Question about sea shells in the desert

[Marius_Ursus]

If you go along with the Multi-Verse theories (which I personally like) then time never ends (nor did it ever begin), there is and always has been a universe somewhere and they are spreading not diminishing.

My own thoughts on multiverse make multiverse and time both irrelevant, but the construct within which we little pets operate needs some boundaries, so we don't lose our puny, little minds.

Who said it was diminishing?

[Old-Time-Lifter]

My own thoughts on multiverse make multiverse and time both irrelevant, but the construct within which we little pets operate needs some boundaries, so we don't lose our puny, little minds.

Who said it was diminishing?

If one says the universe has an end that's about as diminished as you can get.

Time just is, it can't be created or stopped........ but just maybe we can figure out how to manipulate it. I'm hoping I live long enough to see this.

[mslman71]

Well, entropy isn't approaching us. What do you want to call it?

Entropy is quantity, it's not something that's approached. I'm not sure what "it" is (to which you are referring).

I read a book some years ago called something like "After Time Ends" or something like that. It was about the "death" of the universe, and one of the issues at hand was that all the molecules in everything in the universe are moving away from each other as they cool, so that's making everything get bigger in relation to themselves and each other.

I was going to take the opportunity to come across as smarter than I am here by going and talking through this issue with two physicists who work with me, both of whom are (ph.d.) cal-tech grads from back in the Feynman days, and report back. Turns out this is not something that's trivial, can be made simple, or is understood/agreed upon. This question of an expanding universe, static bodies, and defining boundaries in which to conduct experiments apparently is still a subject of debate. It's not even agreed upon that the expanding fabric analogy is appropriate, and creating a truly isolated system from which to conduct thought experiments isn't possible. How can you define a closed boundary in space-time if space-time isn't constant, how can you isolate that system from the influence of gravity? They started mentioning something about branes (string theory) and I was immediately lost.

The seashells are explained because they wouldn't have dissolved or petrified over the several millions years required by expansion as opposed to hundreds of millions of years required by Pangaea.

Seashells are calcium carbonate, calcite, and some organopeptide spinach. If properly preserved (alkaline conditions, minimal water) they are stable and will last for a very long time. How long, depends.

[Marius_Ursus]

If one says the universe has an end that's about as diminished as you can get.

Time just is, it can't be created or stopped........ but just maybe we can figure out how to manipulate it. I'm hoping I live long enough to see this.

Time just isn't. None of this, none of it, is real.

Entropy is quantity, it's not something that's approached. I'm not sure what "it" is (to which you are referring).


I was going to take the opportunity to come across as smarter than I am here by going and talking through this issue with two physicists who work with me, both of whom are (ph.d.) cal-tech grads from back in the Feynman days, and report back. Turns out this is not something that's trivial, can be made simple, or is understood/agreed upon. This question of an expanding universe, static bodies, and defining boundaries in which to conduct experiments apparently is still a subject of debate. It's not even agreed upon that the expanding fabric analogy is appropriate, and creating a truly isolated system from which to conduct thought experiments isn't possible. How can you define a closed boundary in space-time if space-time isn't constant, how can you isolate that system from the influence of gravity? They started mentioning something about branes (string theory) and I was immediately lost.




Seashells are calcium carbonate, calcite, and some organopeptide spinach. If properly preserved (alkaline conditions, minimal water) they are stable and will last for a very long time. How long, depends.

Well.

*shrugs*

[DaddyR]

LOL, you were way too slow there bro.

But don't judge all Christian's as taking that story literally, because many of us DON'T.

Hey if you want to call God a liar that's your problem. At least until you meet Him face to face. As for me and my household, well we know that God knows better than any other.

[mslman71]

Well.

*shrugs*

Out of curiosity, any particular reason why this one stands out as a better concept than those that are more readily agreed upon? Or are you just saying it's an alternative without prejudice? I believe you cited inconsistency with tectonic theory (Pangea) as why it hasn't been accepted... Why is this the case? Why does accretion serve as a better, or even orthogonal explanation? It seems there's a critical element here that I'm missing.

[Marius_Ursus]

Out of curiosity, any particular reason why this one stands out as a better concept than those that are more readily agreed upon? Or are you just saying it's an alternative without prejudice? I believe you cited inconsistency with tectonic theory (Pangea) as why it hasn't been accepted... Why is this the case? Why does accretion serve as a better, or even orthogonal explanation? It seems there's a critical element here that I'm missing.

I can't explain it as well as those videos that I linked. It has to do with Earth's age and how it serves as a good explanation as to the extinction of the dinosaurs, where the continents are now, why the oceans are the shape they are, and the aforementioned scriptural consistency. The animations make everything understandable for someone like me who has so many reading comprehension problems.

EDIT - I don't want to give you the impression that the animations make any connections with scriptures. That's purely my own connection after watching them and reading about it. All that "firmament between the waters above and the waters below" stuff.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's all bunk, the whole thing. No one knows what really happened, but to me the expansion theory makes more sense than continental drift.

[desslok]

In all honesty, my personal opinion is that the meteors that wiped out the dinosaurs caused tidal waves/rise in sea levels etc that poured ocean water into lower areas, which over time evaporated away.

[cowboybiker]

Its cause theres no water there and thats where they died

[phikappa]

On second thought, I'm guessing that ancient humans used the seashells as poker chips.


/thread.

[Simpy]

Its cause theres no water there and thats where they died

This is the best answer yet. Sea creatures need sea water. Thus a place without sea water would kill a sea creature. That's why none of the stuff in the shells is alive now.


This is almost as good as the middle school kid that explained why ice floats in water by equating it to a frozen turkey and a pond.




I digress . . .


There are a lot of shells in KY too. After a big rain there's a place where my son and I go to look for shell fossils.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Hey if you want to call God a liar that's your problem. At least until you meet Him face to face. As for me and my household, well we know that God knows better than any other.

LOL, it's that the Bible isn't to be read literally, it's parable, myth and metaphor. Reading it literally loses most of the value of the book imho. I'm not afraid to meet God, in fact I think I see and talk to him each day. The big difference is you think God is to be feared and to me it's a relationship of mutual love. I like my relationship with God a lot better than your way of relating to God.

Blessings!

[Simpy]

LOL, it's that the Bible isn't to be read literally, it's parable, myth and metaphor. Reading it literally loses most of the value of the book imho. I'm not afraid to meet God, in fact I think I see and talk to him each day. The big difference is you think God is to be feared and to me it's a relationship of mutual love. I like my relationship with God a lot better than your way of relating to God.

Blessings!

Of all the times to be on spread. I agree whole-heartedly.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Of all the times to be on spread. I agree whole-heartedly.

No problem Simpy, I'll still love you.

[Marius_Ursus]

LOL, it's that the Bible isn't to be read literally, it's parable, myth and metaphor. Reading it literally loses most of the value of the book imho. I'm not afraid to meet God, in fact I think I see and talk to him each day. The big difference is you think God is to be feared and to me it's a relationship of mutual love. I like my relationship with God a lot better than your way of relating to God.

Blessings!

How do you decide what's true then? Why even believe in G-d if you don't believe the scriptures?

You know me, Roy. That's an honest question. I don't understand how you can draw a line in the sand like that.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

How do you decide what's true then? Why even believe in G-d if you don't believe the scriptures?

You know me, Roy. That's an honest question. I don't understand how you can draw a line in the sand like that.

Define truth? I don't understand why folks insist that the Bible is a science and history book. Where did I ever say I didn't believe in Scripture? It's not whether I believe it's how I believe and I don't twist and turn as I go through the book at all. The Bible is about a broken relationship between man and God. The story isn't told literally but metaphorically. I don't draw lines, it's the other way of looking that draws lines.

The folks that demand literal interpretation have a lot of areas they have to gloss over or ignore because the Bible is chalk full of testimony and counter-testimony. I won't go into that because I don't want to give atheist anymore ammo than they already have.

The thing about atheists and fundamentalists is they are both of the same mind "fact fundamentalism", I'm not like that nor are any of my mentors.

[Marius_Ursus]

Define truth? I don't understand why folks insist that the Bible is a science and history book. Where did I ever say I didn't believe in Scripture? It's not whether I believe it's how I believe and I don't twist and turn as I go through the book at all. The Bible is about a broken relationship between man and God. The story isn't told literally but metaphorically. I don't draw lines, it's the other way of looking that draws lines.

The folks that demand literal interpretation have a lot of areas they have to gloss over or ignore because the Bible is chalk full of testimony and counter-testimony. I won't go into that because I don't want to give atheist anymore ammo than they already have.

The thing about atheists and fundamentalists is they are both of the same mind "fact fundamentalism", I'm not like that nor are any of my mentors.

I understand and respect that. When you get to the bottom of the barrel, it's all about our relationship with G-d.

[cowboybiker]

I laugh at the word athiest O.T.L.

You have to believe in something in order to not believe in it.
So you have to believe that god exist in order to not believe in Him.

its a catch 22

[Old-Time-Lifter]

i understand and respect that. When you get to the bottom of the barrel, it's all about our relationship with g-d.

absolutely!

[Simpy]

I laugh at the word athiest O.T.L.

You have to believe in something in order to not believe in it.
So you have to believe that god exist in order to not believe in Him.

its a catch 22

Your logic confuses me. How would I have to believe in something to not believe in something? Perhaps I have to believe that you believe in something in order to form an opinion on whether or not I also believe or disbelieve. But I don't think that's the same as what you're saying.

[Marius_Ursus]

My take on it is atheists have their own religion and hang onto it as vehemently as anyone.

[cowboybiker]

Something different.
People say that they dont believe in God because they cant see Him. Right?

Well, I cant see the wind, but I know it exists.

Ive felt the wind
I've heard the wind and
I've seen what the wind can do
but I've never seen wind.

the same goes for God.

[desslok]

My take on it is atheists have their own religion and hang onto it as vehemently as anyone.

With all the lawsuits they are filing down here I would say much more so.

[DaddyR]

LOL, it's that the Bible isn't to be read literally, it's parable, myth and metaphor. Reading it literally loses most of the value of the book imho. I'm not afraid to meet God, in fact I think I see and talk to him each day. The big difference is you think God is to be feared and to me it's a relationship of mutual love. I like my relationship with God a lot better than your way of relating to God.

Blessings!

LOL! Yeah I know you think God is a liar and doesn't talk straight and that you can pick and choose which parts of His Word to believe. You already know what I think of that notion.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." Condemning those who fear Him is the beginning of something else I suppose.

I like MY way far better than yours, of course. Sad that you felt it necessary to denigrate me personally and my faith... BTW He told me you were wrong.

I guess we'll get it all sorted out in the end. Hopefuly you won't be begging me for a drink of water!

[Old-Time-Lifter]

LOL! Yeah I know you think God is a liar and doesn't talk straight and that you can pick and choose which parts of His Word to believe. You already know what I think of that notion.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." Condemning those who fear Him is the beginning of something else I suppose.

I like MY way far better than yours, of course. Sad that you felt it necessary to denigrate me personally and my faith... BTW He told me you were wrong.

I guess we'll get it all sorted out in the end. Hopefuly you won't be begging me for a drink of water!

I won't be asking you for any water, trust me on that much. LOL

Where did I say God was a liar? It's you who thinks that if it's not literal God is a liar, not me. And you're the one who started running down my belief system first.

Hey if you want to call God a liar that's your problem. At least until you meet Him face to face. As for me and my household, well we know that God knows better than any other.

I'll just live by this verse thank you
2 John 1:6 (NCV)

And love means living the way God commanded us to live. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is this: Live a life of love.


Have a loving and blessed day.

[mslman71]

After a little bit of research I was not surprised to find that there is no evidence of any significant change in the radius of the earth, temperature of the Earth's core (constant radius, increasing density assumption) and no evidence of any changes in the earth's moment of inertia (all to the contrary, actually). On the other hand there is measurable evidence of the effects of tectonic plate migration & impact of the geological features of the Earth in the past as well those that occurring at this very moment (and are being measured). The accretion rate to produce such a massive change is inconsistent with anything we've observed directly or indirectly through geological evidence (short of causing cataclysmic destruction).

I have no problem with any theory as long as the theory is consistent with something that can be measured; something that ties into at least the most basic of observables or laws. Otherwise I have no preconception or prejudice about what the answer should be.

[Marius_Ursus]

After a little bit of research I was not surprised to find that there is no evidence of any significant change in the radius of the earth, temperature of the Earth's core (constant radius, increasing density assumption) and no evidence of any changes in the earth's moment of inertia (all to the contrary, actually). On the other hand there is measurable evidence of the effects of tectonic plate migration & impact of the geological features of the Earth in the past as well those that occurring at this very moment (and are being measured). The accretion rate to produce such a massive change is inconsistent with anything we've observed directly or indirectly through geological evidence (short of causing cataclysmic destruction).

I have no problem with any theory as long as the theory is consistent with something that can be measured; something that ties into at least the most basic of observables or laws. Otherwise I have no preconception or prejudice about what the answer should be.

The same evidence of the continents moving can be explained by the Earth's expansion as well. Same as the plates moving. The evidence is there, but it's like the evidence about whether or not G-d exists because you can start with either conclusion and work your way backward.

My stance on this issue is a weird one, I'll grant. I don't believe any of this construct is reality anyway, so all the ideas about time, dimension, space, vaccuum, dark matter, sub-atomic particles...don't matter too much to me. They're interesting in trying to understand how everything works with everything else, but...it's in the same ballpark as figuring out Santa's shoe size.

[NYkarate]

the same evidence of the continents moving can be explained by the earth's expansion as well. Same as the plates moving. The evidence is there, but it's like the evidence about whether or not g-d exists because you can start with either conclusion and work your way backward.

My stance on this issue is a weird one, i'll grant. I don't believe any of this construct is reality anyway, so all the ideas about time, dimension, space, vaccuum, dark matter, sub-atomic particles...don't matter too much to me. They're interesting in trying to understand how everything works with everything else, but...it's in the same ballpark as figuring out santa's shoe size.

10.5 eee

[Marius_Ursus]

10.5 eee

You best not be calling Santa fat!

[NYkarate]

You best not be calling Santa fat!

Huh?