Dennisg

ah Ok But I think you are missing the point. Darwinism presents a kind of story of how nature works. It is the story and not the science that is in question.

I agree. It wasn't Christianity but shared many parallels with the Christian scenario which is interesting. The points of difference were Darwinsim replaced God with chance and "survival of the fittest" replaced "redeemption of the unfit" (simply put).

Yes, it is very important to note that there are many other ways that Darwin could have interpreted the information that was available to him. It seems to me that he took the various blocks of information and assembled them based on a scenario that was imprinted within his subconscious mind. For me the “Redeemer” scenario was what Darwin used as a outline which he then filled in with the various blocks. Darwin studied and trained for the Christian ministry. The idea of a redeemer would have been the focus of his thinking during that time. It should not be surprising that Evolution follows a "redeemer" scenario. For example in Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution it is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous who leads the way to survival. Transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members from the species to be changed. While Jesus did not procreate - his spiritual "genes" are in billions of people making him the most “imitated" person to have ever lived. So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. This is not completely true. This is getting off topic a little, but please bear with me as it is important to clarify these kinds of small points. The two stories are two perspectives of the same event and are not completely separate. For example in Genesis 1:29 fruit with seed is given as food. The questions then becomes how would one know whether a fruit had a seed or not? And what would be the consequences of eating fruit without a seed? These two questions are then answered in the second account where God points out which tree not to eat from and what the consequences of eating from it are. The point of the first account is that symbiosis was not just a local issue but was interwoven into the creation of the universe itself. Animals in this context did not eat whole plants anymore than Adam and Eve ate trees but ate the food provided for them by the plants (“clean” animals in the Bible still eat this original diet of mostly grass). Animals were companions for Adam and he “tended” the garden in return for food for himself and his companions.

My understanding was that he saw the natural world as being cruel especially after the death of his daughter. ???? Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-- everything that has the breath of life in it-- I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-- the sixth day. The description of life in the garden was of a symbiotic arrangement between the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom.

Maybe start with a general statement of what it is that you want to explain about space time. Try to keep is as simple as possible for people like me.

My apologies. I did not mean to sound derogatory- because I don't feel that way. No offence intended to anyone. Just giving feedback on something that only made sense me on those levels. Everything considered it looks like a case of "bull shxt baffles brains"

None of this make any sense to me. So where does one start. 1. Reads more like a poem than an explanation. 2. I feel somehow degraded just reading it. 3. I think FayeKane may be headed for a low and feel sorry.

From the perspective of a photon traveling here from the big bang the world as it is now would appear to have been instantly created. For me this implies the idea of predestination. That is, everything that has happened and will happen was determined in the big bang itself. Hope you can follow my logic. It also implies that there is a unseen dimension which is timeless and in which all matter is in immediate contact with all other matter.

I had a look at these proofs. It seems to me that they assume that pi has only one value and then conclude that pi is irrational on that basis. But what if as noted above pi varies with the radius? They then prove that pi is irrational by not finding a rational value - so what if there are an infinite number of pi values would one get the same result with this logic?

Only see google book search page with "What Evolution Is By Ernst Mayr" book pictured and some google links to this topic which don't have a diagram either.

A bit harsh I think. Its like saying that someone who is poor at spelling can't write a meaningful sentence. Relax a little we're just exchanging ideas here.

It didn't take me to the diagram. Can you scan it and insert it here?

Yes I agree. Shape would have to be deifined by something smaller than a plank length.

Not sure about the diagram you are referring to but in general I don’t find these very compelling. For example horses, cats and humans all share the same digestive system – small bowel, appendix and large bowel but are otherwise not closely related. This seems to be more in favor of design than evolution.

Hi again. Most interesting stuff. I'm still thinking about the plank length and considering what its proper shape would be. A sphere seems logical but at the same time incorrect. Any thoughts on this?

I was thinking of something like a "virtual point" that has a plank dimension and, to make things interesting, a "plank time" life

Maybe its time to have a rethink on the defination of what a point is. The old one is based on a world view that no longer exists.

Very funny. Like they say "a person who can only spell a word one way is very limited". Why not letters too?

So true and I am way over my head already. Thanks for talking me seriously- being a non expert allows me to think outside the square and ask silly questions that get people thinking. For me there are two ways of looking at this problem. First, one could say that a point has a dual nature or second, one could say that a point is defined as the bottom point on a hyperbolic curve and that measurements smaller than plank length are less than zero.

Right, and what could be better than a plank length? It is as close as one can get to zero without losing the plot.

This defination of point does.

Again I agree with this. While Darwin studied Theology and trained for the ministry he seems to have been unaware of this Biblical view of nature - that in the beginning the vegetative kingdom provided all the food for the animal kingdom. That is no animal ate any other animal. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-- everything that has the breath of life in it-- I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-- the sixth day. I wonder if this view would have influenced the way he saw nature as being cruel.

I agree with this. What is interesting to me is how he saw the natural world as being cruel. While I don't agree with his removing God from nature I do think that his empathy for living things shows his unselfish nature and mature outlook. Some time ago I heard a radio program with a famous biologist who contented that all life could be structured so that the plant kingdom fed the animal kingdom (simply put).

Like Erasmus I think that Darwin may have been considered an eccentric and died in obscurity if it hadn’t been for the Industrial revolution. He provided a world view that governmental and business leaders were desperate for and thus they funded and supported him. Presenting the natural world as "dog eat dog" and "mutate or become extinct" was exactly what they wanted to normalize the social chaos of the industrial revolution