WWLabRat

A bit of advice for Windevoid on behalf of Bomani D'Mite Armah: But in all seriousness, Bignose is absolutely right. There's so many ways to learn new things. There's picking up a book, asking questions (sans trolling) on forums like this, auditing classes at a local college/university, attend lectures and conferences for various career fields, and once again, because it's the most important one, read a book. There's a wealth of knowledge out there to be had if you actually try to look. First of all, science is the only field that will continue to learn new things, endlessly. How can I make such a statement? Because other than religion, all other fields rely on finding from scientific discoveries. Also, to say that we have had the same technology for 20 years is the same as saying that for the majority of my life nothing new has been discovered. Do you know that in order for someone to obtain their PhD, they have to have original research? Do you really think that with all the doctors (not necessarily just dental or medical) in the world that none of them have made a breakthrough in 20 years? You're forgetting stem cells, discovery of a planet that has two suns, functional robotic limbs... What about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? That was built in 1998, only 15 years ago. If you need to see new tech that's coming out all the time, check out the technology section of cnn.com. There's new articles on there all the time pointing out new discoveries.

I am very much aware that our definitions/criteria/etc are not universal. When I write my posts, I make sure to choose my wording, especially being that this is a scientific community and most everything is under scrutiny from multiple people coming from multiple backgrounds. That being said, the characteristics of life, as we describe it, has to be based on what we are readily able to observe. This list helps to point out things that would disqualify various objects from being construed as living. A rock, for example, doesn't replicate, it doesn't metabolize, there's no genetic material to pass on to its nonexistent offspring, there's no cellular makeup, nor is there any homeostasis, response to outside stimuli, or adaptation to its environment. Thus, a rock is not living. A wooden chair, meets many of these, being that it was once alive, but it doesn't metabolize so it's not living either. A single cell meets all of these which is why we currently accept it as the most basic form of life. Although the function of a internal combustion engine could be viewed as having metabolism, it doesn't meet the other characteristics of life, so like you said, it's not alive.

By the current accepted description and characteristics of life, viruses do not fall under the term living. They are, however, thought to be a precursor to life, something to link between proteins in a stew to genetic material. EDIT: Hit "Post" instead of "More Reply Options" accidentally. In order for us to allow viruses to be considered life, we would have to remove metabolism from the list. However this would not be possible because that would allow the dead to be considered living. After an entity, be it plant, animal, or bacteria, dies, it is no longer breaking down chemicals on a cellular level and metabolizing said chemicals, thus energy is not produced.

Isn't that what the mafia, black market, drug/slave trade, etc is for? Those seem to be quite profitable.

Isn't evolution a little bit fundamental to everything we know about biology, genetics, life, etc? Don't answer that. Meant to rhetorical. And the reason that there's even a dent being made with creationism into evolution is because people are to PC oriented, worrying about how society will view them for trying to teach what is observable, not what is taught in a religion. Like I said, this really confuses me. Maybe it's just the Archdiocese of Indianapolis (Catholic governing body of Indiana, simply put) that is forward thinking enough to allow and promote the teaching of evolution in science classrooms. In school, we had a religion class everyday that would cover matters pertaining to the Bible. However, stuff outside of the religion, stuff that was pertaining to real world experiences, etc, those were handled as they should be handled in school and was kept separate from religion.

Sorry, I got that backwards. Still though, if the distant observer were to view a "sudden" expanding of that matter, it should still take quite some time for it to happen, relative to him. It would start out slowly, but increase in speed the more it expanded. From there, if I'm right, it would continue to accelerate, as it is observed doing already. Relative to us or the close observer, 14 billion years would have passed from then until now, but the distant observer would have seen things taking longer than that and so more time would have passed for him based on his acceleration and distance from the singular point at the time of expansion.

Disclaimer: My exposure to general physics, Relativity (general or special), Astronomy and such, being that they aren't exactly within my chosen realm of science, is minimal. That being said, I know already that I don't have the mathematical equations to back up this train of thought I am about to present. But as always, I'm open to ideas/critique/etc about my post. I think it's safe to say that the Big Bang Theory and the Expanding Universe are currently the accepted models of the universe in it's current state. Both of these show the logic behind heavenly bodies having a red shift as they are in constant motion away from each other. This constant expanding would also, when traced back, show that at one point all the matter in the universe should have come about from a single, infinitely small point of infinite dense matter. Everyone on the same page so far? Good. This infinitely small, infinitely dense matter would undoubtedly have mass and due to how dense it is, since it is the entirety of the universe would also have an infinite amount of gravity (assumption). If time really is relative based on the observer, time flowing faster for the observer closer to the center of gravity than that of an observer further away, then is it also possible to assume that all of time is compressed into that singular point as well? If that's the case, wouldn't this also agree with the theory that time was infinite prior to the universe expanding? The way I see it, this would solve the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning of time. Am I incorrect in these assumptions or has this theory already been put into more scientific principle? Or is there a bit more that would still be needed to complete this (besides the obvious lack of mathematical proofs to back it up)?

As I stated in my post, those are the characteristics by which we -currently- define life. I'm sure if there's an entity that comes to light in the future (whether minutes from now to millenia or more) I'm sure scientists will adjust this definition of life to match what we couldn't have known before.

See that's something that I just don't understand. Why does everything have to be politically correct here in the US? Everyone is so worried about offending someone else that they forget that knowledge is the important thing for growing children/teens/adults/everyone. I don't remember people being this PC when I was growing up. The really funny part about that was that, although I went to a private Catholic elementary/middle/high school (until my sophomore year), we were taught in depth about evolution, BBT, Natural Selection, and countless other scientific principles that many would view as blasphemy by religious zealots. In regards to your OP, if someone is being aggressively ignorant despite your efforts to present material in a calm and well organized nature, let them remain ignorant. They have no intention of seeing things from a different vantage point. If they want to keep blinders on that's their decision. Just be there to show them what it is if/when they choose to listen.

Every living organism has a set of criteria they meet in order to be considered living. Of the seven criteria for being recognized as life (Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to Stimuli, and Reproduction), viruses only meet five of these. They require a host cell in order to replicate and also do not metabolize to produce energy. However, many scientists view them as a precursor to life as we know it since they do have genetic material that is affected by natural selection. As for the OP, that machine would not be able to meet our current description of life. It's missing genetic material (although it's arguable that the data stored in it's memory is the digital equivalent), it would not be able to metabolize as it doesn't take in other organisms or chemicals to have/produce energy, it would be incapable of growing, and it doesn't have any cellular organization as it doesn't have cells. That being said, the closest approximation to life that would be able to be achieved with a machine would be within nanomachines. If a nanomachine were able to replicate itself on the micro level by using free matter in its surroundings, capable of producing energy by breaking down and achieve a form of cellular respiration with chemicals around it, maintain it's internal functions, grow not just by adding matter to it, but actually replicating the nanomachines to create a larger "organism", adapt to its environments, respond to stimuli, and replicate similar nanomachines that would comprise a separate "organism". At that point, it's plausible that we could consider it "life".

This was brought on by a discussion between a friend of mine and I a while back. Simply put, the question is the same as the title: At what point does something stop being what it was before. Example: You have a wooden boat with long wooden planks from one end to the other with all the accouterments needed to hold it all in place. As time goes on, parts of the boat are replaced as they wear out, warp, etc. Eventually every board, every screw, bolt, and nut has been replaced with a new one. Is it still the same boat? If yes, how can it still be the same if nothing on it is the same as it was before being fixed? If no, how does that apply to living beings? Our cells are constantly multiplying, dividing, and dying off, yet you are still you... The cells you have now aren't the same ones that were there at your birth. So are you the same person that you were back then? This same question is put forth when examining the beaming capabilities of the Star Trek universe. In the time presented during the show, civilization has developed the ability to "beam" matter to different locations. With our known understanding of how the universe works, we would have to break things down at the molecular level and reconstruct it at the target location, making sure each atom is exactly where it was supposed to be at the origin. Doesn't seem so bad at first when transporting non living matter. But as with the above example with cells, would the person at the target location still be you? You would be broken down, atom for atom, essentially killing you off every time, just to be put back together on the other end. Would you still be the same person? And what would this mean when it comes to individuality and identity?

If you're going to quote me, please use the full quote and don't take things out of context. I never said to remove it entirely. I just said to keep them separate. There's a reason there's an Old and a New Testament. They are separate parts of the whole story. Also, Deuteronomy is one of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, so after that was written, already this command was broken. Again later it was broken when the New Testament was added. And they are discussing actually taking parts out of the book, not discussions on sections of the Bible. There is a difference. In school when you are reviewing a chapter in Huckleberry Finn, you aren't changing Mark Twain's work, merely talking about a certain part of it. As you pointed out, contradicting yourself within 3 sentences, the Bible was written by man, not by God, or any deity for that matter. The Bible is what's considered to be Divinely Inspired, yet has always been taught that it's written by man. The way you discuss schizophrenia implies that every person who has it believes themselves to talk to a deity. I also love how you are singling out Christianity as the only religion that has members who are schizophrenic. ("delusions- unusual beliefs not based on reality which often contradict evidence (Christianity 100%)"). To say something like that, implies that all those who have religious/spiritual beliefs are borderline schizophrenic. And that is an OUTRAGEOUS assumption. Please point out to me, verbatim, how my beliefs contradict each other. The only way to explicitly state all of my beliefs would be for me to write down an impossibly long list of every possible scenario that could come into life and all the ins and outs of every possible moral choice that could be made and the possible consequences of each. I don't know about you, but I do have a life outside of this forum and as such don't have the time to write it all out. I'm pretty sure even close friends of yours haven't stated in full detail every single thing they believe, whether religious or not, and what they feel are the consequences of the choices they make based upon tose beliefs. It's well known that people back in the BC/AD (or BCE/CE if you're politically correct) era that people didn't live as long and began procreating at a younger age. So it wasn't uncommon for a girl who was 12-16 to already be pregnant. And the order of events was implied from the order it was stated in. I never said it wasn't any less sick. And I don't think it's normal either, just that their decision was based on that reasoning.

All that this video shows is the velocity of a projectile, not it's motion relative to the ground or to a similar projectile that is dropped. Also, the video seems to sound more like an advertisement rather than actually discussing motion.

For the first point, Keep the Old and New Testaments separate. Judaism focuses on the Old Testament (plus additional scripture) while Christianity focuses on the New Testament (while recalling things from the Old). There's also a noticeable difference in the attitude of God during the Old and New Testaments. The Old God was vengeful, the slightest thing against the rules was punishable, much in the same way as the old gods of the Roman Pantheon. However, during the New Testament, God's attitude changed and He was seen as a more loving and just God, not at all like the Old. Was this because, according to Scripture, his son had been born? Who knows. Please do not assume that anyone with schizophrenia believes themselves to speak with a deity. Schizophrenia is a mental illness that is passed down genetically and happens to run in my family. As with most things, there are varying degrees of it. As such it's a little inappropriate and shows ignorance towards the disease to assume that all those, especially priests, with it speak with their respective deity. And I clearly never said that I follow Christianity. I merely said that I follow Christian values: you get one shot at life (which is inconsistent with reincarnation, so saying I follow Buddhism is out), there is only one deity (which puts out polytheism, however my more in depth beliefs on this would take a while to type out.), live a good and just life and you will be rewarded. Granted this is just a very brief look at my beliefs and doesn't include anywhere near everything. By this time, they would have been considered adults by the community after having their menstruation cycles and able to bare children. First of all, the rape from his daughters were one night then the other, not both at the same time. Second, he was drunk. This doesn't excuse him, but it is entirely possible that he wasn't conscious for either time. And yes, scripture does forbid getting drunk off the wine. Again, this doesn't entirely excuse him that his daughters both got him drunk. What's completely backwards is your order on the events. He didn't sleep with them and then give them up to a mob, the mob was there before God smote Sodom and Gomorrah. He offered up his daughters to keep the angels from being put on trial. The mob never touched the daughters. When they went to lie with Lot, they still hadn't known a man's touch. Also, the daughters slept with him to keep their bloodline going. Although the X and Y chromosomes weren't known of back then, it's knowledge now that you can trace lineage back through the males of a family. A son will always have the same Y chromosome that his biological father had. However, and I don't understand this, Judaism is considered to be passed down from the mothers of the family. So the daughters were right in that it would keep their bloodline going since they both gave birth to sons. And as a final not on that line, yes, incest is against scripture, even if the relationship between people isn't even by blood (husband's brother sleeps with wife's sister). There was a time in Genesis when a man was following God's law instead of a direct order from God and he smote him. All this because the guy wouldn't get his dead brother's wife pregnant to continue their lineage... And it's taboo only within the realm of premarital/extramarital sex.

My reply to both of these statements are essentially the same thing. I say Christian values only because it's the closest approximation to what my feelings on the matter are. It's a lot simpler than going through and listing everything I think is right, wrong, and mitigating circumstances that might add a touch of grey to either. I don't believe in absolutes, part of what I inadvertently learned in the military. By all rights, if things were absolute, then anyone who has served in the military has already broken at least 2 of the primary 10 commandments set forth when Moses talked to a flaming bush. In order to be in the military, unless you are a chaplain, God, in any form, is not going to be the number one thing in your life, so there goes the first commandment. If you've spent time in battle, there's a certain likelihood that you've killed someone and would have broken thus 6th commandment which is also considered to be an unpardonable sin. But this brings about the grey areas. What if someone invades your home and tries to beat or kill you or your family? Would you just sit idly by and let them have their way? If you're like me, you have a firearm sitting locked in a safe right next to your bed and in easy reach if needed. Someone invades my home they would either make it out of my house with a couple holes in them or wheeled out by the coroner. Do I think that would be considered murder? No. I was defending myself and my family.

Which is what I have said before (in other threads). However, many people on here require physical, measurable data to decide matters of faith. Or rather, they don't view faith as having any basis and as such dismiss it as being inconsequential and pointless in life due to the disconnect between science and religion.

But our initial understanding of various things, from lightning in the sky to single celled organisms, was at one point unable to be tested due to a lack of technology and understanding of things. As our species has grown, we have learned more which has allowed us to learn that much more, so on and so forth. But until we know everything, literally everything, there's no room for science to say without a doubt that there is no existence of a deity. As are mine, both in science and in religion. If my above statement ever comes about, if science is able to prove beyond a doubt that deities do not exist, I will be the first to admit I was wrong and change my view of the world. Everything has a reason. Everything. without disease, there would be no need for immunology, there'd also be many more people living into the triple digits. Without abuse, certain people wouldn't have a view of the future to strive against. Disasters is too broad of a term. There's manmade disasters (bombings, school/mall shootings, etc) which is nothing more than people choosing what course to take their lives and how their lives cross with those of others. And there's natural disasters which is weather. Whether that has been going on since before man and will be going on long after. Crashes (see manmade disasters). Injury is another open ended one. There's injuries from disasters, over exertion, and general ass-hattery (ie JackAss). And finally, this last one should even be mentioned at all. Without death this world would have filled up long ago. If everything has a beginning, it must also have an end. Think about this skybound "planner" as being an engineer looking at an area of plains that floods, horribly, every year. Someone wants to build a community there (why, I don't know) but they don't want to have to worry about the entire area flooding constantly. So they bring in an engineer to survey the land and build a manmade river to catch all this rainwater to be able to divert it away from where everyone is staying. Sure, there may be times when the river can't keep up with the rain, but it will still mitigate the negative effects on the remaining populace.

In your own words, you just argued with yourself. Who/what set a higher being into motion? I don't know. I never claimed to have all the answers. I know that believing in the existence of a deity does take a bit of a leap of faith, but then again, doesn't it take the same level of faith to believe every scientific finding that has been made over the years is true? I mean you, yourself, have not conducted each of the experiments put forth by our scientific predecessors. You have to believe that they were thorough enough that others haven't found a way to disprove their claims. Because for some people like me, you have to take comfort in believing that there is someone/something out there that has a plan. Someone who is in control that helps to shape what happens in each of our lives. I'm referring to a private matter, but if you wish to have some clarity, PM me for it. It's not exactly something I want posted in open forum.

That's an inaccurate description of what blind is. Even though someone may not be able to see the coffee table, his shin sure will feel it a few seconds later.

But the point is, with a site like wikipedia, anyone can go in there at any moment and change things to whatever they see fit. This makes it unreliable. As far as faith, it doesn't have to be blind. I believe that my faith has some evidence to back it up. I wouldn't say that it's proof, because nothing scientific is ever proven, only tested to be accurate. What's my evidence? The Big Bang. To me, something had to have start everything going. Something had to cause the big bang. You can't start with not having time to all of a sudden it existing. But like I've said before, that is my opinion. If there is a substantial scientific model that shows and is backed up further by other scientists, I will gladly adjust my views to be in accordance. There's too much that science is unable to explain just yet. One day, science will be advanced enough to either confirm or deny evidence of a higher power. And at that moment is when my decision will be known and set in stone.

I agree. And it's for this reason that any site whose content is able to be edited by literally just about anybody is not viewed as a reliable source for varying levels of debate. To prove this, go to wikipedia's page for New Albany, IN and scroll down under "Notable People". My quick contribution is there, done in under 5 minutes. But being that I'm not sure how quickly that will be resolved, I'll attach a screen shot of it being edited. Moontanman, my view of religion is this: I believe that there is a higher power. I don't fully buy into the fundamentalist bit about everything in the bible being the verbatim recording of everything that happened from the time of first man up to the time that Revelation was written. However, I do see the bible as, for the most part, having hit some key points to living your life in a moral and just way. And no, that doesn't mean trying to conquer nations, wishing plagues on first born children, or the enslaving of the Jewish people. But sometimes it helps to think that there is/was someone/something up there that created us so that we could experience life. I do NOT however believe that the realms of science and religion should mix. As we learn more through the scientific method, the realm of mystery and the unknown within religion is slowly blown away to reveal what is really behind it all. My belief is that at some point there was a higher being who set things in motion and everything after that is just a natural chain of random, albeit phenomenal, chances that led the universe to the point it is now. But in no way do I think anything, whether under religion or not, should not be based on blind faith.

To be frank, isn't your assumption about "higher dimensions" just that, an assumption? I was basing my reply off of your assertion about these parallel dimension. All that we know at the moment are the current laws of physics. If new, credible data is presented that would alter what we already know, then I would be more than happy to change what I said. However until that point, I can only work with what we already know and have laid out.

So then what about hollow points? Am I correct in assuming that they would not only have a lower mass/weight, but would also have slightly different flight mechanics?

That's what I was wondering...

So by that right, you are also saying that the military seeks to control its members. I choose to follow Christian values, not because I had been raised that way, but because those are in line with my own beliefs that I have formed in my adult years.