FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Culture > Off-topic

Greetings!

Off-topic Post your random thoughts and ideas here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-04-2004, 03:40 PM
Ian Beardsley's Avatar
Ian Beardsley Ian Beardsley is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 27
Project Genesis

Project Genesis
by Ian Beardsley (copyright by Ian Beardsley September, 2004)

Since other stellar systems may not even exist as we need them, and the distances between them are so immense, it might be better to unlock the mysteries of making them, and find the structure in ours that allows for so much life. There is, I have found, a correlation between the microworld and the macroworld, where our solar system is concerned. It may be related to why it is life bearing.
Part 1
An interesting family of substances is methane (CH_4), ammonia (NH_3) and water vapor (H_2O). Methane is tetrahedral in structure, a carbon atom sourounded by 4 hydrogens. Ammonia is trigonal pyramidal, a nitrogen atom surrounded by 3 hydrogen atoms, and water vapor is triangular, or bent, an oxygen atom surrounded by two hydrogens. These represent stable structural systems as they are all systems of triangles, which are the only stable polygons. These substances combined under energy with hydrogen gas form amino acids, the building blocks of life. The core atoms of these molecules, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, are all in period two of the periodic table and follow directly one after the other, and are all in amino acids, the hydrogen as well. It is a hypothesis of astrobiology that amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever formed. In this sense we may have our origins in deep space. Is what I mean by structural systems is that there are only three structural systems, the tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosohedron. They are the only stable solids, that is non-collapsing flex corners whose faces are
triangles. Most compounds are something other than these, like pentagons with linear off shoots for example, that comprise the wrong number of atoms to make a "solid" unit, and I mean solid as in the pythagorean solids, the geometric term. Both methane and ammonia make different variations on the tetrahedron, a pythagorean solid.
When plants perform photosynthesis, they combine carbon dioxide with water and release oxygen. The reaction is:

CO_2+2H_2O-‡CH_2O+O_2+H_2O

As can be seen a sugar is made. Important to most plants to do this is Nitrogen. Nitrogen (N_2) is the most abundant gas in the earth atmosphere, comprising about 78.03% of it. We now calculate the molecular masses of these special gases:
CH_4=(12.01+4(1.01))=16.05
NH_3=(14.01+3(1.01))=17.04
CO_2=(12.01+2(16.00))=44.01
H_2O=(2(1.01)+16.00)=18.02
N_2=(14.01+14.01)=28.02
O_2=(16.00+16.00)=32.00

We now form some ratios between these molecular masses:
(O_2)/(CH_4)=32.00/16.05=1.992~2
(NH_3)/(CH_4)=17.04/16.06=1.061~1
(O_2)/(N_2)=32.00/28.02=1.142~sqrt(2)
(CO_2)/(N_2)=44.01/28.02~1.6=(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi
(O_2)/(H_2O)=32.00/18.02=1.776~sqrt(3)
Notice that these values are given by the sequence:
|2cos(pi/n)| n=(1,2,3,4,5,6)(pi/n)radians
Observe:
2=|2cos(pi)|
0=|2cos(pi/2)|
1=|2cos(pi/3)|
sqrt(2)=|2cos(pi/4)|
(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi=|2cos(pi/5)|
sqrt(3)=|2cos(pi/6)|
Geometrically sqrt(2) is the ratio of the side of a square to its radius. Phi is the ratio of the chord of a regular pentagon to its side. Sqrt(3) is the ratio of the side of an equilateral triangle to its radius, and 1 is the ratio of the side of a regular hexagon to its radius. The square, the regular hexagon and the equilateral triangle are the tessellating regular polygons. The regular pentagon is one of the archemedian tessellators.

Part 2
We compare the mass of the earth to the mass of the sun, and multiply that ratio by the distance between them. Let the mass of the earth be M_e, and the mass of the sun be M_s. Let the distance between them be r.
(M_e/M_s)r=(5.976E27/1.989E33)(1.495979E13)=(4.495E7)cm=449.5km

We now divide that result by the radius of the earth, R_e:

(449.5km)/(6378.5km)=0.07

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere. We now compare their molar masses:

(H/N)=(1.01)/(14.01)=0.07

And we see that

(H/N)=((M_e)(r))/((M_s)(R_e))

Having showed the last equation, where hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere, then since Mars is a terrestrial planet upon which we can set foot as opposed to
Venus and Mercury, let’s apply the same idea to mars. The most abundant gas in the Mars atmosphere is carbon dioxide, or CO_2. It in fact comprises 95.3% of its atmosphere. We have:
H/(CO_2)=1.01/44.01=0.02
Now let M_m= mass of mars, M_s = mass of the sun, r= the distance between them, and R_m= the radius of mars. We have
(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)=(6.418E26)(2.279409E13)/(1.989E33)(3.393096E8)=0.02
And therefore,
H/(CO_2)=(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)

Keep in mind these equations, both for the earth and mars, hold for a solar system at its peak as an orderly arrangement of parts. Eventually it will begin to degenerate. The sun is losing mass every day and therefore r, for any of the planets, will grow.
Thus we say in general:

H/A=(M_p)r/(M_s)(R_p)

where H is the molar mass of hydrogen, A is the molar mass of the most abundant element or gas in the planet’s atmosphere, (M_p) is the mass of the planet, (M_s) is the mass of the star, r is the distance between the planet and the star and (R_p) is the radius of the planet. Lets look at the quantity (M_p)r/(M_s). It is equal to (d_1)/(d_2)(d_1+d_2), the ratio of the distances between the balancing point of a cosmic teeter totter and the planet and the star balanced on it, times its length. We then compare such a distance to the radius of the planet.

Part 3
The relative equatorial surface gravities uncorrected for centrifugal force of the earth and mars respectively are 1.000 and 0.380. Their proportions are
1.000/0.380=2.63
The ratio of the molar mass of oxygen gas to that of carbon is
(O_2)/C=32.00/12.01
Thus, (g_e)/(g_m)~(O_2)/C
where g_e is the equatorial surface gravity of the earth and g_m is the equatorial surface gravity of mars. The centrifugal forces being nominal, this says it takes the same amount of energy to lift a mole of carbon on the earth as it does to lift a mole of oxygen gas on mars the same distance if the atmospheric pressures are excluded. Carbon is the basis of life and oxygen gas its necessity (for human life).
The data for this study came from the Handbook Of Space Astronomy And Astrophysics, by Martin V. Zombeck, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-04-2004, 06:02 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-02-2004, 05:08 AM
Ian Beardsley's Avatar
Ian Beardsley Ian Beardsley is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 27
project genesis corrected and added too

Project Genesis
by Ian Beardsley (copyright by Ian Beardsley September, 2004)

Since other stellar systems may not even exist as we need them, and the distances between them are so immense, it might be better to unlock the mysteries of making them, and find the structure in ours that allows for so much life. There is, I have found, a correlation between the microworld and the macroworld, where our solar system is concerned. It may be related to why it is life bearing.
Part 1
An interesting family of substances is methane (CH_4), ammonia (NH_3) and water vapor (H_2O). Methane is tetrahedral in structure, a carbon atom sourounded by 4 hydrogens. Ammonia is trigonal pyramidal, a nitrogen atom surrounded by 3 hydrogen atoms, and water vapor is triangular, or bent, an oxygen atom surrounded by two hydrogens. These represent stable structural systems as they are all systems of triangles, which are the only stable polygons. These substances combined under energy with hydrogen gas form amino acids, the building blocks of life. The core atoms of these molecules, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, are all in period two of the periodic table and follow directly one after the other, and are all in amino acids, the hydrogen as well. It is a hypothesis of astrobiology that amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever formed. In this sense we may have our origins in deep space. Is what I mean by structural systems is that there are only three structural systems, the tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosohedron. They are the only stable solids, that is non-collapsing flex corners whose faces are
triangles. Most compounds are something other than these, like pentagons with linear off shoots for example, that comprise the wrong number of atoms to make a "solid" unit, and I mean solid as in the pythagorean solids, the geometric term. Both methane and ammonia make different variations on the tetrahedron, a pythagorean solid.
When plants perform photosynthesis, they combine carbon dioxide with water and release oxygen. The reaction is:

CO_2+2H_2O-‡CH_2O+O_2+H_2O

As can be seen a sugar is made. Important to most plants to do this is Nitrogen. Nitrogen (N_2) is the most abundant gas in the earth atmosphere, comprising about 78.03% of it. We now calculate the molecular masses of these special gases:
CH_4=(12.01+4(1.01))=16.05
NH_3=(14.01+3(1.01))=17.04
CO_2=(12.01+2(16.00))=44.01
H_2O=(2(1.01)+16.00)=18.02
N_2=(14.01+14.01)=28.02
O_2=(16.00+16.00)=32.00

We now form some ratios between these molecular masses:
(O_2)/(CH_4)=32.00/16.05=1.992~2
(NH_3)/(CH_4)=17.04/16.06=1.061~1
(CO_2)/(O_2)=44.01/32.00~1.4=sqrt(2)
(CO_2)/(N_2)=44.01/28.02~1.6=(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi
(O_2)/(H_2O)=32.00/18.02=1.776~sqrt(3)
Notice that these values are given by the sequence:
|2cos(pi/n)| n=(1,2,3,4,5,6)(pi/n)radians
Observe:
2=|2cos(pi)|
0=|2cos(pi/2)|
1=|2cos(pi/3)|
sqrt(2)=|2cos(pi/4)|
(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi=|2cos(pi/5)|
sqrt(3)=|2cos(pi/6)|
Geometrically sqrt(2) is the ratio of the side of a square to its radius. Phi is the ratio of the chord of a regular pentagon to its side. Sqrt(3) is the ratio of the side of an equilateral triangle to its radius, and 1 is the ratio of the side of a regular hexagon to its radius. The square, the regular hexagon and the equilateral triangle are the tessellating regular polygons. The regular pentagon is one of the archemedian tessellators.

Part 2
We compare the mass of the earth to the mass of the sun, and multiply that ratio by the distance between them. Let the mass of the earth be M_e, and the mass of the sun be M_s. Let the distance between them be r.
(M_e/M_s)r=(5.976E27/1.989E33)(1.495979E13)=(4.495E7)cm=449.5km

We now divide that result by the radius of the earth, R_e:

(449.5km)/(6378.5km)=0.07

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere. We now compare their molar masses:

(H/N)=(1.01)/(14.01)=0.07

And we see that

(H/N)=((M_e)(r))/((M_s)(R_e))

Having showed the last equation, where hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere, then since Mars is a terrestrial planet upon which we can set foot as opposed to
Venus and Mercury, let’s apply the same idea to mars. The most abundant gas in the Mars atmosphere is carbon dioxide, or CO_2. It in fact comprises 95.3% of its atmosphere. We have:
H/(CO_2)=1.01/44.01=0.02
Now let M_m= mass of mars, M_s = mass of the sun, r= the distance between them, and R_m= the radius of mars. We have
(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)=(6.418E26)(2.279409E13)/(1.989E33)(3.393096E8)=0.02
And therefore,
H/(CO_2)=(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)

Keep in mind these equations, both for the earth and mars, hold for a solar system at its peak as an orderly arrangement of parts. Eventually it will begin to degenerate. The sun is losing mass every day and therefore r, for any of the planets, will grow.
Thus we say in general:

H/A=(M_p)r/(M_s)(R_p)

where H is the molar mass of hydrogen, A is the molar mass of the most abundant element or gas in the planet’s atmosphere, (M_p) is the mass of the planet, (M_s) is the mass of the star, r is the distance between the planet and the star and (R_p) is the radius of the planet. Lets look at the quantity (M_p)r/(M_s). It is equal to (d_1)/(d_2)(d_1+d_2), the ratio of the distances between the balancing point of a cosmic teeter totter and the planet and the star balanced on it, times its length. We then compare such a distance to the radius of the planet.

Part 3
The relative equatorial surface gravities uncorrected for centrifugal force of the earth and mars respectively are 1.000 and 0.380. Their proportions are
1.000/0.380=2.63
The ratio of the molar mass of oxygen gas to that of carbon is
(O_2)/C=32.00/12.01
Thus, (g_e)/(g_m)~(O_2)/C
where g_e is the equatorial surface gravity of the earth and g_m is the equatorial surface gravity of mars. The centrifugal forces being nominal, this says it takes the same amount of energy to lift a mole of carbon on the earth as it does to lift a mole of oxygen gas on mars the same distance if the atmospheric pressures are excluded. Carbon is the basis of life and oxygen gas its necessity (for human life).

Part 4

Luminosity of the sun=3.826E26J/s=L

seconds in year=3.1536E7s=t

Mean orbital velocity of earth=29790m/s=v

Mass of the earth=5.976E24kg=m

Lt=1.2E34J

(1/2)mv^2=2.65E33=kinetic energy of earth

Lt/(1/2)mv^2=4.5

Now consider the molar masses of iron and carbon:

Fe/C=55.85/12.01=4.65

Thus

Lt/(1/2)mv^2=Fe/C

Thus the comparison of the annual energy output of the sun in light, to the kinetic energy of the earth, or to its energy of motion in other words, is the same as the comparison of iron to carbon as far as the weight of an atom is of the former to the latter.


The data for this study came from the Handbook Of Space Astronomy And Astrophysics, by Martin V. Zombeck, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-02-2004, 08:34 AM
frish's Avatar
frish frish is offline
Bright, VHEMT Volunteer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 90069
Posts: 4,489
Send a message via MSN to frish Send a message via Yahoo to frish
Two things come to mind.

1. The distance and usefulness of interstellar travel has no economic utility. Any culture (ours or the BEMs (bug-eyed Monsters)) that could travel between stars would also be able to create anything they wished in their own neighborhood.

If they did arrive, our only trade item would be our art (in a very WIDE sense, since they may like our music, or smells of things on Earth, or languages, or who knows what).

2. The fact is, there is no obvious indication that there are any BEMs at all. If they had even a moderate desire to travel between stellar systems they would already have traveled everywhere (since even slow spaceships or redirected asteroids, or whatever that could make a generations long trip would have taken a visit to every solar system in the galaxy already, if they had started even a few million years ago.)

3. Therefore, my conclusion is that the Universe does not select for intelligence.

Speculation such as yours Mr. Beardsley, suggests that the conditions for life are so restrictive as to make our planet the only one in the Universe with the correct ratios (which, in my estimation, are totally unrelated and serendipitous, and as sensible as astrology or numerology). I find this extraordinary unlikey.

However, I do feel that since we see no evidence for BEMs, that any of them that were around are now extinct.

Trying to build a solar system or at least a star, as you suggest, may be possible, but it may also be the kind of effort that dooms our species to failure.

But, in a cheerier note, we won't be around too many more centuries at the rate we're destroying our biosphere, and not even close to making and enforcing life affirming decisions.

Intelligence cannot survive Gaia because it is so out of balance with any "natural" ecosystem, with its built in equilibrium.

We've pushed the pendulum of equilibrium to the breaking point.

That's why I don't have kids.

www.vhemt.org
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:01 AM
Ian Beardsley's Avatar
Ian Beardsley Ian Beardsley is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 27
Yes mr. Frish, the outlook is bleak in many respects, but I embarked on this project as the least likely person to achieve the objective. I was listening to Jefferson Airplane, a song where they chant "you have to try" several times over, so I decided I would try, since no one else will. In other words, I am not going to give up without a fight. It is an interesting fact that we have not been visited, and yes, if you look at it as you say, it does seem we would have to have been visited by now, but maybe not. One should consider that the universe is only some 20 billion years old or so, and it took that long for a planetary system to evolve with life here on earth, so it may be that life in the universe, all over the place, is just becomeing intelligent. We just don't know yet, exactly, if this is the only universe, if there are an infinite number of them, or if ours is infinite. Until we know which it is, we will not be able to figure out whether or not we should have been visited by now.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-11-2004, 03:09 PM
Fallen Fallen is offline
Believer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Just interested, Ian, do you know that amino acids (many of them) come in two different variations? 'Right-handed' and 'left-handed'.

Living organisms can only use amino acids that all have them same 'handedness' (ie. all right-handed peptides [homochirality]). If a polypeptide chain (protein) is created with amino acids of differing 'handedness' it has a restricted ability to function as it has side chains sticking out randomly, plus wrong-handed amino acids disrupt the stabilising α(alpha)-helix in proteins. It is interesting to note that proteins only have left-handed amino acids while DNA and RNA only have right-handed amino acids. Living creatures have special molecular machinery to produce homochirality, while the proposed mixture would produce equal amounts of both types of amino acid.

Because the stabilising nature of the α-helix and its incapacity to function under the above mentioned circumstances, DNA would be unable to become stable - even with a small amount of the wrong-handed amino acids present - which means that it would not be able to form long chains, causing low information content and thus being unable to support life. And, finally, even a small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication.
__________________
“…for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow

Last edited by Fallen; 12-11-2004 at 03:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-11-2004, 04:11 PM
Misfit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Beardsley
One should consider that the universe is only some 20 billion years old or so, and it took that long for a planetary system to evolve with life here on earth, so it may be that life in the universe, all over the place, is just becomeing intelligent. We just don't know yet, exactly, if this is the only universe, if there are an infinite number of them, or if ours is infinite. Until we know which it is, we will not be able to figure out whether or not we should have been visited by now.
If If If. You figure yours out. I just figured mine out. Just leave out the If's And's or But's. What is so infinite about stupid people? You have to compare the average intelligence of life on this earth to something you can't even understand. So if (I apologize for the if) the ratio is let's say 1 intelligent person to 6 billion stupid ones, the chance of finding intelligent life is 1 to 6 billion on earth.

8,735,999 (time life finished creating on earth) divided by 83,721,093,648.8 (age of the universe) = 9,583.45961907 number of times other systems like ours have been built.

Let's continue assuming, like assholes, that each system has 6 billion people/aliens.

Multiply 9,584 x 6,000,000,000 = 57,504,000,000,000 aliens

9,584 intelligent 'aliens' to 47,920,000,000,000 idiot 'aliens'. Do you think they have a chance to survive, let alone come and visit this dumb planet? What would be the point of that? To tell us how stupid we are? Why would they care?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-11-2004, 11:36 PM
Rehab's Avatar
Rehab Rehab is offline
ELP
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: VA Domiciliary
Posts: 178
Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism = the reasons aliens remain undetectable.
__________________
A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside of it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-09-2005, 10:10 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Did anyone catch it? The glitch in the equation came early, in the first starting assumption:


Q: "It is a hypothesis of astrobiology that amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever formed." UnQ


The reasoning behind this hypothesis is not given - nor is it examplified any other place outside the earth. We see here a free-floating paradigm placed as a prop to foster whatever end result one aspired to. Its elegent jargon - a most common glitch in a host of unscientific sciences making out like science. Look for it and you'l be flabbergasted how often they prevail!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2005, 10:23 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misfit
If If If. You figure yours out. I just figured mine out. Just leave out the If's And's or But's. What is so infinite about stupid people? You have to compare the average intelligence of life on this earth to something you can't even understand. So if (I apologize for the if) the ratio is let's say 1 intelligent person to 6 billion stupid ones, the chance of finding intelligent life is 1 to 6 billion on earth.

8,735,999 (time life finished creating on earth) divided by 83,721,093,648.8 (age of the universe) = 9,583.45961907 number of times other systems like ours have been built.

Let's continue assuming, like assholes, that each system has 6 billion people/aliens.

Multiply 9,584 x 6,000,000,000 = 57,504,000,000,000 aliens

9,584 intelligent 'aliens' to 47,920,000,000,000 idiot 'aliens'. Do you think they have a chance to survive, let alone come and visit this dumb planet? What would be the point of that? To tell us how stupid we are? Why would they care?
Even in science, as in a court of law, once the odds surpass a certain threshold - it is deemed 'IMPLAUSABLE'. DNA evidence works on the same principle - to prove a biological offspring, one just has to show the odds are beyond the critical threshold of plausibility - not that it is possible at impossible odds.

A far more plausable example of Genesis can be made via an artist's impression:

Imagine a painting with a number of objects in it, of varying ages - including
a woman (30 years old), a baby (1 year), a tree (100 years), a flower (3 days), a mountain (1 Billion years) and the sun in the sky (4 Billion years old). Each object by the Master painter appears true to its age when examined - but the painting is only one week old? Why not the Universe?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2005, 11:54 AM
Ian Beardsley's Avatar
Ian Beardsley Ian Beardsley is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Did anyone catch it? The glitch in the equation came early, in the first starting assumption:


Q: "It is a hypothesis of astrobiology that amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever formed." UnQ


The reasoning behind this hypothesis is not given - nor is it examplified any other place outside the earth. We see here a free-floating paradigm placed as a prop to foster whatever end result one aspired to. Its elegent jargon - a most common glitch in a host of unscientific sciences making out like science. Look for it and you'l be flabbergasted how often they prevail!
I don't think the meaning of the equations depend on that hypothesis. You are right about that, though, it definitely is not science. For the whole project go to: http://www.project-genesis.org (if you want to).
--Ian
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:30 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Actually this universe is uneading..means that there is a unending source of places where many different types of life could be living....not saying there is life like humans out there but life all the same.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-19-2005, 09:48 AM
Fallen Fallen is offline
Believer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Dragon, is there any conclusive proof that the Universe is unending? How can you know that? And, is there any proof of life outside of Earth that has been found?
__________________
“…for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:12 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Well gee do you know if it is unending? Do you have proof it is ended somewhere? Do you see a ending when you look into the sky? Now i am not saying your right or wrong, i am just asking the questions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
origin of first life shailesh Biology and Genetics 111 11-07-2007 01:46 PM
Lies Our Papers Tell Us ArghMonkey Politics and World Events 31 03-26-2007 01:20 PM
With Respect To Light, Is The Big Bang In Conflict With Genesis? Ontologuy Space and Time 30 12-07-2006 01:44 AM
WAS ADAM A REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE? IamJoseph Religion 52 05-06-2006 02:52 AM
Muhammad cartoons murdia1 Religion 263 02-19-2006 08:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network