zapatos

Galaxies do not expand away from the 'creation event'. They expand equally away from each other. Well, it's more complicated than that, but it's a much better way to say it in only one line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Seemed like a pretty reasonable guy. I am unsure what point you are trying to make.

I never really understood how someone could believe in the specifics of the bible, or Koran, or in any kind of personal god, but I don't find it that hard to understand how someone could believe in a higher power. I used to consider myself as kind of a 'light' theist. That is, I believed in 'god', but had no more concept of him than that he was responsible for the universe. I didn't see him in action, didn't think he paid attention to me, and saw no reason to believe anyone else could. What brought me to this 'light' theist postion was science. The laws of physics just seem so complex, so precise, and yet all of this complexity seems to come from some very simple properties of the very smallest components of the universe. Even the fact that there are some laws rather than no laws at all seems strange. So it always seemed to me to be a kind of 50/50 proposition. Maybe something did create all this, or maybe something didn't. I have no evidence either way, so I just kind of leaned toward the position that seemed right to me. I spend most of my time on the side of atheism these days (in large part due to this forum) but when I'm reading some really interesting physics, I start to think, 'man, how could something this phenomenal just be here for no reason at all'. Just my musings. Not trying to argue one position or the other... (Spelling Edit)

You got it!

Ok, let's use your picture and take it to a smaller scale. Imagine the blue dot is you. The grey dots represent your friend who is across the street, shining a flashlight at you, and walking across your field of vision. When the light from the flashlight gets to your eyes, he is no longer there. He is now further up the street (although a very small distance) because he is moving. You never see that flashlight in more than one place at once, and by the time the light gets to your eyes your friend and the flashlight are in a different position. This is exactly the way it works on a galactic scale, only the the times and position changes are greater. It doesn't matter if the light travels for billions of years or billionths of seconds, the principle is the same. And as far as being able to see galaxies that are 2 billion light years away, or five billion light years away in the same field of vision, that is exactly the same as seeing your friend who is 20 yards away, and the other friend who is back and to the left who is 50 yards away, in the same field of vision.

I surrender. Your two intellects are just too much for me to compete against.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

SUPERNATURAL 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural If God exists he is supernatural. Beyond the visible universe. Trancending the laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that he is matter, energy, or just in the human imagination. He could be something else. Since he is not of this universe and transcends the laws of nature he could be composed of something that we have no concept of, that is not matter or energy. We do not know. We will never know. As far as we know there may be something called deity dust that is not made of matter. You need to read the words I am writing. I never said he wasn't made of matter. I said we have no way of knowing if he is made of matter or not. You are talking about spirits and the xth dimension if you are talking about God. I have no idea why you received a negative rep. Possibly for calling me immature when I am trying to explain my position to you. This illustrates the point I am trying to make about your misconception. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that pixie dust exists, much less that it is, as you claim, made of matter.

This is not about maturity. It is about logic. Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that your answer is better than mine. And if you are going to use the bible as proof, please tell me how that is a good reference.

Deity dust, pixie dust, cherub burps.

You may be right but you have not shown it to be true. What logical steps did you take to get from IF not matter, THEN in our heads? I could just as easily say if God isn't made from matter, then he is made of deity dust. It is not true just because I say it. If God exists, then he could be composed of something that is not matter but of a substance not of this universe. Since he is supernatural we have no way to make a definitive statement. Or he could be made of matter. But how could I possibly know? I can't do a test on him.

Okay, let me try. Hmmm. He is made of pixie dust and cherub burps. If God exists, how could you possibly know what he is made of? It is not within the realm of science. You are using the bible to make a scientific prediction of the composition of God.

There are several definitions of 'image'. Do you really think the bible was more likely referring to 'the passage of luminous rays through a small aperature' or a 'sculpture', rather than an 'idea' or 'conception'? 1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible. 2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface. 3. a mental representation; idea; conception. 4. Psychology . a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus. 5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/image

My bold. I don't think that is a valid argument. You cannot simply equate 'image' with 'matter'. You need to specify what led you to believe they are equivalent.

The American dorms I have seen typically do not have kitchens for students, although the trend as dorms are updated or new ones are created, is to add kitchens to them. If you live in a dorm, however, a meal plan is always an option, where you can pay for a set number of meals per week. I've seen plans where you can choose as few as five meals per week and as many as 21. If you participate in a meal plan you usually have many places on campus where you can eat, and the options are generally quite good. My experience has also been that students tend to live in dorms for only one or two years before moving into apartments, where of course they will have kitchens. Most students I have seen can at least cook basic meals, although the options for prepared food is great and cooking for yourself on a regular basis doesn't seem to be the norm. I would say that the average student eats out more often than he prepares food for himself, and that the food he eats when out is of poor nutritional value.

Which options are healthier than rice, wheat and corn? And the idea of taking farm subsidies from food grains and then removing sales tax from whole grains is at odds with itself.

So the most likely scenario of life without food chains seems to be to have a very narrow type of life. That seems reasonable. If you have only plant or only bacteria it would be less likely they would feed off each other. Plants for example would have evolved to get food from the ground and atmosphere so getting food from other plants would tend to be limited. It is only when you start having diffent types of life that food chains become standard. If a new form of life evolves on a planet full of plants, as far as the new form of life is concerned, the plants are a natural resource just as the ground and atmosphere are. Hmm. So now I see the point where food chains are almost inevitable given enough time for change and complexity of life. If life evolves it should eventually look at other forms of life as just other resources. Possibly the only way food chains won't evolve is if life is extinguished prior to more varied life evolving.

Yes, different times for you. You don't see the lights from those three different distances at the same time. You see them at three different times. Try to take one picture of the car that shows the light right in front of you, a thousand feet away, and a mile away, all in the same photograph.

If I am backing away from you and throw three balls to you from 3, 5, and 10 feet away, all thrown at the same velocity, by the time the ball from 10 feet away gets to you, the balls thrown from 3 and 5 feet are past you. They won't all get to you at the same time. The light from the galaxy when it was 3 billion light years from you is long past you by the time the light from that same galaxy gets to you after it was sent from 10 billion light years away.

Maybe there is nothing to cover up because they haven't been here. If you could pick any time in history to visit, would it be 2012?

Agreed. My point was that he could not make that inference.

I would love it if more things were made by third world laborers willing to work for survival level wages. Then I can spend less money and retire earlier. Awfully big of you to have them give up their advantage over you without you giving up anything. But if you are going to take away their advantages, why don't you give up some too? How about giving up the advantage over third world countries you have in infrastructure, transportation, communications, automation, etc.

Reminds me of the problem with walking from point A to point B. You always have to first make it to the halfway point, and since you can divide in half forever, you will never reach point B.