Jump to content
Science Forums

zmweaver

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About zmweaver

  • Birthday March 10

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

zmweaver's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Both of you are on the right track and the same page. But your discussion seems to be culminating in the old, "which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument. The point is, neither can exist with outside intervention at some point. Whether the results of outside intervention outlaw the feasibility of a PMM or allow humans the ability to set one in motion, does not put into question that outside intervention is a prerequisite to both scenarios. By the way, I really like both of your chosen signature quotes (Dark Mind and Guadalupe) and intellectually cherish the concepts behind them.
  2. My friend warned me that online forums can be addictive and he was correct. I just don't have the time to commit to this somewhat positive addiction. I resolved the perceived contradictions I had between my religious faith and scientific understanding about a week after starting the thread, but I kept on posting. Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge and opinions. This is my last post. Damocles, First of all, my personal comments about you were out of line. I am sorry. My attempt to "psycho-analyze" you was a demonstration in transference. I possessed and, to a certain degree, still possess the very same character flaws I accused you of. I was accused of having these flaws several years ago, so I have taught myself to over-ride and hide them to the best of my ability. By abusing your admission that you are striving to better yourself socially (in your Addendum), I was a dick. As noted above, I just don't have the time to generate scientifically valid answers to your questions. I do not possess adequate knowledge to be confident in my off-the-cuff answers, and I don't have the time or motivation to research the individual topics. I'll give you one off-the-cuff response, though. I believe an "unbounded set of universal possibilities" requires an initial state of negative entropy, a state of maximum organization. I don't think that the origin of life or the existence of man defies the law of ever-increasing entropy. However, I think both the origin of life and the existence of man required a degree of organization manipulation that cannot occur naturally (similar to the existence of the internal-combustion engine). From an engineering perspective, the existence of humans has much in common with an engineered-system. I cannot design a system that will not eventually fail, so I consider the economics and useful life of the system at hand (for me it is building systems and 50 years is a general rule of thumb). I think God created humans in His own image, with this ability to manipulate entropy as we deem fit (unfortunately, this ability was not accompanied by His infinite wisdom). I think God set in place an initial state of maximum organization. I think He chose at some point in time to manipulate the organization He created, allowing life to exist and giving it the instinct to procreate and survive. Modern technology and the negative, irreversible impact it has on the environment is evidence that man is accelerating the progression from a state of negative entropy to a state of zero organization at an unprecedented rate. I think that God allowed for life and created man with the understanding that these systems will fail at a point in time that He has predetermined.
  3. I don't have any enemies and I was not trying to create one. I just don't think either of your posts are of any benefit to anyone. In fact, your first post only served to stiffle discussion. Forgive me for being blunt, but your two posts come across as "pompous" ego-grooming exercises. The only part of either post that benefited anyone was, "Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.) Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].) Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)" I understand the vast majority of the terms you used in your series of questions but I do not know exactly how you relate them to the topic at hand. I readily admit I am not a guru on the topic and that is exactly why I am here. "You know more than me and I think you are very, very smart!". I think that is the response your subconscious eagerly seeks, resulting in said enemies and accusations of pomposity. The anonymity of Internet posting encourages people to ignore social standards and allows subconscious motivations to control the mood and content of a post. You can learn something from everyone. I don't think you believe this, so I conclude responding to your questions would be a waste of my time. I will, however, research the brief topics you have presented, so I thank you for that.
  4. Clarification is required on your part for me to respond to your post. You obviously have a definite position on the topic. Present the logic that lead you to this brief and incomplete conclusion. I prefer not to respond to posts that require me to assume the poster knows what he/she is talking about. A clear explanation of logic (not personal intellectual brevity) results in a solid post worth responding to.
  5. c) = a) + ;) The term "can" in part a) suggests that you believe and are 100% positive that your explanations are correct and factual. I am not exactly sure what your "explanations" are, but your postings suggest strong convictions in evolution and atheism. In part ;) you use the term "until". By admitting that your explanations HAVE NOT "yet" been proven, you defined part c) for me. My understanding of "faith" is believing in something that has NOT been scientifically proven. Your belief in something that has NOT "yet" been proven, is "where the faith is involved". Also, science and math is only LAW within the specific set of parameters determined by the humans that establish it. During the first few semesters of my undergrad education, I was taught the scientific LAWS that govern motion and energy. I was taught that these LAWS only hold true under ideal conditions that never occur in reality (due to entropy, friction, turbulence, no steady-state conditions, and so on). During the next couple semesters I was taught how these LAWS were modified and expanded upon to account for conditions presented by reality (for example, basic Bernoulli to Extended-Bernoulli). During the last few semesters, I was taught how to apply what I had learned to physical systems. To apply these laws to reality, requires the ability to recognize and accurately identify all system parameters. Part of these parameters are assumptions. My professors required us to make an "Assumptions" heading and list every one of them before attempting to analytically solve a problem. The more complex the system or problem, the more assumptions are required to arrive at an answer/conclusion. As the number of assumptions increases so does the possibility for error and oversight. Life is the most complex system science has ever attempted explain.
  6. Not to beat a dead horse, but your rebuttal begs for a response. I admit that "common sense" was too broad of a term to use. "Simple logic" more accurate fits my intended implication behind the term "common sense". Your “belief” ("based on observation") in something that CANNOT be proven, IS FAITH! If "50% or more of conclusions based on common sense are drivel"; humans would have died out long ago. I don't need Newton to tell me that if I walk off a cliff, I will fall to my death. If I had never seen video of someone getting attacked by a bear, I still wouldn't walk up to one and smack it. Common sense tells me that my remote control (which is across the room from me) will not grow legs and walk its *** over here so I can change the channel (I have reached this "conclusion"; though I have no scientific evidence to base it on). Simple logic does not allow me to accurately guess the surface temperature of the sun, but the 103degreeF high today tells me it's damn hot. Simple logic tells me that the sun is the source of the heat and light, because when it goes down, it gets cooler and darker. Simple logic tells me NOT to form a conclusion as to the exact surface temperature of the sun because I have no freaking clue. The reliability of simple logic most commonly breaks down when ignorant individuals attempt to explain modern technology and science they don't understand, in terms of it. Technology has an exponential growth curve which really took off in the 20th century. The fact that simple logic cannot explain how computers, flight, radios, television, or the internal-combustion engine work; does not make it unreliable. Simple logic accurately concludes that someone invented/discovered each of these technologies and they could not have evolved on their own. The reliability of simple logic breaks down when an individual no longer considers alternate possibilities to a theory that cannot be proven or disproved (whether religious or secular in nature).
  7. I'm just barely motivated enough to seek knowledge. I am using this forum to bounce my ideas and logic off of a hopefully concentrated group of intelligent people. While my close friends are quite successful and intelligent, none of them share my technical education nor do they care to discuss the sciences (mostly lawyers and bankers). I obtained my BSME degree and passed the F.E. exam a little more than a year ago, and currently work for an M/E/P construction design firm that specializes in technical building design (mostly hospitals, pharmaceutical laboratories, university science buildings, etc.). My title is "Piping Engineer" and involves designing and specifying waste/vent, storm-drainage, domestic water distribution, medical gas, high-purity water, laboratory gas, and fire-protection systems.
  8. I believe "scientific research" should have been used in place of "evidence". I think the vast body of evidence lies in common-sense and what we can see, pointing to possibility a) or ;). Obviously, we see similar physical characteristics between us and primates. However, the mental-capability differences between us is even more obvious. We can teach apes to do damn near anything by exploiting their instincts and physical abilities... by adding organizational input into their lives. The ability to rationalize our instincts, emotions, and existence involved a huge leap in mental organization ("free-will" is probably the most appropriate broad term for this ability). I'm sure there are sociological theories as to "why" these abilities emerged, but the "how" still involves a decrease in entropy. Walk outside and take a good look around you. The beauty, infinitely-complex interdependency, and scientific laws we developed to model nature suggest life was "intentional". Discounting this possibility because it cannot be scientifically proven is close-minded and quite a gamble if God does happen to exist. Skippy's watchmaker analogy exemplifies my point. "The vast body of evidence" does not point to c) or d). Our historically-recent scientific attempts to rationalize "the vast body of evidence" is the only evidence pointing to c) or d).
  9. Originally Posted by zmweaver "My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched." Shapedoctor, My error. I unintentionally incorporated my particular viewpoint into a generalization. Replace "fact" with "possibility". Eclogite, Agreed, my diction was misleading. When I wrote, "... a result of chance", I was evidently unsuccessful at contextually implying there was NO creator/external organizational-input involved in this "result of chance". Obviously, by definition, we exist as a result of chance.
  10. That was my initial assumption as well. I think the vast majority of the population assumes that "Evolutionists" believe the existence of life is a result of pure chance. At some point, a distinction was made between "Evolutionists" that believe simple chemicals somehow became bacteria and those that don't. If an "Evolutionist" does not believe in abiogenesis, it seems a stretch to be sure humans evolved from apes. If one accepts the idea that some higher power played a hand in the existence of life, how can he discount the possibility that he was personally created by a Maker? Are concepts such as beauty, hate, after-life, guilt, and "consciousness" a result of evolution? It seems the distinct differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom are as difficult to explain in terms of evolution as abiogenesis. Also, if an evolutionist does not believe in abiogensis, doesn't that make him a creation-evolutionist on a certain level? At the very least, a creation-undecided evolutionist.
  11. After reading many postings, I realized I wasted a couple of hours screwing around with magnets. Perpetual motion is a fantasy, but here is what's real... The sun is the ONLY indefinite source of perpetual energy we've got. I consider it indefinite because if we lost it, everything would die on earth. Harnessing solar power is the closest to perpetual motion we can come.
  12. How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.
×
×
  • Create New...