|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2007 03:31:40 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think some peoples attitudes can be very eloquently sumised by a nice quote from George W Bush:
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." |
Ah, yes... our brilliant Commander-in-Chief. "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time." Duh. :-/ |
Louis;
Please note how this applys to the thread topic.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 03:37:17 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by The Baptists Sayeth Thus:
There is simply no evidence that one kind of creature has ever naturally transformed itself into some other kind of creature. Darwin was simply wrong." |
The big problem with this is that they draw a conclusion based on what can be seen through a microscopic window into the historical timeline.
The fact that evolution can be seen within a species, as they admit, over such a short period of time would seem to bolster the case that over eons the chance for extreme differentiations increases dramatically to the point where one species will eventually develop so many new characteristics that it can only be classified as a new species entirely.
While I agree with their bit about the amino acids (I'm in the camp that life here probably came from elsewhere and no one knows where or how it ultimately started in the first place), in the end they are as guilty as everyone else for taking the evidence at hand and interpreting so it 'proves' the outcome they desire.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 15:37:54. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:08:59 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
NO mainstream religious organization considers the bible to be literal truth OR incompatible with evolution. Fundamentalists who maintain that position apparently represent a tiny (but loud) minority. |
Not true, on both accounts. |
Well that kinda depends upon your definition of mainstream, doesn't it? "All of the leaders of Southern Baptist agencies prior to 1979 have been replaced with fundamentalist leaders." The Baptist Church has no central authority, and considers each church to be autonomous. Thus, it has no official position, and specific congregations may or may not agree with your quoted statement. "Individual members of the Southern Baptist Church were plaintiffs in the Arkansas case. John Buchanan, a Baptist minister, is the head of People for the American Way, an organization which opposes creationism and other fundamentalist attempts to impose their religious beliefs through the force of law."
Originally posted by RonB:
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy..." |
Among the first of billions to disagree with that statement was Saint Augustine, wayyyy back in AD 408: "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." ΓΆ€“ The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19ΓΆ€“20, Chapt. 19"
Originally posted by RonB:
The Bible says that God made the heavens and the earth, and that He made all of the animals and established that they would reproduce after their kind. All of the evidence is consistent with this claim... There is simply no evidence that one kind of creature has ever naturally transformed itself into some other kind of creature. Darwin was simply wrong." |
Thus, presumably, there should be all sorts of large mammal fossils alongside the dinosaurs from 100 million years ago, yet we haven't found a single one. There's gotta be a secret French Poodle burial ground around here somewhere. Furthermore, dinosaurs and mammoths should still be kicking around as serious roadkill hazards since they "reproduce after their kind" and all animals were supposedly saved on the Ark within recorded history. Drive carefully.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 16:12:31. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:14:13 PM · #229 |
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy..."
This is absolute hogwash! I am really trying hard to be polite as I've had a few glasses of wine...
I have already shown how there are many MANY Inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible, compounded by the fact that many events retold have been shown by other sources to be completely historically WRONG!
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:36:32 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
NO mainstream religious organization considers the bible to be literal truth OR incompatible with evolution. Fundamentalists who maintain that position apparently represent a tiny (but loud) minority. |
Not true, on both accounts. |
Well that kinda depends upon your definition of mainstream, doesn't it? |
Sure. I take my definition from the dictionary - Mainstream, adjective: belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.
As the second largest religious organization in the U.S. I would say that yes, it's mainstream.
Originally posted by scalvert:
"All of the leaders of Southern Baptist agencies prior to 1979 have been replaced with fundamentalist leaders." The Baptist Church has no central authority, and considers each church to be autonomous. Thus, it has no official position, and specific congregations may or may not agree with your quoted statement. "Individual members of the Southern Baptist Church were plaintiffs in the Arkansas case. John Buchanan, a Baptist minister, is the head of People for the American Way, an organization which opposes creationism and other fundamentalist attempts to impose their religious beliefs through the force of law." |
And all that is meant to prove that the SBC is not mainstream how?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy..." |
Among the first of billions to disagree with that statement was Saint Augustine, wayyyy back in AD 408: "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." ΓΆ€“ The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19ΓΆ€“20, Chapt. 19" |
And all that is meant to prove that the SBC is not mainstream how?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The Bible says that God made the heavens and the earth, and that He made all of the animals and established that they would reproduce after their kind. All of the evidence is consistent with this claim... There is simply no evidence that one kind of creature has ever naturally transformed itself into some other kind of creature. Darwin was simply wrong." |
Thus, presumably, there should be all sorts of large mammal fossils alongside the dinosaurs from 100 million years ago, yet we haven't found a single one. There's gotta be a secret French Poodle burial ground around here somewhere. Furthermore, dinosaurs and mammoths should still be kicking around as serious roadkill hazards since they "reproduce after their kind" and all animals were saved on the Ark. Drive carefully. |
And all that is meant to prove that the SBC is not mainstream how?
Debating about what the SBC says in no way negates the fact that my response proves that your statement that "NO mainstream religious organization considers the bible to be literal truth OR incompatible with evolution." was totally incorrect. It is merely an attempt to draw attention away from that fact.
Even so, because I am so patient with you, I offer this:
a) You didn't say a majority of all of the members of a religious organization ( and you, yourself quote many "organizational" positions that may or may not be supported by a majority of its members ( e.g. Catholics supporting a ban on birth control )). You said an organization, and what I provided is the organizations position.
b) Saint Augustine, though undoubtedly a fine man, was never a member of the Southern Baptist Convention and was never elected to speak for them.
c) Large mammal fossils have, indeed, been found alongside dinosaur fossils.
"WHEN the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.
Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.
Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur."
Read about it yourself Here |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:43:37 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I have already shown how there are many MANY Inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible, compounded by the fact that many events retold have been shown by other sources to be completely historically WRONG! |
Your link mentions that there are many problems for "literalists". Not all Christians believe that the entire Bible is literal in every word/phrase. There is also the problem of definitions; for example the term "time, times and half a time" equals how much time? Is it years, days, millenia? Does the original 7 days equate to 7 24 hour days or are they merely representative of an amount of time, not necessarily equal to each other. To disclaim the Bible based on these literal definitions is inaccurate.
The Bible is both literal (as science/archeology has helped prove many locations and times referenced) and figurative. Where the Bible defies logic, then one must review that passage within the context of the whole work and discern the intent.
That is a charge given to the believer.
I concur that for the literalists, Biblical inconsistencies pose a problem when addressing entrenched non-believers.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:49:45 PM · #232 |
Well......I guess I have to say at this point that the original question that I asked has been answered, albeit with a caveat.
This little speech is entirely subjective, but as OP, I'm going to state that *I* found out what I wanted.
There are reasonable people involved in this debate, but I have to say that IMNSHO, the science guys are a whole heck of a lot more reasonable than the God guys.....and that's sad, 'cause you'd really think that "God's Children" would be more amenable to really decent discussion and less likely to be condescending in their stance.
I don't mean to single you out Ron, but your single-minded, unflagging lack of interest in entertaining anyone else's point of view and continuous circular self-contradictions, not to mention the blind unwillingness to see facts when they're presented to you is exactly what scares most reasonable, thinking people away from the church.
I don't want to change your views, or beliefs, but at the same time, you cannot dismiss everyone else's completely out of hand and possibly maintain even one iota of credibility.
I apologize, but that's just the kind of thing that has completely mortified me for half a century about mainstream religion.
If you guys want to continue, I will follow along eagerly and with interest, but I also think that the original question, at least from my standpoint has been answered.
Ron, I wish yopu all the best, and in a certain way, I hope for your purposes that you're right or a lot of the meaning in yopur life will have been for naught.....at least in my unwashed, rationalizing brain's way.
The God I hold dear would not want me to be blind to everything around me for an unsustainable premise.
One last thing. I'll bet my eternal soul that in the translation alone, without even getting into the vagaries of personal interpretation, the Bible that I can pick up and read has a whole pile of inconsistencies as compared to the original.
I think you could take that to the bank.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:50:51 PM · #233 |
Very cool about the mammals (although dog size isn't exactly a large mammal. That'd be cattle, elephants, rhinos, grizzlies, etc.). Oh, and since they continued to reproduce after their kind and were save from extinction on the Ark, where are they now? Oops!
Even so, because I am so patient with you, I offer this:
"The tiny minority of literalist fundamentalists, however, are the only ones to embrace this view. No mainstream religious organization asserts that the Bible must be literally true, or that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Christian faith."
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 16:53:02. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 04:58:53 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't mean to single you out Ron, but your single-minded, unflagging lack of interest...
|
Honestly, can anyone on this thread claim that they are interested in learning more about Christianity or evolution. I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. Is anyone here really considering changing their beliefs? I think everyone on this thread is interested in proving their point, and in my honest opinion, i don't think anyone here is really open-minded, nor is anyone really interested in learning about "the other side." I just don't find it fair to tell Ron that he is single-minded and has a lack of interest, when you are doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:06:14 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Even so, because I am so patient with you, I offer this:
"The tiny minority of literalist fundamentalists, however, are the only ones to embrace this view. No mainstream religious organization asserts that the Bible must be literally true, or that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Christian faith." |
You think Jerry Fawell was part of a tiny minority of literalists? I suppose tiny when you compare millions of followers hanging on his every word to, say, tens of millions hanging on the word of the Pope. But still...
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 17:06:57. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:11:09 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. |
You're joking, right?
Originally posted by ryand:
I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. |
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:21:34 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You think Jerry Fawell was part of a tiny minority of literalists? I suppose tiny when you compare millions of followers hanging on his every word to, say, tens of millions hanging on the word of the Pope. But still... |
Back in the late 1930's- mid 1940's, there was a guy in Germany with millions of followers hanging on his every word. I wouldn't have considered him mainstream, either. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:28:36 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You think Jerry Fawell was part of a tiny minority of literalists? I suppose tiny when you compare millions of followers hanging on his every word to, say, tens of millions hanging on the word of the Pope. But still... |
Back in the late 1930's- mid 1940's, there was a guy in Germany with millions of followers hanging on his every word. I wouldn't have considered him mainstream, either. ;-) |
Well, dismissing that guy's rhetoric and trying to minimize exactly how mainstream it was to a large number of people was a mistake made then which is not worth repeating.
Both ideas - that the bible is to be taken literally and that its teachings are wholly incompatible with the theory of evolution - are very prevalent in America's Christian communities. Consider the statistical representation of these notions in this one thread alone and then extrapolate from there.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:30:27 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ryand:
I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. |
You're joking, right?
Originally posted by ryand:
I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. |
|
I never said I wasn't single minded, I admit I am absolutely single minded and not open to evolution one bit, I said:
Originally posted by ryand:
I dont think it is fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded.
|
It is unfair to point out our "single-mindedness" yet completely ignore your own.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 17:31:06.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 05:40:56 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are reasonable people involved in this debate, but I have to say that IMNSHO, the science guys are a whole heck of a lot more reasonable than the God guys.....and that's sad, 'cause you'd really think that "God's Children" would be more amenable to really decent discussion and less likely to be condescending in their stance.
I don't mean to single you out Ron, but your single-minded, unflagging lack of interest in entertaining anyone else's point of view and continuous circular self-contradictions, not to mention the blind unwillingness to see facts when they're presented to you is exactly what scares most reasonable, thinking people away from the church.
I don't want to change your views, or beliefs, but at the same time, you cannot dismiss everyone else's completely out of hand and possibly maintain even one iota of credibility. |
Thanks for the post. And for starting the thread.
In my defense, if I may, let me just say that while I have, as you say, not entertained the point of view of the science guys, neither have they entertained mine. That is the essence of debate. Furthermore, and more to the point, with the exception of one post that I said was meant tongue-in-cheek, I have not ridiculed them, as they have me and the others who do not believe as they do. If you think that their tactics of attack, ridicule, sarcasm, back-slapping, etc. are more "reasonable" behaviours than my standing up for what I believe, and challenging what they believe withOUT such crass behaviour, then so be it. The debate degenerated when they began to ridicule what I believe - not challenge it, but ridicule it. Posts about fairies, religious leaders not having any knowledge of scientific matters, arguments from ignorance, giant turtles, masses following blindly, unfounded postulates, large bearded man in the sky, irrational behaviour, etc. ( and that's just on the FIRST page of the thread ). If those are the kinds of post you call "reasonable", then I know we do not share the same view of what "reasonable" means.
Peace.
(edited for grammer)
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 17:42:53. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 06:20:25 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ryand:
I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. |
You're joking, right?
Originally posted by ryand:
I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. |
|
I never said I wasn't single minded, I admit I am absolutely single minded and not open to evolution one bit, I said:
Originally posted by ryand:
I dont think it is fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded.
|
It is unfair to point out our "single-mindedness" yet completely ignore your own. |
Sceince is not about single mindedness, once we get better explaination based on proofs available the theory of evolution might be replaced.
Proving evolution wrong does not prove that creationism is right.
So for a sake of argument lets assume that theory of evolution is wrong. So does it make creationism right.
No, no by long shot.
You know what is most funny part of this whole discusion. Find some loop holes to say that theory of evolution is wrong and there for the creationism is correct way to go. While at the same time about creationism you can not prove more than 95 % of it. Its funny line arguement. Isn't it.
Prove creationism independently and we all will agree with you. Just do not tell us that it is the truth because I have blind faith in it. If you have blind faith, lets keep it this way. Do not force it on us. And please do not call it science and keep it away from science classes. Want to study creationsism, do it in separate classes. And call them whatever you wish.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 18:20:54. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 06:27:26 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ryand:
I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. |
You're joking, right?
Originally posted by ryand:
I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. |
|
I never said I wasn't single minded, I admit I am absolutely single minded and not open to evolution one bit, I said:
Originally posted by ryand:
I dont think it is fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded.
|
It is unfair to point out our "single-mindedness" yet completely ignore your own. |
Sceince is not about single mindedness, once we get better explaination based on proofs available the theory of evolution might be replaced.
Proving evolution wrong does not prove that creationism is right.
So for a sake of argument lets assume that theory of evolution is wrong. So does it make creationism right.
No, no by long shot.
You know what is most funny part of this whole discusion. Find some loop holes to say that theory of evolution is wrong and there for the creationism is correct way to go. While at the same time about creationism you can not prove more than 95 % of it. Its funny line arguement. Isn't it.
Prove creationism independently and we all will agree with you. Just do not tell us that it is the truth because I have blind faith in it. If you have blind faith, lets keep it this way. Do not force it on us. And please do not call it science and keep it away from science classes. Want to study creationsism, do it in separate classes. And call them whatever you wish. |
I appreciate your post. I just want to make one point, evolution takes just as much faith as Christianity does.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 07:23:08 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think some peoples attitudes can be very eloquently sumised by a nice quote from George W Bush:
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." |
Ah, yes... our brilliant Commander-in-Chief. "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time." Duh. :-/ |
Louis;
Please note how this applys to the thread topic. |
*wakes with a start*
Huh? Hm? Wha..? Whozzat...?
*goes back to sleep* |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 07:24:39 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by ryand:
I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. |
It is unfair to point out our "single-mindedness" yet completely ignore your own. |
Did I say at any point that I believe in evolution and nothing anyone can say is going to change my mind? On the contrary, give me any explanation that fits observable evidence better than evolution, and I'll dump that view in a heartbeat.
SCIENCE: "I believe it because I can see that it's true with multiple observations and third party tests. I'll try hard with every tool available to prove or disprove the model, and if the results show that it's not true, or another model offers a more reasonable explanation, then I will no longer believe it." This is neither single-mindedness nor faith.
FAITH: "I believe it because I believe it, and nothing anyone can say will change that." This is both single-mindedness AND faith. It's also hypocrisy to require proof of others' views, but none for your own (and arguably demonstrates ignorance of history and proven fact).
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 19:27:00. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 07:35:08 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't mean to single you out Ron, but your single-minded, unflagging lack of interest... |
Originally posted by ryand:
Honestly, can anyone on this thread claim that they are interested in learning more about Christianity or evolution. I don't think it is quite fair to claim that we (Christians) are being single-minded, when you (evolutionists) are being just as single-minded. Is anyone here really considering changing their beliefs? I think everyone on this thread is interested in proving their point, and in my honest opinion, i don't think anyone here is really open-minded, nor is anyone really interested in learning about "the other side." I just don't find it fair to tell Ron that he is single-minded and has a lack of interest, when you are doing the same thing. |
I wasn't trying to be harsh; it does seem that he's pretty adamant about an awful lot of stuff that really is taken as general proven fact......that's okay, he doesn't have to accept it, but he has also on a couple of occasions, contradicted himself pretty badly.
To be fair, he has kind of been ganged up on, though that could have something to do with the sheer lack of people carrying the Creation torch.
One thing I'd like to point out......I'm assuming by what I'm getting from your post, that you're lumping me in with the evolutionists, when I have been abundantly, seriously, as well as tongue-in-cheek clear that I just don't have a clue, am hedging my bets somewhat because I do believe in God, but to be truthful, I'm a lot more of the opinion that earth has evolved, but that there is guidance at the hand of God.
It's just that so much of that Old Testament stuff just doesn't fly, and just like Vatican II, religion needs to grow and evolve if it's going to survive.
So there is something to my statement that you weren't hearing me, because I really tread the middle of the road and refuse to discount divine providence because I have evidence of it in my life for reasons that I won't get into.
Suffice it to say that I feel that I'd long since be dead if God wasn't taking care of me......there was just too much carelessness, stupidity, and self-destructive indulgence that I survived, strictly by grace, IMO.
"There, but for the Grace of God, go I....."
But I've also held a trilobite in my hand, and it took a damn sight longer than 4000 years of recorded history to turn that sucker to stone!....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 07:37:23 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I appreciate your post. I just want to make one point, evolution takes just as much faith as Christianity does. |
No Sir, evidence based on sound theorizing is evidence, not faith. Faith is not required. Science is not faith. You don't need faith to be able to accept evidence arrived at by sound theoretical models, etc. etc.
This is the one argument that fundamentalists always put forward with consistency: that science, in particular evolutionary theory, exists at the whim of the faith of the believers as much as religion, and that is mere transference, and it just ain't so. It's like a kid getting called ugly, and replying, "No, YOU'RE ugly!" It's a puerile attempt at deflecting the sound criticisms of an untenable position back onto those who've found you out.
And for Ron and others, there's really no other way to discuss this than to call out the actions for what they are. Baseless attacks against sound science because they threaten one's personal beliefs of all things deserve the harsh clear light of day to be cast on them. And that will eventually include quite a bit of talk of turtles, mythology, transference, and much else. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 07:40:49 PM · #247 |
Here are my contributions to this discussion for today:
An Exeptionally Simple Theory of Everything by Garrett Lisi
"The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unification program, describing all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape."
It's interesting how the fractals in his theory form the Star of David.
And for comedic relief after all of that math:
Magic Man Done It
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 19:43:02. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 08:03:01 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Here are my contributions to this discussion for today:
|
You wrote a 31 page dissertation on the Theory of Everything just for this thread? Now that's commitment. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 08:06:34 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Here are my contributions to this discussion for today:
|
You wrote a 31 page dissertation on the Theory of Everything just for this thread? Now that's commitment. ;-) |
No, silly. My contribution is the amount of time I spent scouring reddit.com and sharing links I found there:)
P.S. You're not here to tell me I'm off topic again...I hope?;^)
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 20:08:08. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 08:12:42 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Here are my contributions to this discussion for today:
An Exeptionally Simple Theory of Everything by Garrett Lisi
"The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unification program, describing all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape."
It's interesting how the fractals in his theory form the Star of David.
And for comedic relief after all of that math:
Magic Man Done It |
Thanks for this. This is going to be an interesting read. I have thought about this whole thing many times and I do have a little thinking about gravity. It would be great to read another take on it. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:23:48 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:23:48 AM EDT.
|
