Sorcerer

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a consequence of the arrow of time. The universe started as a singularity, it was at a maximum level of order. It had minimum entropy. There is no other direction for entropy to go when something is at a minimum, it can only remain in that state, or increase. The expansion of space, time and the increase in entropy are all linked. However, the system can be seperated via inflation which leads to the inability of information to flow from one part to another. Multiple universes are created. Within our universe, we observe an accelerating rate of expansion, this has a paradoxical dual quality, entropy increases to a maximum within the system we call our universe, to a point where bubble universes seperate, that is where parts of the universe are travelling away from each other faster than the speed of light, much as which occured in inflation. The inevitable consquence of this is a "big rip" and heat death. This is where everything is broken down into its smallest parts (quanta) and all parts are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. All quanta are in their own universe. All quanta in their individual systems (universes) are at minimum entropy. Just as from the singularity that allowed the big bang, we have one singular point of energy, in a bubble of space time, which is at minimum entropy. There is only one direction for this to go. Honestly please let me know if that needs clarifying, it seems pretty simple to me. Oh I might add, that you could say, how can a quanta be divided into more parts to allow for another universe, well that I haven't really got an answer for. Just that entropy can only go in one direction. Also you might say that quantum theory allows for any quanta in space to blink in and out of existence over time. However, since entropy is at a minimum, there is no time. There is only 1 thing, there is nothing to move relative to it. Time only begins when entropy increases. So, time began after the big bang, and time ceases after the big rip. At these points we have entropy at a minimum. It can only remain that way or increase. Since there is no time, it seems it will just increase. Please someone, where did I go wrong?

You can flip the switch the other way too.

yes cichlids are a good example of sympatric speciation.

Ophiolite I think ur talking about sympatric and allopatric speciation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation

And that makes me wonder about IVF, if people with acess to IVF reproduce and pass on the genetic mutations that led to the need to use IVF, aren't they just making trouble for their offspring. I mean if their offspring are going to need IVF to reproduce too, wouldn't they be causing harm to them (although I guess it could be ethically argued that any existence is better than none). Perhaps if we become too reliant on modern health care we may become less adaptable, however at present there are pockets of humanity still effectively living in the stone age, makes me think. Next time I assume how "we" are so much more culturally(technilogically) evolved than "them", I will remember evolutionary theory, and remember "our" cultures are just differently adapted for OUR environments.

Did you just decide to ignore this: "So yes, I see your points, it all comes down to belief in god, since I don't have a belief in god (because I can't answer the question, "yes", or in anyway at all) I am an atheist." So you could argue with me some more? "It is a problem because of the word "believe", my belief is intimately tied with my knowledge, and as an agnostic, I do not have that knowledge. And thus I cannot even begin to answer the question. Also I call any belief which is not based on knowledge, fantasy." Tell me iNow, would you consider me a theist if I fantasized that god existed?

Beauty is very subjective, and their are other traits which are also attractive. However if our cultural evolution continues on a similar path as it has in the past 100 or maybe even 500 years (I'd have to do some history on the ideal female/male form). I think we will look pretty similar. I remember reading/lectures etc on Sexual selection being implicated as a driving force in our evolution, although the traits that were selected for included intelligence heavily, perhaps also our outward appearance is linked somehow to our intelligence. (I haven't yet seen an attractive mentally disabled person). lol why did they make the neaderthals so wrinkly? Especially when u compare it to homo ergaster.

Ok I think I have this sorted, the problem here is the question. Do you believe in god? It is a problem because of the word "believe", my belief is intimately tied with my knowledge, and as an agnostic, I do not have that knowledge. And thus I cannot even begin to answer the question. Also I call any belief which is not based on knowledge, fantasy. ____________________ A more appropriate question would be, "Does god exist?" In this case I would (as agnostic) answer "I don't know". An atheist would answer "no", and a theist would answer "yes". ____________________ So yes, I see your points, it all comes down to belief in god, since I don't have a belief in god (because I can't answer the question, "yes", or in anyway at all) I am an atheist. I think though it is important to remember that belief is independant of truth, and whether someone believes in something or not doesn't change its reality of existence. "If we all (dis)believe it hard enough, it doesn't mean it's true."

Hmm could somebody please put the argument, where all those who are not theists are atheists down in standard form for me please. I believe you will find some interesting results if you interchange atheist and theist, and change beleif for disbelief. E.g. you will find all those who aren't atheists are theists. Since both arguments are both valid, and I don't believe or disbelieve in a god, one agument says I'm theist, the other says I'm atheist. To me it seems some people want a dichotomous definition and aren't happy with the straight forward ones given below: Atheism - 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. <------- not me Theism - 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism). <------ not me Agnosticism - 1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic*. <---- Me *A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic) You should tell dictionary.com And I think you'll find fence sitting isn't a bad thing. If your trying to prove a hypothesis and you're not fence sitting, then you are biasing your results. Yes iNow that is my definition of atheism. I can say, and you can quote me on this, "I do not believe that the tooth fairy exists." To me it sounds like you're saying that you are agnostic ignostic about the tooth fairy. But I mean what is your definition of a tooth fairy? I mean as soon as a definition or, part of one is formed. -The tooth fairy removes teeth from under pillows - you can test it. And you'll find out the tooth fairy is just your parents.

Well I consider myself an agnostic ignostic then, theism or atheism doesn't play a part. Actually when I look around and see the wonder of things, I could beleive there was a god. But I know wether or not, I'm just guessing. I beleive that the possibility of a god or not is equal, since theres not enough information to determine, or even define a god, then I cannot answer yes or no.

Atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Agnosticism 1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic. 2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. Theism 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism). Ok, starter topic I'll come back and edit key points later. Right now I'd like to invite people to discuss. iNOW? agnostic theists, agnostic atheists?

Ok lets agree to disagree, after all we're getting far offtopic here. Simply because of the fact that nothing doesn't exist. That's correct, there can be no time before anything existed, therefore something always existed. And cause doesn't need a nothing......

Seen it throng - it is rather a universe from a template, there were conditions that allowed for something to come into existence, in order to have conditions there needs to be something.

Trip, then you are a theist, and you are agnostic about theology. Agnosticism itself is a middle ground, in this philosophy there is no knowledge in which a belief in a deity or a beleif in a lack of one can be formed. If you say you believe in a deity then you'd need to explain what a deity is, to explain what a deity is you would need to have some knowledge of it. Perhaps I am taking the meaning of belief a little to far, perhaps fantasy can be held under the term belief. You gotta go back a few pages, personally I found his tone was condescending from the start. And then he just resorted to calling me foolish. Never IMO has he sucessfully countered my arguments, and he seems to use evasion more than direct discussion. That's assuming there was a singularity. But yes, if there was then I agree, its the "north of the north pole" argument. iNow seems to think that saying "I don't know" somehow makes his claim - that nothing can exist - valid. Let me refresh this point, iNow agrees there was no first cause. iNow claims that it is possible the universe came from nothing. Since there is no first cause there was a cause which led to the nothing that the subsequent universe came from. If you have 3 causes one of which is nothing, then there are only 2 causes. (1+0+1=2) The nothing inbetween is irrelevant and non-existant.

To summarise : yes the earths core creates a magnetic field that surrounds the earth. "Is it possible that the earth's magnetic poles could be evidence that the solid inner core, made mostly of iron, spins in a way as to generate magnetism, causing magnetic pull throughout the whole planet, much the same way a refrigerator magnet magnetizes to most any magnetic substance?" From what is known/assumed by weight of evidence it is a core mainly composed of some nickel and mostly iron, it acts as a dynamo, and yes it spins. "So, what if earth's magnetism is due to it's mostly iron mantle/crust spinning orbitally around the iron core? Yes, but seems to be a rhetorical question, not seeking any extra information. "Like an enormous version of an iron atom's electron around a nucleus." Hmmmmmm, I suggest trying to understand a dynamo and quantum theory first, then coming back to your analogy.

First you need how to select your agar. Free range or wild agar is preferable. Select a prime cut. Take your agar, grill on a high heat to medium rare. Enjoy.

The words alone DON'T NEED PROOF, they are logically correct. If I was to say a circle is round would you say prove it? If I was to say a square has 4 sides would you say prove it? There is no need to prove something which by definition is the statement. And how would you go about proving the counter explanation the existence of nothing? As for agnoistic atheists and agnostic theists, they are not truely agnostic because they hold a beleif in one side of an argument even though they agree they cannot have any knowledge of it. How can you beleive in something without knowledge of it? It is just the noun atheist or theist, with the adjective agnostic in front and an oxymoron. Agnostic the noun is not the same thing. I suppose YOU had to look up ad hominem attack. (you were alluding to my arguments being false by calling me a fool, without even backing up why, just shove that ok.) Oh and if you don't disagree that there is no first cause, then tell me what gave rise to the nothing that you claim could've come before/given rise to the universe? And if something gave rise to that nothing, why do u need the nothing inbetween - and how can there BE nothing inbetween?

Cephalopods eyes are better than ours. We have a blind spot where the optic nerve runs through our retina. Also we can only see in a small range of the spectrum, our eyes are not perfect - this shows evolution at work, why would a creator design anything less than perfect?

Ok RE: the lunar laser ranger experiment - the assumption is that light speed is constant and the objective was to find the distance between the earth and the moon. Speed = distance/time , time is measured, speed is assumed (the speed of light) and distance is calculated. As for the graph, I don't know where you got it from so I cannot read the methods. But I would assume if your saying it varied from near instantaneous, I'd account this to be an artifact, where some photons are stragglers from a previous pulse (or another source) arriving so late they seem to be arriving just after a new pulse. And the 2c photons are similar, those which have been refracted by the earth's atmosphere slowing them down. Actually I'd be interested how accurate the LLRE was considering photons travel slower than the speed of light through the atmostphere and/or how they adjusted for it. Otherwise I'm afraid your post doesn't make much sense to me, I'm even have trouble relating the topic title to the contents. PS. solution is the noun while solve is the verb. Oh pinoneer anomaly can be explained by dark matter and dark energy, and that also explains that our current model is wrong. GL variable speed of light is an answer, but I doubt you'll have much support here without a testable hypothesis, it's probably easier for you to just go to university and work your way to it from the bottom up. wtf conservapedia rotflmao

Atheist dogma = god doesn't exist. Agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (from dictionary.com) No there are no agnositc theist or agnostic athiests, these are just your way of twisting the word to your meaning. And who's looking foolish now? And as for ur allusions (as in tooth fairy etc) to the 2nd definition of agnostic "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." Don't twist my meaning by changing it with a similie, you know what the topic is about. Just to reitterate iNow. I'm saying: nothing doesn't exist, so therefore something always existed. How hard is that to understand for a 1 premise single conclusion argument? How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause? It is just an endless repetition. Please answer 2 these questions above all and refrain from adhominem attacks.

Hmm makes me wonder if the rhesus factor (rh+/-) would've caused speciation before modern healthcare intervened.

lol If your only observing male professors I would say they are forming a defacto harem. j/k If it still applies to female professors, perhaps they are being sexist. j/k More likely it's based on merit and the sexes aren't equal in every way. (Can the feminists really beat me up on that one since I'm saying women are better at something). IMO at the age (during undergrad) when people are choosing research assitant posistions young males are motivated by other things than (sucking up to) a professor's research assistant position. Actually do I sense a hint of jealousy, perhaps a bruised ego was inspiration for this post? Edit: btw I've talked to a few feminists about this kind of thing before and they told me that Women don't use their sexuality to gain advantage. Just happened they were very unattractive and I presume secretly very jealous of smart attractive females. lol. Funny thing with feminists and equality they assume all members of their sex are also equal to them lol lol lol.

@ TAR I feel the same way, it seems to me there are alot of atheist out there who take it as a hard core religion, they feel the need to fight against any idea that contradicts their dogma. Perhaps they need to go back and rethink what it means to be atheist. Agnostics win . Relax people you beleive your gonna die and then nothing happens, so who really cares?? People if you care so much about life and what people beleive go start an atheist organised religion. LOL I used to attend humanist groups, then I realised those guys were a bunch of c**ts and now I think all humans are a source of conflict/destruction. So ironic humanists, yet they seem to think for humans to acheive a better world they need to force their point of view onto other people, this is the source of conflict. We as a species are doomed, because even those that want to make it a better place for everyone are only thinking about themselves.

I'm out of beer, I'm sticking my tounge in a light socket to see if you have something. No but seriously, methanol could be a source of energy, but it would be far easier and far more efficient to perform electrolysis on water and produce hydrogen. I guess if u then combined this with CO^2 and a catalyst it could make methanol. But this would be heavier to transport. IMO the most efficient way of using electricity as a fuel would be to just plug an electric car into the grid.

Things which we cannot perceive are commonplace throughout science and theology. To me nothing is harder to perceive than infinity, atleast infinity exists. LOL reminds me of calculus, as 1 approaches 0.... theres both tied into one... mind f**k. Just incase u don't understand that : there are an infinite ammount of numbers between 1 and 0. edit: ok someones going to ask me what in science is perceiveable, I will just say now "uncertainty principle": We cannot perceive both momentum and posistion concurrently. Also, space is warped by gravity, I know u can try to perceive it, but really? Space is just the distance between matter, wouldn't it be easier to say the distance between matter is changed? To me there is something inherently wrong with our modern understanding of physics, IE we cannot find a Grand unified theory. It's back to the drawing board, I hope perhaps string theory can work..... oops theres another few dimensions we cannot perceive.