This is axiomatic.
There's your problem. There are no axioms in science.
Axioms are a feature of mathematics, not of the empirical study of the natural world. Nothing in science is axiomatic, except as a euphemism. Even then they're usually kidding.
There are no axioms in science. Why are you so relentlessly misinformed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2007 1:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 1:38 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 113 (416691)
08-17-2007 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2007 1:20 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
The universe has to be temporal, not just because of observable evidence, but because you cannot add to an infinite.
Of course you can add to an infinite. But what has that got to do with the universe being temporal, and what has that got to do with design?
If creation were eternal, then everything in creation would be eternal as well.
Non sequitur. Individual organisms have a beginning and an end, a "birth" and a death - but there's no reason why their molecules (or subatomic particles) couldn't be eternal.
You can't add to infinity.
Still wrong.
You and I are additions.
Also wrong. Your molecules might once have been ash from Mt. Vesuvius. Mine might once have been a dragonfly. Nothing added, nothing taken away.
Therefore, if we were to go by Occam's Razor on this one, it seems more plausible that something outside of time/space/matter is the only thing that brings about causation...
"Something" outside of time/space/matter is an automatic nullification of Occam's Razor.
If science has proven that pile of bullshit "fact", please give us a link.
Everything that exists in the physical world, including time/space/matter, has a beginning that is contingent upon the causation of something else.
So where's the link I asked for? Instead of claiming that all observable evidence since Hubble backs you up, why not show us where any evidence backs you up?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2007 1:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 2:19 AM ringo has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 99 of 113 (416779)
08-17-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2007 1:20 AM


Re: I would worry less out Crashfrogs' than the previous post
This quote of Heavyside gives some comfort to the why it is hard to write of the "observation of an axiom",
quote:
To have to stop to formulate rigorous demonstrations would put a stop to most physicomathematical inquiries. There is no end to the subtleties involved in rigorous demonstrations, specifically, of course, when you go off the beaten track. And the most rigorous demonstration may be found later to contain some flaw, so that exceptions and reservations have to be added
quote:
page 219 Oliver Heavyside by Paul J. Hahin 1988 Johns Hopkins Press
One can "observe" my own axions here
http://axiompanbiog.com/aboutus.aspx
They were developed because the observation of snake morphology was not accepted as a suitable topic by a herpetologist while doing work at Cornell and the proposal was "too philosophical" for the most mathematically minded biologist on campus. I have a hard time saying that the axioms I came onto (after reading Croizat some more etc, and unlearning some things)due to rejection of simple conceptual approaches is only math and not biology. At the level of biogeographic hypotheses it is hard to seperate except in thought. In which case one would have to say that I am a mathmatician and not a biologist, but this seems contrary to the facts in the case, it seems to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A quaternion is as different than a vector as a man is a quadroped (paraphrase of HEAVYside).
Edited by Brad McFall, : by-line
Edited by Brad McFall, : link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2007 1:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 113 (416826)
08-18-2007 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
08-17-2007 1:37 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
There's your problem. There are no axioms in science.
Axioms are a feature of mathematics, not of the empirical study of the natural world. Nothing in science is axiomatic, except as a euphemism. Even then they're usually kidding.
There are no axioms in science. Why are you so relentlessly misinformed?
Then why do you insist on such axioms yourself?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2007 1:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 12:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 113 (416830)
08-18-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
08-17-2007 11:10 AM


Of course you can add to an infinite.
Please demonstrate.
But what has that got to do with the universe being temporal, and what has that got to do with design?
Everything. If the universe is temporal then it had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. If that's the case, then it refutes your previous claim.
If you add to an existing number, you will never arrive at infinity. Adding something finite and repeatedly adding other finite quantities to it will never make it infinite, because actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.
The past, as it were, has been created by successive addition. If Ringo were infinite, she would not move on the same timeline as the rest of us. Past, present and future are meaningless because she would exist in all dimensions simultaneously.
For us in real time, the past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present. Every moment that is now past was once future, but was added to the past by the passing of time.
If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
quote:
If creation were eternal, then everything in creation would be eternal as well.
Non sequitur. Individual organisms have a beginning and an end, a "birth" and a death - but there's no reason why their molecules (or subatomic particles) couldn't be eternal.
Because cells and molecules die too. Its happening right now in fact. If you could demonstrate the eternal molecule or cell, I'd be more inclined to cede the point.
quote:
You can't add to infinity.
Still wrong.
If you are going to claim that someone is wrong, generally you should offer a reason at how you arrived at your position.
Your molecules might once have been ash from Mt. Vesuvius. Mine might once have been a dragonfly. Nothing added, nothing taken away.
Is it possible that you were once a street sign, at least on a molecular level? Not in the way you seem to think. Indeed, your corpse will one day fuel a flower, but something like a cell still has to divide, and it will die just like all matter will.
"Something" outside of time/space/matter is an automatic nullification of Occam's Razor.
Not in the context we were speaking in.
quote:
Everything that exists in the physical world, including time/space/matter, has a beginning that is contingent upon the causation of something else.
So where's the link I asked for? Instead of claiming that all observable evidence since Hubble backs you up, why not show us where any evidence backs you up?
I'm a little shocked that even you would remonstrate something so transparently obvious as this. Nonetheless, I will oblige your request. This link is the most comprehensive that I've found that draws upon both physical law and philosophy to present its claim.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 08-18-2007 3:28 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 10:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 102 of 113 (416843)
08-18-2007 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2007 2:19 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Of course you can add to an infinite.
Please demonstrate.
Infinity + 1 = Infinity.
If Ringo were infinite, she would not move on the same timeline as the rest of us. Past, present and future are meaningless because she would exist in all dimensions simultaneously.
You're mangling together infinity, time and "dimensions" with no trace of logic that I can see.
For us in real time, the past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present. Every moment that is now past was once future, but was added to the past by the passing of time.
That seems circular to me.
If our timeline is infinite, the past and future are both infinite. We're just somewhere on the line. Adding to the past and subtracting from the future would have no effect on the size of the past or the future.
The only way you can arrive at a definite beginning is by assuming your conclusion, that time is finite.
If you could demonstrate the eternal molecule or cell, I'd be more inclined to cede the point.
I already said that the atoms and/or subatomic particles making up the molecules and cells could be eternal.
You can't add to infinity.
Still wrong.
If you are going to claim that someone is wrong, generally you should offer a reason at how you arrived at your position.
Did that. See above.
Is it possible that you were once a street sign, at least on a molecular level?
Of course.
Indeed, your corpse will one day fuel a flower, but something like a cell still has to divide, and it will die just like all matter will.
I don't see where you've demonstrated that "all matter will die".
"Something" outside of time/space/matter is an automatic nullification of Occam's Razor.
Not in the context we were speaking in.
If you are going to claim that something is out of context, generally you should offer a reason as to how you arrived at your position.
Instead of claiming that all observable evidence since Hubble backs you up, why not show us where any evidence backs you up?
I'm a little shocked that even you would remonstrate something so transparently obvious as this.
If it's so "transparently obvious", why not give a simple reference instead of expecting me to find it in a giant pdf? The least you could do is give a quote. Are you deliberately being evasive?
In case you've forgotten, here's the statement I asked you to back up:
quote:
Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is. Message 85
Kindly direct us to where your reference gives that proof.
-------------
Just to recap what all of this has to do with the topic:
You made the statement, if I understand correctly, that the universe must have a cause - i.e. a creator/designer. I said that there is no need for a cause if the universe has always existed.
Scientifically, the universe "began" with the Big Bang but philosophically, I see no reason why we can't extend "whatever the singularity was made of" back to infinity. Matter as we know it may have "begun" at the Big Bang, but what about whatever matter is "made of"? If we can talk about an "uncaused cause", why not "unmatter matter"?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 2:19 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 12:30 AM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 103 of 113 (416882)
08-18-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2007 2:19 AM


Concerning infinity:
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Of course you can add to an infinite.
Please demonstrate.
...
quote:
You can't add to infinity.
Still wrong.
If you are going to claim that someone is wrong, generally you should offer a reason at how you arrived at your position.
Ringo has already answered this, but let me add a little more. Unfamiliarity with the mathematical ramifications of infinity is fairly common, and one popular explanation that you'll find helpful appears at Wikipedia's Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel entry. This hotel has an infinity of rooms and an infinity of guests and is presumably full. But a new guest arrives and wants a room, so the hotel clerk asks everyone in the hotel to move from room N to room 2*N, freeing up an infinite number of rooms, and he then places the new guest in room 1. In this way a hotel with an infinity of rooms and an infinity of guests can still accommodate an additional infinity of guests.
If you add to an existing number, you will never arrive at infinity. Adding something finite and repeatedly adding other finite quantities to it will never make it infinite, because actual infinities cannot be created by successive addition.
Sure they can, you just add infinitely many times. Many series result in infinite values. For example, while this simple series is equal to a finite value:
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 2
This series is not:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = infinity
The concept of infinity has many nuances. I won't attempt to explain, but I will mention the strange incongruity that apparently some infinities are larger than others. Weird, huh!
If the universe is temporal then it had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. If that's the case, then it refutes your previous claim.
You and Ringo have drifted a nearly infinite distance from where this point originally began. Way back in Message 78 you said:
nemesis_juggernaut in Message 78 writes:
You've neglected to explain how something can come from absolute nothingness.
Bringing the discussion back to this original point, and not because it's on-topic but simply so we can dispense with it and resume discussing the topic, we don't really know how the universe sprang into existence, though there is much informed speculation (informed because of the wealth of available data). What we do know is that when we peer out into space we observe that the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is receding from us. This would be true for observations made from anywhere within the observable universe. Since everything is receding from everything else, if you project the motions back in time you find that about 13.7 billion years ago the entire universe was contained in a very, very tiny region.
The known laws of physics break down at this point. We say this because applying them yields nonsensical results, such as infinite densities. Physicists have a number of proposals, but nothing definitive at this time.
It is common for those on the science side to say that there was no time before there was a universe, but I think it would be more accurate to say that we don't know if there was time before the Big Bang. Certainly in the cyclical universe proposals (not considered one of the more likely proposals at present), where the universe goes through an endless series of expansions followed by contractions followed by Big Bangs and expansions and so forth, there was time before the Big Bang.
If actual infinities cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
Your initial assumption that infinity cannot be reached through addition is incorrect, but that has nothing to do with whether the past can be infinite. If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything then the past is finite. If there was something prior to the Big Bang then the past is longer than we think, and could still be either finite or infinite. But we don't know.
Non sequitur. Individual organisms have a beginning and an end, a "birth" and a death - but there's no reason why their molecules (or subatomic particles) couldn't be eternal.
Because cells and molecules die too. Its happening right now in fact. If you could demonstrate the eternal molecule or cell, I'd be more inclined to cede the point.
A cell is alive and can die. A molecule is not alive and cannot die. How do you continue to make these amazingly simple mistakes? You repeat the error:
Not in the way you seem to think. Indeed, your corpse will one day fuel a flower, but something like a cell still has to divide, and it will die just like all matter will.
Matter is not alive and cannot die. Cells are composed of matter, and of course cells can die, but the matter comprising the cell cannot be said to die.
But matter is not eternal since it is convertible back and forth with energy: E=mc2
I'm a little shocked that even you would remonstrate something so transparently obvious as this. Nonetheless, I will oblige your request. This link is the most comprehensive that I've found that draws upon both physical law and philosophy to present its claim.
Uh, Nem, you're having trouble stringing two correct statements together, you're certainly not capable of understanding that link, and nothing you've written here gives any indication that you've even looked at it. For instance, that link provides detailed summaries of a number of theories about the cause of the Big Bang, yet what you've written in this thread seems informed by none of it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 2:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 113 (416905)
08-18-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2007 1:38 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Then why do you insist on such axioms yourself?
Why do you insist on compounding your error with one-sentence responses that are completely inaccurate fabrications?
There are no axioms in science. There are only theories, supported by evidence. You're simply inventing axioms to avoid having to support your assertions with evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 1:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 1:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 105 of 113 (416916)
08-18-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
08-18-2007 12:38 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
There are no axioms in science. There are only theories, supported by evidence. You're simply inventing axioms to avoid having to support your assertions with evidence.
NJ might be thinking of the inferences we make about physical laws, namely that they are consistent and comprehensible. An example of such an inference is that the speed of light is the same everywhere, even though we only have data from a tiny proportion of the actual universe. Of course, that inferences of this nature have never given us any reason to doubt them means we can have great confidence in them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 12:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 2:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024