Your thumb alone will prove that there is an intelligent designer behind it and did not just emerge on its own.

An HB2 pencil is but a reformation of mutual glands.

wRithing is there to stay, and here tomorrow.

Relax buddy, the two sets of affirmations have nothing to do with anyting at all in this great white world. nOT with each other, not with reason, not with lif.

The planck length is not a point.

"It's simple. A Planck length is a point. You can't travel across a point.

There are 1.e+96 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000) Planck lengths in a cubic centimeter."

There are infinity number of points (geometrical construct points) in a cubic centimetre. This assumes that a point does not have any dimensions.

If a planck length was indeed a point, then there would be infinity number of them in any volume of space.

But there is a finite number of planck space in any given finite volume of space.

The planck length is therefore not a point.
--------------------------

The planck length is not a point.

"The planck length is a point. They are side-by-side the same way as if you took a block of wood and saw it up into small pieces. There is no space outside what the planck spaces occupy. There is nothing that you can put between two points; the two points are completely adjacent."

In analytic geometry the point is a zero-dimension thing. It is infinitesimally small. A continuous line, a continuous plane, a contiguous space, are all made of points. Yet not two geometrical points touch each other in a line, in a plane, in space.

The clincher is that a true point can't touch another point; in planck length, the points touch each other. So the two kinds of "points" are not equivalent to each other.

In analytical geometry, there is always something between to non-coincident points. In planck space there is nothing that can be between two adjacent points.

Therefore planck space or planck points are not the equivalent of geometric points.

--------

While the geometrical concept of a point is not traversable, and the planck space point is allegedly not traversable, and if we accept, which we do for the sake of this argument, that planck space is not traversable, then it is still a fallacy to state categorically that a point is a point is a point. A geometric point has zero dimensions. A planck space or planck length has non-zero dimensions(*).

The two points are not equivalent to each other, as there are a number of distinctions in their properties that are not equivalent.

(*) If planck length had zero dimensions, and was NOT three dimensional, then there would be no restriction how much you can put in a cubic centimetre (centimeter for our American respondents).

If planck points indeed occupied space in its entirety, then travel at a constant maximum theoretical speed could only happen at right angle dimensionsional lines of movement. If a diagonal movement were to occur, then either its speed would be deformed (because it would traverse cubic root of ((N^2*planck point + N^2*planck point+ N^2*planck point)) length in the same time as it would take the same travelling thing to transverse N planck space. Substitute a positive integer for N which is greater than one, and the whole three-dimensional concept of planck spaces fully and neatly occupying space with no room outside theirs, will shamefully collapse.

To wit: the above model takes a cube, in which an object would take the same time to travel between the diagonally opposite corners of the cube, as it would take it to travel along one edge of the cube, from corner to corner. Why? Because in both instances the travelling object would transverse EXACTLY the same number of planck spaces, if they were indeed points. This also holds true to an object travelling along the sheer surface of this cube, from corner to corner diagonally on the one surface of the cube.

For instance, a cube which on one dimension is four planck spaces long, would have four planck spaces between its farthers corners. This works in theory, for of course a travelling object which travels in a straight line would leave one planck space and get to another, and so on, with traversing exactly four planck spaces, WHETER IT TRAVERSES THE CUBE IN A PATH PARALLEL TO ANY ONE OF THE EDGES OF THE CUBE, OR IT TRAVERSES IN ANY DIAGONAL PATH.

So the travelling object would need to traverse the cube in the same amount of time no matter from which corner to which corner it travels, for in any possible case the path would transverse exactly four planck spaces or planck points.

In nature, obviously this is no the case. It takes longer for any object travelling at a constant speed to traverse a cube along a diagonal between its corners, than to traverse a cube along a line parallell to an edge, thus refuting the theory of "solid planck space packed together with points of planck length dimensions."

The expected theoretical result is not congruent with empirical findings. We therefore conclude that the theory of space filled with planck spaces or "planck points" touching each other and having no space between them, at the same time that they can't be traversed partly across, is a false theory, not only a falsifiable theory.

Therefore we reject the original assumptions, namely:

1. the planck length is a point.
2. the planck length can not be partly traversed across.
3. The planck length points occupy space, and they touch each other so, that there is no space between planck points or planck length points.

This means that one or more of the three assumptions must necessarily be false.

Jeanniebean, the voice of the great equalizer:

It sounds something like "you men, you can't agree, so stop doing this already, you are wasting your time."

True, this has little practical value or application. But I still think it's worthwhile to go through this.

Why would this be worthwhile? For a very strong and good practical reason. I ENJOY DOING IT. True, it won't put bread on the table, and it won't get our clothes clean. But it has the practical value of making me somewhat happy.

I won't let you take that enjoyment away from us, Jeanniebean, only because you think we are wasting our time.

You are not arguing here, jeanniebean, I feel. You are not putting forth an argument of any worth. I feel you are simply trying to exercise control. Something similar to "you have played enough with your toys, boys, now put them away and attend to your chores."

You know what I say to that? I can't say my true opinion in a reply here, because it would break all kinds of site and forum rules.


Try to imagine on your own, Jeanniebean, how I feel about women who try to control me for no other reason but because they have nothing to add, but they have to make their presence felt somehow anyway.

Theres some that claim God had to have been unleashing 12 to 14 hit die fireballs on Sodom and Gomorrah.Then he used the "polymorph other" spell on some woman to turn her into a pillar of salt.He went buck wild sometimes on his genocidal attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Only when you ignore the elements of evolution can you believe that to be true.

I can setup a program with the same elements of evolution and show how appendages of all kinds form via random processes as they are selected against a natural environment with no design needed at all.

That's the problem and what exactly Degrasse Neil Tyson is talking about, humans shouldn't just "live life", that's what science is all about understanding the universe. Once we stop asking questions, then we will accept whatever dogma spewing drivel saying it's the truth. I doubt anyway really stops their day to day very important activities to ponder the meaning of life, but it IS the most IMPORTANT question ever asked "why are we here".

We are here becuase lite weight rocks are pushed further up the beach than heavy rocks.

Less esoterically, we are here because there exists relationships between matter, forces, and the interaction with spacetime that cause things to go from less complex to more complex.

These relationships via the interactions create structures to be formed which can be more, or less stable.

Through stability selection you have an evolution of complexity.

These structures gain complexity via these physical interactions, where the more stable structures hang around long enough to gain more and more complexity.

As the structures achieve functionality they then support further increases in complexity.

So forth and so on, the universe increases in complexity, low entropy energy is created from the gravitational forces interacting with stars and sets up the capability for increased structural complexities we find in nature.

ie, the heavy rocks and the lite rocks represent how order is created from the chaos of random interactions. Smaller rocks take less energy to move further up the beach due to the relationship between F=MA, and gravitational pull. These same forces are what dictate the interactions of organic materials which formed the components of abiogenesis.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KGPAjJSbYBY/TR0-yr0j7LI/AAAAAAAAAAY/rLXVDL4q0Jg/s1600/007.JPG

I used to have a much better picture for this . . . doh! (also I did not come up with this myself, I stole it and if I could find where I got it id credit the gent.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9egAbiogenesis explained.

I think that there has to be some kind of intelligence at work in the universe.

To think otherwise is not really logical.

I'm not calling it "God" nor is it anything like what people think of as an entity creator.

I just don't think it is logical to suggest that intelligence and consciousness can come from no intelligence and no consciousness.

Life comes from life.

If you believe there is no intelligence at work in what has manifested in this universe then you have to say that you believe that something comes from nothing, and that nothing can at some point become conscious and alive and intelligent.

To go from "inanimate" (dead, or nothing) to alive and conscious would be a miracle.

When and where and how exactly did that miracle happen?

That is what everyone wants to know, including scientists.

There is an intelligence at work in the universe. I am certain of it.

Not nothing. From the relationships between forces, particles, and structure as it meets an environment where more stable structures survive, and less stable structures are broken down.

So for a system of evolved complexity you must start with these physical relationships. If you want to ship an intelligence into that gap, so be it, no where else does it fit now.

Often when scientists are studying abiogenesis and evolution they will use a random number generator, set some variables for selection to minic an environment, and then let it run for thousands of generations to see what comes out of the interactions. ITS AMAZING.

Emergent properties are real, they exist everywhere in nature, and no hand of a designer is present in any of it.

well its simple theres proof in creation 1 example the flood Noah Ark and still tons of water covers the earth another Matthew chat 24 shows signs of the things on happening in earth now Lets talk evolution Scientific Fact Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.Scientific Fact Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals
Scientific Fact DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.Scientific Fact Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.just a few things:)

Again, it is not "a hand of a designer" that I am talking about. It is a form of intelligence unlike any conceptual "hand of a designer." It is a connection between everything that exists and an exchange of information that leads to a cooperation that could be called intelligent. It is so vast and enormous and interconnected you probably can't even wrap your head around what it is.

It is everything. Energy and information, interactions, and change that comes together in the direction of life and consciousness. It is not an accident. It is intelligence.

And your left ankle will prove that there is no intelligent designer behind it and it did just emerge on its own.


This is not the religion forum. We do not accept random statements such as cries of devotion, as valid points of arguments. It may seem so to you, as some people here do advocate a skeptic attitude that accepts only those notions that they wish to accept, while at the same time they reject completely at-hand facts and logic.

But those participants here do not argue, they just state categorical statements of faith that is bordering on the supernatural or it speaks eloquently of their devotion to a dogma or another.

Certainly it can be said that a 'hand' is present.

Once we have moved along the path...

another will 'emerge' in nature so that God can raise it also up...

Until this reality be lifted up...

Each atom and even the smaller things...

Becoming something greater.

Emerging into a greater Reality.

You are finally saying something, Jeanniebean.

To answer that:

Science observes and reports.

It has been noted that signs (not actual claims) that instances of consciousness, the most essential part of life that separates it form just heaps of matter, exist, is not random. Science observes and it reports. It will say that animals with higher complexity of central nervous systems dispaly a more complex set of responses that can be called the effect of "mind".

But. Science does not say what it can't say.

------

To explain the miracle, we go back to philosophy, we must, or to religion, which in this instance acts as a branch of philosophy.

And you say this is what we all want to know.

And some time before this you scolded us for talking about something undecidable; you scolded us for trying to find out what life is, instead of living and enjoying it.

Then a few posts down, now you say that finding out what life is, is the most important question that faces everyone. Or what everyone faces. Either way.

So... it's your inconsistency, that's not jiving here, and more importantly, it's your assumed superiority that your opinions at any one or the other end of the spectrum of your inconsistencies, or at any point on the same spectrum, that is also not jiving here. If you are superior to us for knowing that the search is futile and we must abandon it, why do you come back and tell us in a voice that exudes superiority that we must do the search because it is the most important thing we do.

I don't have the right to say this is not good behaviour on the forums. So I won't say that.

I just wish there were a forum here available to users where people could be inconsistent without rubbing others the wrong way with their sheer inconsistency, or where people could say opposite to what they had just said, or where people could categorically state things that can't do with proof or with reality. Something like a... what should it be?

Well... I don't know. A so-called "supernatural" forum? A forum where the chaos and the order in things are the ingredients of the soup du jour, and mixing them well is the force de rigeur?

Some forum where the unexplained is taken at face value if explained in any way but by a rational, scientific way?

Some forum where a person can act in chaotic typhoons of expressions, or in a cool, studied manner, and both are accepted without inconveniently analytical questioning?

Yes, we need a forum like that.

You broke the code, man. You said it so well.

If a species chromosome count or protected genome is altered, it can't mate with anyone.

Except if he or she has a sibling or more which has the same mutation having happend in their chromosome count and in their genome protection failure.

This is possible, and likely has happened many, many times in the history of the world.

Then the siblings can't mate with members of the species of their parents. Very true.

But they can mate with each other. And they and their offspring is a new species.

You, my man, just eloquently described how a new species emerges. True, you preambled how this is impossible, but they you showed how it is actually possible.

You should join the "evolutionary" side of the debate. Or maybe you should not -- you are doing the evolutinary side a greater favour by disproving their oppposing arguments however unwittingly.

AdventureBegins, I really think your calling is to be a preacher.

You have a way of describing things that appeal to a typical congregation.

Don't try this at conferences, though, where the topic may be, for instance, "The Complex Flux of Nanodilators in a Constriction Resisted Liquid."

Wux, I am not inconsistent. I simply speak to the topic at hand. I have consistently spoken about the question of how matter can go from unconscious or dead, to alive and intelligent. I have addressed this particular topic many times in discussions about evolution and creative design.

My position on this is that everything has a degree of consciousness and that consciousness grows. Most scientists don't agree. They speak to "emergent" properties as Bushidobillyclub does.

"Emergent properties are real, they exist everywhere in nature, and no hand of a designer is present in any of it."

Emergent properties are real. But from what do they emerge and is it dead or alive? That is the question. If it is dead, the question becomes, when and how did it go from dead to alive?

I don't disagree with emergent properties. It is what scientists "observe." My position is that consciousness exists everywhere and in everything whether it is observed by scientists or not.

If a scientists disagrees, and states that this is not true, my position is that IFF they are correct, then there MUST be a point in the process when a particle of matter goes from unconscious and inanimate (or dead) to alive and conscious (even if it is in the slightest degree.)

A thing is either dead or alive. If dead things come to life, I would like to know more about that event. If unconscious matter becomes conscious, I would like to know more about how that happens.

Until then, my position is that everything is alive and conscious to some degree. There are an infinite number of degrees.




The perceived "scolding" was when I noticed people spewing endless opinions about the existence or non existence of God or some other unanswerable subject, or arguing about whose religion is right and whose is wrong. I think it is pretty pointless unless you are just bored and have nothing else to do.

My advice was that some people just need to appreciate that they are alive and live their life. If you think my advice is wrong then just ignore it. It is simply my "superior" opinion.

How is that the most important?

We are here! (of a certainity where you stand at this moment you are HERE upon the earth)

More important than here is...

Where will you go next?

What will you do with the 'here' that is given?

Squander it?

or use it to make the path of Mankind better?