Cadmus

Please rephrase this, as I can't understand your point.

Please provide an example of how time could be in motion in a direction other than forward.

Good post. I also have nothing at all against people who want to believe in the bible. I do not appreciate people who expect creationsim to be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution in a scientific forum, given that the creationists that I have read seem to feel no need to provide scientific support for their idea. The notion that "evolution has problems, and dumping it leaves us with creationism" does not qualify as scientific support.

It's settled then. I'll go with little green elephants. The only point still open to debate is just how little.

No problem. Just google javascript. What you want is so trivial that you should be able to learn how to write such a script in no time.

Not to dispute what you say, but I seem to recall someone on this forum postulating a theory about little green magicians (or was it little green elephants?) creating the world. What type of evidence would you consider possible to disprove such a theory? Until such "proof" is presented to you, would you consider it a valid theory that should be accepted on equal terms with evolution?

I don't agree that dehumanization is the goal. If only. Creationists typically do not present arguments that are subject to critique. They present statements of doctrine that are to be accepted without scrutiny. Have you ever heard a creationist argument that the presenter opened to discusssion and critique? If so, please cite the arguments and, if possible, cite the presenter. I disagree that this is necessarily arrogance. Have you ever had the occasion to follow creationists involved in arguments with each other or with scientists where there was a methodology to present arguments that might lead to a change in position?

Speakers of English have 2 primary patterns for their models of nature. These are science and religion. Both of these models of nature recognize a beginning of the world. In science, this beginning is called the big bang. In religion, this beginning is called the creation. I think that the big bang of science and the creation of religion are analogous concepts. They have a number of analogous relationships. For example, in each case, this beginning began with light. If you say that either religion or science is completely untrue and should be completely ignored, then I think that your contention might make sense. If you are interested in a comparison of these 2 models of nature, then I think that it is possible to recognize a relationship between them and the way that they formulate the beginning of the world. When I asked you if you were serious, I did not mean to imply that there is something wrong with your thinking, but only that I was not sure if you were perhaps being facetious in making such a statement. What is your position on this, if I might ask?

Your take on this seems excellent, and your friend is not correct at all.

I don't know what grade level you are thinking of. I suggest that you determine the largest 3 digit number. Then find the largest number less than that that is a multiple of 25, namely 25, 50, or 75.

I wonder if the fact that you were born a member of the species Homo sapiens might have anything to do with genetics.

I guess that the title of philosopher carries no minimum implication of intelligence.

I wonder if you are serious.

Do you seriously think that this is possible? On the contrary, that would change everything. Huh? Do you really think it of value to imagine thus? I disagree completely with this. Please explain, if you might, how nature would benefit not at all from such an evolutionary leap. Huh?

OK. I will continue to make that assumption, and you are free to continue not to.

Correct, but not necessarily to the same degree.

I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to me to be suggesting that we should consider our models of nature to be nature. Please tell me that I am wrong. Our species has had models of nature since the beginning of consciousness. Although nature has not changed all that much in the interim, our models have evolved greatly, and currently are evolving at a rate greater than ever in the history of our species. It is not useful to think that our current models are correct where our earlier models have been wrong. Our models are getting closer, but are still not perfect. They can never be perfect, of course, because our species is physicslly limited in how well it can interact with and understand nature. What does your post mean? Are you suggesting that there is no nature, but only human models of it?

A brain and a nervous system. Evolution takes on many forms. Not all forms tend toward the same goal. Our species has evolved to the ability to have some awareness of the consciousness of the universe. Rocks are also highly evolved.

No disagreement here. Some models are more useful than others. No disagreement here either. Many people confuse their model of nature with nature. For example, many people make such claims as a point is infintely small in 3 dimensions. In other words, they are citing the tenets of the ancient model of nature known as Euclidean geometry as though they are accepting this model as being true about nature. Yet, when I look around in nature, I have never seem anything that remotely satisfies the conditions required by the model. I think that it is useful to remember when making claims about nature which model of nature one is using for reference. This is particularly true when speaking about the speed of light for example. People fight constantly about the speed of light, all the while not recognizing that one person may be referring to the Newtonian concept while another is referring to the concept as it pertains to the theory of relativity.

Good catch on your part.

The death of stars is a primary source of heavier elements, which are made available to subsequent generations of coalescense to such as planets. The elements on the earth that enable life, for example, were produced in the death throes of stars.

This is an excellent point, and deserves to be emphasized. Actually, this is not quite correct. In Newtonian physics, nothing but light can reach the speed of light, whereas in relativity everything moves at the speed of light. I think that you mean to say as an object appraoches the speed of light the mass approaches ... Are you suggesting that objects can move at a speed greater than the speed of light? Math represents models of nature, yet they are not nature. People who believe that math represents nature, rather than being one way to model nature, are limiting their ability to perceive, as you say.