JustinW

dimreeper, Okay I should have said agnostic DEIST then. I think definition 2 still fits the bill though. It's funny that you want to nitpick my choice in the word agnostic enough to go through definitions, but when it comes to what a singularity is you're not so picky. People can say that the BB came from a singularity and the obvious answer to me is NO, a singularity can not incite action. But we'll just overlook that little detail and get picky about a word chosen to discribe someone's expectation of gaining a certain knowledge. Because that applies to the fundamentals of the conversation doesn't it? Moontanman, Can a singularity incite action? Plausable question here. That question alone opens up the idea and makes it valid. Lack of data? I'm hanging it on the basic knowledge of what a singularity is and is capable of, not the lack of data conscerning it. The creator itself is where I would place the ultimate lack of knowledge. Everything boils down to a singularity before the BB... well apparently not. I'll say it again, either there was no singularity or there was a creator. It can't be both ways. Either the singularity wasn't singular, or something outside of the physical realm acted on that singularity to cause it to become what it is today. That's all I can really say on the subject though, unless someone can dispute my thinking about what a singularity is and how one works (it doesn't because it has nothing to work with "it's singular").

zorro, These are along my thoughts on the subject, but good luck getting anybody to listen. The singularity was before the BB. We can break it down that far, but how does a singularity incite action? If there was something else, then it wouldn't be a singularity now would it?

Now that would be interesting. Why don't you give it a go and we'll all stand back in awe. Probably because you seem to be misjudging the strengths of certain forces and the way that those forces act on one another in different situations. You give no observable examples other than to give what we already observe and say the opposite of what we think is happening, is happening.Not to mention, things don't JUST get sucked into a black hole. They first enter an orbit. We would see such an orbit in the movement of the galaxy clusters. The movement wouldn't be an equal expansion, as we observe now, but would corollate with any orbit we happen to enter. If we entered such an orbit of a blackhole, especially one that big, then we would first notice the clusters entering the orbit either disappear or move very far very quickly. If we were already in orbit, especially an orbit that would draw us into the center, then we would see the clusters around us acting accordingly. Instead they are expanding at an equal rate everywhere. One thing I just remembered you saying also. You said that exspansion is in, like the air at the nozzle of a vacuum. Care to show me where the air at the nozzle of a vacuum expands equally in all directions? I would enjoy seeing that.

Phi, Because the movement that he assosiates himself with want a fundamental change in our structure. To put a label on it "Marxist Socialism". That would have a negative effect on the nation as a whole. Sure we have problems. The amount of hollering overpowers the substance of our problems to a point that that substance is ridiculed or shrugged off by a majority. The fact is that even though we do have corruption, it pales in comparison to most of the nations that are close to our size. So this social/progressive movement doesn't fit in to the contrast of the movement's call for necessity. If we could fix our problems while maintaining our origional platform, I seen no need in changing our whole structure. It's hard to sing koombaya in the middle of a bar fight. Not unless he can make some money at it. Rush bores me too bad. I'd rather listen to Mark Levin call someone an idiot and toss him off the air. Other than him doing that I only have boredome to fight when listening to talk shows. iNow, I don't think nothing's getting done because we're bad mouthing Moore. I think nothing is getting done because the shouting to get something done is outdistancing the problem. Like I told Phi above, corruption in America pales in comparison to nations that are close to our size. The more outrageous people get, the more they'll be subjugated to shrugs and the roll of the ol' eyes. Moore just compounds the problem by feeding into the hysteria and ideological movement that a majority of Americans are against. Bolded says it all. He supports and shouts for an ideology that a majority do not. I agree with this. If you're looking at the substance of his work and not the agenda behind it then it makes sense that that is the only thing hypocritical. But the whole share the wealth ideology makes him hypocritical. He was well within his rights and can choose who ever he wants to share his wealth with. That is until the restructuring takes place. Then he better open an acount in the caymans to keep the new founded government from spreading it for him, "for the good of the people". Hey, kind of fits my signature below doesn't it?

iNow, It seems that people are under the assumption that I am a christian. Why? Have I said anything to indicate I have a religious preference? As I have stated previously, I consider myself an agnostic and have no clue as to what characteristics a creator may have. So yes I see all the Gods of mythology, past and present, the same. But it doesn't mean the general principle of a creator is void as well. It's funny that initial creation of matter is the same. Supposedly there was an initial singularity. Well explain what happened and how? Or is it that creation doesn't matter because the answer has eluded all scientific testing or falsifiability? That's a perfect reason to suspect a creator. It is physically impossible for a singularity to initiate an action. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is either something beyond substance or never was a beginning to substance. Moontanman, Why don't you try reading what I say twice there dude, because you're obviously not getting it with the first try. My reference was that there is either a creator or no singularity, not just that there was no singularity. I said it wasn't possible for a singularity to initiate action. Therefore either there was something besides the singularity (which would make it not a singularity) or something acted upon it to get the reaction we know as the Big Bang. This is where a creator is plausible to me, because we can figure events down to a singularity but there is no way one could initiate action. Something had to. Mooey, All still substantive. What I mean by substance is everything physical, whether it be mass, measured, or observed. Everything physics has provided us so far. My explanation is true to me until someone punches it full of holes. Here you claim that *you* can't explain it but yet you dismiss my explanation so readily. I already did that. That's why I wrote that sentence in the first place. If mass, energy, existance itself exists, then what made that existance, and what made that, and what made that, etc... You see this could be applied to substance (physical existance) as well as a creator. What scientific explanations have I not accepted? What scientific explanations have been offered? I don't recall any. I have. Physical reality had to have come from somewhere, and created somehow, right? How was it made and where did it come from from? How did it come about to exist? These are some of the questions I've been asking myself over recent years. My stance comes from the mmost common reply I've gotten about everything stemming from a singularity and subsequential event after. An event stemming from a singularity just doesn't make sense to me. Some sort of creator acting on a singularity makes more sense than the singularity acting on itself, because if a singularity is all there was then there could not have been any action in the first place. My theory pretty much coinsides with the general consensus on the BB. Except where a singularity is conscerned. Physics breaks down and doesn't mean spit where the singularity is conscerned. No time,space, or movement. Just a single mass. Isn't that wierd to anybody? That everything we know to be true and everything we use to observe and measure the universe around us wasn't always that way? Anyway, my conjecture still stands that nothing can come from a singularity when that singularity is all that exists.(supposedly) If someone would like to explain how it can I would be more than willing to listen. I know it is not likely to be proven any time soon, if ever, and that is why I label myself agnostic. I don't know why I keep getting the feeling that people are assuming that I believe in a christian God or am religious in any way. Maybe it's because of the title of the thread and I'm arguing for the existance of a creator. I don't know (by the way, that's my favorite emoticon.) iNow, Sorry, I must have been typing when you posted this. I can understand where you're coming from here, but without some form of infinate creator there would never have been a beginning to substance. Unless you can consider substance to be infinite. I can't wrap my brain around substance creating substance and so forth. It justt seems that if there is an initial creation then it would have to come from something unsubstantive. If that makes any sense, it's hard to explain in any sensical way.

Redistribute how? It's not like the moisture will build up and pool in the bottom, especially in the amount of time the kids leave to when they eat lunch. Without air and at room temperature the fries should retain their moisture. Without evaporation or condensation moisture should not pool inside the package, not to mention a vacuumed package would give no excess room for anything to pool. I could see this if the vacuum was strong enough, but a vacuum sealer from the grocery store is only made to pull the air out. Not to provide a strong vacuum. Check this out: It shows just how strong a vacuum can actually get. Plus it's cooler than hell. I never said it didn't and I agree with this. I was meaning to imply the pressure of the steam off of the boiling water I believe. I could agree with this too now that I think about it. The pressure caused by the steam expanding in the package, etc...Once the package cooled again the vapor would condense to liquid form and poof, soggy fries. (poor kids)

mooey, Not intentionally. Without God there is nothing else but substance, so there is no choice but for the comparison. Exactly. Try to explain how they got here in the first place. You can breeak it down, little by little, but the only thing you can break it down into is a singularity. Using my backwoods run of the mill moronic logic, a singularity can't be active. Therefore it is just as logical to assume a creator over substance as it is to assume substance over creation. The comparison stands true when the subject is about it's creation. How did that singularity come to exist? If there was an initial singularity, then how was there ever a first action to inact creation? Do singularities just act on their own? Who said anything about the big bang? Is that where you're view of creation starts? Because I have it on good authority that the big bang was a reaction. Most reactions have to come from an initial action, implying that there was some sort of existance before. Sound plausible? Who said anything about the christian bible? I don't recall saying it, although I would concede that this topic is titled "Christian Evidence" and believe any gaps in the christian bible would be at least a little at home here, barring people ignore the EVIDENCE part of the title. Moontan said I had gaps in my beliefs of creation and I begged to differ. Where are my gaps? I never insinuated having beliefs in the christian bible. If that was the assumption, then it came from somewhere else besides me. Finally, show me where science differs and offers an alternative scenario for the beginning creation event. Are you sure that you are responding to me? Maybe you can tell me where I have said anything in this thread that science contradicts. Moontan, Please elaborate. Dishonest by what means? Vacuous by what means? My reply may have been simple, but it doesn't mean I am not willing to elaborate or justify my reasoning. I gave a cut and dry reason for belief in a creator and you make a bald statement without clariffication. Where does my reasoning have faults? How does science contradict? iNow, You seem to be under the assumption that just because something can't be proven to exist that it doesn't matter and shouldn't be believed. If it is good enough to have a conversation about then I believe it should at least be taken into consideration. Even if it has no bearing on reality. I was raised to believe that God exists. I grew older questioning that existance and came to a conclusion of agnostisism. Until someone can provide another means to prove my beliefs wrong I'm stickin'. Maybe they just haven't found a scientific way to study the invisible dragon yet. It seems like alot of things are disbelieved before they are proven. It didn't mean that they didn't exist and it was probably a good thing that people didn't write those things off as irrelevant. Maybe they did at the time and we could have had advancements alot sooner than we did. So just because there is no evidence at the time doesn't mean that there never will be. I'm curious...why do you think my belief on a creator is wrong from a scientific stand point? Is it logical to assume that the initial inactment of the universe couldn't have come from a singularity? If not why do you think I'm wrong?

John, Yes, all of which could be applied in reverse.There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. What created anything? I think it's funny that a creator is so vehimently denied but the creation abounding from a singularity is more acceptable among those same circles. Is it logical to assume that a singularity can have a reaction? A reaction that brought on a set determinism that athiests claim is all there is? To me it is not logical at all. You have to wonder about material's creation much in the same light as you question God's creation. One makes just about as much sense as the other, doesn't it? And even though the topic is based around a religious platform doesn't mean that it can't be understood to be the philosophy of creation. (this last one is just for the sake of argument, it can be ignored)

I agree that there really hasn't been any genuine support for the siphoning case either. I was mildly entertaining the idea for the simple fact that some funny s**t happened to me not too long ago. We were in the process of filling a holding pond with water when the discharge side of our pipe broke off at the pump. It was toward the end of the day so we decided to knock off for the day while our pipe drained to allow us to fix it. We didn't even think about the end of the pipe being submerged in the pond causing a siphoning effect. By the time we got back, we had all but drained a 5 acre, 15 foot deep pond. The explanation for that one didn't go over to well.

This wouldn't work the same way. Vacuum wrapping cellophane isn't like creating a vacuum in a container of water that still has an open portion above the water to allow a low pressure evaporation. Not to mention you're talking about things that deal with a greater amount of moisture. With freeze-dried foods, come on man, have you even looked at the process of freeze drying foods? I doub't it vacuum sealed cellophane for warm chicken nuggets is involved.As a matter of fact: Freeze-drying (also known as lyophilisation, lyophilization or cryodesiccation) is a dehydration process typically used to preserve a perishable material or make the material more convenient for transport. Freeze-drying works by freezing the material and then reducing the surrounding pressure to allow the frozen water in the material to sublimate directly from the solid phase to the gas phase. This doesn't apply either. In this scenario, you're heating water to a boiling point to force steam out of a pipe. The process of boiling the water creates it's own gas in the form of water vapor. Which if I'm not mistaken has oxygen in it. Hmmm. We're looking for moist not soggy for our kids chicken nuggets (we can't have them eating soggy nuggets:) ) and I believe a vacuum wrapped cellophane is an easy, inexpensive fix to the problem.

Too true. I don't agree with him or his message. I think he has stated some truths, but like everyone says, the best lies have a little truth to them. But all in all, he did find a nerve to strike and turned it into a money making venture, which entitles him to do whatever he wants with the money he makes. Color me paranoid, but I just wish he will still be around to feel the repricussions that his "movement" will result in, but that is probably asking too much.

To put it bluntly...YES. And to reduce their importance to being a mere attack dog/lap dog (as I know some would like to put it) is a wild understatement. To have a solid ally in one of the most unstable regions in the world is a huge asset. Not to mention you're assessment is inacurate as well as leaning toward conspiratorial. Israel can attack those who they deem a threat to their immediate security. They don't need the "go ahead" from the US or anybody else for that matter. All they need is a suspicion beyond a reasonable doubt and the rest of the world can either put up or shut up. I also don't know where people get that Israel can't defend themselves without the help of the US either. With as many nuc's as they have I think they are more than capable of holding their own when the chips are down. Errant is the key word in your statement. Iran errs and doesn't expect retaliation? Seems kind of ignorant to me, but I guess each is to their own huh? The fact is that you have the situation confused a little bit. We are not trying to get Iran to conform to our views so much as make damn sure they aren't planning to do nothing stupid like carry out any of their past threats. Like wiping Israel off the map, and cleansing the region of it's people. I think we learned that lesson with the holocaust and don't intend for it to happen again. I just wish we weren't so one sided about things like that. We preach for peace and human rights in one part of the world while totally ignoring other parts such as the Congo. And it's even on the same continent as our current preachings have been directed. I guess it's all in the value the land has to offer huh? Something to think about anyway.

i've just read some of the most ignorant things i think i've ever read before. Israel is an asset for the US and i don't see where there could be any controversy about it. As crazy as the Iranìan president has been, I don't think he could be trusted with his own pecker in his hand. Let alone a button to push and play destroyer. Not to mention a majority of American's back the Jewish faith as a foundation to their own. Where the Hell does the rest of the world see this going?

i think you are mistaken. I said nothing about any gaps. Who made god, etc. . . Same thing applies to material substance. There could never have been a singularity. If so then there couldn't have been an initial action to start this observable determinism that we see unfolding before us at present. Like i said, i don't know if a creator has any definite characteristics, but there could never have been a material singularity that could have started motion forward. So therefore i have faith. There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

Has no one used the definition I have heard alot on this forum before: Time is that which a clock measures. Measures is the key word in that definition. It is the measurement of movement of an object from one point in space to another relative to a constant. The constant we use is the speed of light. Time is not a physical property, so a "measurement" is about as close as you're going to get to any inlightenment on the definition of time. The best and simplest explanation for why space and time are connected I actually heard on a t.v. show. They said if I asked you to meet me at 2 o'clock, you would have to ask where. And if I asked you to meet me at a certain place, you would have to ask when. This is why we use the term spacetime. This is why you can't have one without the other. And isn't it ironic how neither are physical properties, but instead measurements. Well there is some debate of space being a physical property, but I think that might be better in another thread. Just figured I would ramble some of bordome out.

Okay, explain where science debunks a creator. I don't use science to confirm my religious beliefs. (if you could call it that) Once science debunks the notion of a creator and comes up with a solid explanation for creation then I will humbley except that explanation. I don't recall ever explaining anything with magic nor do I think it would be logical to do so. But I also don't understand the contempt that alot of non-believers show toward such beliefs. It makes no sense that they argue against something that they cannot prove just as much as believers argue for something that they inturn cannot prove. Kind of puts them in the same boat as far as I can see.

There's nothing like good ole blind tollerant indifference. That's great, but I wouldn't suggest the second video on that site. My tollerant indifference turned to selfrighteous indignation rather quickly. And that had nothing to do with the content of his words either. Maybe it was those super awesome gloves.

Juicy, Somehow placebo doesn't fit the description. Fulfillment of any kind is always just a perception no matter what the source. But that perception can have a possitive affect on a person's view on life and how to handle obstacles in that life. Not to mention it may inspire some to do great things. And I suppose there are no bad athiests? So that's a good enough reason to give up all others? I say if it works... why not? More valuable to who? And how are they more valuable? Where is the difference in value? It seems to me that it does everyday. Just because you view them as false hopes and fairytails doesn't mean the next person does. You're trying to express you're view point like it is the only one that matters, while others clearly don't feel the same way. Another person's fulfillment from those "false hopes" and "fairytales" is perceived to be just as real to them as any fulfillment you enjoy out of reality. If I'm wrong, tell me how it does not. iNow, Of course not. I never meant to imply that you can only gain such awe struck moments by having faith in some higher being. I just wondered if a non-believer ever felt the same sentiments about the wonders and mysteries of the world. I also wonder why so many people feel the need to put down something that inspires people in a possitive way like religion does for many. As I've stated in the past, I'm an agnostic. I have faith that there is a creator of sorts. I don't know what form or even if there would be any defining characteristics to such a creator, but nevertheless still have faith that this life is not the end of the road. And if it is...then I won't care after it's said and done with, will I? I've read alot of people's reasoning for being athiest and understand why they feel that way. To most it is either illogical, irrelevant or both to believe in a creator. To me it is illogical not to believe in one because of the very nature of the words creation, existance, reality, etc... I could go on and on. Nothing just happens. The dominos didn't JUST start tumbling. Everywhere we look we can observe a reaction, and those reaction had to have an initial action. You always hear people say "If God created us, then who created God, and so on and so on", but that applies not just to dieties but to substance also. There could never have been a singularity because then there would never have been an initial action to kick things off into the domino effect we see today. Just some musings. Feel free to run with them.

Sorry to get off topic, but the talk about symmetry made me think of something I once learned in psych class. Did you know that the human face is not symmetric? If you take a picture of someone smiling and covered half of their face, one half would look indifferent or bland. Just thought I'd throw that out there even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. It could be women have two breasts because...well...a child feeding off of one would be awfully painfull. Maybe the reason for the second is to give the first a break. Just sayin'.

Sorry dude, I still don't see any connection between weather and caldera activity. What effects can weather have on a caldera? It's not like a lightning strike to Mt. St Helens will set off an eruption, or a solar flare for that matter either. From what I've heard is that the yellowstone caldera erupts roughly every 600,000 years or so. Times up! May be an explanation for the recent uprise in activity.

rocksolid, They sell vacuum sealers for cellophane packaging at the grocery store. I'm pretty sure that will fix your problem.

Captain, The principle is still the same. Evaporate into what? There is nothing to evaporate into once the package is vacuum sealed. Are you kidding me? You're telling me that a vacuum sealed package can still allow condensation? You're telling me that you can still have condensation without air? Prove it. Things can still contain moisture without being soggy. I contend that it was a buildup of moisture on the inside of the package due to condensation caused by the difference in temperature between the heat of the fries and the coolness of the air inside the package. The steam off of the fries condensated inside the package to soak the outside of the fries, inturn making them soggy. Condensation is the reverse of vaporisation. To pull water vapor out of the air, you need air in the first place. Once a package is vacuum sealed there is no air for water to be pulled out of. If there is a different new cool way that water vapor acts please provide me with some linkable proof.

iNow, You make it sound like there is no fulfillment to be had by faith. There is something to be said about a persons general attitude towards life and death with someone who possesses a certain amount of faith in the here-after. Is it so hard to believe that people can recieve a level of hope that may inspire good will towards others provided by that faith? Sure a lot of folks would say false hope, but that doesn't change the fact that hope still remains. There has been alot of good come out of people's "dedication to absurdity". A question I've wanted to ask is, do people who don't possess any kind of faith or belief in the supernatural still have moments of awe and inspiration as great as those who do possess faith? It seems without some sort of hope or faith for something greater, that there would be some kind of void in a persons life. That is the way it seems to me anyway. Is logic really a substantial substitute for such fulfillment in life? And if so, why?

How will the loss of weight eventually effect the earth/moon relationship? I'd hate for the two to meet.

After all the posts in this thread no one has seemed to answer the question yet. The clear answer would be yes. If you vacuumed out all of the air the food inside would not get soggy because there would be no air allowing condensation in the first place. It takes air to condensate, does it not? Warm air mixes with cold air and moisture in the air...blah,blah,blah... Get it? It takes air to condensate. If you vacuum out the air what is left to condensate? edit: to note the sarcasm was not meant toward the OP. It's incredible that such a simple question can be walked around so emphatically. Even questioning a persons parenting skills because they feed their kids chicken nuggets? WTF? Come on people. Just sayin'.