Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

Originally posted by cybertroy
Past lives and ghosts are not hallucinations in every case.

Unless you can prove it you cannot state this as fact.

spamandham and riley, with all your well thought out arguments, you still haven't provided any evidence that creation didn't happen.

How many times to you expect me to repeat myself? Einstein provided proof: E=Mc2. NOTHING can exist outside time and space.. this would include a sentient omnipotent being. This is now the SIXTH time I have answered this. You are yet to respond to this except for your usual [and insulting] BUT YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED YET when I [and others] have. Why do you keep saying we haven't?! Are you just trolling trying to antagonise people? How about actually answering OUR questions for a change?

[edit on 24-9-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by cybertroy
Past lives and ghosts are not hallucinations in every case.

Are they in some cases?

Originally posted by cybertroy
spamandham and riley, with all your well thought out arguments, you still haven't provided any evidence that creation didn't happen.

It depends on what you mean by creation. It's pretty trivial to demonstrate that nature was not created. The proof follows purely from our knowledge of spacetime. If you're referring to Biblical creation, it disproves itself, as it is filled with inconsistencies.

ahhh...the bounded rationality. In most things, we are all boundedly rational to some extent.

For those who would promote ID or Creationism, they frequently begin by stating something like "science can't explain this, that. or the other thing" so, it must be God. What else could it be?

The bounded rationality of that kind of statement is understandable because to the ID/Creationists/Biblical literalists, God is done. God's work is finished.

For those who study science, they understand that science is not even close to being finished - it changes almost daily! That's because science is a field that relies heavily upon discovery, exploration, experimentation, and analysis. It is ongoing. So, a statement like "science can't explain...." really should always, always, in every single case, be followed with the word "yet". Science cannot explain everything YET! That's why scientist continue their work.

If we can agree to see the context, framework, and boundaries of the arguments of the others, we can understand better what they are attempting to communicate.

Pick any point in the history of civilization and look at those things that were not explained by any science on that day but, later, science discovered the explaination. There are thousands and thousands of examples! No scientific experiment is ever a complete failure - a "failed" experiment simply demonstrates incomplete knowledge. That, my friends, provides us with a good basis for understanding the definition of the scientific term "theory". Something we can't prove to be absolutely true....drumroll.....are you ready...here it comes....YET! ;-)

Originally posted by Al Davison
No scientific experiment is ever a complete failure - a "failed" experiment simply demonstrates incomplete knowledge.

I don't disagree, but I have a different perspective. The process of science is to chisel away the falseness to reveal the truth hidden underneath.

In that sense, it is the "failed" experiments that get us closer to truth. If you think about it, a "succesful" experiment is always inconclusive, whereas a "failed" one takes one more strike on the chisel.

This seems pertainant, quotes by Edison, no stranger to failure:

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up".

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work".

Sorry if you are upset. What I have said may have gotten you upset.

Now getting back to things. In what statement did you disprove creation? And what questions would you like me to answer?

This is about creation, like in the definition of create: 1) To cause to exist; bring into being.

I have knowlege in evolution, but the theory is insufficient. I had a pretty good interest in Science in school, but Science too is insufficient. I don't really understand E=MC2, do I need to, but I was pretty good at math. Science, math, evolution, formulas, etc. may be part of the universe, but they are lacking the spiritual nature of man.

People have recalled their past lives. People have experienced ghostly phenomena. People have stepped outside their own bodies. Many know in their hearts these phenomena exist. Tell some of these folks that this is fantasy, and you might get an earfull. Just letting you know.

I'll end this with a cool little story about my brother's pet rabbit. My brother and his wife's rabbit to be more specific. They have no reason to lie to me about this. My brother and his wife used to live here in this house some years ago. They were in their room, and their pet rabbit was picked up off the ground by, I guess a spirit, poltergeist, whatever applies. And it was dropped right in front of their eyes. Hurricanes and tornadoes don't form in my house, so what would have lifted this rabbit off of the floor?

Troy

[edit on 25-9-2005 by cybertroy]

Originally posted by cybertroy
In what statement did you disprove creation?

You have not explained what you mean by "creation", so it's hardly fair to ask me (or whoever) to disproved your unspecified concept.

Originally posted by cybertroy
People have recalled their past lives. People have experienced ghostly phenomena. People have stepped outside their own bodies.

Again, can any of these experiences be explained by natural explanations? You ask "what else can I answer", but don't seem to actually answer basic questions that have been asked of you.

Originally posted by cybertroy
They were in their room, and their pet rabbit was picked up off the ground by, I guess a spirit, poltergeist, whatever applies. And it was dropped right in front of their eyes. Hurricanes and tornadoes don't form in my house, so what would have lifted this rabbit off of the floor?

Simple. You're lying/insane. Prove me wrong.

After that, prove whoever told you this isn't lying/insane. After that, prove you didn't dream the conversation. After that, prove one of them didn't dream it followed by a false memory from the other. After that, prove they weren't hypnotized, or hallucinating, or both dreamed the same thing, or both had false memories implanted somehow. After that, prove there wasn't a localized tornado in their house. After that, prove that the molecules in the room didn't just happen to allign themselves randomly to force the rabbit into the air. After that, prove it wasn't the flying rabbit from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

Once you've done all this (plus a few steps I've probably neglected), then let's talk.

Lying/insane, come on man, that's a really rude thing to say, about me, my brother and his wife. You don't even know me and you say this about me.

Troy

Originally posted by cybertroy
Lying/insane, come on man, that's a really rude thing to say, about me, my brother and his wife. You don't even know me and you say this about me.

Troy

I don't need to know you to know these are the two most probable explanations. It's possible for an urban legend to form even among a small group who keep retelling the story and exaggerating it a little each time.

Bob sees his rabbit jump off the couch and swears the thing seems to float a moment before starting to fall. Joe tells Karen about it, but now the story is that Bob saw the rabbit levitate. Etc. After a few years of this, even Bob will remember seeing the rabbit fly into the air spontaneously and float around the room.

Now, granted sometimes we think that we see "something," but upon closer inspection we see that it is "something else." But, we aren't allways mistaken in our observations.

Troy

Originally posted by riley
How many times to you expect me to repeat myself? Einstein provided proof: E=Mc2. NOTHING can exist outside time and space.. this would include a sentient omnipotent being.

First of all let me state that Enstein did not prove E=Mc2.

I think you misunderstand what this equation means. It is solely a measure of the energy within mass. This does not disprove the possibility of strings vibrating at a higher frequency than our physical dimension.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity talks about how gravity is the result of the bending of time and space in the 4th dimension. This theory is as much proved as his E=Mc2 equation. To accept the theory of general relativity is to accept the nature of such extraphysical dimensions, where time, and sometimes even space are not present.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I think you misunderstand what this equation means.

No.. I've just dumbed it down because I got sick of repeating myself and it's more concise.
Space consists of energy and mass. Time cannot exist without space.. and space does not exist without time.. energy and mass are interchangable.. they are the same thing. Not sure how to explain it techinically [it'd sound boring anyway] but mass is basically concentrated energy. The universe [space] is being pushed outward by it's existence.. that is what creates space and time. It 'grows'. Pick that apart if you have to but I think science in pictures so it's fairly difficult to transcribe.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity talks about how gravity is the result of the bending of time and space in the 4th dimension.

Which is time.. how am I misunderstanding this?

[Forgetting for a moment how a 'god' comes into existence in the first place.] How does an omnipotent being exist outside of time and space given the existence of such an energy force would create space[time] to accomidate it's own existence anyway?

I think I may've asked that before.. I've lost count.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by riley]

I don't have a problem with ID being taught, as long as sufficient disclaimers are presented describing it as mythological.

Religion is fundamentally anti-science, since it requires belief DESPITE evidence.

It comes down to one question: If an experiment could be designed that DISPROVES the hand of a creator, will the proponents of ID abandon their beliefs? If not, then it is not, and can never be, science.

I believe in the absolute right to practice religion in private space. It is inappropriate in public space despite the assertions of the neo-evangelicals.

Originally posted by riley
No.. I've just dumbed it down because I got sick of repeating myself and it's more concise.
Space consists of energy and mass. Time cannot exist without space.. and space does not exist without time.. energy and mass are interchangable.. they are the same thing.

The equation does prove that time cannot exits without space, however it does not prove that space cannot exist without time. Einstein's theory of general relativity however, does prove that space can exist without time, due to the bending of the space-time continuum. This bending of the space-time continuum indicates that time is not present in the 4th dimensions and above, therefore creating the bend, that we call gravity.

Not sure how to explain it techinically [it'd sound boring anyway] but mass is basically concentrated energy. The universe [space] is being pushed outward by it's existence.. that is what creates space and time. It 'grows'. Pick that apart if you have to but I think science in pictures so it's fairly difficult to transcribe.

Agreed , the physical universe needs time and space to exist.

How does an omnipotent being exist outside of time and space given the existence of such an energy force would create space[time] to accomidate it's own existence anyway?

Refer to explanation above. I'd just like to add that you are assuming that this omnipotent is made of matter, ergo energy. Where you came up with that assumption I do not know. You are personifying this concept of God, into a carnal being.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Einstein's theory of general relativity however, does prove that space can exist without time, due to the bending of the space-time continuum.

Relativity shows that space and time are not separable things. Hence the term "spacetime". Space does not exist without time, nor vice versa, and neither does "existence" have any meaning without energy.

Originally posted by spamandham
Relativity shows that space and time are not separable things. Hence the term "spacetime". Space does not exist without time, nor vice versa, and neither does "existence" have any meaning without energy.

The theory of general relativity is about the relativity of the physical dimension. It is not a theory of how space and time behave in higher dimensions.

Your second point is an opinion, which I'd rather not debate (we wouldn't get anywhere).

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
The equation does prove that time cannot exits without space,

How does it not exist without space and distance?

however it does not prove that space cannot exist without time. Einstein's theory of general relativity however, does prove that space can exist without time, due to the bending of the space-time continuum. This bending of the space-time continuum indicates that time is not present in the 4th dimensions and above, therefore creating the bend, that we call gravity.

Gravity causes this bend [more specifically in light]. Spacetime distortion does not immediately mean that one can completly 'disapear'.. it just means it can be influenced. The '4th dimension' does not mean 'another rhelm'.. it is merely one dimension [as in side] of Einstein's formula and a discription of the physical.. now I imagine the inside of a blackhole would be very distorted.. but again there is still distance within it; therefore there is time.. one can't exist without the other.

I'd just like to add that you are assuming that this omnipotent is made of matter, ergo energy. Where you came up with that assumption I do not know. You are personifying this concept of God, into a carnal being.

We are discussing ID; the idea that there was an intelligence that created the universe. The whole concept of 'god' is personifying this intelligence. For this 'intelligence' to have decided to have created the universe.. it would have had to of existed somewhere and sometime as this action of creation required premeditation and self awareness enough to want to 'recreate' it's surroundings. Now.. I do not dismiss the possibilty of astral beings existing but they cannot exist nowhere.. be it this rhelm or another they'd still require a somewhere to reside.

Afterthought.. I guess I should brief you on my own 'creation' belief.. it's basically that our universe is one inside a multiuniverse cluster and blackholes are it's 'veins' that connect them all.. when one becomes too condenced that is when it causes a 'big bang'.
[edit on 11-10-2005 by riley]

[edit on 11-10-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
The theory of general relativity is about the relativity of the physical dimension. It is not a theory of how space and time behave in higher dimensions.

At present, if unobserved dimensions exist, we know nothing of them, and relativity has nothing to say about them.

If Einsteins interpretation of gravity is correct, it does not imply that the 4th spatial dimension exists timelessly.

Thanks for the replies riley and spamandham,

I'm going to post about how E=mc2 affects materialization in a scientific manner, so that we can actually discuss this theory on how it is impossible for space to exist without time.

Originally posted by spamandham
At present, if unobserved dimensions exist, we know nothing of them, and relativity has nothing to say about them.

The theory of general relativity has something to say about other dimensions. It holds as a postulate the existance of a fourth dimension, from where the gravity gets its force from the space time continuum.

If Einsteins interpretation of gravity is correct, it does not imply that the 4th spatial dimension exists timelessly.

Can you elaborate? If Einstein's interpretation of gravity is correct, the vibration of atoms at the 4th dimensional level is faster than the speed of light. This would render the 4th dimension "timeless", where nothing separates events in a chronological fashion.