It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Center of universe is us.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   


And there is no oposite of evolution.


sure there is, if things are not evolving into something better, but are losing things or becoming dumber or less adaptive, that is the opposite of what the evolution theory preaches.

EC




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



And there is no oposite of evolution.


sure there is, if things are not evolving into something better, but are losing things or becoming dumber or less adaptive, that is the opposite of what the evolution theory preaches.

EC

Sorry, I'll have to disagree. You see, evolution is not about becoming "better" or "dumber". Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle. If there's a square shape missing on the puzzle....the piece in question will eventually become that square to fit into the picture. Whether its a bad or a good piece is irrelevant.
And what do you mean "less adaptive" ? When did you see that ever happen?



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
So Plumbo,

Let me see if I have gotten you correctly. You believe some of the bible to be taken literally. You also believe some of the bible to be taken metaphorically. Those are your own words, correct?

Furthermore, you stated to me that you know I was trying to catch you in some biblical contradiction. Which I was. Just a side note, the very fact that you caught onto that indicates you realize that there is a problem. But, I am getting off of the point.

You then proceeded to say, in defense of the apparent contradiction, that you KNOW the bible has been altered and added to over time. Again, these are your own words. Being that you stated this in defense of my attempt to get you to bite on a contradiction in the bible, I developed an opinion. That opinion is that you just made an EXCUSE. An excuse for why the contradiction that I tried to catch you with, exists. To be precise, there is NO other reason why you would have brought those alterations up in the context you did unless you were providing reason for that flaw I tried to point out.

So, to better sum up your views, by your own words and admissions. You believe in some of the bible literally. You believe in some of the bible metaphorically. And finally, you believe some of the bible TO BE FLAWED due to alterations and translation errors over the years. Again, this is only by taking your own words into account.

Now, my next question for you is:

How do you decifer what is metaphorical from what is literal, from what is flawed??


Urn

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



And there is no oposite of evolution.


sure there is, if things are not evolving into something better, but are losing things or becoming dumber or less adaptive, that is the opposite of what the evolution theory preaches.

EC

huh??...that makes absolutley NO sense...
either you are truley ignorant of this subject, or you are intentionaly lying (i sncerely hope it is the former)...

since when has evolution ever picked a direction in which to travel??...

a population can, and will survive with a "percieved" genetic disadvantage, as long as there is no environmental pressure stopping those individuals from procreating, and thus spreading that "percieved" genetic disadvantage to their offspring (and therefore to the rest of the population)...

look at flightless birds for instance... they evolved that way because a "percieved" genetic disadvantage happened to occur, and there was no pressure in the environment to weed that "percieved" disadvantage out of the gene pool, therefore that "percieved" disadvantage was able to spread through the population uninhibited, due to the fact that there was no environmental pressure to stop it...
this is BASIC evolutionary biology...and i mean BASIC...
of course this is a very simplified description, but i'm sure you see the logic.

please at least read up on the topic at hand before you bust open your bible trying to refute it...

EDIT: typo


[edit on 5-8-2005 by Urn]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   


either you are truley ignorant of this subject, or you are intentionaly lying (i sncerely hope it is the former)...


dude dont sit there and tell me that I am lying, last time I checked you didnt know everything.
and no I am not ignorant of evolution, I know exactly how the theory works, where it starts and where it ends. now do I know the entire details of what goes on in the theory? no I dont knwo everything, but I know enough to know that evolution has never been observed, fossils do not count as evidence for evolution, and the only thing that we have ever observed is variations within the different kinds of animals. and the variations we see are still of the same kind of animal. you may get a big dog or a little dog, straight hair, curley hair, but you still get a dog and nothing else. Evolution is not observable. you are assuming that certain animals only evolved in certain places.


EC




EC


Urn

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
last time I checked you didnt know everything.

of course i don't know everything (i'll be the first to admit that
)....this, we can most certainly agree on...


Originally posted by Evolution CruncherI am not ignorant of evolution, I know exactly how the theory works, where it starts and where it ends.

now, i may be misinterprating what you mean by the following quote, and if so i apologize, but then, explain why you are saying things like this:

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher if things are not evolving into something better, but are losing things or becoming dumber or less adaptive, that is the opposite of what the evolution theory preaches.

this, in no way, contradicts evelotion (acctualy, it supports it)...
evolution, infact, predicts that the exact same developments you stated will happen in certain situations.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Urn]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Plumbo? Are you around? I think you must have missed my comments to you. Or are you just afraid to answer the easy questions I gave you?

Im patient, but I'll keep reminding you.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Ok i'll bite.


How much did you chew, I_s_i_s?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Ok i'll bite.


How much did you chew, I_s_i_s?

Unpalatable. Got food poisoning. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_s_i_s

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Ok i'll bite.


How much did you chew, I_s_i_s?

Unpalatable. Got food poisoning. Sorry.


Well at least you tasted it.
Not that easy to swallow, but like vegetables, it's good for ya.
I think the food poisoning is misdiagnosed. You really suffer from reality shock.
I'll pray for you.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
I'll pray for you.

Aw, how nice!
Thanks. I'll do the same.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by inspiringyouth
The universe is an infinity there is no beginning nor end, no orgin or end, there for no middle, no middle no center. just my theory.

-Justin


If the Universe is infinite, then any given point can be said to be the centre. So my right testicle is, in fact, the centre of the known Universe.


You, sir, are a bonafide LIAR! Everyone knows that my leftmost nostril hair is the center of the known universe! This is general scientific knowledge, sir (I use that term loosely). Your steadfast commitment against proven scientific theory is embarassing! How dare thee!




(If you anyone has taken any part of this post as anything other than a complete and utter joke, then you need to drink less coffee.)

To the original poster: my friend, I believe that your theory about the Earth being the "center" of the universe was first debunked by Gallileo several hundred years ago.

www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...



Galileo first turned his telescope on Saturn on 25 July 1610 and it appeared as three bodies (his telescope was not good enough to show the rings but made them appear as lobes on either side of the planet). Continued observations were puzzling indeed to Galileo as the bodies on either side of Saturn vanished when the ring system was edge on. Also in 1610 he discovered that, when seen in the telescope, the planet Venus showed phases like those of the Moon, and therefore must orbit the Sun not the Earth. This did not enable one to decide between the Copernican system, in which everything goes round the Sun, and that proposed by Tycho Brahe in which everything but the Earth (and Moon) goes round the Sun which in turn goes round the Earth. Most astronomers of the time in fact favoured Brahe's system and indeed distinguishing between the two by experiment was beyond the instruments of the day. However, Galileo knew that all his discoveries were evidence for Copernicanism, although not a proof. In fact it was his theory of falling bodies which was the most significant in this respect, for opponents of a moving Earth argued that if the Earth rotated and a body was dropped from a tower it should fall behind the tower as the Earth rotated while it fell. Since this was not observed in practice this was taken as strong evidence that the Earth was stationary. However Galileo already knew that a body would fall in the observed manner on a rotating Earth.Galileo first turned his telescope on Saturn on 25 July 1610 and it appeared as three bodies (his telescope was not good enough to show the rings but made them appear as lobes on either side of the planet). Continued observations were puzzling indeed to Galileo as the bodies on either side of Saturn vanished when the ring system was edge on. Also in 1610 he discovered that, when seen in the telescope, the planet Venus showed phases like those of the Moon, and therefore must orbit the Sun not the Earth. This did not enable one to decide between the Copernican system, in which everything goes round the Sun, and that proposed by Tycho Brahe in which everything but the Earth (and Moon) goes round the Sun which in turn goes round the Earth. Most astronomers of the time in fact favoured Brahe's system and indeed distinguishing between the two by experiment was beyond the instruments of the day. However, Galileo knew that all his discoveries were evidence for Copernicanism, although not a proof. In fact it was his theory of falling bodies which was the most significant in this respect, for opponents of a moving Earth argued that if the Earth rotated and a body was dropped from a tower it should fall behind the tower as the Earth rotated while it fell. Since this was not observed in practice this was taken as strong evidence that the Earth was stationary. However Galileo already knew that a body would fall in the observed manner on a rotating Earth.


Please, my friend, read this text, and then come back with some more frames of reference to defend your theories. You may also wish to look up the theories of Copernicus , Johannes de Sacraboso, and the man whose observations influenced Galileo's ideas the most, Tyco Brahe.

I hope this helps.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by RockerDom]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
WOW this thread has gone soooo far off post that it's not even funny.

Like it was pointed out earlier, do some research there kiddo and come back with a resonable sound theory and we'll all descus this like adults....however i do feel you have an intreging mind, your throwing out good questions just get some more info and formulate them alittle better. that is the whole point of this sight is it not? to learn?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
This may all be a figment of my imagination, or an illusion created by my mind, or all creation made just for my enjoyment.... but I doubt it. It is too far beyond my imagination's ability, I am amazed and surprised by this life constantly. I think that our collective experience in this material universe is very nicely defined, measured, and described, to a high level of detail, by scientists worldwide. They are in agreement on the math, mostly, and only seem to still be unsure of the underlying mechanisms that are behind what they all have measured and confirmed as being the stats on this universe. So, I still support Monty Python's lyrical study of our material universe's astronomical data.


Urn

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII This may all be a figment of my imagination, or an illusion created by my mind, or all creation made just for my enjoyment.... but I doubt it. It is too far beyond my imagination's ability, I am amazed and surprised by this life constantly. I think that our collective experience in this material universe is very nicely defined, measured, and described, to a high level of detail, by scientists worldwide. They are in agreement on the math, mostly, and only seem to still be unsure of the underlying mechanisms that are behind what they all have measured and confirmed as being the stats on this universe. So, I still support Monty Python's lyrical study of our material universe's astronomical data.


good call BlackGuardXIII, i just recieved "the holographic universe" (by michael talbot) in the mail today
(am VERY stoked) and will most definatly have to get back to you on this one (after i've read it of course)



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The original poster hasn't come back, I guess he was just messing around. But still, this is an intresting thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1611av
Hello this is my second post.\

has any scientist ever talk about the north star and the earth... really talk about the reason? well, the north star the only star that doesnt move.
meaning that Earth is in the center of the universe. . . . Why?
there must be a reason.


This may be way off topic considering where this thread has gone but...

My geography teacher showed my class a transparent screen with dots all over it on the overhead projector. He then placed another sheet over the first. The second transparency was an enlargement of the first, so the space between all the dots had grown. He then lined up a dot from each sheet (the same dot on each page) and called it Earth. From Earth's prespective the distance to the nearest dots had grown and everything was expanding away from Earth. He then lined up another 2 dots and showed from from that planets prespective - everything was expanding away from them.

I thought it was a good description about universal expansion and how it would be impossible to tell where the exact center is at. The universe could very well be like the face of an expanding balloon. All the galaxies would appear to be moving away from eachother only because of the space expansion, but they really arnt moving away since if they went far enough they would come around the other side and come back.

Or that balloon face is a 4-Dimensional projection of a 6-D (or more) universe. Like a hologram, higher dimensions are displayed as lower dimensional reality. The other dimensions possibly being too small to directly experience. Which could explain why particles seem to disappear and reappear and we dont know where they go or come from. They are just small enough to travel in all X-Dimensions.

(I recently bought holographic universe also but havent as of yet had time to read it. I cant wait!)



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
you know what guys, I know where the center of the universe is...


EC



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
There is not a center of the Universe, because there is no Universe at all

There are several Universes Inside a Multi-Universe and so on.

Now serious, in the string theory, it is proposed a multi dimensional universe, imagine, a big bread, then we cut it in slices, each slice is a 3D Universe and our Universe is just in one slice. Well if this could be true then there will be "physical" limits to the Universe (called in the string theory "a membrane") and therefore we could know the center of our Universe in our dimension.

Adding some extra info, those Universe-membranes are moving freely in a big big big Multi-Universe and when they touch each other they create a bing-bang.

If you whant more info search for "String Theory" or "M theory", god hunt.

Peace
Crustas



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
The best description of what the universe is like that I have heard is that it is similar to baking a muffin with chocolate chips in it. As it bakes and expands, the distance between each chip increases. I have also read how researchers calculate the vectors, positions, speeds, and accelerations of celestial objects like stars, galaxies, quasars, and pulsars, etc. and then project backwards to find a point where they all cross... the place where the one dimensional singularity that preceded the big band was. Of course, if all creation was there at that time then its location is impossible to plot, since location can only be deduced and explained relative to something else. If there is nothing else in existance at the time, location is undefinable.
That said, I admit I have no idea what the universe is all about, and my opinion is not something worthy of referencing as a knowledgeable source of information. It is just my personal conclusion.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join