₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Why would'nt you miss it with those evolutionary spectacles that you are using?

Hehe, my dear friend, viaro wears no evolutionary goggles with which to gawp at the cacophony you've been scribbling here.

I took the pain to post all the clips of Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt for anybody to see how he used the laws of information to refute the philosophies of scientific materialism and as evidence of the existence of God and you are here feigning ignorance that Ken Ham did'nt address your questions.

I have serious problems with Christians bragging the way you do about 'laws' - almost everything that you post must be a 'law' or it is not 'science', whereas you really have no clues about the basic of these matters.

Goodness! What "laws of information" are you talking about? Just because Dr. Werner Gitt discusses a few things about information, they have become 'laws' just at the snap of your fingers?   Are you kidding me?

Gently now. . I'm not oblivious about information in systems science. True, many people use the phrase 'laws of information' in many endeavours, some of which include things like:

      *  Moore's law in computing, which describes a long-term trend in the history
          of computing hardware; as well as determine that the data storage ability
          of a microchip is doubled once a year or once every year and a half;

      *  Lean six sigma, used in business to increase overall speed in production
          and customer satisfaction. The lean sigma has five "laws" as well -
                        ~  Law of the Market
                        ~  Law of Flexibility
                        ~  Law of Focus
                        ~  Law of Velocity
                        ~  Law of Complexity and Cost

      *  Pierre Teilhard de Chardin' Law of Complexity/Consciousness -
         'the tendency in matter to complexify upon itself and at the same time
          to increase in consciousness.'  Teilhard is quoted as having said:
         'the higher the degree of complexity in a living creature, the higher
          its consciousness; and vice versa'

      *  In Information Theory, Carlos Gershenson delineates what is often
          described as 'tentative laws of information' as generalizations of Darwinian,
          cybernetic, thermodynamic, and complexity principles. These tentative laws
          include:
                       ~  Law of Information Transformation
                       ~  Law of Information Propagation
                       ~  Law of Requisite Complexity
                       ~  Law of Information Criticality
                       ~  Law of Information Organization

          The funny thing is that the details of some of these tentative laws are not
          refuted by Dr. Werner Gitt or Ken Ham; and we know that some of them are
          spoken about in positive ways in creationism.


          *  If you're in for a lighter mood, then consider the humorous "law" in this
          subject commonly called 'Murphy's Law of Information Technology' - which
          is a big name for the idea that anything that will go wrong will go wrong. It
          yet is respected among many computer technologists who deem it to contain
          these sets of laws:

                     ~  Law of Inconvenient Malfunction
                     ~  Law of Cable Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Hardware Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  First Law of Selective Gravitation
                     ~  Second Law of Selective Gravitation
                     ~  Law of Reality Change
                     ~  Law of Noise
                     ~  Law of Expectation
                     ~  Law of the Titanic
                     ~  Law of Debugging
                     ~  Law of Neurosis
                     ~  Law of Available Space
                     ~  First Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  Second Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  Law of Noise
                     ~  Law of Software Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Option Preferences
                     ~  Law of Expectation
                     ~  Law of the Titanic

The simple reason why I would point these things out to you is just to make you see that what many people make up as 'laws of information' are quite simply arbitrary - some humorous, even though they may have some cogency of application to some field or enterprise.

However, when people talk about the 'law of information' in science, they should not just make up ideas and expect everyone to just nod and claim everything in those arbitrary laws as 'science'. Established science aims to be clear and simple, and not arbitrary.

Why don't you start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread and then read up on the links provided before you begin to jump to conclusions?  since it appears that is the only exercise you seem to be doing here ( i.e. jumping to conclusions). 

I have not been jumping to conclusions; and the reason why I have waited up until now before answering those questions are two-fold:

(a) I am not a fan of Darwinism; and no matter what you try to affirm about me, I have no 'evolutionary bedfellows'. Since that is not my domain, you cannot expect me to be answering roll call on that behalf.

(b) I have waited to see how much you understand about scientific theories and laws; and seeing that you just fling words in an arbitrary fashion to the point of a joke, it would make for an even funnier joke to begin to educate you on what you simply can't handle. I've done it before, you have not dared to cough about what I set forth in posts #340 to #344, and for anyone to expect better from you is the day dinosaurs will visit Hyde Park!

mavenbox:
@Viaro: I hardly ever sleep. A growing bad habit.

Don't worry - it's common with very enlightened minds.
Hope you're having a great weekend?

^^I look forward to that new discussion.

noetic15:
I disagree with your position here and would like for u to educate my ignorance concerning the submissions above.

your submission above summarises your position on the flood IMO.

@noetic15, it's alright to disagree with my position; afterall, even Scripture recognizes that believers can disagree on a number of issues having to do with interpretations of certain texts to understand our world and experiences (see Php. 3:15 - 'f in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.')

So, when I state my position on these things, what would make for more cogency is for my fellow discussants to look at what was said, examine my questions and objections, consider the case set forth in my defence, and show me where wrong inferences were made. That is what I have done with posts by OLAADEGBU, modupe01, and a few others on this question of YEC/YUC.

Indeed, I would have loved to show you the deixis of the Genesis narrative, but of what use would that be since you have already written it off as impossible? It certainly would be a waste of time - both yours, mine and our readers - if I were to take up that point at anytime for your consideration. That was why I left it there in brief and invited OLAADEGBU about it this way: "Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask." Since he prefers posting obvious lies about volcanoes from HMM instead of using his own God-given intelligence, I concluded it would be a waste of time as well to pound the deixis of Genesis at his door.

1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

There are a few replies that address these objections from people who know far more than I do, and we have seen their well-articulated points in various threads. What amazes me is the excuses coming from many fundamentalist Christians who are too concerned with their traditional views than anything else.

2. The statement in bold is disturbing. That statement limits the ability of God. . .are u a xtian?

Yes, I am a Christian, but not one who likes to put words in God's mouth and make statements on His behalf that He did not commission me to do.

I've given hints as to why a global catastrophe would mean that you would not be here today: environmental dynamics. The way YEC/YUC argue a cataclysmic global flood for Noah is amazingly (and brazenly) shallow! A combination of tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes happening simultaneously around the world for several days with such fluidity of a global flood would wipe out even those in the Ark! Noah's ark would simply be match sticks in such an environment. Anyone who understands even a little of environmental dynamics would have no problems understanding why you, noetic, would not have been here today.

OLAADEGBU:
Catastrophe or Cataclysm

"|God| spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5, 6)

These two verses speak graphically of two different kinds of terrible physical convulsions, both of which were divine judgments. The volcanic upheaval that sent fire from heaven pouring over the wicked cities of the plains was called an "overthrow" (Greek katastrophe, from which, obviously, we get our English word "catastrophe". Great upheavals such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and hurricanes are rightly called catastrophes.

Excuse me, none of those verses in the Bible ever speaks of "volcanoes", so please stop cheating with all these interpolations of "volcanic upheaveals, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes" - that is simply to pepper falsehood and proclaim it divine. Volcanic activities emanate from the ground and not the other way round of sending fire from heaven. Unless you want to put words into the apostle Peter's mouth and call him an outright, gutless liar - which I'm sure that's not what you intend. So please stop making excuses for your myths as such exercises embarrass the Christian testimony you are trying to demonstrate before the world.

But such events are only local or regional in extent, and occur relatively often. There was one event, however, which was unique in all history. When God brought the "flood" upon the ungodly antediluvian world, the word used to describe it was the Greek kataklusmos, and this word is never applied in Scripture to any event except the terrible Genesis flood, when "the world that then was, being overflowed |Greek, katakluzo| with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:6). From these Greek words we derive the English word "cataclysm."

Glad you quoted that verse (2 Peter 3:6), and please note what it says: "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: ". Again, it quite simply confirms what I stated earlier:

          Please stop cheating with the mention of 'tectonic rupturing' and 'volcanoes' -
          nothing of the kind was ever mentioned in the Noahic flood event in Genesis,
          directly or indirectly! The only thing that the narrative covered in those chapters
          is flood by water - through rain and fountains of the great deep.
          Nothing said directly or indirectly about magma, lava, tephra, pyroclasts, etc.
          from volcanoes or such things.

The 'fountains of the deep' is not a reference to volcanic activity; rather it is understood as a having to do with a great body of water, and not with magma, lava, tephra, or pyroclasts which all are refereneces to volcanoes. Other references to the same fountains of the deep point to water, not volcanoes:

         When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened
         the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree,
         that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he
         appointed the foundations of the earth  ~ Prov. 8:28-29.

         For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city,
         like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep
         upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee  ~  Ezek. 26:19

         The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers
         running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the
         trees of the field. ~ Ezek. 31:4

         For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas;
         and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves
         passed over me.  ~  Jonah 2:3

I'm waiting for you to point out where you found such things as volcanic activity in the flood of Genesis to establish your case. Other than flood by water as confirmed in both the OT and NT, we don't read of any references to any volcanoes directly or indirectly in that Noahic event. The glib excuses tailor-made from YEC/YUC websites which you're often posting, I warned earlier, would just not cut it for you. Unless the only thing you guys know how to do is tell more lies to cover your previous ones.

There was never any flood like this flood! It covered all the world’s mountains, and everything on the land died, leaving great fossil deposits and great beds of lithified sediments all over the world.

I'm also waiting for you to show me how 15 cubits of water submerged great summits of mountains like the 10776 cubits of the Massif. It is pouring a cup of water in your bath tub and reporting that your bungalow was drowned in that cup of water. Please bless me by reconciling the gap - for it is clear that Genesis 7:20 gave the height of the rising flood as 15 cubits, nothing anywhere said beyond that measure.

There has been only one worldwide cataclysm in the past, but another is coming--global fire instead of global water. Jesus said, "For as in the days that were before the flood |i.e., kataklusmos| they . . . knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39). HMM

There has been more than one 'cataclysm' in the past - read your Bible carefully instead of making HMM quotes to be your own scripture. In 2 Peter 3, Peter made reference to two submersions:

        (a)  verse 5: 'the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

        (b)  verse 6: 'the world that then was, being overflowed with water'

These verses are not describing the exact same period, for v.5 occured long before Noah was born, and v.6 is pointing to Noah's time. What I often ask YEC/YUC is what they make of v.5 as to the earth standing out of water and in the water. Not one satisfactory answer has been given other than the usual glib YEC/YUC excuses harvested from HMM, ICR, or Aig.

darling, whatz up? I sneaked in here thinking you'd be long gone to sleep. . but your satellites are all alert?  I was sacred once. . now I'm getting really, really scared!

OLAADEGBU, perhaps I missed it, but how did Ken Ham delineate "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism? Please help do so here and let's doscuss the subject. Thanks.

One reason why I love physics.


             [flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></[/flash]

Deep Sight:
This is because as stated above, we live within a three dimensional space (See the image in my next post below).with time as a 4th dimension.

Time is not the 4th dimension and is not described that way. The 4th dimension is a single continuum called spacetime, it is not called just 'time'. It is meaningless to describe time as the 4th dimension on its own.

@beneli, amazing! Thank you so much for your simplicity and stright to the point inputs on the subject.

OLAADEGBU:
The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and 7 of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was unnecessary if the Flood was only local.

The necessity of the Ark is not predicated upon the extent of the flood being either global or local.

People, animals and birds could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood.

Simple: the abundance of animal species on earth could not fit into the Ark even if they were to go in as one each rather than as two of each specie. If you want to do a check on that, first list out the various animal taxa of everything you know and do the simple maths - you may surprise yourself!

The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen.7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

Now that you're coming into my terrain - the geosciences - it would be useful to set you gently on some of the assumptions you make that just don't square with environmental facts.

First, please stop cheating with the mention of 'tectonic rupturing' and 'volcanoes' - nothing of the kind was ever mentioned in the Noahic flood event in Genesis, directly or indirectly! The only thing that the narrative covered in those chapters is flood by water - through rain and fountains of the great deep. Nothing said directly or indirectly about magma, lava, tephra, pyroclasts, etc. from volcanoes or such things.

Some volcanoes like the Pinatubo, we understand, have erupted with ash plume reaching a height of 19 km - how many such volcanoes erupted around in world in the Noahic flood? Besides, volcanoes resulting in such cataclysms would leave many a caldera - a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression. How many such have you and your YEC/YUC team discovered are connected with a 'global' Noahic flood? The funny thing here is that YEC and YUC apologists are fond of dribbling in stuff into Genesis which are not mentioned there, so that they can save face in the wake of hard evidence that dissolves their myths.

As to the question of 'tectonic rupturing', that is concerned with plate tectonics - a very gradual process of continental plates. If such things occured during the Noahic flood, there would have been several continents resulting from that event. Other features would result, such as the Atlantic Ocean and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge resulting from divergent plate boundaries and creating depths of about 6,000 meters below sea level. An easy-to-understand sequence of diagrams below:

https://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/images/divergeplates.gif

https://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/images/diverge_plates.gif

https://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/images/widening_ocean.gif

https://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earth_science/diverge4_animated_sequence.gif

Where are all these mentioned in the Genesis narrative of the Flood? You can't just dribble in stuff to pepper your myth of a 'global' flood in those chapters and make hasty conclusions against the reality right in front of your nose. The flood is local, not global - and if you even want to consider it from the perspective of its 'deixis', I would be glad to show you clear points right there in Genesis that confirm a local flood.

OLAADEGBU:
Noah's Flood washes away millions of years.

How does it do that exactly?

The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming.

Where is the evidence in real life for a global catastrophic flood besides just reading Genesis 6-9?

For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish.

Glad that you mentioned the above, and that's something I really would like to address. The Noahic flood did not wipe out 'all flesh' of land animals worldwide which were outside the Ark. I know this might shock you, but you don't need to be.

However, let's keep simply to the point of the extent of the flood - global or local? If it was global, it would need that much water to rise above every known peak of hills and mountains to cover them. Whereas, if it was local, it would only rise in terms of the narrator's local event to cover as far as he could see in that region. Which is it?

First, note the deliberate local language of the narrative. Genesis 7:19 says that 'the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered'. And by how much did the waters rise for this presumed 'global' flood? Verse 20 gives the answer as this: 'Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered'.

Please, what is 15 cubits if not a mere 6.94 meters by SI unit conversion? Tell me, the waters rose a mere 6.94 meters and covered ALL the hills and mountains seen anywhere on earth, right? That's interesting, considering the summits and peaks of such landmarks above sea level (asl) in various locations around the world:

       *   Everest            (8,848m),     Nepal;  Asia
       *   McKinley           (6,194m),     Alaska;   North America
       *   Aconcagua       (6,962m),     Argentina; South America
       *   Elbrus               (5,642m),    Russia;  Europe
       *   Kilimanjaro         (5,895m),   Tanzania;  Africa
       *   Vinson Massif     (4,897m),   Antarctica


So, OLAADEGBU, it takes just 6.9m of a 'global flood'  to cover such summits as Everest (8, 848m) and Vinson Massif (4,897m), yes?  Please show me how you worked this out - that would be brilliant to watch!

You would even notice that the Ark (which was 30 cubits, Gen. 6:15) was twice the height of the flood (which was 15 cubits, Gen. 7:20) - in other words, the Ark was already taller than ALL the hills and mountains (including Everest) before the floods arrived! You would have to reconcile the 'magic' in these dimensions and show me how a mere 15 cubit of water would cover the top of a mountain range with a summit of 19,119 cubit!


Now, some theologians try to cover up for this mystery by arguing that the fifteen cubits was not from the ground, but rather above the top of the mountains. For instance, one of my friends (a theology student) quotes the Douay Rheims 1899 Bible on Gen. 7:20 - "The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered" or the God's Word (GW) paraphrased version - "It rose 23 feet above the mountaintops."

The problem with that is just one question: which of the mountain peak was being used to measure this displacement? If we used the Vinson Massif, it would mean that the waters rose to at least 10791 cubits, that is -

       10776 cubits of the Massif
   +       15 cubits of the flood
   =                   10791 cubits.

That would leave us with a greater problem - it means that Mount Everest would still not be submerged! There would still need to be about 8328 cubits of the height of Everest to be submerged!

Either way you look at it, the flood was NOT global - and to cheat that it was global would require you to sort out how 15 cubits of flood rising covers a mountain peak that is over 1200 times its height! Please don't duck it with glib excuses tailor-made from YEC/YUC websites.

OLAADEGBU:
This is ridiculous, what alternative interpretation do you want to give to Genesis 7:19-22 that is plain for everyone to see except you want to turn it to fit your own dogma.

@OLAADEGBU,

You assume that believers who are not YEC/YUC are 'false teachers, spiritual rebels', and ridiculous, while you are nearer the throne of grace than anyone else to even consider what is being said. No bother. Let's have a go at it since you're super-spiritual.

First, going back your previous post #109, since my previous reply in #116 was brief.

OLAADEGBU:
It will be sincere and consistent of you if you admit that you don't believe the words of God if not you will believe the inspired word of God that said that Noah's Flood was global and catastrophic.

As earlier, I maintain my solid belief in the Biblical declaration that there was a Noahic flood; but even so, I also believe that such a narrative be understood within the context of its deixis - which is reference to 'the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of a situation'. Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.[/li][/list]

Please let's not get confused with your sweeping generalizations. If the flood was "God's judgement on sin" as you supposed, you should be asking yourself why sin was not eradicated at the time of Noah's flood but has survived down through history to this day! Is it not remarkable that Noah and his family fell into sin the very moment they came out of the Ark?

[list][li]If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39)? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.[/li][/list]

My dear friend, you should look at the reference to the 'locational characteristics of a situation' - the deixis of the Genesis narrative and its application in Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:37-39. It is inconceivable that He was looking at a global catastrophy when He declared that the flood came and 'took them all away', and we could discuss this if you may, and try to expound upon the meaning of 'all flesh'.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.[/li]
[/list]

Not necessarily, because since after the Noahic flood there have been numerous floods, tidal waves and tsunamis, etc. that have wiped out whole generations and communities in various places without affecting the whole world. Please go through the history of environmental disasters in various parts of the world and see the examples of these things:

1. China, 1887: Yellow River floods devastated the area of the Qinghai Province
killing between 900,000-2,000,000 people.

2. China, 1931: Yellow River floods between July to November of that year result
in deaths of up to 4 million people.

3. Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 result in deaths of almost 500,000 people.

4. China, 1935: it is believed that another Yellow River flood had such impact that
it "caused 27 counties inundated and 3.4 million victims".
(see here for a list of some flood disasters)

Even in the science of tracking floods, evidence reveals that some of these floods cover areas that span several countries at the same time, as the one in this link from NASA Earth Observatory that shows flooding covering parts of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in that same occurence of a flood.

So here, you could at least see that you really have no clue how far reaching a local flood flood can be, talkless of the far reaching consequences of a global catastrophy. If you understand environmental dynamics, a global catastrophe would quite simply mean you would not be here today. More than that, the word 'flood' is often taken for granted by many people who do not realize that they can be caused by various environmental factors and not only by rainfall. It's good that you even mentioned 'volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis', but we shall see just what it is you're yapping on about.

OLAADEGBU:
What do you mean by the pre-adamic era? Do you mean other human beings and fallen angels?

Could you please answer the following questions as you consider the above:

* When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

* When did God create the angel that became Satan?

I've tried to discuss these with modupe01 in another thread in light of a creation that is not mentioned in Genesis: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-346528.96.html#msg5007791

The one thing that YEC/YUC have not been clear enough is this same question, besides several others. What they often do is offer glib excuses here and there and keep their fingers crossed that the question would never be brought up again. Could you do better than that, or should we hope it would go down the same line of excuses? Thanks.

@ow11,

You have been very patient with me. I have not forgotten your enquiry and will follow up on it. Just a line to let you know it's still well remembered. Thank you for your patience.

Deep Sight:
Kai, abuse dey plenty for ya mouth o, you don turn to Davidylan.

Uh-oh! Now I'm in Deep trouble!
I already said I was being facetious in taking jibes at you - I do it both to friends and i.diots, but especially to friends. .  it brings us closer, you know? That's why when you said:

Deep Sight:
Oh dear viaro, this simple question has really brought out the worst in you tonite, has'nt it?

. .  I had to very quickly let you know that I was being facetious, even though it seemed you had failed to notice. Take no note of it, in real life friends understand the way I joke with people - although it does not come across to those of other cultures.

Anyways:

Right. You waste much time stating repeatedly that the phenomena occur within the universe. Obviously. That is not my issue.

Okay, bless your heart.

Z - was clearly away from the wormhole or the "folding." You stated it to be "within" the universe. I had problems with that. That was what i described as ridiculous, and not anything to do with wormholes.

I understand you, amico mio. I don't want to yap on again about that - so I go on to listen to what you have to say.

But let us look at something that helps -

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight

Great! This is useful!

I positively assert that the Universe exists and is expanding within spacetime.

Okay, I respect sir. As I do not have the physics in geoscience or cosmology to prove or disprove that, viaro will just shut his trap. Please excuse me folding my tail there, as I tend to deal mainly with what I can handle with substance rather than personalised assertions. No disrespect.

Therefore when i place Z outside spacetime, it clearly cannot be within the universe, as the universe is within spacetime.

Well, again I don't know - and maybe that was why I did not (and could not) answer 'No'. On the other hand, I noted that:

      1.  spacetime is the 4th dimension - and:

      2.  gravity acting on spacetime results in cosmic holes

      3.  these phenomena (gravty on spacetime) occurs inside the universe

      4.  the model only shows what is happening within the universe and not outside of it

Please DS, forgive me jibing you - I thought you'd seen what I was saying all along. My mistake was that I had failed to come back and do a sketch on the relationship between these things (as soon as my babe is done with her exams next week, I'll have her laptop where my software for such things are installed - please bear with me for now). My apologies again.

Thus your statement that Z is still within the universe was wrong.

Okay, I get you bro.

Capisce?

Si.

I am leaving the office now to the house. Will do some further explanations when i get home.

Thank you for being patient with me - I take back all the silly quips in my misadventures. What's your brew?

Success wishes. Champion the exams and let's drink to it!

Deep Sight:
p.s - to help - the question is not whether wormholes occur within the universe. The question is whether there are any parts of the universe that are outside spacetime.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted in blue, as I do not know the extent of the cosmos. yet, as regards spacetime (the 4th dimension) resulting in cosmic holes, I have maintained that they are within the Universe. am I clear enough?

If you have anything to show me that spacetime is OUTSIDE the Universe, please forgive my ignorance and bless me with your knowledge.

Deep Sight, I have become bored to death at taking such jibes at you, even though I do so with those I consider dear friends. It seemed you failed to see I was being facetious.

So, now let's be serious for once and progress this thread, shall we? I'm pleading with you, indulge my sanity.

Let's go back and see where all this is coming from, Deep Sight, from your own quotes:

Your problems identified:

Deep Sight:
Viaro - What is spacetime? I have serious problems with the ideas circulating regarding that "fabric."

I was astounded to watch on Nat Geo the other day that Time Travel may be possible if we can fold spacetime and thus pass through wormholes.

My astonishment arose not from the proposition regarding wormholes but the proposition regarding "folding" spacetime as shown below.

I should pause here and ask you: WHERE is this spacetime 'folded'? Outside the universe or WITHIN (inside) the universe?

For me, I have said countless times that they are WITHIN the Universe - and that was where you launched your missiles and described my posts as ridiculous!

No bother. Yet, following on:

Deep Sight:
It surprised me that any scientost would miss the fact that such a folding must perforce result, if it were possible at all, in the total dismemberment of the universe as it is known.

That was you huge problem - because you assumed that if such a phenomena could occur, it would result in total dismemberment of the universe. This was why after replying that is not the case and the universe will not be 'remodelled' by the result of such a phenomena, I went on to show you that scientists have indeed found such a cosmic hole resulting from gravity in the Universe:

[size=14pt]Tremendous cosmic hole mysteriously empty of "matter" spotted[/size]

Then I asked a series of questions, including this one:

~ Has such a tremendous blackhole with an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles
of emptiness "remodelled" the Universe as a whole?

You did not even attempt to offer any answers - directly or indirectly. I also asked:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe or
they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say what [size=14pt]I already
said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?[/size]

That one also, you conveniently ducked and went on barking rabidly. Deep Sight, if you're not going to answer a question and rather would like to keep yapping like a toothless puppy, I would just laugh at your drama and consider you nothing more than the boring joke you have turned out to be in recent times. I have repeatedly answered your concerns, addressed your questions - but you?? Just turning, twisting, confusing yourself and yet yapping about my replies being ridiculous - because you're too silly to admit your denials.

I allowed you to exhaust yourself, and perhaps now i could post a reply. No, I'm no coward to fall into your yapping, sorry. I consider it quite awkward and barbaric indeed that you would pretend not to have seen my answers to your concerns anywhere. Justt let me pick just one and tease you more:

Deep Sight:
3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime, or does it exist within spacetime.

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight - and that answer is not different from what I have stated repeatedly. You're the one here hellbent to confuse them, but not me.

Deep Sight:
^^^ O dear, i should have known he would evade my question by attempting to forward questions of his own. This is the umpteenth time i will ask a question and you would respond in this manner. When we discussed the self-existence of numbers and i asked you a question on moons around Jupiter, you gave me a long list of nember-related words to define. Same tactics again!

Please answer ths damn question and stop being a grown retard altogether! Enough of your cowardise dressed up in this clownish outfit.

Deep Sight:
In this instance you will easily answer: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

Because it is obvious that I have pointed out again and again that the phenomena that still amazes you are still WITHIN the Universe . .  that is why I repeated this quote several times:

     ". . . I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?"

                                         - and -

     "The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe"

You even came back and noted that I was insisting on a consistency in my answers:

Deep Sight:
You insist that that Z IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE.

Since my answers have been consistent and you even understood what I was saying, how come you're making the very surprising and outlandish statements that anyone could make?

So, when you ask rhetorically:

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

. . all I can say is that you're asking the most dimwitte.d question in the entire Universe!

Deep Sight:
I ask you -

1. Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime?

I just can't stop looking at that question and imagining, what the hec.k? It is like explaining the basic things about the human body and noting that the intestines are inside the body. Then this chap with a matriculation number DS#43 pouts his lips and asks: "are there parts of our intestines that are outside the body?"

I really don't know how to proceed in helping sort out such a misfooted question. You, Deep Sight, are a very funny, funny fellow. You ignore everything that has been said, even though they were repeated, and then still keep confusing yourself on these issues while alleging that someone else is escapist. Bobs, where are you located?

Deep Sight:
Shouldn't take you that long to pen one single word -

"Yes"

or

"No"

What's the delay? Afraid of falling into trap?

The delay was quite simply because I can't imagine how illiterate a question you could ask after trying to explain these things to you several times!

Deep Sight, let me be soft on you. Although you're an endless bore, I yet would go it easy on you so that we can talk as gentlemen.

1. I'm not on an escapist adventure with you, howsoever you have wished to 'prove' that somewhere in your career.

2. I also posted an enlarged copy of the picture you had proffered.

3. I also noted that what we were looking at was only a model - a graphic representation - of the phenomena that is being discussed; and as such, we should not invest so much faith in those pictures to the extent of forgetting what spacetime is all about.

4. To that effect, I pointed out several times that spacetime is just simply the 4th dimension; and the phenomena of cosmic holes (blackhole, whitehole, wormhole) that are discussed in science are simple the result of gravity in those regions.

5. I've tried not to confuse between these things: spacetime (the 4th dimension), cosmic holes (blackholes, whiteholes, and wormholes) and the universe.

6. You turn round to deny that what we're saying has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes, even though YOU are the very person who first mentioned "wormhole" in this thread.

7. Not minding such an obviously stupid denial, I maintained that the region in your picture marked 'Z' is 'still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe' - because what was represented by the green curved lines are only diagramatic of how wormholes are formed within the Universe - these phenomena are NOT outside the universe.

8. I cannot fall prey to your doctored question requiring a yes or no - for the simple reason that it is an illiterate question to ask if you are still confused (and stubbornly so) about spacetime being just a matter of the 4th dimension!

How else am I to explain this matter over and over again? That was why today I simply ignored your barking and tried to reason with you on your most enigmatic problem about what you termed a "remodelling" of the Universe by the occurences of such phenomena which you exmeplified. After showing you a clear pointer on this, I asked you a very simple question:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe
or they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say
[size=14pt]what I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?[/size]

Deep Sight, let me ask you this: what is spacetime?

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=363758.msg5094947#msg5094947 date=1260561949]viaro, i dont know enough physics to prove this.[/quote]Take heart: I also do not know enough physics to prove or disprove anything either.

You see, ealier, scientist used to think the universe was timeless, without beginning. Hence no need for a creator. They hit a stumbling block when discovery that the universe was expanding and evidence that from 'echoes' of cosmic radiation poinyed to a beginning and hence the big bang. They did not like the idea of a universe that has an origin cos it inevitably points to an 'Originator'. To circumvent this Originator, they r now saying it came into existence out of nothing

Well, while I agree with the earlier part of that quote, not so with the latter. I don't think that scientists are trying to circumvent the Originator: they just do not have any science by which they could 'prove' the nature and existence of that Being. The science behind the cosmology of a universe out of nothing is not a deliberate attempt by scientists to push out the Creator/Originator; rather, it is an aspect of cosmology dealing with the nature of 'origins' - the origin of the universe and other existences. This produces questions in science that scientists grapple with on a daily basis without busying themselves deciding those questions on religious grounds.

Deep Sight:
No son, this is just completely wrong. Soooooo wrong and off the mark i can't believe it. Your contradictions are just too many and too consistent, and when pointed out, you fill the gaps with thin air.

Please do the sane thing and just point it out - do so as simply with your thinking cap on.

I'm busy in the office still, i will be back in a few minutes to show you up again, but just like on the Deist thread i fully expect that if i spell it out a zillion times, you will look poker faced at it and claim not to see it.

Don't make me laugh, DS. That thread showed you for what you are, and it's not only viaro who thought you were acting quite queer. Want to see? Just draw it up again and I shall quote comments from others who thought just about the same things of you.

But just to give you the teaser for the third time: Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime? Yes, or No, be man enough.

What did I say about the Universe and spacetime?
"The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe."

And what did you suggest?
"Z = Outside spacetime"

Just because it was least interesting for me to be showing you up in your numerous slips here and there does not mean I hadn't noticed them. Make of those statements whatever you want, when you are done with the office, I shall try and be here early enough to chat with you on these issues.

There will be a limit to my engagement with you, because there isn't much substance to what you offer me.

If you can't grasp simple issues, I can understand why you're making that statement above. Not my fault, though.

I'll be back. And this time i will point it out only once.

Okay sir. Much obliged.

Deep Sight:
I am not minded to respond in to-to to this post Viaro for one simple reason:

The analysis we have offered has absolutely nothing to do with blackholes, whiteholes or wormholes.

Given this, your entire surmise fails automatically.

Please just be man enough to say you are damn too ashamed of your silliness. You have become such a bore it's a wonder that I put up with you for this long! Who was the fellow who first mentioned WORMHOLES in this thread, Deep Sight? Since you did, and I endured you on that note, how has it suddenly become that what I have offered in my lastest response has "absolutely nothing" to do with WORMHOLES? You are such a cheek of a fellow!

Go back and assess thoroughly what we had talked about: to wit - "folding" spacetime.

I'm coming there - but I wanted to clear the air in your accusations in post #33 & #34, which I reproduced in post #37, to wit: the "catastrophic or apocalyptic effects" to "remodel" the Universe due to the phenomena of cosmic holes. This was essentially your problem, and I wanted to sort those out first and bring you on smooth road before taking up other issues. You cannot just bark around with charges like that and then turn round to scamper off when those charges are addressed. Now please be man enough to deal with those questions, or simply say you failed to follow through with your own problems - and only then would i proceed with other concerns.

I note, as customary with you, that you entirely refused to address the glaring contradiction i pointed out in your statement that Z is "part of the universe" and yet outside spacetime. What is the Universe? Is any part of it outside spacetime, as you suggested? That is what i referred to as ridiculous, and Viaro, it eminently is.

I did not ignore anything - and my replies was to show you in another perspective the very same thing that both you and justcool are just yapping about without the slightest clue what you're saying. The question, of course, afterwards was this:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe
or they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say
what I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?

You are just to busy seeking where to perforate your holes for your files, and that is why it should not surprise me you skipped it conveniently.

That is the issue. Deal with it.

Done. Easy and sweet.

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]It has also falsified all philosophies or theories that are based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution.[/li][/list]

OLAADEGBU, please before you run cheaply around with that assumption, could you show a list of what you termed "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism _{(let's leave out evolution, so that you won't have to bother accusing me of 'bedfellows' in that backstreet)} - please just give us that list as far as you know and we shall take it from there. Thank you in advance.

@OLAADEGBU,

Yours is again appreciated. This is not where I would set forth my thesis of an alternative interpretation that differs from the traditional YEC/YUC conclusions about creation and the age of the cosmos; so I shall rather try to make it easier for you to consider some important points that you've been missing hitherto.

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro,

It will be sincere and consistent of you if you admit that you don't believe the words of God if not you will believe the inspired word of God that said that Noah's Flood was global and catastrophic.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin. If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39)? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.[/li]
[/list]

Noah's Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and 7 of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals and birds could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen.7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

I believe in God's Word, but not the traditional interpretation that is painfully blind to reality. Since in your interpretation you have involved elements of the geosciences (such as erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etctonic rupturing, etc), it should be clear to you that you beating the air and yet unable to bring yourself to the reality that is before you. If you would like to enter into such a discussion, I invite you amicably to do so.

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro,

You said that you believe in the words of Jesus Christ. Did you know that Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts? Such as in the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish? He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (see Matthew 15:1-9). As I said earlier, Mark 10:6 shows where Jesus clearly stated that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, tell me who you believe, the words of fallible men or the Words of Christ?

I have repeatedly pointed out the relevant threads where I discussed my understanding of Mark 10:6 to show that YEC/YUC have deliberately ignored the question of creation itself while arguing pitifully on the notion of dating the entire universe on the age of Adam. Even so, none of the things you mentioned here (the miracle accounts of the OT, the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish) - none of those things provide you any grounds for the age of the Universe. I don't know what game you're up to in beating frantically for just about any idea to bless your YEC dogma: but it does not appear the latest antics are helpful.

Like I said above, rather than belabour the whole point and argue back and forth to no avail, I'll just take an essential remark in yours that highlights your problem and then ask simple enough questions:

Deep Sight:
I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged

The highlighted refers, please. Follow the sequence below in the exchange of views between us both.


Deep Sight, this was what you have argued:

[list]

Deep Sight:
This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects.

[/list]

. . . to which I had replied:

[list]

viaro:
The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole.

[/list]
[list]_{Please note: in stating "the Universe as a whole", it should be clear to you that I was well aware of definitions of the term 'Universe' as used in cosmology - yet I thank you for offering one from Wikipedia.}[/list]

Now, all this miscommunication between us (you and I) seem to stem from the argument as to whether or not the Universe has been 'remodelled' as a result of a 'movement' (small or massive) such as you had asked me to consider.  To sort out all this and save us the tedium, my questions therefore are these:

       (a)   If you are shown that there is such a massive phenomena (such as
       a blackhole, whitehole, or wormhole) somewhere in the Universe, would
       you still maintain that the Universe has been "remodelled"?

       (b)   If you maintain that the Universe has been remodelled, then I ask:
       'remodelled' from what into what?

       (c)    Following the above two questions, how many such occurences of
       blackholes, whiteholes and wormholes should be sufficient to actually
       effect that "remodelling" of the Universe such as in your thinking?



Just incase you might be wondering about those questions, let me go one step further to show you that there is such a 'massive' occurence within the Universe which has not resulted in the 'remodelling' of the Universe as a whole:


[list][list]Tremendous cosmic hole mysteriously empty of "matter" spotted

BEIJING, Aug. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Much to scientists' surprise, a tremendous black hole was spotted in the universe, devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos.  It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.

Other space voids have been found before, but what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that's far bigger than scientists ever imagined. "This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void," said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. "It's not clear that we have the right word yet ,  This is too much of a surprise."

The gargantuan hole was found by examining observations made using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope, funded by the National Science Foundation. One area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region, Rudnick said. There is a "remarkable drop in the number of galaxies" in a region of sky in the constellation Eridanus, Rudnick said.

The region had been previously been dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot," because it stood out in a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation made by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite. The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.

Astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty, said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer who wasn't part of this research but studies the void closer to Earth. Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pulls matter from less dense areas, Tully said.[/list]
 

[list]Read it here: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/24/content_6596010.htm[/list][/list]



Now, amico mio, perhaps you and justcool could answer these questions:

[list]
      ~ Has such a tremendous blackhole with an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles
      of emptiness "remodelled" the Universe as a whole?

      ~ If not, why not? Has your own theory failed? And so, what is responsible for
      the failure of your theory to convince anyone but yourselves?

      ~ More importantly, please note the explanation of how holes in the Universe
      are formed:
      "Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass
       pulls matter from less dense areas".
       How does this differ from my explanation in the previous page that it is -
      "simply the behavour of gravity acting on spacetime"??

     ~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
      blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe or
      they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say what I already
      said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?
[/list]


Deep Sight, it is fair to read what people are saying and not what they are not saying. As you can see, you have taken the physics out of the equation and then ran riot of accusing me of your own confusion - that is the least appropriate thing to do. If you cannot grasp simple issues like this one, then which other point would you ever be able to grasp before you launch again into accusing other people of your own misconceptions?

Please take the time to carefully consider these matters before rushing to hasty conclusions seeking where to put words in my mouth. I'd be glad to attend upon any other queries you might have, even at the risk of being misunderstood for a while. Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - There are problems with your post. Serious problems.

Now we are wading into the most spectacular of your many contradictions and flip-flops.

I had noticed it in your earlier post, but it was so shockingly and self-evidently contradictory that i presumed it must have been an error, or slip of the tongue pen.

Now check this out:

You have stated that the regions outside of the spacetime fabric (Z) are still within the universe - thus stating that there are parts of the universe which are not within spacetime. This is underlined by your assertion that spacetime is within the universe.

You thus regard the universe as being more expansive than spacetime. You imagine that there are parts of the universe which are outside spacetime.

This is ridiculous, preposterous and calls for an immediate definition of the word "universe." Is it possible for our universe to exist outside spacetime? I would have thought the right thing would be to state that it exists and is expanding within spacetiime.

Viaro, your statement that there are parts of the universe outside spacetime calls for an inquest. You had earlier hinted at it here -

Now i am firmly convinced that this discussion cannot proceed without a definition of the word - Universe.

Let me provide wikipedia's definition -

And accordingly, your assertion that Z, a region stated to be outside spacetime, is also part of the universe, is just off the cliff.

Deep Sight:
Brilliant, justcool, just brilliant.

I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged.

Quite frankly, all the talk about folding spacetime in my view amounts only to child-like fantasies and delusions. Most surprising to have such emanating from supposed scientists.

Deep Sight, my many apologies for my posts coming across to you as 'ridiculous, preposterous' and all that; yet you have completely missed the whole gist of spacetime, wormholes, the Universe, and their relationships. I'm tempted to answer your rejoinder point-by-point, but let me save that for later and instead take up a summary of the latest concerns in yours and deal accordingly.