Why does that really matter though? Would we eventually run out of water?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A small comment on this: the whole water as fuel thing is ridiculous, to say the least. Water is not a fuel source. What this guy appears to be doing is using electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide, then reacting the two to reform water. Hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide do indeed make water, and will release energy in doing so, but you don't gain back as much energy as you put in originally.
Since you need more energy than you gain, where does that extra energy come from? The burning of fossil fuels. In the end, you're just using hydrogen as a battery. And not a very efficient one.Why does that really matter though? Would we eventually run out of water?
Damn! Now I've got this stuck in my head again.....
This thread is messing with my mind... well atleast the derailing of this thread....
Here in my car
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live
In cars
Here in my car
I can only receive
I can listen to you
It keeps me stable for days
In cars
Here in my car
Where the image breaks down
Will you visit me please?
If I open my door
In cars
Here in my car
I know I've started to think
About leaving tonight
Although nothing seems right
In cars
Why would this be obvious? If God can exist outside of space and time, why can't branes exist outside of space and time and give rise to our universe as it is, as has been theorized by a number of astronomists? What's the use of adding a god to this?No human was alive at the moment the Universe came into existance.
Now you can choose to believe one of two mutually exclusive explanations:
1) It came into existance all by itelf, creating itself from an absolute void containing nothing at all.
2) God, who exists outside space-time as we know it ( this is obvious seeing as He would have to, by default, existed PRIOR to the creation of the Universe and is therefore outside of it) created it.
So what? That we don't know what happened prior to those billionths of a second doesn't mean we haven't got a clear idea on what happened after that. What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know.Both require faith, even the "scientifically accepted" notions must admit that they have no idea what happened in the very first billionths of a second the Universe existed.
How is that relevant to teaching the theory of evolution?Add to this the fact that evidences offered by each side are not accepted by the other as being valid, and you have a recipe for a dispute that only the deaths of those involved will settle once and for all, because then they will find out for certain whether or not God exists.
But for me, Option #2 above makes the most sense. Just as a huse cannot build itself, neither can the Universe bring itself into being from nothingness.
Why would I have to prove you wrong? Do you feel the need to prove me wrong when I tell you about the 2 meter tall, invisible pink unicorn in my 1.5 meter tall closet? It seems obvious that, since you are the one claiming God exists, you should also provide the evidence in favor of that claim? Why should I believe you if you have no evidence?You don't have to agree with me, but remember that puts the onus on you to prove my position wrong, and I really do not believe that can be done.
However, please fell free to try.
Only two?No human was alive at the moment the Universe came into existance.
Now you can choose to believe one of two mutually exclusive explanations:
What about all the other options? I mean, if we can make up magic invisible ghosts chanting magic words to "abra-cadabera" everything out of nothing, then why would we imagine only one of them? All the oldest myths involve a whole pantheon of them. Another perspective holds that existence itself is merely an illusion, the dream of a sleeping god, as it were, everything being spawned in the mind of Brahma who awakens every 4.32 billion years. Or maybe the universe was created by a god, but it was Lord Krishna, rather than your god. Or it all sprung from the cosmic collision of the yin and yang, the forces of opposition detailed in the Tao te Ching. So many options.1) It came into existance all by itelf, creating itself from an absolute void containing nothing at all.
2) God, who exists outside space-time as we know it ( this is obvious seeing as He would have to, by default, existed PRIOR to the creation of the Universe and is therefore outside of it) created it.
No they don't. Faith is only required by those who decide in advance what they're going to believe, and who also decide in advance never to let anything change their minds about that no matter what. Both are the very opposite of the scientific perspective.Both require faith,
True enough. But that admission also proves that no faith is involved.even the "scientifically accepted" notions must admit that they have no idea what happened in the very first billionths of a second the Universe existed.
Because one group believes only tentatively, and only as according to what is rationally-supported by evidence and logic, while the other denies reason itself in order to preserve the mythos of magic.Add to this the fact that evidences offered by each side are not accepted by the other as being valid,
No, not even then. When you and I die, neither of us will 'know' anything anymore or ever again.and you have a recipe for a dispute that only the deaths of those involved will settle once and for all, because then they will find out for certain whether or not God exists.
Houses cannot reproduce themselves, that's true. But living things can, and can't be built.But for me, Option #2 above makes the most sense. Just as a huse cannot build itself, neither can the Universe bring itself into being from nothingness.
Actually, we propose evolution, and we can prove it any number of ways. You're propose that it was all done by magic instead, and making positive claims puts the "onus" on you to back them up.You don't have to agree with me, but remember that puts the onus on you to prove my position wrong, and I really do not believe that can be done.
However, please fell free to try.
Then you missed the point! Most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christians, including many of the really famous ones. One of the world's leading paleontologists is even a Pentacostal preacher! So no, whether God exists or not isn't even relevant to the discussion of evolution.I thought I'd cut out the fluff and get to the real heart of the matter as I see it:
Does God exist?
Just to play devil's advocate: it is possible that an organism that fits all requirements to be human, existed prior to our universe existing.No human was alive at the moment the Universe came into existance.
Why are these mutually exclusive?Now you can choose to believe one of two mutually exclusive explanations:
1) It came into existance all by itelf, creating itself from an absolute void containing nothing at all.
2) God, who exists outside space-time as we know it ( this is obvious seeing as He would have to, by default, existed PRIOR to the creation of the Universe and is therefore outside of it) created it.
This does not constitute faith. Faith is believing in something for no rational reason. Scientific assumption is not make-believing something in the place of the unknown (i.e., Science does not put a deity in wherever it lacks understand; it simply says 'we don't know', and moves on). This is different to faith.Both require faith, even the "scientifically accepted" notions must admit that they have no idea what happened in the very first billionths of a second the Universe existed.
Arguable. If you go to the traditional Christian interpritation of hell, then you would never, by definition, experiance the only god, and thus would not know.Add to this the fact that evidences offered by each side are not accepted by the other as being valid, and you have a recipe for a dispute that only the deaths of those involved will settle once and for all, because then they will find out for certain whether or not God exists.
Actually, a house already exists before it is built. Likewise, the universe may, in fact, come from a previous Big Crunch.But for me, Option #2 above makes the most sense. Just as a huse cannot build itself, neither can the Universe bring itself into being from nothingness.
On the contrary, you merely say that 'Creation ex deus makes more sense to me' without justifying this blatent violation of Occam's Razor. Since there is no evidence that a creator god was involved, there is no reason to invoke one into your belief system, nor into the scientific mainstream.You don't have to agree with me, but remember that puts the onus on you to prove my position wrong, and I really do not believe that can be done.
Don't forget this one!The options I would give are:
- The spacetime continuum began expanding from a singularity ex nihilo
- The spacetime continuum began expanding from a singularity ex deus
- The spacetime continuum never began expanding; instead, the temporal dimension is cyclical, with the Big Crunch causing it's own Big Bang.
- The spacetime continuum does not exist. Our sensory input is fabricated, our reality an illusion.
- straight over to front wheel drive plastic composite bodies with iron-based front-mounted water-cooled fuel injected engines which can only run on unleaded fuels and sink like stones in water. Just in that one lineage alone, there still can be no nested heirarchy!
Then some Volkswagen Beetles aren't cars after all. Some of the earliest cars had wooden frames. Some of the newer ones don't have steel frames anymore either. No sir, you can't define a car by whether it has a steel frame.We're interested in the frame. According to the definition, if it has a steel frame, it is a car.
But those alternatives are what a nested heirarchy would be based on, and they don't apply in this case because they can appear and disappear on any model in any year.You wouldn't create a subgroup for a black moth would you? Well, plastic bodies and fuel injectors are just alternatives of existing traits.
Not all Volkswagens have/had steel frames.VW makes cars and what you described is a car by definition.
The Stanley Steamer was no "protocar". It held the land speed endurance record for sixty years until it was finally broken by the Corvette ZR1 in 1989.You can group some cars into the protocar category; cars without internal combustion engines. That would include steam driven cars. And you can group cars that have an internal combustion engine into the true car category; much like true birds. Electric cars and solar powered cars are recent ideas and they would go into the experimental car category.
If you think it could be done, then do it. Only then will you realize how impossible that is.You could create a nested hierarchy if you wanted to. But you don't want to. You could group 18 wheelers and buses into a subcategory of car; those with more than 4 wheels.
No, as you'll see if you actually try to do this, they matter a great deal.Only one thing is clear. Once you define a car, everything else is unimportant. Differences like CD players and fuel injection are just 'coat coloring'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?