Huge!

[thalbergmad]

everyone takes carbon 14 dating as perfect.  i don't.  i won't until someone takes me into a lab and proves that it is a perfect method. 

Interesting, as i did not know that everybody takes carbon 14 dating as perfect.

Indeed it is not perfect albeit the science is sound, but perhaps it is more accurate than adding up the ages of the prophets to arrive at a date for the creation.

Thal

[asyncopated]

but, they cannot accurately predict time even with carbon 14 dating.  that is because they don't know the exact make up of the environment (free radicals or something?) when the animal/plant/ tree was first alive.  everyone takes carbon 14 dating as perfect.  i don't.  i won't until someone takes me into a lab and proves that it is a perfect method. 

Not they can't give you an accurate dating to the day, the error bars (room for error) is about 100 years.  So you can say that this happend about 1700 years about but it makes not sense to say it happend 1723 years ago, because the technique here does not offer that kind of accuracy.  It does however mean that is not not likely to be 4000 years ago.

and yet, all our textbooks date things right and left in millions and billions.  how do they know.  in recent years many of these things have been modified by other means of dating (rock formation/etc).  some  parts of the grand canyon are bent all together at the same time.  all the layers of rock.  this would indicate that whatever catastrophe or volcanoe or whatever happened with tectonics - happened to many layers at once. 

The numbers like those you mentioned don't come from carbon dating.   They are more to do with the age of suns.  They universe is so huge and vast that the numbers make no sense to the human mind.  There is no way that you or i can comprehand 10000 years, let alone a million given that we only have the experience of a life time. 

However, the universe is really that huge in that numbers of this size(order of magnitude) keep croping up from various (not just one) types of measurement.  It is not just time that is astounding it is also distances as well.

To a scientist, we don't really try to visualise numbers like these, what we try to understand are the patterns that give rise to these numbers and what it may mean in the big scheme of things.

The numbers you mentioned comes from predictions on how elements combine to from new elements.  This is not chemistry but fusion, which is more like alchemy (transmutation, except it's not turning iron into gold).  These processes we know to a very high accuracy.  They come from predictions in quantum mechanics.  The inaccuracy comes in estimating how much material there is in various stars and how far they are away from us.  Nevertheless, as with previouly, when a scientist gives a number of one million years, he may be off the mark by about 200,000 years but not much more than that.

i'm just looking at things and thinking, hmm.  ok.  God says this (bible) and in psalms  or job it talks about God inscribing the circle of the earth or something like that.  so, there is really nothing in the bible that says 'the earth is flat.'  that was a man's concoction.

Haha... erm man is fallible, has always been and will almost certainly always be.

genetics is another interest of brief reading (so far).  everyone says - mankind originated in africa.  well, wouldn't it be a trip if it was actually the middle east.  i think we are getting close - if we can do some genetic testing on the bones found in africa vs the ones in the middle east.  as far as hominoids - if they existed - they must have been before our creation - as our God made us to rule over the earth with a higher understanding and knowledge than the animals.

The word originated may not have the meaning you think it does.  It is common urban legend to say that "men where once apes" ( the wording is odd to say the least ) and "came from africa" ( huh? ).   Usually it's just left as that and not qualified further.

The more acurate statement is -- some of the oldest spciemens of a species called homosapiens (? maybe homoerectus ) were found in Africa.  If you read this website, which i think is quite accurate you will see the "out of Africa" hypothesis.

https://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

This means that someone has proposed this idea, but we are not sure if it is true.  It is however an interesting idea and has merit, and thus warrents discussion.

[thalbergmad]

now, if there was a creation before ours - it would have needed another sun and moon according to the bible.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

What is wrong with our current sun and moon?

[pianistimo]

thanks, asyncopated, for explaining things.  i do read it - and, as with prometheus posts, try to digest it and think about it.  as with anything 'deep' ( including music) sometimes you just mull over it and let it all sort of 'brine' together.

thalbergmad,  the age of the current sun/moon is one of those 'the bible tells me so' things.  if you or i were to go to the sun to try to measure anything - we'd be burned up.  so - there's all these guesstimates.  but, who knows for sure about how many nuclear fusions the sun has left before it fizzles.  i say much fewer - you say many many more. 

also, we have the idea of our ozone layer becoming depleted.  i should think that by measuring a few things by the ozone layers burnability -that this should have happened a long time before now.  but what do i know.  i feel like a chicken in a haystack on a farm near a countryside in a country on a planet in space without a head. 

do you ever wonder - if people say other galaxies are expanding - then they must believe that our own is as well.  now, as it expands - what happens.  if our galaxy has been expanding for as long as we say it has - i think our earth should have exploded by now.  being that all the magnetic pull of planets getting further and further from us - would exert some kind of 'pull it all apart' effect?
 
and, yet our tides have remained remarkably constant - though slowly changing.

[asyncopated]

thanks, asyncopated, for explaining things.  i do read it - and, as with prometheus posts, try to digest it and think about it.  as with anything 'deep' ( including music) sometimes you just mull over it and let it all sort of 'brine' together.

You are most welcomed.  It's getting very late here I'm singing tomorrow.  If I don't see you before, have a good thanks giving.

Just before I go to bed, your last question...

do you ever wonder - if people say other galaxies are expanding - then they must believe that our own is as well.  now, as it expands - what happens.  if our galaxy has been expanding for as long as we say it has - i think our earth should have exploded by now.  being that all the magnetic pull of planets getting further and further from us - would exert some kind of 'pull it all apart' effect?

I think when you say galaxies you mean the universe.  Yes, physicist do say this.  An in all honestly, no one knows.  People like stephen hawkings are experts in this, and even they say that they don't really understand this.  All we know is that the universe seems to be expanding in all directions, almost all the stars and galaxy that we see seem to be moving away from us.  Also the further they are from us the faster they are moving away. 

Here is the wikipage, but unfortunately it is not really written for the layperson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

This doesn't have very much to do with the earth, and we don't know what the end result will be.  Not even our sun will survive to see the end result, nor can we (any living soul) comprehend  it in any meaningful manner.  Just goes to show how mysterious the universe is.

[pianistimo]

good luck with the singing!  i didn't know you were a singer.  tommorrow i'll be with guests all day - so i guess maybe if i sneak upstairs at the end of the day.  happy thanksgiving day to whomever on here is celebrating it tommorrow.  prometheus, i really do like you.  please don't think i am 'screaming at you.'  actually, for you to talk with me so long proves that you have quite a bit of patience (unlike thal)  but, then  - thal can do pretty much as he pleases and he knows i'll still be 'oooh.  thal.  he's cool.'  that's because of the music he found, several times, and the nice person he is beneath it all.  i figured him out from day #1.  the thing is - i don't think he likes me like i like him.  oh well. that's the way it always is. 

[thalbergmad]

thalbergmad,  the age of the current sun/moon is one of those 'the bible tells me so' things.  if you or i were to go to the sun to try to measure anything - we'd be burned up.  so - there's all these guesstimates.  but, who knows for sure about how many nuclear fusions the sun has left before it fizzles.  i say much fewer - you say many many more. 

Again, i ask you where in the bible??. Please let me know coz i want to look it up.

You don't actually have to go to the sun to take measurements, it can be done from earth.

Look forward to your answer which can be just a short sentence. 13 paragraphs of drivel are not required.

Thanks

[pianistimo]

if the sun/moon were made on the fourth day of creation - and adam and eve are counted as appearing in approximately year 6000  - adding 4000 odd years to 2006 - counting bible genology for ot - then we are nearing the end of 6000.  if the bible says 'a thousand years are as a day to God...'  then we're nearing a complete week cycle.  the last thousand years is said to be the 'milleneum.'  the last thousand years that are supposed to be after Jesus Christ return.  he says 'no man knows the day or the hour...'  - but from creation we know about the week.  i'm waiting anxiously for His return because this world is very messed up already and too many people dead and dying in places like iraq and sudan and darfur.  who can stop the madness.  only God.

[thalbergmad]

if the sun/moon were made on the fourth day of creation - and adam and eve are counted as appearing in approximately year 6000  - adding 4000 odd years to 2006 - counting bible genology for ot - then we are nearing the end of 6000.  if the bible says 'a thousand years are as a day to God...'  then we're nearing a complete week cycle.  the last thousand years is said to be the 'milleneum.'  the last thousand years that are supposed to be after Jesus Christ return.  he says 'no man knows the day or the hour...'  - but from creation we know about the week.  i'm waiting anxiously for His return because this world is very messed up already and too many people dead and dying in places like iraq and sudan and darfur.  who can stop the madness.  only God.

Yes, but the Bible does not actually say the sun/moon is 6,000 years old does it. It is only your interpreation of what is written.

I too am waiting for the return of Christ, but is this world any more/less messed up than it has been in the previous 2000 years?. Surely a return during the "Black Death" was more warrantied than now, but it did not happen.

I ask again, if you are interested in the Books that were removed from he Bible or just those that have been left in.

Thanks

Thal

[mike_lang]

if the sun/moon were made on the fourth day of creation - and adam and eve are counted as appearing in approximately year 6000  - adding 4000 odd years to 2006 - counting bible genology for ot - then we are nearing the end of 6000.  if the bible says 'a thousand years are as a day to God...'  then we're nearing a complete week cycle.  the last thousand years is said to be the 'milleneum.'  the last thousand years that are supposed to be after Jesus Christ return.  he says 'no man knows the day or the hour...'  - but from creation we know about the week.  i'm waiting anxiously for His return because this world is very messed up already and too many people dead and dying in places like iraq and sudan and darfur.  who can stop the madness.  only God.

Oh, please...

[ahinton]

Oh, please...

Yes, indeed - but "please" and pleas seem to fall on deaf ears, barren ground or what have you in this case; some of us do keep trying to encourage an appropriate and welcome stemming of the flow, but so far without success...

Best,

Alistair

[donjuan]

if the sun/moon were made on the fourth day of creation - and adam and eve are counted as appearing in approximately year 6000  - adding 4000 odd years to 2006 - counting bible genology for ot - then we are nearing the end of 6000.  if the bible says 'a thousand years are as a day to God...'  then we're nearing a complete week cycle.  the last thousand years is said to be the 'milleneum.'  the last thousand years that are supposed to be after Jesus Christ return.  he says 'no man knows the day or the hour...'  - but from creation we know about the week.  i'm waiting anxiously for His return because this world is very messed up already and too many people dead and dying in places like iraq and sudan and darfur.  who can stop the madness.  only God.

...

....



and you criticise the accuracy of carbon dating?

if God didn't want you to learn - He'd have put you in a black box - or not given you a brain.  or, worst case scenario - the same brain as a sheep.

ROFLAO the irony is killing me! 

[prometheus]

Yes, that was funny. She is saying that she is insolent towards her God for seeing the bible as fact and thus ignoring Gods actual creation.

[debussy symbolism]

I haven't payed much attention to the development of this thread, but imagine that Pianistimo isn't yet providing any coherent evidence for her beliefs. Please pardon me if I should be mistaken.

[pianistimo]

faith is the evidence of things 'hoped for...'  i am awaiting something much more interesting than scientific lab research and the stem cell impetus.  i mean - next they'll have us all lining up at the labs to donate more than blood.  stick a gps in us somewheres. 

i don't like being monitored like i am in seventh grade.  science gives and takes equally.  we are blobs to science.  i am not in favor of the human genome project because i think it can take a turn for the worse.  but, hey - it's already been done almost all the way around the world now - hasn't it?  so - for what it's worth - they have more information than they need.  and, what will they use it for?  good or evil?

best case scenario - we have a literal account of where humans originated.  worse scenario - we kill off all the poles or jews again  or a combination of people who look like they are 'defective' in some way - so we have a superior race.  what does that remind you of?  btw, i think all people are created equally good.

i think when you bring God into the picture - you are allowing yourself to be 'free' from the inhibitions from imperfection that we all have.  God forgives and forgets and throws our sins as far as 'east is from west.'  what scientist can do that?  even richard dawkings is going to be giving an account of himself before the Almighty.

[prometheus]

worse scenario - we kill off all the poles or jews again  or a combination of people who look like they are 'defective' in some way - so we have a superior race.  what does that remind you of? 

Uuh... let me guess: Darwin?


Really, if you think that when you accept reality, and thus science, you have to think some people are better than others and thus we need to kill off inferior people then you must be an 'evil' person yourself.

Just shows the lack of a moral compass as a result of rejecting all reason.

Science proves that there are no human races at all. Let alone superior and inferior ones.

Without science we would still be thinking the people from Africa are non-human and evil.

[pianistimo]

that is what darwin wanted to prove.  that people who are aboriginal are somehow distantly related and not intimately tied to our humane genomes.  i want to know - (Like tommorrow) what the human genome project now says about aboriginees.  darwin made such a fuss over them.  what if they are all ancestrally linked under adam and eve?  will science tell us?

[thalbergmad]

i think when you bring God into the picture - you are allowing yourself to be 'free' from the inhibitions from imperfection that we all have. 

Allows you to be free from reason as well.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, you are a mean person.


How many more blows below the belt do I have to take?

Evolution is not a racist idea. It took science to abandon the idea of human races. I may even choose not to have children myself.
Darwin himself was also very symphatic about different kinds of ethnicities for people of his time.

Wasn't it clear that I was being sarcastic? You meant Hitler, right? So I just filled in Darwin because for some reason you want to believe they are almost the same.

Didn't people always believe black people weren't created by God? Isn't that what the KKK believe? Don't they think that evolution is a 'foul idea' because it suggests that they are basically the same apart from a different skin colour?

Basically, I don't even care what Darwin said. Scientists took from him ideas and the theory of evolution is rock solid. It doesn't matter how 'evil' it is. It is oberved. I can't deny it. It would be like denying the holocaust; because it is so evil it could never have happened.


If it were true that black people, or whatever ethnicity, are less 'human' than 'white' humans I don't know what I would have thought. And you wouldn't either? What if the bible wrote that only a few humans decended from A&E and the other races were inferior ungodly people?

I am a vegetarian. You are not. I care about life. I don't want to kill anything with consciousness. So we can establish I would be more compassionate with lesser people than you would be.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

[mephisto]

Your a vegetarian!?

I feel sorry for you.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

i don't doubt you are a caring person - and i don't think you are racist (although i'm not sure exactly that you are 'for' women - in the sense of giving them the benefit of the doubt).  but, i hear you on killing anything with a conscience.  i was ok with the thanksgiving turkey until my husband said it was killed last sunday (as though that were supposed to be good).  then, as i was fixing it - i was kind of crying for the turkey.  how it must have felt.  i don't think i want to eat turkey that much anymore. 

you know - if i had the choice (which i guess everyone does) of cooking strictly vegetarian - i think i would too.  my family tends to like meat.  so, it's hard to cook adn then not eat what you cooked.  i think also, the meat is grown so fast and hard with hormones - it's not that healthy anyways.

ok.  we agree on something.  and i also think that darwin - in and of himself was just simply a very curious person.  but, i used to read articles in the national geographic (from 40's 50's and 60's) in my grandma's attic and you wouldn't believe the difference between time spans and what darwin thought about 'origin of the species.'  i don't want to be called a species only - i am human.  full of much more rational thought than an ape.  even aboriginees - who may have been cut off from the world - due to locations/flooding/whatever- are thinking people.  they are not somehow a different 'species.'  that is all i'm saying that i believe.  we are made ABOVE the animals and always have been.  there is no blending (even scientists can see this) of our brains with animal brains.  we are like the sun in that all that it possesses it had at birth.  although the main difference is that we grow as we get older.  there are no macroevolutions that are noticable with a brain that is much older than ours. 

health may be an issue- because perhaps our ancestors had healthier bodies. 

i confess i am not a scientist - but i don't think that science and the bible are at odds.  i think the bible will be proven as fact always - in every case.  we were made in the image of God - in His likeness - male and female.  there is no 'lesser' among us - that is simply a misnomer that if one of us is to be a 'helper' to the other that that is somehow making one of us inferior.  you don't see these kinds of tendencies in animals and it makes for a much more dangerous world view.  to view women as subspecies - and treat them differently than a man.  i mean, men already possess many things such as strength and perhaps logical reasoning that is due to some different brain wiring or whatever - but women have equal talents with intuition and nurturing.  why is there a 'competition' to see who's best.  it's not really important. 

[prometheus]

Ok, at least you took back what you said. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with racism. Don't try to impy it does. I know how you work. Next time you will again try to call those that see that evolution is observed fact, racists.


But it is still strange that you say claiming the earth is 6000 years doesn't contradict science.


But one thing. You claim macro-evolution can't happen. And that micro-evolution does.
But then what does prevent micro-evolution from cumulating into macro-evolution?

Genetically they are the same thing. It is just that macro-evolution is many stages of micro-evolution over a longer time span.

So why is macro-evolution not possible? What system prevents the genetic data from becomming so different that one has to call it 'macro-evolution'?

I don't understand.They are the same thing expect for the amount of time needed. But you say one happens and the other doesn't.

[asyncopated]

faith is the evidence of things 'hoped for...'  i am awaiting something much more interesting than scientific lab research and the stem cell impetus.  i mean - next they'll have us all lining up at the labs to donate more than blood.  stick a gps in us somewheres. 

They already are.  Hopefully you will be willing to donate your organs when you die as well, if they are still in good working condition.  It could be helpful to somebody.

i don't like being monitored like i am in seventh grade.  science gives and takes equally.  we are blobs to science.  i am not in favor of the human genome project because i think it can take a turn for the worse.  but, hey - it's already been done almost all the way around the world now - hasn't it?  so - for what it's worth - they have more information than they need.  and, what will they use it for?  good or evil?

None of us like being monitored.  It's not the science that does the monitoring.  It's man and his politics.  Keep in mind that science is about what is true and false, in describing the world we live in.  Not what is right and wrong.  Of course we have to think about what is right and wrong, but that is simply not science.  Giving the attributes right and wrong is about politics, religion, selfcenterness, plain stupidity, but not science.

Your reasons for being against the human genome project could not be more inane in my opinion. 

It is certianly one of the most important things ever done in the history of mankind and I mean EVER, for as long as human beings will be around.  In the long run it will help with every aspect of human life from birth to death.

It will certainly help to extend life, allow us to study what happens in the womb with more sense.  It make available treatments that are right now competely impossible.  Doctors will be able to tell you if you are prone to cancer or other life threatening problems, and if you are how to take steps to prevent that. 

It is like saying I think that discovering the world is round is evil, because now there is no place for heaven or hell.  I really simply can't understand this.

God forgives and forgets and throws our sins as far as 'east is from west.'  what scientist can do that?  even richard dawkings is going to be giving an account of himself before the Almighty.

Nope, but science are not in the business of sin.  The church is.  Sure we have to think about ethics.  What are the repercussions of what we do?  Most scientist are sensible about that.  I have to admit that not all are.  However, more often than not, it's where science stops that stuff that you a worrying about really begins. 

I really don't want to start a discussion about Richard Dawkins, save to say, he is articulate, and really does have a point.  Not just a ranting fool.  I would encourage anyone religious or not to listen (not just hear and oppose, or lap up and agree) with what he has to say.  Despite is rather hard line stance, he arguments are well thought out and if nothing else interesting.

i think when you bring God into the picture - you are allowing yourself to be 'free' from the inhibitions from imperfection that we all have.

I rather like my imperfections.  I think its part of what makes me human. 

[donjuan]

post deleted

[debussy symbolism]

I find that rather absurd DonJuan. I think that if hospitals would like to keep people alive in order to ensure business, it is much more logical for them to instead induce illness such as proscribing antibiotics that "may work and if they don't, come back for a different one" surreptitiously.

[donjuan]

post deleted

[prometheus]

Assuming you are talking about the US, I knew the US health system was bad. But that sounds really awful, and absurd. I am skeptical.

[donjuan]

post deleted

[debussy symbolism]

Correct me if I am wrong, but when prescribing antibiotics that you are most likely allergic to, is it wrong to also prescribe something that alleviates allergy effects? To the extent of my knowledge that is correct; you take antibiotics and something that relieves allergic reactions, and wait for the bacteria to die. My doctor kept on prescribing me antibiotics to which I was allergic to, so I simply gave up on them. Yes, they were working, but I couldn't stand the allergies. Don't want to assume anything, but to a casual observer that would seem like foul play.

I don't know enough about pharmacy so please correct me if I am wrong or misleading, but aren't there many kinds of antibiotics that exist that doctors can just pick up one by one as patients come back for a different one that "he is not allergic to"? Again, I do not know enough about pharmacy or antibiotics for that matter, so please excuse any sort of incorrect information I provide here.

[jpianoflorida]

Oh god no I really wouldn't do that.  My dad was in med school, and he knows first-hand how this REALLY works:

If you come in to the hospital critically ill, the doctors look at your health documentation.  If they see that you have agreed to donate your organs, then they know you will benefit them (ie make money for them) when you are dead.  Therefore, they don't do 'everything' they can to help you live.

On the other hand, If you havent agreed to donate your organs, then the hospital knows it cannot benefit from your death.  Therefore, they try to do everything they can to keep you alive, so you can go home, get sick again, and come back to pay them once more.

money makes the world go round, havent you heard?

I wondered if something like that often goes on, however it's still hard to believe that it does---but I'm not doubting you at all.  It just seems so wrong.    On the other hand, I think it's wrong to go the extreme sometimes and bring people back that have no quality of life.    Notice I didn't say "help them die" , in case someone wants to start that debate(which I'm not getting into), but when someone is say 96 years old, like my grandmother was, and they kept "bringing her back" to a live of misery, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do!   It's a tough thing.

[jpianoflorida]

ok..since I did bring that up:   how far do you go to save someones life?    who should make that decision?   if it were 100 years ago people would just die from almost anything.  Now we can prolong life , but what quality will that be?   How far do you want them to go to save your life? wow, i think I should have started a new thread?   ok..don't post here, I'll start a new thread look for "how far should doctors go?"

[debussy symbolism]

I think the question is "how long does the patient want to go?" primarily. If it is a senior in his/her late years but still wants to live despite any daily encumbrances, then why not?

[donjuan]

post deleted

[jpianoflorida]

I think the question is "how long does the patient want to go?" primarily. If it is a senior in his/her late years but still wants to live despite any daily encumbrances, then why not?

you make a great point debussy!   if the patient is alert, he/she should make the decision! I guess I'm talking more about if the patient isn't alert and can't decide for himself.

[debussy symbolism]

I know that like 10% of the population is allergic to penicillin.  As far as I know, type 1 hypersensitivity to drugs is often very dangerous (can you say 'anaphylactic shock??'); in this case, no amount of antihistamine or epipen injections will make the drug therapy plan work to the patient's advantage.  but on the other hand, cases vary, so who knows?  If your reaction is just a runny nose, maybe youre willing to tolerate it.  I wouldn't call it foul play at all.. Doctors (in canada anyway) cannot be paid extra for prescribing drugs -if they do, the gov't knows and makes deductions to their funding at the end of the year.  I don't know about the US.  That's why American movies about corruption are so much better than Canadian movies!Doing it that way would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

I have a handbook of antibiotics and their indications for specific bacterial infections (something like this: https://www.dobugsneeddrugs.org/healthcare/antimicrobial/Antimicrobial_ref.pdf) Doctors and pharmacists would use something like this to select the most efficacious one the first time. (gotta limit that environmental exposure)  Of course, if theyre allergic, they have to weigh the cost vs. benefit ratio..  but honestly, I don't know much about this yet.

Thanks for the input. As far as I know, I had allergic reactions that I didn't want to endure to every antibiotic my doctor prescirbed, and I wish it was only a runny nose or something so mild. It wasn't excruciating, but not pleasant at all.

you make a great point debussy! if the patient is alert, he/she should make the decision! I guess I'm talking more about if the patient isn't alert and can't decide for himself.

That is where it gets tricky. As far as I know, a patient is still conscious even in his state, so morals do apply here. I suppose that it is up to the relatives to decide, as they have the most insight into the patient's life and his wants. If there is no possible chance for the patient to recover, then I think that the patient would rather not have to endure such effete life if he was conscious enough to say it. A morbid scenario but a real one nevertheless.

[soliloquy]

Something from nothing so God had to do it.

Nahh....  our universe was created from a massive energy collision in another universe (look up multiverse).  But where did the previous one come from?   Same thing ad infinitum.  But where did the first one come from?   Ahhh... astrophysicists get to cop out on a technicality: since the process of universal birth goes on for inifinity, technically there was never a first one.   Sort of.  Since technically "time" does not exist, and is simply a ficticious measuring tool created out of necessity by human logicism to discern event vs. rate, there was never really a "beginning of time", so at no point was there a "first universe".  How confusing is that?  =D  If you wanted to go another route and ask where the energy in universe 0 came from to start the chain (you don't need to ask "where did the universe come from" because we are now speaking of completely empty space), the vacuum created by the emptiness expanding would have created energy in the form of...... well we haven't gotten that far yet in quantum, but you can check out string theory and get an answer for that.


Oops now I've gone and put the thread back onto topic.  I think.

[debussy symbolism]

This thread has gone off-topic a long time ago.

Thanks for the input though.

You are right- time is definately relative, with only measurements to calculate it. However, measurements aside, time definately does exist, because should an event happen, then a next one, there was a point of "time" in between. That aside, in order to more or less know what happened before, one must take the chain events, such as universes emerging off of other universes, as you pointed out, and notice any patterns in them. Should that indeed be possible, it would be plausible to locate the original source, if there of course is one. Time is simply a chain of events.

[pianistimo]

leading to a source!  that's what i say!  the source is God, of course, to Christians.  but, for others - it would be that 'link' backwards that we can count by geneaologies, by languages, by dna, by migration, by many things.  also, as with some 'bottlenecks' - a catastrophe happens and greatly speeds the processes.  or, as with the creation - it is instantly created in the state that it was made.  perhaps to perplex us by it's grandiosity.

[debussy symbolism]

You don't know that there is a starting point. It could just as well not exist, and even if it should exist, there would have to be something before it, thus disproving that God created it.

[jpianoflorida]

You don't know that there is a starting point. It could just as well not exist, and even if it should exist, there would have to be something before it, thus disproving that God created it.

yeah yeah....which came first, the chicken or the egg?    Don't you guys think it's time for this thread to fade away!

[prometheus]

The chicken.


(if you define an egg by by who it is layed. If you defne an egg by what comes from it, the egg came first.)

[jpianoflorida]

The chicken.


(if you define an egg by by who it is layed.)

no i think it was KFC or maybe Popeyes chicken.   No wait , maybe it was Mama Joe's fried chicken.  yeah., that's it.

[debussy symbolism]

Well, due to a process of evolution I think it is safe to say that both, the chicken and the egg came about at the same time. Organisms evolve into organisms, so do they evolve their methods of reproduction.

[prometheus]

Not quite. An almost-chicken layed an egg, whatever you want to call the egg, and a chicken emerged from it.


The 'problem' is that you can't observe evolution when you look at a parent and its offspring. They may appear to be both as chicken or as almost-chicken.


But at one point you have to draw a line. If you simplify it you will get this solution.

[debussy symbolism]

You are right. I think that the first organisms didn't have the same kind of reproductive systems that the evolved organisms possess, and thus may not necessarily follow the parent-egg routine.

I really don't know much about this topic. Heh, need to pick up a book.

[prometheus]

If you look at the evolutionary time scale they did come at the same time.


But the point of the whole question is to ask a really hard one. If you really want to answer it then the answer I proposed is the most accurate. But of course a common-sense general answer would be yours.


If you are going to ask the question; what came first? The egg or the hatchling? But the hatchling always is the thing that comes from the egg, not that was lays the egg.

So what came first? The egg or the egglayer? It kind of depends on the definition of an egg and an egglayer. One can say that the egglayer layed an egg but came itself from an almost-egg.


Of course this is kind of what is implied. The commen version of the question just uses a chicken for simpleness.

[debussy symbolism]

yes.

[ada]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, obviously. Reptiles laid eggs long before chickens arrived on the scene 

[ahinton]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, obviously. Reptiles laid eggs long before chickens arrived on the scene 

You're back on those oeufs again, I see (I'll lock those skin cells away, just for safety's sake)...

Anyway - who came first - God, or pianistimo?

Don't answer that...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

One thing that seems to be sadly missing from all the to-and-fro arguments about God, creation, the Bible and all the rest is the occasional leavening dose of humour.

"Ada", as I'm sure you know, on the eighth day, God created A'straaalia, beause he wanted mankind to realise that He had a sense of humour - and, on the ninth day, He creatd N'Zilind, because He realised that His humour was short-lived...

Pom, tiddly-Pom Pom Pom...

Bist,

Alistair