subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution."

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on
Vortex...




 Who makes crop circles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle



 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand
 years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and
 a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Lennart Thornros

sorry the whole biblical stuff does bot belong here.
everybody is entitled to their own believe. Why do we want to find out who
is right?
Live by your believes and let others live by theirs -  end of story.
Tired of the biblical or Islamic or Buddha ways of thinking.
Tell you what you are all wrong in the right way. All religions end up at
the same place.
Stop.religion - just stop. All of you. Please.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

 ***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on
 Vortex...




 Who makes crop circles?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle



 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a
 thousand years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years,
 and a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread David Roberson


You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful scientific 
manner.   All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is 
not a constructive way to discuss issues.  I am sorry but I will not be able to 
respond to your inputs without more detailed information.

Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the other 
theories concerning time and space are wrong.  New concepts are proposed 
frequently and they must eventually stand on their own.   That is the only 
proof that can be demonstrated.

Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future.  They 
achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of communications.
 
Dave
 
-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.







On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Kevin,
 
Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began

***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence.  It is you who has a fixed 
concept of how the universe began.  


 

 and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. 

***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , 
unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever.  


 

 The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open 
discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that 
event.  It was just rhetorical.

***It was stupid.  And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that 
upfront rather than go into insult mode.  


 

 
How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? 

Why don't you just start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need 
proof, provide proof of your supposition.   You won't because you can't.  


 

 Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. 

***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous 
biblical references.  


 

 If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open 
mind. 

***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word 
if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it 
was just a rhetorical question.  Your mind is closed.  


 

 Is it your intent to stop creative thought?

***Is it yours?  Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at 
the same time denigrate biblical evidence?  Because your mind is closed, not 
open.

 

 
Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 
13+ billion years ago.  

***Start with the wikipedia article.  Try to learn something.  


 

The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to 
correction.  Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating.

***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the 
range of time over the years.   Tell them they're merely speculating, and that 
unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect.  Good luck with that.  


 
Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event 
horizons?  

***A little bit.  Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to 
backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks 
about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe.  


 

Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as 
great  as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a 
standstill.  

***No, they are not.  They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to 
a standstill.  


 

On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe 
to reach that threshold?   

***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing.  And other cosmologists.


 

Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction.

***Perhaps you should.  


 

 
Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary?  

***This has no bearing on the discussion.  You're just fishing because you're 
all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is 
proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot.  That's a  lot of 
close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an opposite manner.  

 

 Please show me a sound basis for this belief

***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see.  

 

 and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean that 
it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. 

***Interesting postulation.  But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, 
so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists that have 
figured out through various

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Who are you to say it does not belong?  Perhaps you would throw out all of
historicity of the bible, even on mundane events?  You'd throw out ALL of
reliable history when you do so, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How incredibly close minded for such an open minded group.  I see you don't
key up on the other (far less historical) religions.  Your antichristian
bigotry is as ugly as anything ever witnessed on Vortex, and your attempt
at censorship highlights your soul's breach.


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com
wrote:

 sorry the whole biblical stuff does bot belong here.
 everybody is entitled to their own believe. Why do we want to find out who
 is right?
 Live by your believes and let others live by theirs -  end of story.
 Tired of the biblical or Islamic or Buddha ways of thinking.
 Tell you what you are all wrong in the right way. All religions end up at
 the same place.
 Stop.religion - just stop. All of you. Please.


 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
 commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

 ***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on
 Vortex...




 Who makes crop circles?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle



 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a
 thousand years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time
 and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant
 of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand
 years, and a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 1:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful
 scientific manner.

***Well, maybe if any of your questions were posed in a useful scientific
manner, they'd get answered.  You didn't even read the wikipedia article,
did you?




 All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is not a
 constructive way to discuss issues.  I am sorry but I will not be able to
 respond to your inputs without more detailed information.

***That wikipedia article offers far more detail than your ridiculous
placement of if in front of scientifically invalid presumptions.


 Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the
 other theories concerning time and space are wrong.  New concepts are
 proposed frequently and they must eventually stand on their own.   That is
 the only proof that can be demonstrated.

***There's nothing new about your proposal that the universe is infinitely
old.  Your postulation has been demonstrated to be wrong, time and again,
by the weight of the evidence.


 Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future.

***Dude.  Look through my posts.  I rarely start with the insults, unless
it's an easy target like Lennart.  In this thread YOU started with the
insults.  Can't take the heat, huh?



 They achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of
 communications.

***Then why did you start?


 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.




 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Kevin,

 Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began

 ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence.  It is you who has a
 fixed concept of how the universe began.



  and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas.

 ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous ,
 unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed
 forever.



  The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to
 open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time
 before that event.  It was just rhetorical.

 ***It was stupid.  And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that
 upfront rather than go into insult mode.




 How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing
 forever?

  Why don't you just start here
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
  and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you
 need proof, provide proof of your supposition.   You won't because you
 can't.




  Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of
 that.

 ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its
 dangerous biblical references.



  If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an
 open mind.

 ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the
 word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on
 claiming it was just a rhetorical question.  Your mind is closed.



  Is it your intent to stop creative thought?

 ***Is it yours?  Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then
 at the same time denigrate biblical evidence?  Because your mind is closed,
 not open.



 Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began
 approximately 13+ billion years ago.

 ***Start with the wikipedia article.  Try to learn something.



 The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to
 correction.  Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely
 speculating.

 ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed
 down the range of time over the years.   Tell them they're merely
 speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are
 incorrect.  Good luck with that.


 Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole
 event horizons?

 ***A little bit.  Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you
 going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science
 that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old
 universe.



 Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near
 as great  as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a
 standstill.

 ***No, they are not.  They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing
 it to a standstill.



  On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the
 universe to reach that threshold?

 ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing.  And other cosmologists.



 Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction.

 ***Perhaps you should.




 Do you consider the universe to be contained within some

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Alan Fletcher



At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:
ï»¿ 
The answer to this question is 100
million.
That was a very good answer (based on the available
sources.)

RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned
upon.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA

 

My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Lennart Thornros

Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not worth
the paper it is written on (Not).
I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am
not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several:
1. You are not qualified.
2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and
there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless.
(They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am.
At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value - in
my opinion.
Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is
you.
You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to
insult are not even hitting in the right county.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:

 ï»¿
 The answer to this question is 100 million.


 That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Bob Cook

Dave--


As seems to be the case frequently,  I tend to agree with you sentiment that 
Vortex invites fresh ideas about nature, not the nature of people,  however.  
As a result I do not consider comments regarding individuals participating in 
Vortex and do not respond.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: David Roberson
 ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎30‎, ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎05‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful scientific 
manner.   All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is 
not a constructive way to discuss issues.  I am sorry but I will not be able to 
respond to your inputs without more detailed information.

 

Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the other 
theories concerning time and space are wrong.  New concepts are proposed 
frequently and they must eventually stand on their own.   That is the only 
proof that can be demonstrated.

 

Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future.  They 
achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of communications.

 

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.








On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Kevin,

 

Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began

***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence.  It is you who has a fixed 
concept of how the universe began.  



 


and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. 

***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , 
unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever.  



 


The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open 
discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that 
event.  It was just rhetorical.

***It was stupid.  And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that 
upfront rather than go into insult mode.  



 


 

How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? 


Why don't you just start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need 
proof, provide proof of your supposition.   You won't because you can't.  


 

Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. 

***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous 
biblical references.  



 


If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open 
mind. 

***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word 
if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it 
was just a rhetorical question.  Your mind is closed.  



 


Is it your intent to stop creative thought?

***Is it yours?  Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at 
the same time denigrate biblical evidence?  Because your mind is closed, not 
open.


 


 

Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 
13+ billion years ago.  

***Start with the wikipedia article.  Try to learn something.  



 


The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to 
correction.  Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating.

***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the 
range of time over the years.   Tell them they're merely speculating, and that 
unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect.  Good luck with that.  



 

Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event 
horizons?  

***A little bit.  Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to 
backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks 
about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe.  



 


Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as 
great  as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a 
standstill.  

***No, they are not.  They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to 
a standstill.  



 


On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe 
to reach that threshold?   

***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing.  And other cosmologists.



 


Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction.

***Perhaps you should.  



 


 

Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary?  

***This has no bearing on the discussion.  You're just fishing because you're 
all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is 
proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot.  That's a  lot of 
close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Alan Fletcher



At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:
Thus, Angels are in
fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our
dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension

So far, so good.
and can occupy the
same space at the same time in our dimension.
That's not clear at all. 
First, God (I'll capitalize it as a proper noun) is described (not in the
bible) as omnipitent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere, presumably
at the same time), and eternal.
But eternal means that he lasts for ever, not that he can
move backwards and forwards in time.
Your statement about angel's habitation implies that they
exist in a finite volume of n-space and, like God, move only forward in
time. Likewise, their penetration into a volume of our 3-space is a
finite 3-space volume. Therefore your argument that they take up a zero
3-space volume is invalid (or 2-space, if we restrict the solution to the
surface of the head of a pin). It may be at the planck scale, but it's
still a volume or area.
I do agree that the finite number of angels (100+ million) provides a
practical upper limit. For example, we could say (and I'm picking
these numbers out of the air), that 100 Billion people could stand in a
thousand-square mile area -- but the actual number is limited by the
world's population.
I see no evidence that angels, NOT being omnipresent, can occupy the same
volume of n-space, so the exclusion principal applies: they must occupy
separate volumes in n-space and, as a sub-set, in 3-space.
Next, we come to standing or dancing. The Bible has nothing to say about
whether heavenly beings dance or not, but some human dancing is endorsed
(and some is declaimed.). But I cannot conceive of a heaven filled with
the sound of musical instruments, and the listeners of that
celestial movement being required to stand still.
In any case, you argue that the 3-D size of an angel is vanishingly
small. It will most likely also be subject to a N-dimensional Heisenberg
uncertainty principal. By setting their velocity to zero (no dancing) you
set the uncertainty of their position to infinity, so you can no longer
claim with certainty that they are ON the head of the pin.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Jojo Iznart

 at the 
Planck size.  Hence, it would make sense that the smallest manifestation they 
can have would be the Planck size.

Hence, even if Angels can not occupy the same space and time as I originally 
speculated, they can still be as small as the Planck size, hence 100 million of 
them would still fit on the head of a pin.

Regarding dancing, I was referring to carnal dancing that our generation 
indulges in.  Angels have no need nor desire to engage in carnal dancing, (at 
least the non-fallen ones).



Jojo






- Original Message - 
  From: Alan Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:


Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures.  They can come and go 
into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension 

  So far, so good.


and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension.

  That's not clear at all. 

  First, God (I'll capitalize it as a proper noun) is described (not in the 
bible) as omnipitent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere, presumably at the 
same time), and eternal.

  But eternal means that he lasts for ever, not that he can move backwards 
and forwards in time.

  Your statement about angel's habitation implies that they exist in a finite 
volume of n-space and, like God, move only forward in time. Likewise, their 
penetration into a volume of our 3-space is a finite 3-space volume. Therefore 
your argument that they take up a zero 3-space volume is invalid (or 2-space, 
if we restrict the solution to the surface of the head of a pin). It may be at 
the planck scale, but it's still a volume or area.

  I do agree that the finite number of angels (100+ million) provides a 
practical upper limit.  For example, we could say (and I'm picking these 
numbers out of the air), that 100 Billion people could stand in a 
thousand-square mile area -- but the actual number is limited by the world's 
population.

  I see no evidence that angels, NOT being omnipresent, can occupy the same 
volume of n-space, so the exclusion principal applies: they must occupy 
separate volumes in n-space and, as a sub-set, in 3-space.

  Next, we come to standing or dancing. The Bible has nothing to say about 
whether heavenly beings dance or not, but some human dancing is endorsed (and 
some is declaimed.). But I cannot conceive of a heaven filled with the sound of 
musical instruments, and the  listeners of that celestial movement being 
required to stand still.

  In any case, you argue that the 3-D size of an angel is vanishingly small. It 
will most likely also be subject to a N-dimensional Heisenberg uncertainty 
principal. By setting their velocity to zero (no dancing) you set the 
uncertainty of their position to infinity, so you can no longer claim with 
certainty that they are ON the head of the pin.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Jojo Iznart

My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are 
missing out on a lot of things.

We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation.  We debate arcane subject matters 
like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, 
analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises.  And I 
think you do to.

The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ.  So, imagine an 
existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable 
riches of Christ for eternity.  You will never finish searching everything 
there is to know.  To me, that would be an enjoyable existence.  One will not 
have time to dance, nor would one want to.  So, dancing would be the last thing 
you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise 
and singing to worship God.  I am not referring to that; I am referring to 
carnal sexual dancing we indulge in.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:55 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned upon.

   

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA

   

  My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable.

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Neither would I, especially since God commands us to dance with joy before
Him.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+verse+%22dance+before+the+lord%22oq=bible+verse+%22dance+before+the+lord%22gs_l=serp.3..0i22i30.18129.22824.0.23022.25.22.1.0.0.0.185.2078.17j5.22.00...1c.1.52.serp..3.22.1984.XWyRUcZ51Y8


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned
 upon.



 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA



 My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Lennart:

Trying to weed out religion would whittle down Vortex to about 3 members.
Because secular humanism is a religion.  Atheism is a religion.  Scientism
is a religion.  Heck, one of my favorite cold fusioneers sued the US Patent
Office because he believed in cold fusion, like as in a religion.

http://etheric.com/LaViolette/EEOC.html

Best of luck with all 3 of those vorts who have zero religion.


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com
wrote:

 Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not
 worth the paper it is written on (Not).
 I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am
 not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several:
 1. You are not qualified.
 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and
 there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless.
 (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am.
 At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value -
 in my opinion.
 Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is
 you.
 You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to
 insult are not even hitting in the right county.

 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
 commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


 On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:

 ï»¿
 The answer to this question is 100 million.


 That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-30 Thread Lennart Thornros

OK Kevin I understand you can read but you do not understand full
sentences.
I do not want to eliminate anyone.
I do not want to discuss religion with you or others at Vortex.
I am not going to take your advice as I am already old enough to have an
established opinion.



Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Lennart:

 Trying to weed out religion would whittle down Vortex to about 3 members.
 Because secular humanism is a religion.  Atheism is a religion.  Scientism
 is a religion.  Heck, one of my favorite cold fusioneers sued the US Patent
 Office because he believed in cold fusion, like as in a religion.

 http://etheric.com/LaViolette/EEOC.html

 Best of luck with all 3 of those vorts who have zero religion.


 On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com
 wrote:

 Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not
 worth the paper it is written on (Not).
 I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am
 not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several:
 1. You are not qualified.
 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and
 there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless.
 (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am.
 At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value -
 in my opinion.
 Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is
 you.
 You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to
 insult are not even hitting in the right county.

 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
 commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


 On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:

 ï»¿
 The answer to this question is 100 million.


 That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side.
***You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And you're stlll
unclear.

Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you.
Sunil:
An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather
prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system?
***Those are not examples. They're not even worth laughing at. Anyone can
submit a CONCEPT with a question mark. You're not even clear enough to
submit simple EXAMPLEs. The rest of your writing is a set of examples of
the classic fallacy of obfuscation. Until you can avoid classic critical
reasoning fallacies and present simple examples, your writing is best
avoided.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:

Hi,

sorry if I was being unclear.

Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. I am
pointing out the weakness in a calculation based on severe assumptions. I
am not trying to prove them (or you) wrong.

The prediction: Jojo said I was going to call him/her a fool and say I'll
never come back. Nobody's a fool. Btw, what is settled science?

An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather
prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system?

Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you. Why
would you want (or need) to laugh at me? I am not laughing at you, or
Huxley.

most likely doesn't mean a hunch. As with all exploratory science,
different methods are being used, so some are more right than others.
That is also the basis for saying they are using the wrong methods.

Illegitimate assumptions? I can't say (and don't need to say) they are
illegitimate, but I can emphasize that that is what they are: assumptions.

James Coppedge makes assumptions about how proteins are synthesized from
amino acids (http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm), ie, his starting
point is that it is a completely random process. Making assumptions like
that changes everything.

/Sunil

--
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:15:46 -0700

Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
From: kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:

Well, your prediction is wrong.

***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong.

Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct?

***because he worked out the math. Unlike your response.

But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question??

***The chemistry is straight forward. Coppedge worked it out to 1 in 23
trillion trillion that a polypeptide would form into an amino acid, and we
need hundreds of thousands of those for life to spontaneously arrive from
non-living tissue. That's one of the reasons why brilliant thinkers such
as Steven Hawking have turned to panspermia as the solution.

First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers
(probabilities that things will occur).

***typically those assumptions are quite conservative, such as assuming
that every molecule on earth was available during the 12 billion years in
question to help along the chemical reaction, when we all KNOW that such a
thing couldn't be the case, it would only be molecules relatively close to
the surface.

Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know.

***Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you over
your assertions?

Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about
How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely

***Most likely? MOst LIKELY? Your refutation is based on a hunch, an
OPINION? What a crock of shit.

using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism!

***Go ahead and demonstrate it.

Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life,
we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing.

***If these are illegitimate assumptions, point them out. You don't
because you can't.

They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they
correct? Try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1

***
Oops. Starting with 1/10^23 is far too generous. It’s 1/10^161.
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/creation/crea-evol.html
DeNouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of
high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He
assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material volume
equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require “10^243
billions of years.” Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it
is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed,
requiring compound probability

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.



I haven't been following this thread.
But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).
Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time
and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
properties from a finer structure). 
The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant
of this one thing, that one dayis with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's
post-creation.
The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman
Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand
years is like a day.

Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin
paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin
would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY.
He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
verified science.

Think about it.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
 thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman
 Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread ChemE Stewart

You just Unified Science and Religion!

Who makes crop circles?


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand
 years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and
 a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman
 Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do.  They are
also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting.  Once in
awhile those things need to tuned.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

 Who makes crop circles?


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand
 years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and
 a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


At 10:18 AM 8/29/2014, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light 
(the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on 
earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to 
the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, 
and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions 
of years to an observer on earth. All verified science.


Think about it.


But that's post-creation, where the deity is crossing from (let's 
call it) heaven into our space-time (earth). Is the deity omnipresent 
in terms of being everywhere at all times, or is he/she/it only at 
one place at one time, but can instantly change time and position?


My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was 
before creation. Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is 
there a metaphysics to describe it.


ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread ChemE Stewart

I haven't found any in Georgia or Alabama, are you sure?


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do.  They are
 also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting.  Once in
 awhile those things need to tuned.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

 Who makes crop circles?


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a
 thousand years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and
 space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of
 this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years,
 and a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Simple answer:  Rednecks in Georgia  Alabama aren't smart enough... or
aren't bored enough... etc.  Also, the beam weapons would be focused on
strategic locations.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:34 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I haven't found any in Georgia or Alabama, are you sure?


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do.  They are
 also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting.  Once in
 awhile those things need to tuned.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 You just Unified Science and Religion!

 Who makes crop circles?


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a
 thousand years is like a day.

 Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  I haven't been following this thread.

 But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of
 deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of
 creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with
 DNA over a coupla/few billion years.).

 Would the deity-creation rate  be femto-deities per Age? Or do time
 and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent
 properties from a finer structure).

 The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant
 of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand
 years, and a thousand years as one day.  -- but that's post-creation.

 The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a
 Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically
 unlikely.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

But that's post-creation,
***During those first 6 days of creation, it was not post-creation.  And
there's a bible verse that says something to the effect that God continues
to create, which is a good clue about why our universe is still expanding.

 where the deity is crossing from (let's call it) heaven into our
space-time (earth).
***I think a better expression is that the deity is CREATING our
space-time.

 Is the deity omnipresent in terms of being everywhere at all times,
***Probably.

or is he/she/it only at one place at one time, but can instantly change
time and position?
***Such a deity would appear omnipresent even by today's terms.  This is a
question we won't be able to answer in our lifetimes.


My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before
creation.
***Well, I answered your original question.  Now you want to expand it into
areas where I have diminishing interest.  There's basically no scientific
(and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion.

 Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is there a metaphysics to
describe it.
***There certainly isn't a metaphysics for it.  But the bible is far more
relevant to this discussion than other supposed spiritual works which
describe earthquakes as the result of elephants jumping up  down.





On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 At 10:18 AM 8/29/2014, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

  Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the
 twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the
 twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO
 WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on
 creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All
 verified science.

 Think about it.


 But that's post-creation, where the deity is crossing from (let's call it)
 heaven into our space-time (earth). Is the deity omnipresent in terms of
 being everywhere at all times, or is he/she/it only at one place at one
 time, but can instantly change time and position?

 My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before
 creation. Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is there a
 metaphysics to describe it.

 ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a
 pin?

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.




ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?


Between one and 30 vigintillion angels.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.





My question is about the metaphysics of 
where/how/what heaven was before creation.
***Well, I answered your original 
question.Â  Now you want to expand it into areas 
where I have diminishing interest.Â  There's 
basically no scientific (and probably very 
little spiritual) value in such a discussion.


Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

I doubt that.  I know there's a lot of focus on the first few seconds or
milliseconds of creation, but focusing on the universe prior to that the
level of information is asymptotic to zero.  We'll get no better than the
earth was formless and void.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



 My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was
 before creation.
 ***Well, I answered your original question.Â  Now you want to expand it
 into areas where I have diminishing interest.Â  There's basically no
 scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion.


 Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right
 now.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


At 11:28 AM 8/29/2014, you wrote:
I doubt that.Â  I know there's a lot of focus on 
the first few seconds or milliseconds of 
creation, but focusing on the universe prior to 
that the level of information is asymptotic to 
zero.Â  We'll get no better than the earth was formless and void.Â


Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2014/04/03/gravitational-waves-reveal-the-universe-before-the-big-bang-an-interview-with-physicist-gabriele-veneziano/

What Came Before the Big Bang ? | DiscoverMagazine.com
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

Before the Big Bang ? - The Official String Theory Web Site
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

... etc etc ...

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread David Roberson


Lets call time before the big bang as BBB.  So what was around 1 billion years 
BBB?
 
If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever then there would be 
plenty of time for life to develop during the past.  There is sufficient 
evidence that everything we see today was produced during and after the assumed 
big bang, but what if time itself was slowed down at the initialization of the 
big bang such that an infinite amount of it has passed since that zero point.

Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd 
billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong?  According to relativity, 
immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time passage and it is 
difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the initial big 
bang mass of the entire known universe.

So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is no 
concern about how long it might take life to take form.  There is also no need 
to be concerned about what was before the big band since that was an infinite 
amount of time ago.  In this scenario we take advantage of the behavior of 
infinite processes.

To expand on this idea.  Perhaps the present assumption of a period of 
universal inflation is really just a patch to make the time frames fit into our 
best guess for the age of the universe.   Our perception of the rate at which 
time passes is established by the world around us and ensures that we will find 
it difficult to imagine a universe of infinite time duration.  The same can be 
said of our perception of an infinite space.  With the proposition I am 
outlining above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and can 
fit into our observations.

I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so simple, 
and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.




My question is about the metaphysics of 
where/how/what heaven was before creation.
***Well, I answered your original 
question.Â  Now you want to expand it into areas 
where I have diminishing interest.Â  There's 
basically no scientific (and probably very 
little spiritual) value in such a discussion.

Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.



At 01:17 PM 8/29/2014, David Roberson wrote:
Lets
call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion
years BBB?

Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+
odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? According
to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time
passage and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than
that of the initial big bang mass of the entire known
universe.
At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140818-at-multiverse-impasse-a-new-the
ory-of-scale/

Mass and length may not be fundamental properties of nature,
according to new ideas bubbling out of the multiverse.

(I'm not sure if that article
addresses time, which may also be -- in the way WE experience it --
emergent. At the lowest level it might just be a click from
one state to another. At present the clicks are so regular that we see
them as a smooth flow. At some earlier configuration a billion of
our years could pass between clicks.)

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Lets call time before the big bang as BBB.  So what was around 1 billion
 years BBB?

***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what
happened a billion years before time was created is like asking what's the
difference between a duck?  It is useless.  Like I said, diminishing
returns.






 If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever

***This ain't scientific inquiry any more.  If we choose to believe
that unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists.




 then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past.
 There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced
 during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed
 down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of
 it has passed since that zero point.

***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here,
we're all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity.  Maybe it's
fun for you to think like that but it is a waste of time.  Like I said,
diminishing returns.



 Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd
 billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong?

***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion
years.



 According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of
 time passage

***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of
time passage.  The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near
close enough to stop it.



 and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the
 initial big bang mass of the entire known universe.

***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into
existence, as He has claimed to do.



 So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is
 no concern about how long it might take life to take form.

***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think
this way.  And a waste of time.  BTW, you're still arguing on this side of
the big bang, not a billion years before it.



   There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band
 since that was an infinite amount of time ago.  In this scenario we take
 advantage of the behavior of infinite processes.

***Then why did you bring it up earlier?




 To expand on this idea.  Perhaps the present assumption of a period of
 universal inflation is really just

***really just a buncha baloney.




 a patch to make the time frames fit into our best guess for the age of the
 universe.   Our perception of the rate at which time passes is established
 by the world around us and ensures that we will find it difficult to
 imagine a universe of infinite time duration.  The same can be said of our
 perception of an infinite space.  With the proposition I am outlining
 above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and can fit
 into our observations.

***But they DON'T fit into our observations.



 I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so
 simple, and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking.

***Of COURSE you consider it open minded thinking.   And no doubt you'd
consider other options to be closed minded thinking.  That's because you
disagree with the end result.


 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


 
 My question is about the metaphysics of
 where/how/what heaven was before creation.
 ***Well, I answered your original
 question.Â  Now you want to expand it into areas
 where I have diminishing interest.Â  There's
 basically no scientific (and probably very
 little spiritual) value in such a discussion.

 Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread H Veeder

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


  ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a
 pin?


 Between one and 30 vigintillion angels.
 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576



about the origin of that question:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin

Harry

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread David Roberson


Kevin,
 
Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began and have a 
difficult time relating to flexible ideas.  The reason I asked about 1 billion 
years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing 
our understanding of time before that event.  It was just rhetorical.
 
How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever?  
Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that.  If 
you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open 
mind.  Is it your intent to stop creative thought?

Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 
13+ billion years ago.  The measurements that have been conducted are 
continually subject to correction.  Unless God speaks directly to you then you 
are merely speculating.

Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event 
horizons?  Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere 
near as great  as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to 
a standstill.  On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass 
within the universe to reach that threshold?   Perhaps you should review your 
statement and offer correction.

Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary?   
Please show me a sound basis for this belief and just because we can not see 
beyond a certain distance does not mean that it doesn't exist outside of our 
viewpoint.   I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner.  Why 
limit it to some well defined starting point just because we can not prove so 
far that it exists prior to that point.  Unfortunately we are quite limited in 
our ability to understand the true nature of the universe.

I appreciate people that want to contribute to the discussions but when someone 
comes forward with an attitude of ridicule, it is preferable that they keep 
their negative thoughts to themselves.   Your comments typically fall into that 
negative category.  Try to look at the positive aspects of issues and most of 
us will respond in a like manner.

Dave


 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.



On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Lets call time before the big bang as BBB.  So what was around 1 billion years 
BBB?

***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what happened a 
billion years before time was created is like asking what's the difference 
between a duck?  It is useless.  Like I said, diminishing returns.  




 

 
If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever

***This ain't scientific inquiry any more.  If we choose to believe  that 
unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists.



 

 then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past.  There 
is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced during and 
after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed down at the 
initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of it has passed 
since that zero point.

***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here, we're 
all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity.  Maybe it's fun for you 
to think like that but it is a waste of time.  Like I said, diminishing 
returns.  

 


 
Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd 
billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? 

***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion years.


 

 According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of 
time passage 

***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of time 
passage.  The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near close 
enough to stop it.  


 

and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the 
initial big bang mass of the entire known universe.

***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into 
existence, as He has claimed to do.  
  


 
So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is no 
concern about how long it might take life to take form.

***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think this 
way.  And a waste of time.  BTW, you're still arguing on this side of the big 
bang, not a billion years before it.  


 

  There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band 
since that was an infinite amount of time ago.  In this scenario we take 
advantage of the behavior of infinite processes.

***Then why did you bring it up earlier?  

 


 
To expand on this idea.  Perhaps the present assumption of a period of 
universal inflation is really just

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread Jojo Iznart

The answer to this question is 100 million.

It may come as a surprise to many but the Bible may have an answer to this
question. I am answering this not to show how biblically knowledgeable I am,
but to show the skeptic that the Bible has many many answers to many many
difficult questions if one simply takes the time to study it and evaluate the
evidence it presents with an open mind.

To try to answer this question - the question of how many Angels can dance on
the head of a pin? I need to lay some groundwork. But before I do that, let
it be clear to everyone that Angles don't dance. That carnal behavior is
beneath them. So, the proper question is - How many Angels can stand on the
head of a pin.

1. First, let's understand that the Bible teaches that our 3.5 dimensional
world (3 space dimensions, plus 1/2 of time dimension - 1/2 because we can only
travel in that dimension 1 way - only towards the future, we can't move back in
time.) - that our 3.5 dimensional world is but a part of a reality that is
composed of maybe up to 10 dimensions. Paul talks of being taken to the third
heaven - this is another place of existence inaccesible to us mortals.
Maimonides, an ancient Jewish Scholar, believed that we live in a
10-dimensional world only 4 of which was knowable. John, when describing the
New Jerusalem, talks of the streets of being made of Pure Gold like clear
glass. How can pure gold be like clear glass other than there is another
dimension wherein this pure opaque gold exists wherein one can see thru it.
Jude, when describing angels talks of how fallen angels left their
habitation, which imply that they have another type of habitation (Body).
Jesus in his ressurection body was able to pass thru doors and appear and
disappear at will, and also float up to heaven at his ascension. Jesus at the
transfiguration was transformed to a bright and shining form of body.

Even our latest science tells the same story. There are many scholar who
believe that our reality is but a projection - a hologram, a simulation of a
larger multi-dimensional reality. Doesn't Dawkins talk of a multiverse? He is
reflecting the sentiment of many scholars, who may not necessarily, and in
fact, are not Christians. Doesn't our Latest String Theory talk of a
10-dimensional Universe?

So, the point of my first point, is that there is reason to believe from the
Bible as well as from Science that we live in a Universe which may be up to 10
dimensions.

Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go
into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension and can occupy
the same space at the same time in our dimension.

2. Second, to begin to answer how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin,
let's examine the broader question of how many Angels there are. Revelations
5.11 has this to say. As far as I know, this is the only place in the Bible
where the number of Angels is explicitly mentioned. It says 10 thousand times
10 thousands and thousands of thousands.

Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the
throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand
times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

I don't know what thousands of thousands is, but I do know that 10 thousand
times 10 thousand is 100 million. Hence, the answer to the question is 100
million Angels can fit on the head of pin. If you count fallen Angels in the
mix, the number would be 150 million because 1/3 of the Angels followed Satan
in the fall leaving behind 2/3 which is 100 million.

Jojo

- Original Message -

From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a
pin?

Between one and 30 vigintillion angels.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576

about the origin of that question:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin

Harry

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-29 Thread CB Sites

, 2014 9:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.




 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a
 pin?


 Between one and 30 vigintillion angels.
 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576



 about the origin of that question:

 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin

 Harry

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Kevin,

 Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began

***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence.  It is you who has a
fixed concept of how the universe began.



 and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas.

***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous ,
unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed
forever.



 The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open
 discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before
 that event.  It was just rhetorical.

***It was stupid.  And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that
upfront rather than go into insult mode.




 How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing
 forever?

Why don't you just start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you
need proof, provide proof of your supposition.   You won't because you
can't.




 Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that.

***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous
biblical references.



 If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an
 open mind.

***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the
word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on
claiming it was just a rhetorical question.  Your mind is closed.



 Is it your intent to stop creative thought?

***Is it yours?  Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then
at the same time denigrate biblical evidence?  Because your mind is closed,
not open.



 Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began
 approximately 13+ billion years ago.

***Start with the wikipedia article.  Try to learn something.



 The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to
 correction.  Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely
 speculating.

***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down
the range of time over the years.   Tell them they're merely speculating,
and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect.  Good luck
with that.


 Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole
 event horizons?

***A little bit.  Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you
going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science
that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old
universe.



 Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near
 as great  as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a
 standstill.

***No, they are not.  They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing
it to a standstill.



 On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the
 universe to reach that threshold?

***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing.  And other cosmologists.



 Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction.

***Perhaps you should.




 Do you consider the universe to be contained within some
 physical boundary?

***This has no bearing on the discussion.  You're just fishing because
you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your
supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot.  That's
a  lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an
opposite manner.


 Please show me a sound basis for this belief

***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see.


 and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean
 that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint.

***Interesting postulation.  But it has no bearing on the discussion at
hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists
that have figured out through various means how old the universe is.



   I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner.

***And your speculation is crap.  But in your close-mindedness, you have
raised your hackles.  If YOU are just speculating, why do you denigrate
me for what you perceive as MY speculating?  Shouldn't speculation be
wrong for both sides in a debate, or right?  In this case you're arguing
that it's okay for you but not for me.  What an INCREDIBLY closed mind.







-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

  On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
wrote:

 Lets call time before the big bang as BBB.  So what was around 1 billion
 years BBB?

***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what
happened a billion years before time was created is like asking what's the
difference between a duck

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.