buzsaw

I agree. This is typical of many popular drugs being pushed by the pharmaceuticals and the medical profession - dangerous side effects. One of the side effects of them listed on some of the bottles is DEATH, yet the food and drug admins allow them to remain on the market. It's a money driven profession at the expense of the public health! For this reason it's best to treat the whole body with good diet, proper exercise and suppliments, including herbals. This calls for the need to educate yourself on the alternatives. At 70, my wife and I have kept our family and ourselves well and healthy without the services of an MD. They're ok for injuries but with illnesses most of the medical profession is in the hip pockets of the pharmaceutals who fund the medical school foundations, et al.

First you need to state what the properties of the end of space, i.e. border/boundary, are so we know what we're talking about and so I'll know what evidence you are requesting.

I don't know where you got it that I was arguing for a finite universe. How can a finite universe have boundless space, all existing space being inclusive in the term universe? I can understand that sections of the universe can expand, but for the life of me I cannot understand how the whole thing/universe's existing infinite space can expand, or for that matter how anything infinite can have borders/boundarys that allegedly expand. Imaginary borders based on the hubble visible volumn doesn't cut that. That simply implies that when our telescopes become more powerful the imaginary border again expands to the new visible volumn from planet earth.

But as I read your last post, it appeared by your wording that you believe that the border (boundary) to the universe's space is the edge of the hubble volumn. This is what you said: ....... the "border" to space that your seeking would be the edge of the hubble volume,......... So in your opinion, is it or isn't it the border/boundary? Go over and tell it to Percy's EvC (evolution vs creation) board. My contention that the universe's space was infinitely volumnous got me into hot water over there. After all, if the universe is infinite, it's existing space must also be infinite.

So what can be viewed by our telescopes may be only a speck in the total volumn. How do scientists know this is the boundary? How do scientists know that space does not exist beyond the hubble volumne?

The concept of eternal God, "the same yesterday, today and forever," as the Bible puts it is incompatible with the BB beginning of the universe. His eternal throne and heavenly abode could not exist before the alleged BB. He'd have no abode of existence, nothing around him and nothing to do before the BB. This is the problem Hugh Ross, Christian BB creationist, has never answered, so far as I am aware.

I would assume that you would agree with me that if (I say if) space ends it is not infinite and could expand, i.e that it is bounded. If so, you have the problem of what to call the area beyond bounded space's bounds. You would also have the problem of what the properties of spaces's alleged bounds would be. I doubt that QM has the answers to these questions.

If the universe's space is unbounded and infinite/dimensionless, there's no way space is going to expand. Infinity cannot expand. It would have to have bounds and dimension to have the ability to expand. You can't have it both ways. If the universe's space is expanding it must have dimensional bounds which are expanding, increasing the overall size/dimensions of the universe.

1. How does something infinite recede? 2. As I understand unbounded and infinite relative to the universe which includes all existing space, if it's infinite it is unbounded and if it's unbounded it's infinite, as I understand these terms. 3. It appears that you are applying the same definition to both of these words; "expanding (rededing)." You're puzzling the heck out of me here.

Oooo!! Ouwy refute !! Buzsaw ideologically down for the count!!

Powerful refute!! Ouch!! Buzsaw on the ropes!!

Can you give us a link or two for this documentation?

Gotta run. Will address more when I get time.

If microbes were to be found on Mars, the basic laws of science say, as I understand them, that the likelihood of their demise, extinction and deterioriation would be more likely then their progression and evolvement into something more complex, intelligent and orderly. Your love/jealousy thing is quite off topic, imo, but shouldn't go unrefuted. It would be nice if you'd keep your arguments a bit more on topic, imo. You can pull verses from the Bible here and there out of context and manipulate the book to say just about anything you want it to when disregarding the context as you have done. Like people, there are things that loving people and a loving God hates. The same goes with jealousy. There is an evil jealousy and there is a good jealousy. The context of God's jealousy had to do with false gods relative to who Israel worshipped and served whereas with people, nobody respects or likes a person who is jealous of another's good fortune or success. That certainly is not being loving. LOL! Think things through next time before posting. It might save you some embarrassment.

LOL! I'm not holding my breath on those microbes, but I'm convinced that countless other living beings exist in the universe and that I do indeed communicate daily with the highest of them, the creator, manager and majesty of them and us via the mediatory work of the man Jesus who lived on, died on and resurrected from planet earth, according to the Biblical record. I cannot prove that to you, nor is this thread the place to try, but I have experienced remarkable evidence of this, having been a devout Christian for 60 years since age 10.

........And you haven't heard all the arguments for ICR's views on it, have you? Their video on it goes into all the details regarding the science they've done. They do public debates with notable counterparts in many scholastic arenas on various science topics, so likely their arguments would need to have some credence for them to keep up this public activity.

Thanks, LD. I try. I get a kick out of your signature, btw.

I'm presently strapped for time with my business. Give me some time and I'll see what I can find for you. In the mean time you might like to read up on the research ICR has done on the Grand Canyon. Then you may find it interesting to do a google on Aqaba, the chariot wheels and the corroborating evidence for the Biblical Exodus at Nuweiba Beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. Both Wyatt who pioneered this and a Swedish scientist by the name of Lennart Moller who has published THE EXODUS CASE and THE EXODUS REVEALED video on his extensive research in the region about this. Edited to correct video name, Moller's first name and that he was from Sweden.

.......And as seems to be the case here, when they can't grind it to dust, it appears they choose to avoid it.

Ditto to my response to yourdadonapogos. Please stop falsy implying that creation IDist scientists don't do bonafide science. They use some of the same evidence you people use with a different interpretation of what is observed. Much of neither has been proven. Both rely on theory and hypothesis so far as much of what is observed as to what it means. When you people prove there's not a higher form of intelligence in the universe, then you can laugh your heads off. Until then, let us do our science and you do yours. Let us post our thoughts/arguments and you yours in a civil and forthright manner. May the truth eventually emerge, and it surely eventually will. Then we'll all likely be dead wrong on some aspects of our studies and right on others. Debate and diversity of study, methodology and thought is how we all learn.

Very likely there are some areas folks like ICR do studies in that would be worthy of publishing in the journals if they were fair and balanced. And why isn't National Geographic's ocean researcher/oceanographer, the noted Robert Ballard checking out those chariot wheels creationist scientist researchers have videoed in the Gulf of Aqaba off the Red Sea, along with all the other corroborating stuff in the area relative to the Exodus? Secularists are being critical of this discovery, but where are their people who should be checking it out? Are they afraid of what they might discover/verify?

Why do you keep on keeping on falsly stating that creation scientists don't include real science in much of their work. Furthermore' date=' why are you saying they need proof when little of what you believe in science is [i']proven[/i]? Come on, now. Post forthright and be fair or please stop crapping up the thread with nonsense. You know full well I'd not be allowed to do this stuff to you, so please stop doing it to me.