Radical Edward

I also feel compelled to warn you. Unless your name is Wayne Jackson, then you have just commited an act of plagarism: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/whoMadeGod.htm or alternatively they have. It is not only polite to acknowledge others when you take their text verbatim, it is also a legal requirement, and also rather irritating for posters here, since it takes time to respond to a post like that, and only 2 seconds to click Ctrl-c in one window, and then Ctrl-v and post in another. If you wish to quote people again, please acknowledge your sources.

you are of course talking only about the universe. cause and effect arguments like these are meaningless if there is no time and space. what do you mean by always. let us go to the beginning of time for a second. You cannot have a vector that points in a negative direction. That makes about as much sense as being at the north pole and then heading in a "northerly" direction. Ignoring the temporal aspect of the argument, and the cause-effect arguments, this still does not help your case, as I will address later. in what geometry. please define straightness. what do you mean by "not material"? surely you need to define something like that before you can say something has that property. besides your proof there is pointless. All you say is that if A has the property B, it follows that A has the property B. well you can call it anything you like. I will call it cheese, but please do not get confused with the two alternate uses of the word. Just because I define something as "cheese" does not mean I can ascribe the "conventional" properties of cheese to it. well first of all we need a full explanation of what matter is. you do not have one. we need a full explanation of what energy is, you do not have one. we need a full explanation of earlier logical flaws as I have addressed too. this is true. In the early stages of the universe matter could not exist. this is well known. However there are clearly processes which allow energy to become matter, as can be seen in particle accelerators. you are of course talking about the universe in it's current form. There is also the falsehood that the universe must hence be finite in age too. All we can say is that the universe has existed for a certain time, since time became a meaningful concept. I could go into this further by discussing the ramifications of effects before one planck time, but I see no benefit in doing so at the moment. and now all the flawed arguments come together in a veritable cataclysm of question begging. not nescessarily true, and a meaningless concept, as outlined above non-material remains undefined no, because your axioms are not axioms. now you have added your own qualities of "spirit" and you have also baselessly added the concept of a "being". there is no requirement for either ooh special pleading now. how does God get to be (a) eternal and (b) a being and © a spirit (what is a spirit?) false.

It is true that the KJV has never been "disproved" but that is immaterial. First of all lack of "disproof" does not make something true. I could claim that Iggy the magical elf (who talks to me in my dreams by the way) is responsible personally for all the forces in nature, and made the entire universe last tuesday. You could not dosprove this. go on - try. Secondly it depends on your interpretation. Following the basic axiom that true statements cannot have false consequences, one can come to a conclusion as to whether something is true or not. From this we can find a literal interpretation of the KJV to be false in many respects.

the "us" will be creationists. and now I would like him to point out what is the problem with the above. minus the incredulity, with examples.

hence creationism and noahs flood were falsified over 100 years ago. they are now the superstition of which you speak.

no problem. are you going to address any of the evidence then? It is quite substantial, and there is an awful lot more that I will provide if the conversation continues.

oh, I missed the York Groundsel - the hybridisation of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort, which cannot breed with either of it's parent species.

speciation has been observed several times in plants and animals. There is a species of mosquito that exists only in the london undewrground, since being split off from the mosquitoes that live above ground. There are a number of plant species that have speciated, drosophila melanogaster has speciated in the lab. hence this has been observed. Furthermore there are examples of geographical speciation, such as the black backed gull, salamanders in the US, and the Israeli naked mole rat. will you please end the non-sequitir arguments? over time, the accumulation of mutations and natural selection as a result of the pressures of the environment can, and will and have created new forms of animals. We can see this in the fossil record, for example the evolution from mesonyx to the modern carnivorae. We can see it happening in the modern day, such as in the threefold increase in brain size in raccoons that live around cities. There are countless examples of both things that you are asking for.

descent with modification, that simple.

are you going to answert any points or just bombard us with fallacies?

see, more fallacies. no-one says that soil turned into grass and trees. far from it, the process of evolution and abiogenesis is far more complex and lengthly than that.

what do you mean by kind? bear in mind that all organisms form nested hierarchies. What do you mean by physical law? there are a number of types of mutation that can drastically alter animals, or even alter them just a little bit over many generations insects don't evolve into non-insects because that is not how evolution works. Evolution works on a principle of inheritance, in that the offspring inherit the characteristics of the parent, with some minor modification. This forms a set of nested hierarchies.

Endogenous retroviral sequences sometimes enter the germline of organisms. The virus on infecting the somatic cell mutates occasionally and does not work, and may become embedded in the population. This happens many times and provides excellent evidence of common ancestry. Here is a chart detailing a number of ERVs in the primates:

and here is a nice set of skulls. feel free to tell us which are human and which are ape.

Here is a nice little file showing the comparisons of the human and chimp karotypes, notice how well they match.

so address all the molecular evidence then... and yes we know about all the hoaxes. perhaps you would like to address the proper evidence.

that's called lamarckism. It was falsified long long ago.

hay, we have our very own creationist. so who made God?

well there is a whole wodge of evidence that we evolved from an early primate (we are apes btw) Human Endogenous Retroviral sequences that are present in both humans and other primates, in a genotypical order that matches with other cladistic patterns. Chromosome merging, and other chromosome mutations that match up with other cladistic patterns. Evidence from transposons. Evidence from dead genes, which have died in the same way (i.e the gene for vitamin C) Large amounts of fossil evidence, showing the progression from early primates to homo sapiens sapiens.

Endogenous retroviral sequences, atavisms, polyploidy, nylon digesting bacteria, meat-eating fruitfly, bread-eating-fruitfly, vancomycin resistance, chromosome merging of chimp's 2p and 2q to get human 2... lots more. what do you want?

fafalone, his avatar or the university of miami?

oh pi is irrational and does not end. that is provable, just like sqrt(2) does not end, and provably so. this is a lovely little proof, so I hope you don't mind if I indulge myself, it is a proof by contradiction assume that sqrt2 is rational, then it can be represented by a fraction n/m: where n and m have no common factors (or we can just cancel them out) sqrt2=n/m now square both sides and move m over to the other side 2m^2 = n^2 now since the number on the left is even, the number on the right must be even also. we know that the square of an odd number is in itself an odd number, so this means that n must be even, and hence can be divided by two, or represented as 2 multiplied by an odd number, let us call this number k: n=2k and substitute: 2m^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 now we have m^2=2k^2 which means than m must be even. however this cannot be the case, since we already pointed out that n and m have no common factor, because if they did, we could just cancel this factor out. but from this result we can see than n and m must be even (i.e. they have a common factor of 2). this is a contradiction, so the original premise that sqrt2 = n/m must be false. and so sqrt2 is not a rational number QED.

alt_f13: are you thinking about ekpyrotic there? the concept of ekpyrotic is that the big bang is indeed caused by colliding branes. essetially you start off with a nice flat, uniform universe (like ours will be) that draws the branes together. they then collide and start a big bang, which expands until it gets nice and flat, drawing the branes together again, ad infinitum.

does anyone here know anything about clock mathematics? I have come across it a few times, and it seems simple enough; rather than the numbers being on a line, they are on a ring, like a clock is 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 so when we are at 10 on a 12 hour clock, and we add 4 (hours), then the time we get is not 14, but 2, and so on. I believe this is used in encryption, and for solutions to elliptic equations (and probably other things now that wiles solved fermat's theorem) however I was wondering about this, has anyone done this before: instead of numbering from 0 or 1 to n, how about numbering from -n to 0 or -1 (depending on if you want a zero or not. the neat Idea I had about doing this would be for roots, since the root of a negative number gives an imaginary number we would need another axis. so rather than a clock, you could have a tube and do maths on that. or, if you wanted to be really neat, you could convert the i-axis into a clock too, and get a torus out of it. what would the mathematical implications be of trying to perform maths on this construct? are there other possible topologies, other than tubes and toruses? how about a twist in the torus, so that say we have our i-clock starting at i=0 on the real number n, and it ends on n+1? I just thought this would be fun to play with anyway if anyone wants to think about it.

back on topic though, what you need is a moon with an orbit of a year, and then you need to check that this orbit is actually a stable one (i.e. it won't get pulled off by the sun or any other bodies in the solar system. assuming that this is possible, and assuming it is done with our earth sun and moon, then I suspect the size of the shadow would be miniscule, if not microscopic. you might have better luck positioning the centre of this moon at a lagrangian.