Dr. Funkenstein

Philosophically, Truth is merely a qualifier for the accompining "Fact". by itself it means nothing, therefore it is just a term of diction. Only and I stress only when it is supported by a fact does it takes definition. ie;

The water is wet, is a true statement. Remove the fact "water being wet" and your left with nothing. There is not a true/truth, one can put forth without an accompaning fact. so the word is merely a qualifiying term we use in for a representative sign for the fact.

Does not Mans/our/humans lack of comprehension to "all" the process'es that may or may not take place in promoting human existence makes this argument between evolution and creationism moot.

Empirical research historically seems to suggest, that intelligence takes a Transitory position within the dominate society. Thus The ancient Egyptians (Africans), Chinese, and other classifications of race, all played a part in possession of intelligence, at one point or another in the time-line of existence. So our present day intelligence, is at best cumulative, and can not speak to one sub portion of humanity having more or less of intelligence, then another.

Lets suppose That a single cell organism posses a consciousness of instinctual reproduction or survival. And that over eons of time, this single cell, adapted it's instinct to not only evolve physically to the demands of adaptation, but also develops a brain, which augments the original instictiveness, thereby adding sensory intakes, which we now call mental consciousness.

So a question would be , Why does a single cell organism have a need to reproduce or grow? If reproduction or growth can be tied into an effort to survive, then our present day awareness of consciousness may merely be an upgrade to the basic function/need or cause of the driving single cell organism seminal awareness.

And isn't this in totality, what we are today? And what is more pressing to a being as a whole, animal or human, then survival.

i'm going with the obvious here. A study of a spiral galaxy seem's to suggest that it's rotation is a by product of it's center mass motion. On first glance it seem's to be that the center is the area of some type of vortex, which spirals the movements of all the galaxies remaining matter, in a downward twirl.

However closer inspection reveals that it is not really a spiral, but more a orientated polarization pull, from some unknown poles, of the center mass. Thus the center mass resembles more the symbol of the Chinese Yin and Yang, more then a true spiral vortex.They method of the intake of a galaxies matter can not be overlooked. Now inflation of the universe due to the BB, rules out the rotation of a galaxy being due to the BB, since all "particles" of, would then be directional. They all seem to be on a whole, but not in the particular of individual galaxies.

Black holes could be a culprit of rotation, but that would then mean that black holes would have poles as mentioned above, of matter attraction. N,S or E.W depending of angle of sight and true intake of material. So our theories on black holes being one giant 360 sucker would be incorrect.

Lets say the center mass of the galaxy is either through some unknown force, because of it's make up, is set in motion by BB exclusively. Or this center mass has a property which rotates by the substance of it's mass ie.. gravity, elecmag, etc, in it's entirety.

Aristotle while being a quasi scientist, was first and foremost an philosopher with a high ranking in the meta-physical. His science stemmed from his understanding of the mysteries, therefore they had no conflict within him. The only measurable/scientific variable I can think of for the conflict of religion and science would be the old adage, So as a man think, so he is" Religion dispenses with thinking for faith/belief, science dispenses with faith/belief in favor for observable facts. the earliest conflict could have been the issue of the world (Earth) being the center of everything, a religious view. whereas science saw it as a part of, not the center of...

Those who challenged the church's view were prosecuted and often put to death. While eventually, science established the truth of the argument. This could have been a early warning sign to the church, which caused them to hover over science like fly's hover over garbage, setting the stage for future conflicts.

To me the "authority" that the church leans on in establishing what eventually leads to it's conflicts, is the excersie of authority. The church being an outgrowth of devotion to it's jesus, under Emperor Constanine became a figure head of an individual, from Bishop to Pope. Men vested with such power use their authority perversely. With nothing to stop them and with the religious control of the head of the political goverment (Armed forces) the conflict is set. Religion rules in faith and belief to some degree that translate to submission, to that which is close to the height of that belief or faith, that would be Man (Bishop/Pope)

When the church sought to alienate it's particular doctrine from that which was it roots (Jewish faith) perhaps that was the first conflict.

Might be worthwhile to point out that religion is in conflict with anthing and everything that is not subjected to religion. Religion is even in conflict with itself as can be wittnessed by basic East Vs, West religious doctrines.

Behind religion at it's core, you will find Philosophy, behind that you will find metaphysical aspects of orgins. behind Science you will find Philosophy, behind that you will find metaphsical orgins.

So the conflicts are not black and white or inherent too..... they are the shadow's of mans involement.

To me it's without question that seismology may very well be wrong, in considering what they don't know, like rather the innermost core is really solid or fluid or fluid like, moving or at a stand still. I find it hard to give them much credence outside of recording a earthquake, I also cant grasp what they claim is the cause of earthquakes.

The part where these two plates meet, and at the meeting point, this pressure builds on the "hinges" (Jagged edges of the individual plates) and then eventually the hinges unhinged, the plates buckle and an earthquake commence. I suspect that the force of these two plates meeting would merely sheer each other off, no hinges period, therefore no buckling. We talking pressure unmeasured here

It is more reasonable and logical to state that contraction and expansion is the cause of earthquakes, and again this mainly happens when the planet is in close proximity to the Sun

Even if the inner core is stable the outer core is constantly in flux, this flux must be in conjunction with the planet as a whole, since all the planets cores plates and crust work as one together. By again pure proximity of the so-called liquid core and hard inner core., So therefore the inner core's are indeed in motion.

Cling to the books gentleman, but allow your mind to circumference the question freely..

Conduction of heat from the thermal core of earth, travels from the core to the atmosphere, rather that be the liquid molten core, or the so-called solid core, the transfer of heat is guaranteed. (The solid inner core is said to be as hot as the sun). This heat reaches the surface and atmosphere and interacts with the heat from the Sun.

Now the distance of the planet in winter and summer are: 147,098,074 km and 152,097,701 km. In the fall, winter and spring, according to the statistic gathered by USGS, the ratio of earthquakes during these close to sun positions of the planet are 3 times more numerous then in the late spring or summer months.

So contraction / expansion of the planet during the difference of the time frames given are a valid proposition. Now we have no true measurement of the circumference of the planet, so through it thermal conduction and it's interacting with the heat of the sun along with perhaps, gravitational or electrical magnetic force, contraction and expansion of the planet even if the scale escapes detection is possible, and therefore earthquakes in the Winters months prevalent.

As previously stated what hemisphere or the tilt of the earth is not relevant, since the data shows earthquakes happening all over the planet during the times mostly when the planet is closet to the Sun. Place any substance between these interacting heat sources (Mantle/Crust) and the in between is effected, add the raw material of the crust (some metal or another), along with 70 percent of the planets surface, Water , and contraction and expansion is not only possible but probable.

Geology tells me that this planet grows, I suspect through contraction and expansion it also breathes as it were.

I for one do not give validity to those things which make up the battalion of evil. The possibility that things exist, that were wholly created by mans insistence of thoughts, may be correct. But these things are the product of thoughts, inclined to produce this evil. To me there is no doubt, that some things we are for the most part unaware of, but do however exist. These lords, fathers and workmen have no connection to evil whatsoever.

Religion opens the door for these hellish creatures, who primarily exist as a alternative to following the dictates of a particular religious doctrine. If you have cause to question, rather or not a God exist, the very next question, would have to be, "Why would such a being create an opposing force, to it's own existence". I would say that A God, of such a magnitude, could produce nothing but Goodness unbounded. Not goodness as a duality of badness or evil, but a goodness evident in the works of his creation (nature), which functions in accord, with cosmic law and order. Build your house at the base of a active volcano, and the chances are you will be consumed by the fire, no evil intended, just the workings of the law, physics of volcanoes.

These days evil has it's own religion, deal in this foolishness and reap the rewards of your creation. To the things that are but are unknown or misunderstood, best to learn about what you may be dealing with, and approach these things with purity of thought, otherwise your true intentions or thoughts may bring your devil out of you and on you.

The data of USGS (dates of earthquakes) still reflect a majority of earthquakes taking place throughout the world during the winter, spring and autumn times of year. If I don't question why, whats the point of having a love for science

These times of the year, this planet is closest to the Sun. placing hemispheres aside, tilt of axis begs to me the question of rather this proximity of the planet to the sun has some influence on plate tectonics which manifest as earthquakes.

Now rather the core of the planet or the crust of the same perhaps is effected by the proximity of the sun to this planet, deserves consideration in light of the data on earthquakes complied by USGS and disseminated by my interest.

Since the exact circumference of the planet at all, or maybe at no time is know, and geological strata depict an amalgamation of soil stacked one upon the other would suggest that, either the planet grows, or geological stratification accumulate by some process other then the blowing wind. So perhaps contraction and expansion.

The core of the planet has to expand and contract, even if it's a slight movement, It is inconceivable to claim this core to be static and stationary. Pure planetary motion would shift the dimensions of this core at the very least.

There has to be I believe a single cause for Plate tectonics, earthquakes, geological strata, Volcanic eruptions and all things related to the process of Earth in object form.

I assumed that the tilt of the axis effecting the season was a given, however the southern hemisphere is below the equator and therefore not privy to winter as we in the nothern hemisphere know it, due to its position in the tropic zone, which covers most of the southern hemisphere.

For ten largest see USGS sataistics Earthquakes. The largest was actually 17 in number but the pattern i stated is percise.

From 1648=2012 averaged out to 400+ years, recorded earthquake dates numbers in the average of 1,000 +, of those an average of 190 were dated within June, July and august. Source USGS.

This data is worldwide, the sparcity of earthquakes within the three month span of june to August is grossly out of porportion to the total of earthquakes everywhere.

Now again, Could this be due to contraction&expansion of the molten core of this planet in direct correlation to it's distance to the Sun? A good portion of the southern hemisphere stay tropical (hot) regardless of the axis tilt. Time of year is only significant, as it relates to distance from/to Sun. A distance which is seperated in no great number, from it's closet proximity to it's farthest proximity. Metal contracts in cold, expands in heat.

Out of 39 of the major earthquakes around the world, 35 of them occured in Winter, Fall, and early spring, with the remaining 4 (four) occuring in Summer (June,July,August).

So the question is, are the movement of plate tectonics actually either the contraction or expansion of the whole of the planet, in direct correlation to it's position to the Sun?.

Winter, fall and spring are the closest earth comes to the sun, within our calendar year. Is this a expansion period?, thereby giving plate tectonics movements validity, as a cause of earthquakes?. Perhaps expansion of the planet as a whole, in relation to it's distance to the Sun, is the real culprit. Wheras in the Summer time, the farthest the planet is away from the sun, contraction occurs, with less earthquake activity.

Of the 10 (Ten) largest earthquakes, 8.7 on the scale and above, None was recorded in the primary Summer months of June July and August.

@ Post 8 my point exactly. Historical education (Ancients) started at age 7 for children, Philosophical thought, critical thinking and logic was the main order of the day. This primary curriculum, boosted the natural cognition, which then in turn lead to mastery of the other courses in order.

Today's education can seem like a weight that has be be carried, as opposed to an adventure of discovery. Memorization, poor teachers quality, individual child's needs and a host of other factors, from place in society to tax revenue of the surrounding schools area, contribute to the education expected to receive. With so many things working within the education system, it's not difficult to see it as a detriment.

Mean while the child's natural ability, to want to come to some kind of terms with the substance of what education claims to deliver is in fact, adverse to natural cognitive pursuit, and these pursuits are not supported within the given education.

The ranks of those who gained their education in the distant past, and on their on initiative are the same people who made it possible for society to have such a firm grip on nature, life, science and the arts, today. I just think that it is possible that education as we know it, could be a detriment. So now i wonder if this is purposeful or just the byproduct of an advanced society.

Time is a measurement of man brought about to put some order to seasonal change, and perhaps rivers ebbs and overflows. Beyond usefulness to mankind it has no bearing. How it relates to change is a mystery to me, from a pure physics perspective, "What has ever changed, from one thing into something totally different?"

Inflexible and static mental processes

Pertinent absence of variables

abnormality of physical brains

And the ever popular, deep down inside one doesn't really care to understand. Just to name a few.

Still have my dunce hat on, keep it when i dropped out, to the point, which was a question.

Education is a memory dependent form of learning, which may stifle inherent cognition, replacing that with given parameters of thought. No doubt this could be useful, but does it also limit ones ability to think independently?.

By the way Phi, Barnum Bailey called, they would like to have that red nose and size 50 shoes back.

We are born with the capacity to rely on our cognition over time naturally, Is this capacity somehow diminished with the advent of secondary education, secondary meaning,(Schooling) out side of sense intake and inherent thinking capabilities.

And does this education somehow form limits to our inherent cognition?

Actually, it's not, since the universe already existed at the Big Bang and there's no sense in which the universe ever not existed.

 

 

 

Well, you're wrong. It is actually quite easy to prove. We have a thing called 'conservation of energy'. Brains have moving parts and they have energy moving all around. If this is due to an immaterial soul, then energy is being produced from nothing. That is, conservation of energy is false. So, yeah, it's your belief in souls or your belief in physics.

So for discussion sake, the universe always existed, as the God crew will state, so did God.

Conservation of energy, Immaterial soul thereby being the energy produced by the material of the brains. Clone the body complete, reproduce the immaterial soul in God like fashion, which by the way is the roots of the mysteries which gave religion life. No real difference there. Snakes maintain life within hours after obvious death an example perhaps of the conservation of energy after the body whole is exstinguished. The Sun is a conservatory of energy, no know external resources contribute to this source of energy, out side of what's contained witin it, which is the same thing of it's material, energy.So apperently energy is capable of conserving itself. Indeed forms of energy on our playing field does not conserve, on the cosmological playing field, the possibilities are endless, lol ripe for a explantion of a God head figure or in science terms an unknown variable.

The above answer is simplistic at best, science is proven through verification, while religion is basically hocus pocus. Those of faith will tell you their history and current dogma is ripe with verification "To Them" both personally and by second hand account (Their stories). But this in and off itself does not make science and religion at odds with each other. The real problem here is that science chalks it's unknowns up to a as yet undiscovered (verifiable) scientific reality, whereas the religions reality is conceptual, or hypothesized or theoretical without means to .... worth while to note that some science apparently is on that same course, but while they can look as it were for their reality, religion has a time, expiration issue. In doing vast research in both fields, at this point, seem to me they are both even if you equate science theory to creation dogma. Different words to explain, but both leave you at the same point. ie. God say's let there be light, science say Big bang, God separate the firmament, science says plate tectonics, God makes life after it's own kind, science says evolution, Can you see the correlation, the roots of religion say's there are other dimensions (meta-physical) Quantum mechanics say's the same thing, and on and on it's goes. If they are at odds its by bias of science. And this is not an endorsement of religion, since religion wholeheartedly is man made.

To some degree on religion I cant see where these stories come from completely devoid of facts, very little in the way of stories can live without some basis in some reality, like writing a story about something, how can you make such a story without it having no relation to any thing not already know, even if the story is highly convoluted. it has to relate to something factual at least in premise.

Perhaps the predestined part prefers to order and laws of nature, in that way predestination is factual. For Man his choices don't really matter much, because at some point it diverges into natures order and laws, so your life is indeed predestined. The real question here is what of life is independently important, to the calculator we go, lets see............... outside of whats relevant to mankind, and all of mankind and his particulars will diverge into natures law and order, Nothing really.

A sign, post or pinned attachments on the religion wall stating that God without definition, is not arguable here on the religious thread, is a form of censorship to the unsuspecting, maybe first time visitor, for the house opinions to be so up front and in concurrence with. smells like censorship to me, but perhaps the word is out already and visitor rarely drop by, in such a case by all means run the thread as you see fit. Or maybe being pinned and locked came off to me as House stated policy. whatever, Peace to you all.

The pinned post on the theard of religion is in a fact censorship, like a flag warning vistors that belief in A God is not permitted here on the religion page, by the house, who certainly has a role to play, but seperation of churh and state is diametrical , if thats not the case then remove the pin, or remove the religion theard, or the best action stay out of it.

When I say cause, the crowd automatically goes to the standard philosophical Cause and effect, but that was not the page I was on. Cause being 'Whatever" it turns out to be, like Higgs Boson or god particle as it is called, or ( for lack of a better word) God. that being said why would i rule out a divinity god, when the data is lacking on all accounts, as much as it is in having a complete understanding of science in all it applies too.

My original point is that, this section of this page is for Religion, that topic therefore is built upon a god head figure. So why have the page if the house is going to dictate the law concerning it's opinion on a definition of god. To me that's like taking the hydrogen out of H2O.

I can see if the conversation was about the atomic number of Gold, which we can all agree is factual. On God, no one knows factually rather it is, or is not, despite what your vaunted intellect may suggest. An intellect by the way, which you can't fully explain where it comes from, and the purpose of, Factually speaking.

I am not here to play games with you people, I take the whole of this site for its literal meaning" Forum" by definition, a place for open discussion. and it doesn't seem right for censorship to be applied by any one here, especially when the subject matter is not generally considered offense to any one.