Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Everything, given the purpose of your analogy. You specified that I was running for an infinite length of time, your whole analogy hinged on the impossibility of determining an equal, reversed distance because it too would be infinite, so pointing out that if one stops something he isn't doing it infinitely is really rather important. I can't be running infinitely if I stop and turn around to go an equal distance back the other way, and therefore I'd easily be able to determine and run an equal distance back.

Whether you stop or not, you should be able to run equal distance the opposite direction from any given point on the line. I still fail to see the relevance, because there isn't any.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  You specifically said that I couldn't answer this problem, and I did.

No, you didn't. I even gave the analogy of you simply turning around, while STILL running....the opposite direction. Since you whole objection was based on stopping, well, suppose you didn't stop, you just turned around...then what?? Same problem.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  No, you just don't understand your own problem, apparently. Rolleyes

Dude, these piss poor objections you are making only lets me know that the argument is working.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  ...Do you... do you seriously not see the inherent contradiction in the phrase "I'm running for an infinitely long time, but then I stopped."? Infinitely means that I perform the action without end, if I end the action, I am no longer doing it infinitely, because there's a clear stopping point.

That was to drive home the point that you never BEGAN to run...that's it...it illustrates the INFINITE DURATION of the running..you know, kind of how the scenario would be if there was no timeless first cause, right?

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The road may be infinite, but my running on it is not, as the moment I stopped gives us an end point by which to time exactly how long I've been running. Now, I must have started running at some point on the road... here, let me show you, since you're apparently incapable of imagining simple things like lines.

Dude, didn't I just say "even if you turned around to run the opposite direction, WHILE CONTINUOUSLY RUNNING, the same thing will apply"...so in this scenario there is no moment that you stopped running....yet, the problem will still apply.

The implications are inescapable, bro Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The road is infinite. I started running at some point along it, say the leftmost line, and that's an inescapable fact of existence; I need to exist on the road, which means despite its infinite length, I need to be placed at some point along it, which is measurable physically despite the immeasurability of the road. The point at which I stop running and turn around is the rightmost point, and though the road is infinite, the distance between those two points, which is what we care about, is not. It's a finite length, it simply has to be, by the laws of physical space.

You are changing the scenario. On the scenario I gave, you were running for an infinite amount of time, on an infinitely long road. Yet, in the scenario you give, you "started running"?

You are drowning, bro. But don't feel too bad...it is usually very difficult to rebuttal the actual truth.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Your analogy only works if you refuse to actually think of the road as a real place, which is kinda hard to do when considering it requires that we do.

Laugh out load Is that what it is??? HAHAHAHAHA

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  You have an infinite road. You place a three inch by three inch cube somewhere on that road. You now have a measurable portion of that infinite road via the dimensions of the cube, plus a landmark by which you can measure distances on the road. Or are you seriously saying that the moment I put anything on an infinite road, it ceases to have physical dimensions? Dodgy

Once you can provide an adequate answer to my analogy, I will entertain yours.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Says the guy who thinks infinity can have an end. Rolleyes

I never said that Huh

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you're going to posit all these hypotheticals, then you have to consider infinity as a real thing, which is what you refuse to do. You're handicapping us with your own ignorance.

You're handicapping us with your own ignorance <--------Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Sure there's an infinite amount. But that doesn't stop us from selecting a point on the scale and measuring those time measurements from that point. Time keeps going forward regardless of whether it ends or not; an infinite amount of time allows for every event to elapse, by definition.

How can there be an infinite amount of millenniums in history, and also an infinite amount of seconds in history??

Absurdities.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So now you're saying that something infinite also has limits with regards to what it can contain? You're not really familiar with what "infinite" means, are you?

Huh

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you place event X on the timeline, then event X can be reached, given an infinite amount of time. The only way to avoid reaching event X is to either not place it on the timeline, or to not allow for an infinite amount of time, which is nonsensical when you're positing an infinite number of events.

Nonsense. If event X can be reached from an infinite distance, then you should be able to find an equal distance to event X on the left side of the timeline. If it can be reached (as you claim it can), then you should be able to travel equal distance the opposite direction...because after all, those points were already traversed anyway, right? So why can't you go back equal distance and cover previously traveled ground???

Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Miller-Urey, John Oros, the mountains of experimentation that shows empathy naturally arising in animals

If those experiments demonstrated life from nonlife, then why was I able to post a 2015 article of scientists stating that they are breaking grounds with abiogenesis..but "they are not there yet".

Hmmmm.

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  See above, though I do find it odd that you'll ask for scientific evidence while simultaneously deriding science as "voodoo." I suspect that you'll do that with all science that doesn't already agree with you. Dodgy

If I told you I saw a Haitian sorcerer change a reptile into a bird, you would probably say it is bullshit....but when nature changes a reptile into a bird, you call it...science?? Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not if it happens via well understood genetic principles that we can observe easily... which it does. Your ignorance regarding the process does not make it magic, but it does make you ignorant.

How is it described by natural law?

(31-03-2015 11:46 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  "I'm not gonna say why, but just pretend I said something that perfectly rebutted you, because I totally could!" Rolleyes

Laugh out load That was actually kinda funny
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are many published books, papers and articles on evolution. Perhaps it's time to check out the library?

Refer me to the best book on the subject.

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are many books explaining how this process works. It's very accessible science, it makes intuitive sense when you understand it.

There is also many books (Bibles) explaining the purpose of life, and explaining man's ultimate destiny. These books makes "intuitive sense when you understand it".

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Creationist proponents try very hard to mislead non scientifically minded Christians.

I know how you feel, buddy. Because in virtually every biology class in America, Christians are being misled too.

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You have so far been shown to mimic ideas coming from scientifically incorrect memes spouted by Creationist proponents.

I side with the common sense groups.

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It would be great to have a real conversation with you regarding your concerns over the evolution process but to be able to have that conversation, you need to at least know of and understand the basics of evolution.

Basics...Intermediate...Expert..Genius...doesn't matter the level. Either it happened, or it didn't happen.

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Certainly, if god was behind anything then our atheist arses would be kicked.
What is your position? God created everything fully formed? or God steered the ship of evolution?

He created everything fully formed. That is why things like the Cambrian Explosion supports Christian theism.

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's very dangerous to think that objective morality exists, especially if you are compelled to use force to get others to conform to your moral beliefs.

Good point, but then again...that kind of action itself would either be objectively right, or objectively wrong...so which is it?

(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That would mean that not even god can create or destroy energy.

He cant create or destroy his own energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Certainly, if god was behind anything then our atheist arses would be kicked.
What is your position? God created everything fully formed? or God steered the ship of evolution?

He created everything fully formed. That is why things like the Cambrian Explosion supports Christian theism.

Of course you're aware that the Cambrian "explosion" happened gradually, over a period of 20 million years or so (or maybe you're not). It was relatively quick by the standards of the overall evolutionary time scale, but for an omnipotent God, it would have been really really slow. This is yet another example of you citing things that you obviously don't understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
01-04-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So, you start with the presupposition that the human body is a design, and then wonder whether a designer was involved? Do you often waste your own time like that?

Mount Rushmore = carved images of the faces of former Presidents, which were intelligently designed.

Actual President's faces / their bodies = result of mindless and blind process, of which wasn't designed.

Makes no sense.

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  More importantly, would you mind telling me, since you think the human body was designed, why we would be designed to physically walk upright, but have designed spinal nerves better suited to front-slanting quadrupedal motion?

First off, are you confirming that humans, based on our body structures, weren't designed to walk upright? Is that a confirmation? Second, why are we able to walk at all...or is it the fact that we have shit like legs, feet, bones, etc...all of those things are just happy coincidences from good ole nature, that couldn't see nor know what the hell it was doing??

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or why the eye was designed with a blind spot, projecting its images upside down?

Why we were designed with useless and harmful wisdom teeth? You know, all those elements of our bodies that would make no sense at all, when considered from the perspective of design?

These are all opinions of the beholder. And so what you think we are badly designed...I can look at the old Model T and claim that it was badly designed...but a bad design is still a design, right?

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So, first of all, you're strawmanning, because the entire human body did not evolve "FROM SCRATCH," it iterated over many, many generations. So your proposition is malformed from the start.

Uh oh...there is the old "time" god again. Sprinkle a few hundred million years on it, and that will make it taste just right, huh?

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  But it's also a circular argument, since you're appealing to other designed things and assuming, based on the existence of designed objects, that everything must be designed. If some things were natural then the same argument could be made in reverse, and neither side has any justification for assuming the exclusivity of that premise.

The more complex you get, the more intelligence you need. The human body has specified parts, just like inside the hood of a car has specified parts, with each part performing a function, and everything is configured in a way to allow the car to run at its maximum.

It is more than rational to conclude that the human body is intelligently designed in the same way an automobile is intelligently designed.

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you have a step by step process of how life came to be via your god? Remember, you're asking for a "how?" answer from us, so we need a "how?" answer from you too, at the same level of detail that you're requiring from us, since that's only fair. How did god create life?

I don't know how God did it, but my belief isn't based on science, is it? YOUR beliefs are based on science, so I expect these things to be explained by science, and based on the laws of nature.

(31-03-2015 04:15 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you can't explain that, with evidence to show that it happened, then I guess you don't have a theory either, do you? Dodgy

You can't use the scientific method to get the kind of answers to "how did God do it." You can use (or should be able to use) the scientific method to get answers to "how did nature do it."

All I am asking is for the scientific evidence for scientific claims Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:38 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 10:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  He created everything fully formed. That is why things like the Cambrian Explosion supports Christian theism.

Of course you're aware that the Cambrian "explosion" happened gradually, over a period of 20 million years or so (or maybe you're not). It was relatively quick by the standards of the overall evolutionary time scale, but for an omnipotent God, it would have been really really slow. This is yet another example of you citing things that you obviously don't understand.

Indeed, later findings on the actual diversity of Ediacaran biota suggest that "explosion" was always a bit of a misnomer in any case. However, the changes in many observed fossils around that time period make perfect sense when we understand the ability for life to colonise a large array of new ecological conditions that developed then...

And that's entirely leaving aside his dumbfuck proposition that God "created" different species and then, I dunno, "inserted" them into evolutionary history in a perfectly predictable, coherent, and commensurate way just as though there had been no God at all.

Because that idea makes sense.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
01-04-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:38 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Of course you're aware that the Cambrian "explosion" happened gradually, over a period of 20 million years or so (or maybe you're not). It was relatively quick by the standards of the overall evolutionary time scale, but for an omnipotent God, it would have been really really slow. This is yet another example of you citing things that you obviously don't understand.

Actually, the whole purpose of the Cambrian thing was to demonstrate the LACK of transitional fossils...we don't find transitional fossils, we find animals in their complete stages...what we don't find is a bullshit million year build-up to them. We don't have any transitional fossils, so evolutionists have to find ways to shape and mold the fossils that we do find into transitional forms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 10:38 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Of course you're aware that the Cambrian "explosion" happened gradually, over a period of 20 million years or so (or maybe you're not). It was relatively quick by the standards of the overall evolutionary time scale, but for an omnipotent God, it would have been really really slow. This is yet another example of you citing things that you obviously don't understand.

Actually, the whole purpose of the Cambrian thing was to demonstrate the LACK of transitional fossils...we don't find transitional fossils, we find animals in their complete stages...what we don't find is a bullshit million year build-up to them. We don't have any transitional fossils, so evolutionists have to find ways to shape and mold the fossils that we do find into transitional forms.

You're not even pretending to try to keep up, are you?

Try here.

[Image: minimum-trolling.jpg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
01-04-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:53 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  All I am asking is for the scientific evidence for scientific claims Cool

And yet you refuse to actually look at the evidence. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-04-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 11:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 10:53 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  All I am asking is for the scientific evidence for scientific claims Cool

And yet you refuse to actually look at the evidence. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

But, then he might have to confront the evidence.

That's too hard. Much better to just ask for it and then totally refuse to look at it. It's what Jesus would have done.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
01-04-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 10:53 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Mount Rushmore = carved images of the faces of former Presidents, which were intelligently designed.

Actual President's faces / their bodies = result of mindless and blind process, of which wasn't designed.

Makes no sense.

Do rocks reproduce with modification? No? Then it's in no way an apt comparison. Evolution works on organisms, and rocks are not organisms.

Quote:First off, are you confirming that humans, based on our body structures, weren't designed to walk upright? Is that a confirmation?

Physiologically, some parts of us are good for standing upright, whereas the spinal nerves are suited for quadrupedal motion, a marker of our ancestry.

Quote: Second, why are we able to walk at all...or is it the fact that we have shit like legs, feet, bones, etc...all of those things are just happy coincidences from good ole nature, that couldn't see nor know what the hell it was doing??

Look up "natural selection," and then tell me this is just some blind process. Which you undoubtedly will, since you hold your strawmen so close to your heart.

Quote:These are all opinions of the beholder.

No. No they are not: when you have an organ designed for sight, the bad design of having a portion of the organ that literally does not do that job is not just an opinion. It is an objective fact.

Quote:And so what you think we are badly designed...I can look at the old Model T and claim that it was badly designed...but a bad design is still a design, right?

Begging the question doesn't answer it.

Quote:Uh oh...there is the old "time" god again. Sprinkle a few hundred million years on it, and that will make it taste just right, huh?

A few million years, a mechanism for genetic replication and variation, an ever expanding pool of organisms to mutate, and natural selection, yes.

Quote:The more complex you get, the more intelligence you need.

Not necessarily; complexity is not a hallmark of design, simplicity is. If you can design something to be simpler, you would; less moving parts, less to go wrong. Additionally, you haven't demonstrated that complexity cannot come about without design, which is especially problematic when we know that it can: snowflakes are a multitude of complex geometric shapes, yet they arise without design.

Besides, even taking your argument at face value, unless you have some threshold of complexity under which intelligence is not necessary, you're begging the question and assuming everything requires design, which is what you're attempting to prove.

Quote: The human body has specified parts, just like inside the hood of a car has specified parts, with each part performing a function, and everything is configured in a way to allow the car to run at its maximum.

How did you determine that the parts of a human were specified?

Quote:I don't know how God did it, but my belief isn't based on science, is it? YOUR beliefs are based on science, so I expect these things to be explained by science, and based on the laws of nature.

So basically, it's the same hypocritical double standard most creationists use, where you expect mountains of evidence for things you disagree with, and none from those you agree with. Pathetic. Rolleyes

Besides, if you don't value science as a method of gaining the truth, then why the fuck do you even care if we provide some? You won't listen anyway; what's the point?

Quote:You can't use the scientific method to get the kind of answers to "how did God do it." You can use (or should be able to use) the scientific method to get answers to "how did nature do it."

Why? Because you said so? Dodgy

Quote:All I am asking is for the scientific evidence for scientific claims Cool

Which you can then dismiss as voodoo because you're uninterested in hearing it, where it disagrees with what you already believe. We've done this dance before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: