|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 12:28 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Oh My purpose for trying to sort this out...... I love the search.....I love the question....I love the possibilities. The answer means less to me then the question. The destination less than the journey. To me, once you find the answer there is nothing left. That is why I find those who say they have the answer, be it God or Science or Sex or Love, somewhat depressing because they have stopped searching. To me they have lost the passion, the drive to exist beyond some point. Do I think that is wrong? Not in the slightest. It is just wrong for me. Someday I hope to be able to grasp that I am the singularity. I am all the possibilities. I hope to be able to let go of my view that I am a part of something or that I am an individual within something and actually understand that I, that everyone and everything is that something. Yeah yeah I know......crazy Buddhist babble..... |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 12:17 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Bleh Quote:
I'll give you my brief summation minus all the technical/philosophical jargon then led me here. :D All there is is substance X. Substance X can't be weighed, measured or quantified in any way. Substance X is infinite. This means there is no space, no time, no matter, no particals......just substance X. Substance X is infinite possibilities. Existance as we know it is one possibility in a set of infinte possibilities. Sort of like a big cosmic choose your own adventure book. A matrix of things that could happen linkind to other things that could happen. But in the begining there is nothing but a singularity. A singularity of possibilities. Once a single possibility begins to exists there is no longer a singularity and the matrix of possibilities begins for lack of a better term movement. Unfortunately, human conciousness is not designed to grasp the concept of an infinite singularity. It goes completely against our view of space and time. But, if you can let go of that preconception.....you may end up in thereapy like I did. One of my favorite things to ponder is Infinite monkies with Infinite typerwriters over Infinite time could produce the complete works of Shakespere. This is true. If you don't think it is then you do not understand infinite. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:26 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I gotta say it really stings that lil Vinthy Cut n' paste says I can't think for myself. I think it was pretty bold of you to say that without it even appearing on www.boortzsycophant.com. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:25 AM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:21 AM | |||
| Zhukov | Hold on, I'll just rush down to the bookstore and get it. | ||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:21 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
I applaud your ability to do research by yourself. Who knows, maybe in a year or so you be able to think for yourself. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:15 AM | |||
| mburbank |
 Moe called. He wants his haircut back. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:57 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | The best source of information you can gather is from the book "Tornado In A Junkyard". There is a chapter on the trial and also on the movie that has great reference notes and also great commentary. There are many other great resources, but that is the one that combines everything into one nice little bundle. | ||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:52 AM | |||
| Zhukov |
This is all I know: A teacher called John Scopes was found guilty of teaching the theory of evolution, in contravention of the laws of the state of Tennessee. The trial actually upheld the state’s anti-evolution laws, which were not abolished until 1968, when the US Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of creation theories was a violation of the constitutional ban on the teaching of religion in state schools. Since then, the creationists changed their tactics, trying to turn creationism into a "science." In this, they have the support, not only of a wide layer of public opinion, but of not a few scientists, who are prepared to place their services at the disposal of religion in its most crude and obscurantist form. Enlighten me further. I am not being sarcstic. I merely wanted to point out the relation of science to faith and Creationism. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:52 AM | |||
| kellychaos |
Re: Matter Quote:
.
|
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:36 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
You know the monkey trial was a sham, correct? I know you have only watched Inherit The Wind and think you know all about what happened, but I have seen numerous papers on the subject. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:31 AM | |||
| Zhukov |
I thought God and Creation were based on faith, not science. God wants people to have faith in him, not in earthly explanations. I am a better Christian than you, Vince. And there were/are scientists that back up Creationism, hasn't anybody heard of the 'notorious' "monkey trial" of 1925? "Insects might be more intelligent than humans, although "they’re not letting on…because things are going so well for them." Priceless.
|
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 09:52 AM | |||
| mburbank | 'Reality' an undefined term Vinth uses in place of whatever he thinks at any given moment, may or may not be subjective. |As the only instrument we have to measure and test it is the human brain, a HIGHLY subjective instrument, we have no way of making a final judgement on the veracity of reality. | ||
| Jul 14th, 2003 09:16 PM | |||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Quote:
|
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 02:57 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Matter Not when you take mass-energy conservation into account. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 02:34 PM | |||
| Zero Signal |
Re: Matter Quote:
|
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 01:53 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Matter Quote:
Mass is measurement of how much matter something contains. This measurement differs based on where in space you take the measurment. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 01:32 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Matter Copy past from a couple of quantum physics and Buddhist sources. Quantum Physics is at the cutting edge of Western science and goes beyond Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The interesting thing about quantum physics is that the original impetus giving rise to it, namely the pursuit of the elemental building blocks of the Universe (separate elementary particles), has become meaningless with the discovery that the Universe would appear to be an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics suggests that matter is just a form of energy (i.e. matter could be considered as 'slowed down' energy) and that like energy, it does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe, known as The Observer Effect, implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness. (i.e. the Mind of God) 1 As American physicist, Barbara Brennan, states in her book 'The Hands of Light': "Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realise that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole." 2 [/quote] |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 12:39 PM | |||
| Zero Signal |
Re: Bang Quote:
Matter can also be thought of as energy concentrated at a location in space. Quote:
One of the most interesting theories is the Ekpyrotic scenario. "But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time. These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)" http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010413-1.html |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 12:26 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Re: Bang Quote:
|
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 11:42 AM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Bang Quote:
Matter can be destroyed. Energy on the other hand...... |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 09:51 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Since Vinth has used the word 'intelligent' instead of 'intelligence' on several occassions, I have to assume you don't know the difference between the two words or when to use each one. Originall I thought it was just a typo. I'm also almost certain Vinth has no idea what the scientiffic method is, or what constitutes a scientiffic 'fact'. Whenever he's asked about 'science' and it's relation to 'evolution', he brings up the Big Bang, which is no scientist has ever claimed is a fact, and really doesn't have much to do with theories of biological evolution. I know, I know, asking that you actually know what the words you use mean and talking about the differences between theories and facts makes me an upper west side Jew. Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we take our differing view points and debate them somewhere, say Newsfilter? Oh, I forgot, you're a cowardly little sack of shit and you can't back up anything you say because you're dumb as a post , lazy as hell, and you lack 'intelligent'. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 09:47 AM | |||
| Alxcipher |
Doesnt' the big bang theory also state that we came from nothing? No. And reality is only subjective interpretation of reality, if it isn't possible to perceive it then it is of no consequence and eternally "true". However you can't leave your owne perception so your personal understanding must be understood by the subjective reality that you create. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 07:53 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Doesnt' the big bang theory also state that we came from nothing? If matter always exists and can never be destroyed, that means that matter must have had 1) always existed or 2) been created by something outside of reality. Punkgirl wants to talk about how "perception is reality", well, that is the perception of the Big Bang theorist. Besides, that perception is reality statement is true for the lemmings, but not for us who can sort through the bullshit. Reality is reality, you can't change it. |
||
| Jul 13th, 2003 08:47 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
"Not according to him. He was Created." God either has a sick since of humor or fucks up alot. "that when you actually say something of intelligent it is just dismissed"  Speaking of being dismissed. "There is more science backing up creationist theory than evolution nowadays, chimp." YEA, THEY LIKE FOUND GOD'S MAGIC WAND HE USED TO CREATE ALL OF US, AND THEY MADE YOU WITH IT AND THATS WHY YOURE SO FUCKED UP BECAUSE YOU WERE MADE IN AMERICA. AND A JAR FILLED WITH SMOKE THAT APPEARED WHEN WE WENT *POOF*, THEY USE THAT FOR WONDERFUL INCENSE FRAGRANCE. hahahahahahahaha. What a fucking jack ass. You can't PROVE creationism, creationism is the theory we came from NOTHING, that every social structure and ecological habitat was created instantly(or over the course of "Seven Days"). What the fuck do you plan to bring into this SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATIONISM(haha, that's funny too). I'm awaiting for like, I don't know, the original Rib of Adam or something. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
