• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Evolution VS Creationism

Evolution or creationism?

  • Total voters
    130
Captain Howdy

Captain Howdy

Member
Nikolinni said:
I'd call you an idiot because there's no evidence to suggest neither Jesus nor Horus was born on the 25th of December.
Click to expand...

One would have only said that, because you implied it. If you're going to go along with neither being born on Xmas, then you can piss off.
 
Yarem4

Yarem4

Fluffbutt
Well since horus is a god who's only information we have is from mythology and it's a fact that the ancient church adopted the 25th of December from a pagan festivity and turned into Jesusday... Nikolinni would be right
 
sniperfreak223

sniperfreak223

More Metal Than You !!!
Most Christian holidays are just adaptations of earlier pagan holidays, Christmas is at it's heart a celebration of the Winter Solstice, Easter a celebration of the Vernal Equinox, and so forth and so on...mostly to make it easier for pagan Romans to adapt to Christianity when Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
 
Rassah

Rassah

Well-Known Member
I miss the original Christmas, which was celebrated by big feasts, parties, and orgies (mistletoe was considered an aphrodisiac, and standing under it got you much more than just a kiss).
 
sniperfreak223

sniperfreak223

More Metal Than You !!!
oh to be back in the Roman days, when the celebration for every occasion was a drunken orgy.
 
Fallowfox

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Nikolinni said:
As long as you don't say Jesus ripped off Horus because they were both born Dec. 25th.
Click to expand...

Jesus wasn't born on the 25th. He ripped off the celtic solstice on that one, when the church changed his birthday in order to associate him with a religious festival that already existed.


edit: faaaaaah double post; how come a discussion about orgies was in the same thread as this?
 
sniperfreak223

sniperfreak223

More Metal Than You !!!
Oh, I thought "Orgy" referred to a nu metal band from the early 2000's... :V

and because why not? Don't you know this fandom's all about the orgies?
 
CaptainCool

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
"Now, it's bad enough that you talk about folding it, or having it expand. Because, if it's already filling everything at once, there's nowhere for it to expand too."
No, that's not true. Because infinity+X is still infinity. If you have something that is infinitely huge it can still get bigger without changing size because after growing its size is still infinite.
Actually, for space to be able to infinitely stretch into itself it doesn't even have to be infinite. This is something that I don't even begin to understand... It has to do with the infinite differentiability of the metric of spacetime. You get pretty deep into general relativity when you look at that stuff and I am simply not bright enough to understand that stuff.
But this I understand: Infinity in itself is not a number, it's a mathmatical concept. You are treating it like a number, that is where the error in your reasoning comes from.

This video is a great explanation of what we know so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs
 
Inciatus

Inciatus

In the land of bipolar weather
Fallowfox said:
edit: faaaaaah double post; how come a discussion about orgies was in the same thread as this?
Click to expand...
Because it is a furry forum. It may act gentlemanly but it cannot hide what is underneath.
 
Nikolinni

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
CaptainCool said:
"Now, it's bad enough that you talk about folding it, or having it expand. Because, if it's already filling everything at once, there's nowhere for it to expand too."
No, that's not true. Because infinity+X is still infinity. If you have something that is infinitely huge it can still get bigger without changing size because after growing its size is still infinite.
Actually, for space to be able to infinitely stretch into itself it doesn't even have to be infinite. This is something that I don't even begin to understand... It has to do with the infinite differentiability of the metric of spacetime. You get pretty deep into general relativity when you look at that stuff and I am simply not bright enough to understand that stuff.
But this I understand: Infinity in itself is not a number, it's a mathmatical concept. You are treating it like a number, that is where the error in your reasoning comes from.

This video is a great explanation of what we know so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere once:

"If you're seeking the infinite what instruments do you have to seek the infinite? Only sense organs, isn't it? So through your sense organs if you're seeking the infinite it's like wanting to go to moon with a bullock cart, isn't it so? That is the plight of humanity right now: with a limited perception, they are trying to grasp that which is beyond."
 
Fallowfox

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
"I'm quite aware that there are varying interpretations of quantum physics, but he is actually a scientist in the field. And what I've observed is that the other scientists I've listened to on the subject are not in any huge conflict with him. Out of all the scientists I've listened to on the subject there was a grand total of 1 who was really apposed to these interpretations. Therefore, if I were to dismiss John Hagelin, it would be because I felt his suggestions to be too fantastic to be believed - not because I denied his opinions were backed by proper scientific credentials and the support of other scientists.

What you are doing now is what I predicted would happen. You're saying, "How dare you take the word of an accredited scientist about science. Don't listen to him. Listen to me." "

almost no quantum physicists think that quantum physics implies we are all part of a 'single unified conscious universe'. This is the stuff of poetry; the physical mechanics involved do not imply this in the slightest.

if you think most scientists are okay with spiritual interpretations of quantum mechanics it's because you're only listening to fringe scientists talking in soothing voices on youtube, rather than actually having read any quantum mechanics or knowing what the mainstream interpretations are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics


Crazy scientists on youtubes don't represent all of physics, just like one chemist with schizophrenia who claims the rapture is coming doesn't mean that all chemistry is about that!
 
Nikolinni

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
Fallowfox said:
"I'm quite aware that there are varying interpretations of quantum physics, but he is actually a scientist in the field. And what I've observed is that the other scientists I've listened to on the subject are not in any huge conflict with him. Out of all the scientists I've listened to on the subject there was a grand total of 1 who was really apposed to these interpretations. Therefore, if I were to dismiss John Hagelin, it would be because I felt his suggestions to be too fantastic to be believed - not because I denied his opinions were backed by proper scientific credentials and the support of other scientists.

What you are doing now is what I predicted would happen. You're saying, "How dare you take the word of an accredited scientist about science. Don't listen to him. Listen to me." "

almost no quantum physicists think that quantum physics implies we are all part of a 'single unified conscious universe'. This is the stuff of poetry; the physical mechanics involved do not imply this in the slightest.

if you think most scientists are okay with spiritual interpretations of quantum mechanics it's because you're only listening to fringe scientists talking in soothing voices on youtube, rather than actually having read any quantum mechanics or knowing what the mainstream interpretations are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics


Crazy scientists on youtubes don't represent all of physics, just like one chemist with schizophrenia who claims the rapture is coming doesn't mean that all chemistry is about that!
Click to expand...


"Almost no quantum physicists think that quantum mechanics"...
saying that while Perri says that she's watched scientists on youtube talk about that .-.
 
Fallowfox

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Nikolinni said:
"Almost no quantum physicists think that quantum mechanics"...
saying that while Perri says that she's watched scientists on youtube talk about that .-.
Click to expand...

Watching youtube videos isn't a good way to gauge mainstream science. People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views, however loopy they are.

The actual mainstream science, which is freely available in library books and on reputable scientific websites, makes no suggestion that quantum physics implies anything spiritual and often criticises people who think it does.

Quantum physics is about this http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L10/O2full.gif
and this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/imgpar/feynm5.gif

not this http://www.spiritualastroscience.com/uploads/pics/mednew9_01.gif
 
Nikolinni

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
Fallowfox said:
Watching youtube videos isn't a good way to gauge mainstream science. People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views, however loopy they are.

The actual mainstream science, which is freely available in library books and on reputable scientific websites, makes no suggestion that quantum physics implies anything spiritual and often criticises people who think it does.

Quantum physics is about this http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L10/O2full.gif
and this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/imgpar/feynm5.gif

not this http://www.spiritualastroscience.com/uploads/pics/mednew9_01.gif
Click to expand...

"People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views. . ."

Ah, I've seen this a lot. From pretty much anyone.

Also, I don't know if it's just me, but I have this thing about tossing around the word mainstream. To me, it doesn't feel like something being "mainstream science" makes it more...better/qualified. BUt eh, that's just me.
 
Kalmor

Kalmor

Banned
Banned
Last edited:
Kit H. Ruppell

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
Nikolinni

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
Perri_Rhoades said:
Well, I watched the video, and for the most part it's all Greek to me. And of course I don't read Greek. So any proof in Greek is no proof at all.

However, I did catch one thing that I didn't expect to see, which was the suggestion that there was indeed time before the big bang. This makes a lot more sense and matches up with the parent universe theory and the back side of the black hole theory, which I like a lot better. So, now that we can stop saying there was no time before the big bang, I can stop saying that's utter non-sense.

But I still can't make sense out of the notion of infinity. And your video doesn't seem too committal about it either. I still contend that infinity, by a proper definition of the word, something that just goes on forever with no borders, can not be shrunk down that way. Anything that is infinite can not be shrunk because it has no parameters to be measured. It's just everywhere filling everything at the same time. And you can see by the ruler in the video why this doesn't work. If you shrank a portion of the infinity, part of the ruler would be empty. But it's never empty. More numbers are just brought in from the side to fill up the empty space, demonstrating that the infinity can't get any smaller, because an infinity is by definition always as big as anything can possibly be.

If you just drop this sticky notion of infinity, the theory starts to work just fine. If we assume the existence of space outside the universe, in which there are a number of universes that have time which existed before our universe, then you no longer have a situation where there's no matter or energy, and thus the existence of time before the universe is not a problem. We can then go with the black hole theory, which gives us a theoretical cause for the big bang, or the start of the expansion. Everything can be pictured logically, and thus I will accept it as a plausible theory.

The weird thing is, the two things about the big bang theory that render it hogwash to any logical thinker are apparently not necessary to it at all. One could sell it with a lot more ease if one did not force the listener to try envisioning infinities and places with no time.
Click to expand...

Well how about I try to explain the greek?

Pretty much what the video is claiming, without all the fluff, is that the universe is infinite, and that at findings by various people led to the idea that this infinite universe is somehow contained into one small point. And things were...odd at this small point, because of the superheat and the bending of time/space. It got so crazy that time and most physical/scientific laws broke down. Then, which is what we're trying to find out, it all just started expanding, and X Years later, we get the beginning of the solar system, earth, and all that fun stuff.

One thing I was wondering though, is when the video pitched the idea that what if there were events that led to the previous universe condensing into the Big Bang and then leading it to expand again. Is this a cycle the universe goes through? Does it just get infinitely bigger and then infinitely smaller, and repeat until the end of existence? Or did actions in that previous universe lead it to condensing to that one point which then led to it expanding?

Or....well now I have my own ideas, but rational folk such as yourself would have no room for such crazy ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top