buzsaw

Wow that is some really bad advice. You're telling people to go create hypersensitivity reactions in their bodies so they can have some kind of visual proof that their immune system is working overtime. Just ask anyone with allergies how much fun is to have their immune systems in hyper mode. If someone was dumb enough to do this, they could be putting themselves at risk of going into anaphylactic shock. Not to mention that all bacterial LPS is not created equal. Take for instance Neisseria meningiditis; its LPS and peptidoglycan are toxic and cause severe immune response. This is the main reason why treatment involves the use of bacteriostatic antibiotics not bacteriocidal. I realize you were half joking with your response, but believe me when I say there are more than a few people out there that would be willing to try it.

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.

 

let's see all your great evidence that space is infinite!

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.

sorry I thought that you were trying to say that the universe really is finite, hence why I said the "border to space that your[/u'] seeking would be the edge of the hubble volume.

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?

the idea that the universe is finite is something that has been propagated by laymen because of the whole "the universe is expanding" thing (which it is, its just that each section is expanding ie. 1 cubic lightyear over the course of a few million years will become 2 or 3 cubic lightyears (have no idea on the math of it)), the universe is infinite.

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.

buzsaw thats just it, they don't believe that that is the border, besides the fact that that border expands by about 1 ly every year, there is no evidence to show that the universe ends there. so it is logical to think that the universe goes on after 13.6 billion years

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?

the idea that the universe is infinite is the mainstream viewpoint of the scientific community.

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.

Wow...

People like this ruin this site. Thankfully' date=' they are avoidable.[/quote']

 

Please specify which people to whom you are referring.

buzsaw the "border" to space that your seeking would be the edge of the hubble volume, this is something like 13.6 billion years away, and is the greatest distance that we are capable of viewing with a telescope on earth.

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?

You don't need to erase the laws of nature to see God;Mokele

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.

space ends

sounds good to me

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.

There's a (new) theory out there that eliminates singularities at the end of black holes and the singularity before the big bang. I can't really explain it' date=' but it's intriguing.

 

(That was a bit of a tangent.)

 

. Infinite means it goes on forever, unbounded means it has nothing stopping it from going on forever (IIRC).[/quote']

 

Not exactly. Unbounded means there's no bounds to all existing space, i.e. that it is infinite and dimensionless in all directions.

but new stars and systems are being created all the time and are receding from each other, therefore the overall space is expanding.

 

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.

2. I don't remember saying anything about unbounded. But yes' date=' I am using these interchangeably.

3. Expanding (the overall size of the universe) and receding (the parts from each other). Again, a poor choice of words on my part, for which I apologize.[/quote']

Thanks for clarifying. I was me who used the word unbounded, asking if you agreed with me that the universe was unbounded. However, your wording in item 3 has a problem, imo, in that something infinite can't expand, i.e. the universe. Only dimensions within the universe can expand, i.e, things in the universe or distance between things in the universe, etc.

I believe mainline science maintains that space itself in the universe expands, which would imply that the universe is finite and itself expanding, since space is inclusive in the universe. This is needful to argue for the theory of the big bang. I'm of the minority opinion, and I don't buy that theory.

Not quite sure of your wording, so I'll put it this way. I think the universe is infinite and expanding (receding), and am in agreement with the general scientific community. If that isn't a clear enough answer, let me know and I'll try to further clarify it. Note that as I'm planning on going into aerospace/aeronautical/astronomical engineering, I have somewhat of a responsibility to obey the current laws of physics.

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.

I find it funny that everyone (or everyone that I've seen so far) arguing with the original post and against the accepted and (by all means) tried and true model of the universe (I'd like to see one of them try to prove it wrong) all bear the words "Banned" or "Permanently Banned" directly under their names. In all honesty' date=' I did not know some of these people had been exterminated, and felt some satisfaction/relief upon seeing so.

 

I also find it ironic that this thread continues to live on despite this. [/quote']

 

Do I understand you to agree with me that space is unbounded?

indeed

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

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony of that statement.

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

Hardly. There are documented cases where some of these very notable/public creationists have said something that isn't factual (e.g. that Lucy's knee was found 3 miles from the rest of the skeleton), they are corrected, and yet they keep on saying it. At that point there is no doubt that they are lying, even if you were willing to give them the benefit of doubt before.

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

Gotta run. Will address more when I get time.

I still would like to know what kind of answer you would have when the microbes are found. Ah well, I guess we will know within the next few years when they get some.

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.

And your book has some flaws.

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.

Many more exist.

LOL! Think things through next time before posting. It might save you some embarrassment.

Can we go to Mars and get some microbes from the ice caps to show that life happens everywhere? What will ID believers state when life is proven to be a naturally occuring part of terraforming in certain conditions?

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.

you have already been told that the icr grand cranyon stuff if complete rubbish and why that is so.

........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.

Buzsaw, I admire your steadfastness and temperance.

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

i've yet to hear of this real ID science. can you post some links?

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.

....... the parting of the red sea was a misstranslation as I recall. It was actually a parting of the reed sea' date=' which is a tidal sea in the same area that has highly irregular tides, and the tides tend to go out and come in very quickly.[/quote']

 

The same Hebrew word is used in I Kings 9:26, referring to the port of the Red Sea at Edom which is the port of Aqaba proving that however you want to translate it, the Gulf Of Aqaba is inclusive in it.

 

scientists regularly try to grind others theories into dust, if there was any real evidence it would have been published.

 

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

That's right. When "God did it" doesn't apply, invoke the worldwide conspiracy angle. Gotta admire the consistency - "Evidence? We don't got no evidence! We don't need no steenking evidence!"

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.

I suppose no one would want to publish special relativity then as it broke the aether.

 

let alone GR that overturned newtonian gravity.

 

and everyone would have flat out denied the validity of the double-slit experiment that showed wave particle duality

 

or even before that de-broglie waves would have been laughed at.

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?

Ha! that's funny..

 

"god did it. i have no proof. will you publish it?"

 

"this is the best theory i've ever heard of! of course we'll publish it!"

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.