View Full Version : Scientific Reasons for God


ghost7584
01-26-05, 09:14 PM
Scientific Reasons to believe in God:
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.
Natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species, only into a new breed or subspecies of the same animal. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

Medicine*Woman
01-26-05, 10:09 PM
[deleted long quote]
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums. Somehow I must have missed all the scientific evidence for God. Could you please prove how the citations you've quoted allude to the existence of God.

Godless
01-27-05, 12:22 AM
Theres no order in the universe; hence this is a common flaw of theists thinking that everything has order. Fact is the Universe is chaotic.

Buy the book; have a nice read: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4374.html

Nuf Said!.
Godless.

Cris
01-27-05, 02:33 AM
ghost,

There is no precedent for anything having been created outside of an evolutionary process. Based on direct observations we can see that those items with the greatest complexity take the longest to evolve and in an infinite universe time is not a limitation.

fahrenheit 451
01-27-05, 02:54 AM
welcome ghost, I would go back and revise you thinking.
it's already been said, but I to would like to see the evidence, for such assertions, thank you

duendy
01-27-05, 06:29 AM
whenever one proposes a 'designer' of the universe, we are back with the image of the male 'God' making 'his' universe as though from OUTSIDE
This is old-fashioned (ie., patriarchal)

read the CHAOS book, that's much more hip.
the CREATION is both transcendental AND immanent. think positive negative and earthed. Nature Is Intelligence

Prester John
01-27-05, 07:45 AM
Scientific Reasons to believe in God:
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

snip bad/out of context science and maths

The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

Ok so what created god ?

Yorda
01-27-05, 08:00 AM
Ok so what created god ?

What do you mean!?? No one created god. He's the creator, you know, he's not creatED.

Zero Mass
01-27-05, 08:12 AM
Also, read the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins. somebody on sciforums turned me on to it and it helped explain a lot of naive questions about evolution. It even adresses the "monkey typing shakespeare" argument and puts it down.

The idea behind the blind watchmaker is putting an end to the idea that life was a product of intelligent design, but instead relied completely on random chance and the laws of evolution.

-ZERO MASS

Silas
01-27-05, 08:43 AM
Lets blow the straw men down. And, ghost7584, you actually need to know something about science before you can make remotely sensible claims about what science proves. Leaving aside the fact that whatever science proves is by definition not God - since science explores the explorable and explains the explicable. If something is explicable (by some previous scientifically testable source or cause) then it isn't God. Maybe the start of the Universe was by God - in which case it will be impossible for Science to determine the exact cause of the Universe. If it is not impossible for Science to determine the exact cause of the Universe, if in other words the creation of the Universe becomes inevitable due to the laws of physics, science will again have disproved the God theory - but the God theory is untouchable by science anyway. You can then say, "who or what created the laws of physics?" to which you can suggest that God created the laws, or that the laws just are, or (as in my case) that the laws are at root due to the absolutely immutable (not even by God) laws of Mathematics.


The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator

The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible..The first item and the second item are different issues. The Universe with its supposed ordered complexity is in fact quite chaotic. The problem arises that the laws of physics appear to be fine-tuned to allow for the creation of a Universe that is almost flat - ie that doesn't re-collapse immediately or just expand into nothingness. It requires a flat universe to create stars and planets and to have sufficient time for the evolution of intelligent life. So how can that low probability incident have come about, then? But the answer, taking full congizance of the laws of probability is that there are an infinitude of different Universes with different values for the various constants and which cause different laws of physics to apply - in an infinitude of Universes there has to be one in which the laws are correct, (in fact many many of them) - there cannot possibly be a non-valid Universe in which we would evolve to debate the matter; we can only evolve in those Universes in which the conditions are right. And so, the probability argument does not stand up.

Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.The fact that scientists and mathematicians believe in God is not a valid argument for the belief in God, as they themselves would tell you. Those of us who do not believe frequently have reached this position as a revolt against blind acceptance of "authority". True rationalists will not turn to other authorities just because they are supposedly espousing the same world view, ie scientists. One of the greatest writers on science and rationality and a thorough debunker of all nonsense, is nontheless a Deist: Martin Gardner. With all due respect to everything he has taught me, I do not follow him to his final acceptance of a God.

In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible.Fortunately the operation of Natural Selection is in fact the diametric opposite of "random chance" which is why proteins etc. evolved without the necessity of an enormous dice roll. An individual mutation is random - whether it is good or bad for the organism is not random. The chances are that the mutation will be bad for the organism, but even a rare event will occur occasionally - and a mutation which was beneficial for the organism will survive to be passed on. This has nothing to do with randomness, I'm sure you will agree. The question is not if a beneficial mutation will occur, it is only a question of when. And beneficial mutations by definition will survive, and consequently will act cumulatively. I see no reason why this process would not have applied to the very first chemicals that were self-replicating to eventually "evolve" into a working cell.

This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.But in fact not, because that is a nonsensically small chance for any kind of molecule to spontaneously generate - and complex amino acids have already been formed using just gases available on the primordial earth and an energy source. If it was that unlikely, Urey and Miller's 1952 experiment would never ever have worked.

[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]Another "authority figure" - a firm atheist, by the way, and someone who hated the very concept of the (now accepted) Big Bang Theory, because it possibly opened the door for a God.

There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.I've just been arguing this with Woody. The entire system must be considered when calculating the amount of energy involved. In this case, a small localised decrease in Entropy (the formation of complex molecules leading to Life etc) occurs under the lash of energy from the Sun. The total entropy of the whole system (which includes all the energy from the Sun which bleeds off in all other directions apart from the tiny angle subtended by the Earth) is what you should be accounting for when calculating the entropy of the system. If you put put hydrogen and oxygen gases into a container and apply an input of energy, you will create water. This is an increase in "order" caused by a higher temperature - and yet no violation of the laws of thermodynamics has resulted. If it wasn't for local decreases in entropy evidenced simply by the stars and the formation of the Earth, there wouldn't even be a Universe for us to talk about!

The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.I suggest you read actual science books as opposed to Creationist literature. Science may be wrong about the ultimate answer, but please don't pretend that it hasn't advanced rational explanations for nearly everything in the Universe, and is still seeking the answers. That is the job of science - to find the rational explanation. God is a priori not a rational explanation, so science does not advance God as an explanation. Neither does it do so for that which Science has currently no explanation (for example the ultimate Origin of the Universe). It carries on looking on the assumption that a rational, non supernatural explanation can be found - and in the meantime we find out many other useful things about life and the Universe around us.

Natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species, only into a new breed or subspecies of the same animal. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species.Evolutionists will tell you that it would not be expected for species to be seen to evolve within our normal human lifespan, or even over the entire length of recorded human history. The evidence for evolution has nothing to do with seeing species evolve in front of us. Starting with fossils of dead creatures which share characteristics with those still living, and seeing how less developed fossils always precede more developed fossils in the record is a point in evolution's favour. Nobody expects there to be anything other than huge gaps in the record, and evolution is still the best theory to account for the development and obvious filial relationships between species. In the last century, Gregor Mendel discovered genetics and the digital form that characteristics take. This was a vindication of evolution. In the early 20th century, the theory of natural selection was vindicated again by the develpment by RA Fisher of mathematical genetics. He showed that if natural selection was true, this would result in specific mathematical laws regarding how species develop (for example, how a species with sibling-sex taboo will develop with roughly equal number between the sexes, and how a species which uses sibling sex to procreate inevitably leads to a preponderance of females - since this is what we observe, evolution and natural selection are vindicated).


There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.The absence of evidence does not in fact constitute evidence that God created the individual species. The gaps in the fossil record was explored thoroughly by Darwin himself, and again he was able to maintain the justification of his position.

The rest of your post was citations from dubious authorities. Hoyle is praised and respected for those parts of science he advanced and got right. He is not praised or respected for those parts of science he got wrong. You know someone else who actually suffers from the same thing? Albert Einstein. The scientific establishment accepts and makes use of his great discoveries in the fields of relativity and quanta. It does not take any notice of his divergence from the standard model of quantum mechanics because he is considered wrong on those points. Hoyle, incidentally, was an astronomer, so his authority is not respected as far as biological sciences anyway. The other book makes statements about molecular biology that I suspect are outright lies. In any case, since Dawkins was able to write The Blind Watchmaker several years after the Christian bloke in 1986, and continues to argue the same points, as do all other molecular evolutionists would seem to imply that they simply don't accept his evidence as evidence.


The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament. And here it is. Never mind accepting the word of God from Bible text, it has to be one particular (far from perfect) translation made just short of 400 years ago (in fact 400 years ago today, the translators were busy at work - it started in 1604).

spidergoat
01-27-05, 12:06 PM
Isn't this argument from incredulity? Like Dawkins wrote, their argument is that the universe is more complicated than they can imagine, therefore it is the product of an intelligent entity. That only speaks to your lack of imagination.

There is nothing scientific about Ghost's reasoning. Of course, it would be extremely unlikely for a fully formed DNA molecule, much less an entire cell to pop into existence spontaneously, but THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT HAPPENED!

The probability of organic chemistry in the Earth's early ocean forming a runaway chain reaction is almost 100% In fact, it may have happened more than once. Even chemical reactions can have the property of heredity, and evolve without DNA. DNA came later, cells came later -all built upon previous layers of "complexity" (everything is complex, or... everything is simple, depends how you look at it).

but,

There is a scientific reason for God, or rather, an evolutionary explanation for the success of religion. Basically, people believe religion because they are bred to. Religion is a mental enzyme that serves as a catalyst for making more religious people. Every generation becomes more adapted for belief, and the "sheeple gene" becomes more and more common.




What do you mean!?? No one created god. He's the creator, you know, he's not creatED.
That may or may not be true (no way to prove a negative), but scientifically, it's a cop-out. If you want to believe in God, fine, but don't pretend to justify it through science.

Prester John
01-27-05, 03:25 PM
What do you mean!?? No one created god. He's the creator, you know, he's not creatED.

Of course, the complex universe must have a creator, whilst the more complex god doesn't. Thers logic for ya.

water
01-27-05, 03:35 PM
Scientific Reasons to believe in God:
/.../
The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

Those are not "scientific reasons to believe in God". What you are trying to argue for is God by inference.

True, we can infer a God, but I am sure that nobody would really, heartily pray to such a God, that, at best, has the status of a philosphical construct.

The God, even in that Bible version that you postulate as the one and only right one, is said to love people.

Now, since when can a God by inference (=a philosophical construct) love?

spidergoat
01-27-05, 04:11 PM
Of course, the complex universe must have a creator, whilst the more complex god doesn't. Thers logic for ya.
Obviously life evolves into a God at the end of the universe, then acts as the designer of the next one.

spidergoat
01-27-05, 04:29 PM
There is a scientific reason for God, or rather, an evolutionary explanation for the success of religion. Basically, people believe religion because they are bred to. Religion is a mental enzyme that serves as a catalyst for making more religious people. Every generation becomes more adapted for belief, and the "sheeple gene" becomes more and more common.
This would also explain the political careers of Adolf Hitler and George Bush.

Nasor
01-27-05, 05:38 PM
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.Uh, no. I’d suggest you go read a physics book and come back when you know what entropy actually is.

scorpius
01-27-05, 08:22 PM
me thinks "ghost"needs to read here www.talkorigins.org and here www.talkdesign.org/

Godless
01-27-05, 08:30 PM
Ok so what created god ?

Men.

G.

ghost7584
01-27-05, 08:58 PM
Prester John

Ok so what created god ?

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist
Is that the answer to your question?

ghost7584
01-27-05, 09:17 PM
itopal

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

There were plenty enough to do the offering and have some left over. 7-1=6.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.

Isaac Newton, the scientific genius, and founder of physics, was a Christian believer and a Bible scholar. He rightly believed that God created the scientific laws that he was discovering.
Newton was probably a greater scientist than you will ever be, and he believed in God and Jesus. Don't try to hide behind science to back up your atheism.

Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton.
Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.

"About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
--Sir Isaac Newton

ghost7584
01-27-05, 09:21 PM
Silas
Lets blow the straw men down. And, ghost7584, you actually need to know something about science before you can make remotely sensible claims about what science proves.

I have a Bachelor of science, physics degree. I know alot about science and the scientific method.

ghost7584
01-27-05, 09:26 PM
itopal
No that’s not actually the answer (not 1 in 64 mil.)
The correct answer is 1 to 1. I said he “won”; not if.

Well, now you make your error more evident. You simply don't understand probability.
It is really, 1 in 64 mil. and yet he won.

Just because he won, it does not change the probability to 1 to 1. You don't understand probability.

ghost7584
01-27-05, 09:50 PM
silas

The main argument agains evolution is the fossil record. All theory must line up with the evidence. The evidence found in the fossil record shows that fish did not evolve into amphibians, and amphibians didn't become reptiles, neither did reptiles become mammals or birds. In the fossils there are millions of missing links. If that did happen as evolution is trying to say, then those links would be in the fossils. They are not.
Natural selection is true, but it is only observed to go as far as creating a subspecies or new breed of the same species. It does not create a totally different type of animal. [example: The white moths by have a mutated brown moth that is more hidden to birds. The birds eat less of them, so the brown moth takes over. So the species has changed from white to brown. Yes, but it is just another breed of moth. It don't change to a butterfly or bee. A great dane and a basset hound are very different, but they are both still just dogs.] Natural selection has only been observed to go that far. It won't account for a fish becoming an amphibian or a reptile becoming a mammal as evolution is trying to say. [So dormant genes get activated and a species adapts to its surroundings; that is as far as it goes.] It will not account for the origin of the different species. God creating them differently, matches what is found in the fossils better than evolution does. Where are the supposed missing links???? There are many MISSING links.

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: ?
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].

W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

ghost7584
01-27-05, 10:05 PM
silas
I've just been arguing this with Woody. The entire system must be considered when calculating the amount of energy involved. In this case, a small localised decrease in Entropy (the formation of complex molecules leading to Life etc) occurs under the lash of energy from the Sun. The total entropy of the whole system (which includes all the energy from the Sun which bleeds off in all other directions apart from the tiny angle subtended by the Earth) is what you should be accounting for when calculating the entropy of the system.

It is only going to work that way if designed to do so.
Example: Heat is disordered energy, in thermodynamics. A refrigerator will remove heat from one area, the freezer section, and put the heat somewhere else. The overall system of the refrigerator is throwing off the heat that it took from the freezer section plus the heat generated in the functioning of the motor. Overall, the ammount of heat or disorder has increased. But locally, in the freezer section, the heat or disorder had decreased. The impotant thing to note is this: The refrigerator is designed to function that way by its designers. It does not do that from random processes. Just like what you are trying to say about the universe. The only reason there are small localised decreases in entropy is because an intelligent designer, God, designed it like that. Random chance shufflings of atoms doesn't produce ordered complexity or decreases in entropy. Only a designer does.
Entropy is observed to increase in all natural scientific processes.
Twisting words around is not going to discount that. If entropy decreased to any significant amount, it is because it was deliberate and by design, which implies a designer. God designed it like that. Chance cannot account for that.

ghost7584
01-27-05, 10:09 PM
zero mass
Also, read the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins.

I wouldn't hire a blind watchmaker. He would take far too long to do his job and might not accomplish it at all.

ghost7584
01-27-05, 10:21 PM
itopal

. . . And now mythos-god destroys all life; that’s right all life (ALL LIFE - get it); all life is destroyed (killed in entirety) from the face of earth;

BIBLICAL FLOOD EVIDENCE
Evidence from widely diverse cultures of people: [A Race Memory]
In Sumerian clay tablets dating from the third millennium BCE there is an
account of a great flood whose hero is called Ziusudra. There is also a
flood story in the second millennium BCE Babylonian legend of Gilgamish.
In the Babylonian legend, preserved in much greater detail than that of
Sumeria, the hero is named Utnapishtim. It is interesting that elements
of these two flood stories appear almost verbatim in the Genesis account
of the Noachan flood. In these stories the heroes receive a divine
warning of an impending flood. It seems that god was displeased with man
and wanted to start afresh. They were told to build an ark and take
aboard it living creatures in pairs. In the Sumerian and Babylonian
accounts birds were sent out after the rains ceased. In all stories the
ark landed in mountainous areas and sacrifices were made to their gods
for a safe landing. Fragments of the Babylonian flood story were found in
excavations at Megiddo at the fourteenth century BCE level. So the Great
Flood legend was already firmly established in the middle east long
before there was an Israelite kingdom or a Bible.

The Australian Aborigines also tell of a flood story, yet this time there
are not many similarities to Genesis.5 Wickedly, mischievous children
caused it by hurting an innocent bird, and this act angered the gods.
Filling the sky, a storm cloud appeared, and the earth was flooded so
high that only the tops of a few enormous mountains were not covered. One
man rapidly tried to escape the flood by rowing his canoe to the top of a
mountain, where he arrived safely with several other survivors. The
people who did not reach the mountaintops were killed. This legend
differs in respect to the mountaintops not being covered. Although the
acts of the children were not found in Genesis, this symbolically
represents the evil of the people upon the earth



Chinese legends tell of a massive flood as well. This story seems quite
similar to that of Genesis. Immense flooding covered the entire earth,
and only one family, the family of Fuhi6 was saved. This family consisted
of a man, his wife, three sons, and three daughters, who were all saved
alive in a boat. The story continues to draw similarities to the Genesis
account as it says that these eight people were the only souls alive upon
the earth and thus had to repopulate it.

In conclusion, we should examine the two possible causes of the
differences in these accounts. First, these early cultures may have
simply gotten the facts confused as the story was passed around many times for centuries. Or
secondly, they may have changed it purposely, trying to fit an actual
historical event into their mythology.
The american indians also have there stories about the flood. A race memory for their culture as well.

The Great Flood Evidence
Physical evidence
There is much evidence for a global flood in geology and fossils. Rubble
drift and ossiferous fissures are but two observations that show great
movements of water. Rubble drift shows sediments consisting of massive,
angular unrolled meterial deposited in local pockes and catchment areas.
These are many times full of shattered bones. Ossiferous fissures are
found all over the surface of the world some measuring 140 to 300 feet in
depth. These fissures were filled with debris soon after they were opened
and this could explain why the did not close again. An examination of
the debris in these fissures shows remains of elephant, rhinoceros,
hippopotamus, raindeer, horse, hog and oxen. These bones must have filled
in these fissures after death because there are no complete skeletons and
the bones have not been rolled or weathered. The bones are cemented
together by calcite indicating hydralic deposition.

These deposits are all around the earth but a look at the fissures on the
Rock of Gibraltar running 300 feet deep and are found at different
elevations(highest one is at 100 feet). These deposits show also contain
many different animal bones as described above and in one of them man-made
stone implaments have been found.

Deposits on the Island of Sicily hold a huge number of hippo bones so well
preserved that they can be carved. More that 20 tons of these bones were
shipped for commercial purposes. In Russia a large deposit of these bones
contained 4500 bones of bear coming from at least 100 animals along with
cats, hyenas, horses, boars, mannoth, rhinos, aurocheses, and deer, as
well as insectivores, rodents, sahres, otter, martens, wolves and foxes.
All these bones found in these fissures appear to be the product of huge
masses of water moving at great speed.

Cris
01-27-05, 10:39 PM
Yorda,


What do you mean!?? No one created god. He's the creator, you know, he's not creatED.

But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

Godless
01-27-05, 10:41 PM
Hi Ghost; since you like posting long ass posts full of BULL SHIT!! I would like you to read this one based on FACTS!!.

"Telling Lies for God"?
One Man's Crusade


Professor Ian Plimer has been a geologist for 30 years.... Like most dedicated scientists he is a passionate advocate of analytical research and the scientific method.

His discoveries have convinced him that the earth is old - about 4 and a half billion years old - old enough to accommodate the evolution of the world as we know it today.

But that presents a problem for those who take the teachings of the Bible literally .Creation scientists believe that god created the world and all its creatures just a few thousand years ago.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I think there is a responsibility to tell the lay audience that we have very good evidence to show that the planet is old. And the leaders of the creationist movement are not using that evidence.

“Telling Lies For God” ?

...One Man’s Crusade

The courthouse in Dayton Tennessee. Here in 1925 John T Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution alongside creation. He was fined one hundred dollars.

Seventy years later Dayton is home to a Christian university named after the Prosecutor in that case. William Bryan College is a privately funded, teaching and research school.

Dr Kurt Wise: “I believe according to again scriptural claims that the earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it’s less than ten thousand years in age.”

Kurt Wise has a degree in palaeontology from Harvard University. He is one of a small group of academics who believe science supports a literal interpretation of the bible.

Dr Kurt Wise: “We have plenty of physical evidence in the geologic column that there was a catastrophe or many catastrophes as some people would like to say. We would argue one large catastrophe in earth history. The rocks of the world are full of evidence of catastrophism, which is a claim of Scripture”

To Plimer, such interpretations of geological data are scientific blasphemy.

Creation Scientists claim there is evidence of a global flood four and a half thousand years ago. The rapid movement of the floodwaters deposited a sedimentary layer, burying the creatures we find today as fossils.

In his book “Telling Lies for God’ Ian Plimer argues that these claims are untenable.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “There is no evidence really for a great flood. We have sequences of rocks with fossils in them having undergone numerous changes of uplift, weathering, erosion, removal, and new periods of fossilisation and new periods of sediments laid in top. So the evidence doesn’t support the idea of a great flood for any of the sedimentary rocks or for any of the fossils within those sedimentary rocks”

Prof. Ian Plimer:Almost anywhere you go in the bush you can show that the flood model doesn’t hold water. This material here was once mud silt and sand, so if we believe the creationists, that would have formed in a year long great flood. But there is a problem, that granite. That granite has got sparkly mica in it, and this sort of granite could only have formed at about 12 kms. deep down in the earth. The minerals tell us that. We can copy that in the laboratory. so if this great flood was 4000 years ago for us to see this we would have had to have removed 12km of material by erosion in the last 4000 years. The story of the great flood is just too bad to be true.”

In Australia the creationist message is getting through. And it’s not purely a matter of religious faith. Science is invoked as proof of creation and it’s even called upon to disprove evolution.

Keith Piper: “So this morning we’d like to look at 15 scientific facts that clearly refute the evolution theory as a gigantic fraud on mankind.

If the earth is 5 billion years old, where is all the meteorite dust on earth, it should be piled up at least a hundred feet high all over the globe

And also the moon is receding from earth 2 inches a year. And if you backtrack that, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.

They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua.

If the earth was 4 billion years old as evolution requires, there would be so much helium we’d all be talking like chipmunks”

Congregation: “I believe in creation because I believe in the bible, I believe God created the heavens and the earth and he created man.”

“I’ve listened to all the arguments for evolution, and they were presented by people who had influence over my life. But when I came to read the bible and to read other explanations they were more compelling and more powerful.” “We see these wonderful drawings of half monkey, half man coming from one little bone or one little tooth or a jawbone or a skull. And they are not established from the evidence, they are just from the imagination of the artist.”

Keith Piper: “If Creation’s right, evolution can’t be right and vice versa. Having seen the scientific and archaeological evidence for creation I realise that creation fits the facts but evolution doesn’t and I am convinced that evolution is not scientific and that they are mutually exclusive.”

The mutually exclusive view is not shared by mainstream churches in this country. In fact they fear it’s consequences.

Archbishop Hollingworth"The Creation Science view tends to be a kind of closed view of the world. That is God spoke, it’s recorded in the Scriptures, that’s it. It doesn’t leave much room, perhaps any room , for debate, discussion, dialogue.”

“It conveys the impression to children, whose minds are very malleable and flexible a false view of what the bible is and what the Christian faith is. And if that’s all they hear about Christian belief you could hardly be surprised that many are likely to reject it as being incredulous.”

“Young people in school today, many still think that there is some inherent conflict between religion and science. There isn’t and there can’t be.”

This is the evangelical front-line of the Creation Science movement in Australia. Peter Sparrow, formerly a High School science teacher and his wife Cathy take their Creation Bus around the country spreading the word.

They appear at churches and schools, giving lectures and showing films with titles like:

“The Genesis Solution” and The Evolution Fallacy

In Kadina in South Australia, they were denied access to the local schools but spoke at the Assemblies of God Church. The topic was “The Scientific Case for Creation” Unfortunately, the Sparrows declined to speak to us or allow us to film their presentation.

The Creation Bus is run by the Creation Science Foundation, from this Brisbane industrial estate.

They too refused to participate except under conditions unacceptable to this program. Their head, Dr Carl Wieland insisted on several minutes of uncut statements in this program, as well as a guarantee of the final word.

The foundation distributes books, magazines and videos, some by qualified scientists, supporting their Creationist beliefs .

Plimer claims that some of those scientists contradict their own findings.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I’ve had to read their scientific writings, and it’s very clear that the leaders of the creationist movement on the one hand are writing in the scientific literature that the planet is billions of years old, and on the other hand writing that the planet is thousands of years old for their lay audience. Now I argue that that’s scientific fraud.”

Prof. Archer: “When you first come to university, I mean everybody understands you’re coming to university to be stimulated to learn new things. And the most important instruction you get is open your mind to new ideas, back off the old prejudices and preconceptions. And let it all run in. And knock, knock, knock on their door as soon as they set foot in the university are door knocking creationists.”

In 1986 Prof Mike Archer surveyed first year biology students at the University of New South Wales. 15% of them accepted Creation as fact.

Prof. Archer: “So in a way I was kind of reassured but the Creationists were telling me ‘don’t worry about the 15%, we’re going to get that percentage up, we’re going to get everyone here into Creationism in Australia. So I thought well the only way to check this is to monitor, do this every single year, same group of students and see what happens”

Over the years the number of believers has stayed fairly stable. However Archer believes that 15 % is still too high.

Prof. Archer: “I think it’s a terrible mistake to think that this is one of those things in which you should have everybody having a go. After all in science classes we don’t encourage people to come in and teach our students about fork bending, we don’t encourage flat earthers to come in and tell our students that the earth is as flat as a pancake like we used to believe hundreds of years ago. Creation Science is one of these sorts of things, it’s a kind of a fringe lunacy that cannot qualify now as science.”

Science treats the age of the earth like any other question.

The available evidence is assessed and a theory proposed that fits that evidence. Then it’s tested.

If more or better evidence is unearthed, theories are changed and retested.

The current, and almost universally accepted, theory has the continents moving very slowly about the globe on massive plates.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “If we look at a major mountain range like the Himalayas, we can see that the Himalayas are where we’re having rocks that have been folded when India collided with Asia and we are getting folding, we’re bending rocks, we’re bending a massive thickness of rock. Now this doesn’t happen overnight. To bend 15 km thickness of rocks is going to take tens of millions of years.”

Dr. Kurt Wise: “We have recently introduced a theory that I nickname ‘catastrotectonics’. It is officially called catastrophic plate tectonics. It’s very similar to conventional plate tectonics which moves continents at centimetres per year, but in this case the continents are moving at metres per second. “

“In that model we have continents moving as fast or faster than you can run and colliding with the momentum that two continents would have, thus erecting the mountain fold belts like the Himalayas and the Appellations and so on and so forth.”

But the scientific method does not rely on any single proof. To check the findings of one discipline , it employs another, in the case of the age of the earth... chemistry.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “When we are dating rocks we look at methods which are interdisciplinary methods, methods which are not dependant upon each other. The first method is relative time, and that is basically the sequence of events. And the second method is absolute time, and this is where we can look at radioactive decay.”

“With radioactivity we can actually measure various time periods on planet earth. And we could use something like this little hour glass. What we see is sand dropping down here at a constant rate, and we can measure how quickly that sand is dropping down. We can measure the amount of sand at the top and the amount of sand at the bottom, and then we know how long I’ve been holding this little egg timer.

“Now that’s what we do with radioactivity, we can measure the amount of Uranium here. We know how quickly Uranium breaks down into lead. We can measure the amount of lead there and back calculate how long that process has been going. Now just to check we haven’t got it wrong, instead of using uranium breaking down at a fixed rate into lead, we could maybe use rubidium changing into strontium, or neodymium changing into Sumerian. So these are dating techniques that used tried and proven physics... the physics that we use in everyday life.”

“ When we look at all the isotope systems, we can calculate the age of our planet, the age of the moon , and the age of the solar system. And the figure we get is four thousand five hundred and fifty million years plus or minus forty. This is why we know the age of the earth is very very old”

Dr. Kurt Wise: “There are some suggestions at this early date that there might be another solution to the radiometric dating method / problem. At this point though, we don’t have a better answer for the radiometric dating that is given by the old age folks, by those who believe that it suggests the universe is old.”

In 1992 Ian Plimer found an opportunity to publicly attack the claims of creation science.

Dr. Allen Roberts: “Here we have it seems a real boat. It is in the right place to be Noah’s Ark, it is about the right size to be Noah’s Ark.”

Dr. Allen Roberts, a minister and historian, made a public lecture tour, speaking about a site in Eastern turkey.

Dr. Allen Roberts:“ If it’s not Noah’s Ark, then what is it?”

Prof. Ian Plimer: “It is a normal hill There are lots of hills like it It is a normal geological structure called a syncline.”

When Ian Plimer questioned Roberts Geological knowledge he was removed from the meeting.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I found that this was really quite an insult to my science and I found that this was quite an insult for what I stand for in the education system. As one who is committed to education I thought well no I have to stand up and be counted.”

“I’d seen previous people who had worked on this problem as writing articles and writing books, and that had no effect. I thought it was much better to come out and make it public and to really stand up to the one thing that I saw in every creationist writing and every creationist argument and that was misleading and deceptive conduct.”

Half a world away in San Diego another Ark Hunter was to give Plimer a chance to expose that misleading and deceptive conduct. Dave Fasold had been to the same site as Roberts, and believed he had found the Ark. His book “the Ark of Noah “detailed his research.

David Fasold: “ I first heard of Allan Roberts when he left a message on my answering machine. He said, my name is Allan Roberts, and / I’d like to talk to you

By that time I’d probably spent over 200 thousand dollars on it, and to me it was beginning to get like a hole in the ground that you throw money into. So I really didn’t care if I ever talked to him again.”

However, Roberts used Fasolds work in his own lectures, and that was the crucial link for Plimer.

David Fasold: “Plimer then got back in touch with me and said that he had read my book and seen that these people had pinched my work and what was I going to do about it.”

Plimer and Fasold agreed to meet at the sight in Turkey.

Fasold was still trying to prove it’s authenticity. He had previously taken samples from the area that were identified at the time as man made iron.

David Fasold: “I really believed I had found Noah’s Ark because I was surrounded by people who wanted to find Noah’s Ark. It had all the right dimensions it was in the right location and I had people telling me that the evidence we were finding was good evidence.”

But as the digging continued, the evidence began to mount against the ark. Fasold could not find the iron he had previously identified. And worse still, a revaluation of his original samples showed that they were not after all, man made.

Fasold no longer believed in the Ark and the former Ark Hunter and the Geologist now became allies.

He had discovered that a diagram published by Roberts bore striking similarities to one in his own book.

To strengthen his own case Fasold made a joint claim with Plimer, who was accusing Roberts of misleading and deceptive claims. Plimer was now using his case against Roberts to question the integrity of creation science as a whole.

David Fasold: “Well, I don’t think that anyone should have to do a court case like this on their own. I think that you bring it out into the public, after all Roberts lectures were public lectures, and he paid for advertising in newspapers to bring this to everyone’s attention. So we are bringing the real story to the public.”

Early in 1997 Dave Fasold, and Ian Plimer met in the mountains outside Sydney. With their legal team, they made final preparations for the case.

Maya Plimer was also at the end of a long and difficult road to the trial. She had been a driving force behind Ian.

Maya Plimer: “We have been living this case for 5 years now. We have sold one house, we are living in a tiny cottage. I don’t care about the money, but my wish is that every parent in Australia would become aware of what Creation Science is about.”

After such a long preparation, the trial lasted only seven days. Although the media called it another Scopes trial, the judge was careful to confine the court to the much narrower legal issues.

Justice Sackville: “ The applicants case insofar in that it is based on the Trade Practices and the trading Act fails. Mr Fasold succeeds in his claim for infringement of copyright against Dr Roberts, but he is awarded damages of only 2,500 dollars. “

Justice Sackville found that Roberts had made some false and misleading representations. However, as they were not made in trade or commerce, Plimers case failed.

Fasold won his copyright claim. Roberts was ordered to pay him damages, but he still claimed a moral victory.

Dr. Allen Roberts:“ I’m delighted particularly because the judgement that was handed down by his honour has in fact preserved the free speech of anyone that has something important to say publicly.”

Although his side of the case failed, Plimer still took some satisfaction from the judges statements.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “We were able to show legally that this work was misleading and deceptive, and I have argued for decades that the one golden thread that unites creationists is misleading and deceptive conduct......”

If Plimer felt defeated he did not show it. Since the trial he has lodged an appeal, hoping that the court will this time find that Roberts was acting in trade and commerce. For him the fight goes on...

Prof. Ian Plimer:“I feel very strongly about what Creation Scientists are doing to Science because they completely denigrate the value of inquiring, the value of not knowing, the value of exploring the unknown the value of being a critical thinker.”

“There was another arena in which this was being discussed, and that was in the public, and I’m very very happy that it actually opened the issue to the public. There were numerous letters to the editor, there were numerous editorials, articles. And this is really what I wanted to do, I wanted to do in many ways. I wanted to expose creationism for what it is, and it’s bad religion, bad science and bad business.”

G.

Gambit Star
01-28-05, 12:54 AM
You have got to be joking, Im not reading all of that !

Prester John
01-28-05, 02:55 AM
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3




I'd return that degree ghost and demand a refund, doesn't look like they taught you much about science. Tell me whats wrong with this statement? You are using it to suggest that evolution can't happen/. That is a misrepresentation, or as i prefer to call it a lie. hmmmmm

I'll give you a clue, evolution is not caused by random shufflings of simple organic molecules.

Anyway explain to me again why god doesn't need a creator but the universe does. Sounds like special pleading to me.

/rant The thing that really annoys me is thats people like ghost don't care for the truth, they will lie and bend facts to fit their preconcieved ideas, and then claim the moral high ground! It wouldn't be so bad if they could follow their own bloody rules. Jesus /rant

Godless
01-28-05, 06:42 AM
You have got to be joking, Im not reading all of that !

LOL, LOL. What ya expect? Did ya see ghost's first post?. I had to retort with the same ferocity, and you can't explain the "great flood fraud" in a paragraph or two. ;)

G.

Silas
01-28-05, 08:38 AM
silas

The main argument agains evolution is the fossil record. All theory must line up with the evidence. The evidence found in the fossil record shows that fish did not evolve into amphibians, and amphibians didn't become reptiles, neither did reptiles become mammals or birds. In the fossils there are millions of missing links. If that did happen as evolution is trying to say, then those links would be in the fossils. They are not. Natural selection is true, but it is only observed to go as far as creating a subspecies or new breed of the same species. It does not create a totally different type of animal. [example: The white moths by have a mutated brown moth that is more hidden to birds. The birds eat less of them, so the brown moth takes over. So the species has changed from white to brown. Yes, but it is just another breed of moth. It don't change to a butterfly or bee. A great dane and a basset hound are very different, but they are both still just dogs.] Natural selection has only been observed to go that far. Quite right, natural selection has only been observed to go that far. Dawkins says something like "It's taken 10,000 years or so to evolve all the different species of dogs from wolves. There are many different species of dog and they all "evolved" in just 10,000 years. 'But they are still dogs', say the Creationists. This is true, but fails to take into account the immense lengths of time involved. If it's one step from where we are now back to the first dogs, then to go back to the common ancestor of dogs, cats and humans you'd have to walk from here to Johannesburg." In other words evolutionary theory, backed up quite firmly by the gappy fossil record shows that speciation does take place, as long as you allow long enough for it to happen. No evolutionist would expect, as the Creationists seem to, the white moth to evolve into a butterfly over the period of a mere century and a half. When looked at over the period of time, the term "species" becomes somewhat misleading.

Say it's 10,000,000 years in the future, and there are species of beetle and species of wasps. They are traced back, and traced back, and traced back until finally we find an ancestral moth of each type, one white and one brown. Is the brown moth, which evolved into wasps a wasp? Is the white one a beetle? There is no real "one day this moth gave birth to wasps", it simply doesn't happen that way.


It won't account for a fish becoming an amphibian or a reptile becoming a mammal as evolution is trying to say. [So dormant genes get activated and a species adapts to its surroundings; that is as far as it goes.] It will not account for the origin of the different species. God creating them differently, matches what is found in the fossils better than evolution does. Where are the supposed missing links???? There are many MISSING links.There are missing links, but there is quite sufficient data amongst individual species to indicate that they are genetically related to each other. The rational thing is to believe there must actually be familial relationships between them. God creating different creatures matches every piece of evidence going, including millions of year old fossils on a 6,000 year old earth - because God can match every theory you'd care to make up. But as I pointed out before, science's job is to find the naturalistic explanations.


Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: 1859
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
Darwin here is doing what every good scientist should do, finding and highlighting possible objections to his theory and then going on to meet them as best he can.

W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science.Wendell R. Bird appears to be "God's Attorney" (http://www.birdlawfirm.com/bird.html), who has fought the Creationist corner in court and is a contributor to the Institute of Creation Research (subtitle: "A Christ Focused Creation Ministry"). Here (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-173.htm) he details a great deal of scholarly work which is primarily anti-Darwinian. But he doesn't appear to have noticed that not one of his citations would revert to the God hypothesis, neither would any of them deny the facts of palaeontology and geology and claim a Young Earth. (Incidentally, I think you got the date of the book wrong, 1954 is probably when Bird was born).

Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." And does Eldredge go on to claim that God must have created all the species? Precisely the opposite: in fact alongside his co-worker the late Stephen J. Gould, Eldredge was in fact in the process of providing an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record that in no way removed one iota from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This was the theory of punctuated equilibria which denied that evolution proceeds at a steady state, but explained fast transitions between species by the fact that the evolution of the new species took place at a faster rate than fossilisation can catch except by a small chance, and the kind of places suitable for fossil digging are not in fact the best places to see the actual evolution of a new species. This is fully explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Once again, a reputable scientist behaving in the most rigorous, scientific way. He didn't put transitional forms in his book because there is no evidence for them - unlike more regrettable episodes in which unsubstantiated illustrations have indeed found their way into scientific texts. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and Eldredge and Gould advanced a very good explanation for the absence of transitional forms.

spidergoat
01-28-05, 11:42 AM
In the fossils there are millions of missing links. If that did happen as evolution is trying to say, then those links would be in the fossils. They are not.
Not every animal gets fossilized.
There are environments antagonistic to fossil formation.
When evolution occurs more rapidly, it is statistically less likely for those "transitional" forms to get fossilized, since they exist for relatively shorter periods of time.

There are also many so called missing link fossils that have been found. Dinosaurs with feathers, fish with fingers, etc...

The difference between changing a species slightly, and turning into another species is just a matter of degree. Radically different body forms, as has been pointed out already, take a longer time to manifest.

It is not relevent to look at the complexity of the final body form, the number of amino acids, etc. All species are formed by differing combinations of just 4 "letters" in the DNA.

spidergoat
01-28-05, 11:49 AM
But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance –
It didn't. Chance only factors in to mutations. Natural selection weeds out the less fit, resulting over time in a creature well adapted to it's environment. It a kind of passive self-design.

Your astonishment is understandable but not sufficient proof that evolution does not occur.

ghost7584
01-28-05, 10:19 PM
cris
But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist
Is that the answer to your question?

ghost7584
01-28-05, 10:39 PM
prester john
Tell me whats wrong with this statement? You are using it to suggest that evolution can't happen/. That is a misrepresentation, or as i prefer to call it a lie. hmmmmm

I didn't say that evolution can't happen. I said that natural selection and evolution does happen, but it only goes so far as to produce a different breed, or sub-species of the same species. That is only as far as it has been observed. [example: Crickets get lost in caves. Dormant genes are activated and generations later the crickets are white with no eyes. They have adapted to their environment.] This is true. But they are still just another breed of cricket. They never change into a grasshopper, or a roach. Evolution has only been observed to go that far and no further. To try to use that process to say that fish became amphibians, and reptiles became mammals, is error. To try to use that process to explain the origin of the different species is error. There are many thousands of missing links in the fossils. There are no intermediate stages found in the fossils to show reptiles becoming mammals or amphibians becoming reptiles. Evolution for the origin of the different species is false.

ghost7584
01-28-05, 10:50 PM
silas
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,...

Go and tell that to the ufo skeptics and see how far that will go with them.

Prester John
01-29-05, 02:53 PM
prester john
Tell me whats wrong with this statement? You are using it to suggest that evolution can't happen/. That is a misrepresentation, or as i prefer to call it a lie. hmmmmm

I didn't say that evolution can't happen. I said that natural selection and evolution does happen, but it only goes so far as to produce a different breed, or sub-species of the same species. That is only as far as it has been observed. [example: Crickets get lost in caves. Dormant genes are activated and generations later the crickets are white with no eyes. They have adapted to their environment.] This is true. But they are still just another breed of cricket. They never change into a grasshopper, or a roach. Evolution has only been observed to go that far and no further. To try to use that process to say that fish became amphibians, and reptiles became mammals, is error. To try to use that process to explain the origin of the different species is error. There are many thousands of missing links in the fossils. There are no intermediate stages found in the fossils to show reptiles becoming mammals or amphibians becoming reptiles. Evolution for the origin of the different species is false.

Firstly define breed, the go here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and tell me again about no observed speciation. I expect you to redefine your argument to exclude the examples in the link but, hey lets see.

spidergoat
01-30-05, 12:59 PM
It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

It's like saying the movement of tectonic plates explains earthquakes, but not continental drift, or the puzzle-like fit between the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa.

Part of the problem is that some scientists are eager to place a label on the fossils they find- like reptile or mammal or bird, but these distinctions would not make sense in a creature with attributes of more than one classification. In fact such fossils have been found- reptiles with feathers, fish with limbs and fingers, apes that walked upright with large brains, etc...


There are no intermediate stages found in the fossils to show reptiles becoming mammals or amphibians becoming reptiles.
Uh, reptiles never became mammals and amphibians never became reptiles, however they all had common ancestors at some point. It is disturbing that you don't even know the most basic aspects of the story of evolution. If you want to debate it, which is fine, you should at the very least be aware of how the theory goes.

spidergoat
01-30-05, 01:02 PM
Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist

I would interpret it to mean the same thing you interpret it to mean- "shut up, put your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la la...".

If creationists point to our capacity for knowledge as that which distinguishes us from animals, and it was Satan who encouraged us to eat of the tree of knowledge, then should we be worshipping Satan? Maybe Satan is God, and God is Satan? God always seems to want the same old thing, while Satan encourages change.

ghost7584
01-30-05, 11:29 PM
water
The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

Those are not "scientific reasons to believe in God". What you are trying to argue for is God by inference.

THAT is not arguing anything. I am simply preaching to you the truth.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

On the judgement day you will not be able to say that no one told you. I did.

This was your life! tract
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

ghost7584
01-30-05, 11:35 PM
spidergoat
It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

That macroevolution that you are referring to did not happen. The reason that it is known that it did not happen, is because of all of the missing links in the fossils as they are found. The intermediate stages between the different species would have been found in the fossils if such macroevolution did happen. Those intermediate stages are not found anywhere in the fossils, so that macroevolution did not happen.
The evidence as it is found shows evolution for the origin of the species to be false.

Silas
01-31-05, 05:50 AM
spidergoat
It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

That macroevolution that you are referring to did not happen. The reason that it is known that it did not happen, is because of all of the missing links in the fossils as they are found. The intermediate stages between the different species would have been found in the fossils if such macroevolution did happen. Those intermediate stages are not found anywhere in the fossils, so that macroevolution did not happen.
The evidence as it is found shows evolution for the origin of the species to be false.
Wrong, in fact. If a new species of fossil were discovered that was intermediate, that's a new species and then you'd be claiming that there were no intermediates between that one and its predecessor. As I explained Eldredge and Gould advanced a theory as to why we don't see evolution "in action" in the fossil evidence. But apart from anything else, the fossil record is always going to be very spotty because the chances are against any individual organism becoming fossilised. The absence of every individual change from one form to another does not, in fact, disprove evolution, which in any case is a known fact. I believe Darwinism or Natural Selection is the underlying root cause for evolved complexity, but it's possible there is some other reason it happens. That evolution occurred is not doubted by any reputable biologist, geologist, palaeontologist, geneticist or any other scientist for whom the facts of evolution impinge on how they do their work and increase the knowledge of the human race.

Medicine*Woman
01-31-05, 06:12 AM
ghost7584: But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.
*************
M*W: Please provide proof of your statements.
*************
ghost7584: Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist
Is that the answer to your question?
*************
M*W: Well, I interpret that as Moses was most likely a fictional character. The story goes that Moses was the leader of the Habiru in the desert (nomads, you know), and he was having a hard time controlling those nasty Habiru. So, he goes upon the mountain as people did in those days to talk to "god," and he comes down with some rules (that god wrote, yeah, right) to make those nasty Habiru behave. The "god" that Moses knew was the sun, Aten, Ra, Sol Invictus, etc. That's why they went upon the mountain, to get closer to "god."

Moses started the worship of one monotheistic god, but you should know by now that Moses's god was Aten, the sun.

Bottom line, there is no monotheistic god. There is no "sun" of God, and there is no "salvation." The only thing you have is the dying demigod sun followed by the resurrected sun every 12 hours.

Medicine*Woman
01-31-05, 06:14 AM
ghost7584:
The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

I am simply preaching to you the truth.

On the judgement day you will not be able to say that no one told you. I did.
*************
M*W: Man! Did you come to the wrong place! Preaching is NOT ALLOWED here! Get lost!

Silas
01-31-05, 08:59 AM
ghost7584: But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.
*************
M*W: Please provide proof of your statements.
*************
Silas: ghost's position is based upon his ignorance of thermodynamics, of chemistry, of molecular biology, of genetics and of the laws of probability. He can't provide proof of something which is simply predicated on stuff he doesn't know anything about.

Medicine*Woman
01-31-05, 09:06 AM
*************
M*W: I figured as much!

matnay
01-31-05, 09:29 AM
I think the idea that our entire universe was created by a "creator" is very reasonable. It's unfortunate that this idea is usually only interpreted by religion. Religion is silly. But belief in a higher power is not.

duendy
01-31-05, 12:04 PM
i am wondering why you put creator in commas? in other words how do you define creaor? thi is how i see the different ideas about creation simply:

that A CREATOR, 'God' created it and us, and 'HE' is our creaTOR

Then you have the idea of evolution, whereby by sheer 'fluke' intelligent life happens

But i am interested about Intelligence being actualy IMMANENT. ie., that 'matter' Is active intelligence. are you with me? that there is no 'outside' 'creator', but that inherent IN manifest reality Is Intelligence. or better put, all you can see and not see Is Intelligence, which is natrually creative and prolific

spidergoat
01-31-05, 12:05 PM
spidergoat
It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

That macroevolution that you are referring to did not happen. The reason that it is known that it did not happen, is because of all of the missing links in the fossils as they are found. The intermediate stages between the different species would have been found in the fossils if such macroevolution did happen. Those intermediate stages are not found anywhere in the fossils, so that macroevolution did not happen.
The evidence as it is found shows evolution for the origin of the species to be false.
Creatures are undergoing constant change, that is what microevolution means. But, it is rare for any creature to get fossilized. So, there will always be gaps in the fossil record. But, there are enough fossils to show macroevolution. Early fossils and later fossils are distinctly different. If what you are saying is true, then there should be recognizable representatives of all modern creatures at all levels of the fossil record, and there aren't. There was a time (meaning the older layers) when there were no apes, no horses, no bats, etc... How do you explain that?

My second question would be what would stop microevolution before a species branches off from its ancestor? Look at the horse and zebra, they are different species, but recognizably similar in structure. Before a certain time, there were neither, but there was a small hoofed creature resembling both.

spidergoat
01-31-05, 12:07 PM
I think the idea that our entire universe was created by a "creator" is very reasonable. It's unfortunate that this idea is usually only interpreted by religion. Religion is silly. But belief in a higher power is not.
What if the entire universe IS the creator. More accurately, because it doesn't have foresight, the universe is a seed.

Medicine*Woman
01-31-05, 02:38 PM
spidergoat: What if the entire universe IS the creator. More accurately, because it doesn't have foresight, the universe is a seed.
*************
M*W: What if the entire universe was created by humanity? What if? Just what if?

spidergoat
01-31-05, 02:50 PM
There is evidence of a universe before humanity.

spidergoat
01-31-05, 04:39 PM
Ghost,
It wouldn't even matter if there were no fossils whatsoever to support macroevolution, since there is ample molecular evidence in the DNA.

read this:
Study suggests whales may be related to hippos (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/whale.hippos.reut/index.html)

Prester John
02-01-05, 04:33 AM
I'm curious as to why ghost thinks quoting the bible at what would appear to be a predominantly athiest audience would have any effect. I might as well quote the Silmarillion as prove that middle earth exists.

matnay
02-01-05, 08:44 AM
i am wondering why you put creator in commas? in other words how do you define creator?

I put creator in commas to disassociate the idea of a creator from it's usual religious context. Religion does not have exclusive rights to the creator concept. It's possible that a team of advanced beings from a higher dimension created our universe. It's possible that an advanced species from a higher dimension designed a computer program capable of creating universe senerios and we are just part of one of those senerios. It's possible that we are alien/ape hybrids. It's possible that we were designed by an alien species far from being God-like. It's possible that our entire universe was created by an "allpowerful" and "allknowing" God who believes He is all that there is, but in fact he is only a test subject himself(perhaps because He was designed to believe exactly that). So many things are possible(including the idea that we were not created at all).

Religion is stupid. People have been believing stupid things for all of human history and continue believing and doing stupid things everyday(just watch the news). My point is that it is easy to see why religion still exists today and why it was ever believed in the first place(people are generally stupid). Religion is like a "wise" old man in a nursing home. He believes what he believes and there's no way to change his mind. His mind is set. Yet we are expected to respect him and trust him since he's so old. He couldn't possibly be wrong....or could he?

Sarkus
02-01-05, 09:32 AM
An extract from a wonderful talk / lecture given by the late great Douglas Adams:

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? — you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

For the full transcript: click here (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)


Ghost, you quote from a book that undoubtedly has some historical benefit.
But where is the evidence?
You have postulated that God must exist through nothing more than incredulity that he doesn't (a logical fallacy that has been pointed out to you again and again). If only it was that easy - 'cos I can't believe I don't have $millions$ :D

wesmorris
02-01-05, 11:15 AM
"Scientific Reasons to believe in God:"

LOL.

"Superstition based reasons to believe in science:"

You're either kidding, stupid, dishonest or naive. Note that the probability of something happening in the past is 100%, so calculations regarding the remote chances of the development of life are moot. Perhaps it's indicative of lacking physics. Of course the first place despots arrive when failing to accept that certain knowledge is beyond our grasp is god. LOL. "God did it!"

Lamest. Answer. EVER.

Wrinkledlight
02-01-05, 03:47 PM
whenever one proposes a 'designer' of the universe, we are back with the image of the male 'God' making 'his' universe as though from OUTSIDE
This is old-fashioned (ie., patriarchal)

read the CHAOS book, that's much more hip.
the CREATION is both transcendental AND immanent. think positive negative and earthed. Nature Is Intelligence


Not hip, eh? Well, I guess that is a good qualifier for rejecting the traditional idea of God. Damn! I'm not hip! I really need to catch up with the times. It sounds like to me that you are saying you don't believe in God because it is not hip. Very interesting way to determine what to believe.

There are two arguments I see:
1. Out of nothing came the universe (atheism/evolution) and
2. A Creator created the universe (creationism)

It seems to me that proving the universe came out of nothing is just as difficult to prove. Prove God does not exist.

Personally, I am in love with God. He has proven His existence and faithfulness to me. Everyday He shows me His blessings and no matter how silly it seems to others I will remain in love with my Creator.

wesmorris
02-01-05, 04:41 PM
Very interesting way to determine what to believe.

Hehe.. it's little different than "how about a 'one size fits all'" answer.


There are two arguments I see:
1. Out of nothing came the universe (atheism/evolution) and
2. A Creator created the universe (creationism)

Then you simply haven't been looking. Plus your second answer is fundamentally flawed. Who created the creator? Perhaps you've failed to consider the possibility that "perhaps the inception of the universe is the result of processes that cannot be concluded from evidence within the universe" - or something that effect. Oh wait, how about his one: "I don't know how the universe came to be, but if we investigate it long enough... we may figure it out". Oh wait: "Out of something came the universe, but I don't know what." Can't accept anything but a definitive answer eh? It's your perogative, however mislead. Seems to me there is no definitive answer, yet SO many folks spew their opinion as if IT is the one and only. It's ridiculous, but practical. It keeps them happy - which is IMO, one of the more important aspects of being so long as it's not at the expense of someone else's, well... unless they're a bastard. Hehe.


It seems to me that proving the universe came out of nothing is just as difficult to prove.

Obviously it came from something, and it wouldn't be interesting if it weren't difficult to prove.


Prove God does not exist.

You can't prove negatives. How about proving it does? What is proof?


Personally, I am in love with God. He has proven His existence and faithfulness to me. Everyday He shows me His blessings and no matter how silly it seems to others I will remain in love with my Creator.

Well, we adopt delusions all the time to get through the day. If that's the one that suits you, I wish you the best with it.

ghost7584
02-02-05, 12:12 AM
Sarkus

Ghost,

you quote from a book that undoubtedly has some historical benefit.
But where is the evidence?
You have postulated that God must exist through nothing more than incredulity that he doesn't (a logical fallacy that has been pointed out to you again and again). If only it was that easy - 'cos I can't believe I don't have $millions$

I was an agnostic physics major in college arguing against the existence of God in philosophy class, in the 1970s. But someone talked to me about God and I decided to use the scientific method of experimentation to determine if God exists. So I did an experiment to test for the existence of God. Part of the evidence I got, from my experiment, was the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to me and paraphrasing something from the New Testament, as it applied in my case. Based on the evidence from my experiment, I became a born again fundamentalist Christian and a bible believer, like Isaac Newton was.
I have the experiment I did and its outcome recorded in my files, if you want I could email it to you.

ghost7584
02-02-05, 12:20 AM
wesmorris
You're either kidding, stupid, dishonest or naive. Note that the probability of something happening in the past is 100%, so calculations regarding the remote chances of the development of life are moot. Perhaps it's indicative of lacking physics. Of course the first place despots arrive when failing to accept that certain knowledge is beyond our grasp is god. LOL. "God did it!"

There is only two possibilities:
The universe developed by random chance or
The universe was deliberately designed.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

Apparently you don't understand the probabilities involved, so I will repost part of it:










"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

wesmorris
02-02-05, 12:35 AM
Sorry if I sounded crass before, but I've plenty of education in statistics. Much more than most for certain.

Having thought about it so much for a few years, I came to understand its application quite well. It's a tool for prediction based on functions and assumptions. Note prediction. In this case, to calculate the probability of life forming in the universe... it must be presumed that the current accepted model of physics is complete and accurate. It must in fact presume we comprehend what gives cause to life in a manner we can capture in our probabilistic expression.

Regardless, one can draw a number of conclusions from the results of the calculations you offer. One way to interpret "damn near impossible" as a result, is "we got lucky". Another might be to consider the validity of your assumption that the model in use captured all the pertinent conditions/functions required to give us a result that's reflective of reality. Given the fact we exist, it seems apparent the model is missing something at best.

Further, that we exist shows clearly that the probability that we might is 100%. The experiment is not repeatable. So attempts to calculate probability are exactly irrelevant, even without consideration as to the validity of the model. It can't be done again, so the probability of it happening simply doesn't matter. When we do consider the validity of the model and look at the results of our calculations, we must re-examine the model. So basically, these calculations tell us we're wrong or that they're pointless to perform.

If there were a body of evidence in support of a 'unified theory of everything' and an army of rational scientists in agreement of its accuracy, the argument might bear more weight... but there isn't - yet.

Did you hear that the voyagers are off course? I think the model has a way to go and this calculation at this time is exactly moot.

Regardless, this is no proof of god, unless of course you already believe in god in which case of course it proves god because you already believe it.

In that case, you're in the sanctity of circular logic, sheilded from the sway of logical reasoning.

wesmorris
02-02-05, 01:01 AM
It seems to me that there is some sort of life forceish kind of thing that infuences the behavior of matter in the universe... whatever it is that makes the difference between random molecules and life. Science at this time can't really explain the difference. When and if they can, perhaps the model should be updated and the calculations performed again.

It seems to me the probability of life forming in the universe must be 100%. So our model should reproduce this result. Certainly the catch all "god did it" explains it away, but at the high price of accepting a useless model. "god did it" doesn't teach me anything but what I must have already presumed to reach that conclusion. What's the point? I'm here, I might as well try to learn something. I don't consider dogmatic recursion very educational.

Raithere
02-02-05, 02:21 AM
There is only two possibilities:
The universe developed by random chance or
The universe was deliberately designed.This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. There are more than two possibilities. For instance:

There might be many (or an infinite number of) Universes.
There might be an underlying, eternal, law or principle that explains the Universe.
The Universe might be an unintentional side-effect of some unknown.
The Universe might be eternal.
The Universe might be a finite pattern of order within an infinite realm of chaos.

All the Hoyle arguments boil down to straw-man fallacies. They are calculations of complex components arising by pure chance. This is invalid for several reasons: 1. The laws of chemistry do not allow for pure chance. Molecules form and interact according to certain rules and restrictions. 2. Abiogenesis and Evolution do not hypothesize that life or the complex components we find in life today arose spontaneously, wholly formed, but from a series of simpler components. 3. Evolution is not random. Once we allow for even the simplest and most basic form of "life" all subsequent increase of complexity is easily explained.

An analogy would be to physically examine a human being and deciding that it is impossible for a human to have built a car. A human body cannot melt, forge, or cut metal. A human body cannot distil gasoline from oil or make glass from sand. Therefore it is impossible that a human could make a car. What this conclusion overlooks, however, are the intermediary steps involved in making a car. A human body can make tools that make it possible to forge metal, make tires and glass. Similarly, Hoyle's argument neglects the intermediary steps that make it possible for the complex components of life to arise naturally.

~Raithere

Huwy
02-02-05, 03:09 AM
Boy
"Well father it seems that we lack the intelligence required to convince people of our beliefs through logic." :confused:

Priest
"Then, my son, you shall go blindly and convince them by force and appeals to their emotional weaknesses and wishful thinking. It doesn't matter who, just blindly convince as many of them as you can." :rolleyes:


And by the way, the bible is no longer considered evidence of truth or facts. It was written by human beings thousands of years ago and has since been through a number of translations through different languages.
Not only is it false, and has been socially irrelevent for hundreds of years, but it is spiritually no longer necessary.

Even the most famous christians fail to abide by its word.
George W bush. Turn the other cheek? Have mercy / forgiveness?
don't think so.


This facts are party responsible for the inevitable demise of christianity in our world, which has already begun.
This makes christian believers very upset, but they are stubborn and unable to adapt, so they continue what they've always done, forcing their beliefs on others.

Huwy
02-02-05, 03:11 AM
Here are some versus from the bible that demonstrate its ridiculously obsolete nature:

Book of Deuteronomy 21

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


Deuteronomy 22

10 " You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 " You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, [such as] wool and linen mixed together. 12 " You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover [yourself.] :D

The Gospel According To Matthew
-- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." :eek:

Prester John
02-02-05, 03:27 AM
Goodness ghost must you keep amking the same mistake, evolution is not a completely random process.

Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.

Both methods for rolling 10 6's are driven by a random process, but the keep sixes method has selection for the advantageous trait. Do you understand why your statistics are wrong?

Sarkus
02-02-05, 03:37 AM
But someone talked to me about God and I decided to use the scientific method of experimentation to determine if God exists. So I did an experiment to test for the existence of God.Highly commendable.
Please can you give details to all of this "experiment".
If it holds up to scrutiny then you will have done what no-one else has ever done before - come up with a scientific method of testing for the untestable.


Part of the evidence I got, from my experiment, was the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to me and paraphrasing something from the New Testament, as it applied in my case. Based on the evidence from my experiment, I became a born again fundamentalist Christian and a bible believer, like Isaac Newton was.
Ah - a repeatable and recordable/observable piece of evidence?
Otherwise any scientist could claim proof (and has often done so) when only they arrived at the results.


I have the experiment I did and its outcome recorded in my files, if you want I could email it to you.Please post it here, as I'm sure everyone would want to see exactly what you did - not to ridicule it but to assess it from a scientific point of view.
I for one would like to repeat the experiment and discover the very first scientific evidence for God.



Okay - to play with probability for a while...
Everyone will agree that there are an infinite number of things that we can think of as existing (e.g. a creature with one leg, with two legs, with three legs etc).
An infinite number.
When we have evidence of that thing existing, the probability that it exists is 1/1 = 1. i.e. 100%.
The chance of any of them existing, without any actual evidence of their existence, is thus 1/infinity.
And as we all know, 1/infinity is zero. 0%. Nil. Nada. Diddly-squat.
God is certainly included in the things that people can think of as existing.
Thus God has a 1/infinity chance of existing.
i.e. God has a zero chance of existing.
i.e. God does not exist.

Enjoy :D


If you need proof that 1/infinity is zero then please look it up on the internet.
Or ask me and I'll show you :)

ghost7584
02-02-05, 06:58 PM
Sarkus
Please post it here, as I'm sure everyone would want to see exactly what you did - not to ridicule it but to assess it from a scientific point of view.
I for one would like to repeat the experiment and discover the very first scientific evidence for God.
Ok, but if you want to repeat this, use the scientific control suggested. It is important for this experiment. God judges the heart and He will know if you are not genuine. I use this to try to save people from hell, so I will not delete the prosletyzing parts of it.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Physics. I did a scientific experiment
to test for the
existence of God. I simply looked up to the ceiling and asked God to
give me
evidence that He really existed so that I would know and not just
believe. I did this
several times over a period of weeks or months. I assumed that if He
really did
exist, He would do this because He loved me and didn't want me to go
to hell. I
did this as a serious experiment; it's either true or it isn't. I was
an agnostic
science student at the time. Later I got involved in
parapsychology and found out that there really are people that can
heal by the
laying on of hands as Jesus did and they are being studied by
scientists. The Aura energy field around a healer's body can transmit
healing energy to the body
of the patient; this can be filmed by a technique called Kirlian
photography.
http://www.synergy-co.com/kirlian1-6.html
So the healing miracles of Jesus could be true. Later I studied UFOs
and a UFO
researcher pointed out that there are flying objects in the Bible that
are associated
with angels that look like the UFOs that people are taking photgraphs
of today.
So, Bible stories of angels could be true too. I got a book on the
occult. It said
that certain sensitive people and psychics can see into the spirit
world; they can
see little glimpses of spiritual beings that look like points of light
in the air. I
started reading the New testament to see what it said. Around this
time I started
hearing evil and threatening thoughts coming into my mind as if from
somewhere
else, they weren't my thoughts. I also started seeing little colored
flashes of light
in the air around the time I heard these evil thoughts; they were like
visions, not
really in the physical world. I decided that this was evidence that
demons exist
and they were attacking me with evil thoughts trying to stop me from
becoming a
christian; I saw glimpses into the spirit world during these attacks
that looked like
little colored points of light in the air, like the occult book said.
Then one night
when I was asleep, I saw a night vision of Jesus talking to me; it
seemed like He
was really there, it was not a dream. I had an
overwhelming feeling during this vision like I knew that He had all
the power in the
universe; like anything He commands to happen will happen. I heard His
voice
paraphrasing something written in the Bible.
He called me by my name
and said, you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die,
the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit,
will be cut down. He was paraphrasing this scripture in the New
Testament:
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit.
This scripture goes along with these that follow it.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth
his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am,
there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my
Father honour.
The interpretation is that when a man comes to Jesus for salvation, to
be saved from hell, that man must allow his old way of living to die,
and he must take on a new life of serving Jesus, so that he can bear
good fruit for the Kingdom of God.
Immediately after that I woke up. I asked God to give me proof; He
gave me
proof. I have been a fundamentalist christian ever since. If you
really want proof,
ask for it seriously, like I did. Have the idea in your mind that if
God really does prove Himself, then you will serve Him. This is an
experimental control for this experiment, and it's important.
In the New Testament Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father but
by Me. The only way to get to God is through Jesus Christ, all other
ways are
false. It is not enough just to know that God exists, you can only get
to heaven
through christianity all other religions lead to hell. When Jesus spoke
I heard one word after another like normal speech, but when I thought
about it, all of the words seemed to have happened at the same time.
It was like time did not make any sense. His voice was like that of
any normal man, not to deep, and not too high in pitch. The words
seemed to fill my entire being as if they were put into me with real
power.
This happened to me in 1975. Jesus was coming to me in a darkened room
so I did not get a completely clear look at him. At the time, I
thought he looked similar to Max Von Sidow in the movie THE GREATEST
STORY EVER TOLD, except His hair was all the way down to His
shoulders; longer than in the movie. I did notice darkness around His
chin as if He had a short beard. His face is different from Max Von
Sydow's but there are similarities. He seems to look younger than
that, and more cheerful.
When He said the words, "will be cut down", the tone of His voice
changed as if He did not want to frighten me. After the words were
finished, He put His hand on my back and smiled at me and disappeared.

You need to consider what type of a test I was doing. I was probing
for an answer to a question that is not bound to the physical world.
True reality as we observe it is composed of the physical world, which
is easily tested by physics and chemistry, and it is also composed of
the mental dimension, which does really exist, but not in the physical
world. [Your thoughts and desires and will do really exist, but not in
the physical world. They are connected to the physical world by your
physical body.] If God does exist, as He is described, then He is like
a universal mind or consciousness, that created everything and is in
control of everything. To test for a universal mind, I needed to do an
unusual experiment. The reason that I decided that these points of
light were evidence of demons is because of this:
The occult book that dealt with demons and spirits said that glimpses
into the Spirit world looked like points of light in the air.
And also, I would hear evil voices in my mind, threatening me and
saying the kind of things that demons would say [threats, insults
against me and God, etc...], and I heard these thoughts as if they
were coming from the points of light. As if the points of light were
appearing, saying these things to me telepathically, so that I heard
them in my mind, and then disappearing.
This was surely a phenomenon that looked to me like attacks by evil
spirits or demons. After I became a Christian I prayed to Jesus Christ
to ask Him to protect me from the attacks of demons, and the problem
went away. According to the Bible, the Devil and his demons are
controlling everyone that is not a real Christian, to a greater or
lesser degree. (Some people are completely demon possessed.) When you
try to become a Christian, you are breaking free from the demon's
control and that is when you will notice them trying to fight against
you. If Satan already has you moving in the wrong direction, he does
not need to fight you; he has already got you. Try to become a real
Christian, and try to break free from the Devil's control, then he
will start to fight against you to try to prevent you from becoming a
Christian and getting right with God. This is what the evidence
suggests that I was experiencing when I started to become a Christian,
in 1975.
Also, these points of light that I was seeing, looked like little
visions, not like a real physical phenomenon that happens in the
physical world. Therefore, I did not consider that a physical form of
energy was of any importance here. Physical energy of the sort that
physics studies, might not have been involved.
Remember, the mental dimension is real and does exist, but not in the
physical world, just like your thoughts and desires exist, but not in
the physical world. Your mind is connected to the physical world
through your physical body, so there is a definite connection between
these two different dimensions. Both dimensions really exist.
I had to do an unusual type of experiment because of the unususal
nature of what I was testing for: - The Existence of God.

Experimental controls associated with my experiment:
Believe that if God really exists then He does care about you and He
does not want you to go to hell. Believe that He would prove Himself
to you to prevent you from going to Hell, if He really does exist.
Ask God to prove to you that He exists, several times over a period of
weeks or months. Have the idea that if He really does prove Himself, then
you will serve Him, - which means read the New Testament and try to obey it.
Have patience to wait for the proof.
I was involved in Science and that is the kind of proof that God gave
me. If you are involved in something else God will probably prove
Himself to you in a way that you can best understand. He meets you
where you are at.


Jesus Christ said:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.

Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the many false religions of
the World.
False religions lead to hell. The New Testament, of the Christian
Bible, is the real way that leads to heaven and to God. (The King
James version is the most accurate.)
You can read the New Testament for free online at this website:
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/search.html
You can listen to the New Testament being read by someone else, for
free online at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html Start with Matthew
and go all the way through to Revelation.
It is good to ask God to teach you what the New Testament really means
before you read it or listen to it.

Caution: Devils really exist and they have telepathic contact to the minds of men. How much control Satan and his devils have over your thinking right now will affect the experiment to some extent. If you manage to become a really saved Christian, God's Holy Spirit will be sent to you, to break you free from the devil's deceptions.

Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

ghost7584
02-02-05, 07:20 PM
presterjohn
Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.
Both methods for rolling 10 6's are driven by a random process, but the keep sixes method has selection for the advantageous trait. Do you understand why your statistics are wrong?

Someone did work out the math. Starting from random chemicals reacting, even if evolution keeps its sixes, the building blocks of life are so complex the probability of that happening by chance is so small you might as well discard it as a possible theory.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

What is the probablility that if I continue to post those quotes over and over again, some of you will finally understand what they really mean?
[Note: Small probability for those fundamentally in denial with minds closed like steel traps.] - no reference to you people,- I hope!!!!!

ghost7584
02-02-05, 07:52 PM
presterjohn

Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.

This idea of yours that evolution will keep any 6's it rolls is not true. Just as situations that cause evolution to go one way exist, situations to cause it to go back the other way exist to. Especially for molecular and cellular evolution. If you are saying that random shufflings of atoms could build up a chromosome, random shufflings can also tear it down. So evolution does not necessarily keep any 6's it rolls like you say. [One Chromosome has so much genetic imformation that it could fill a small library of books. The probability that a small library of books could be printed up by chance hittings on a type writer is so small you might as well consider it impossible. That is the kind of probability you are dealing with, with living cells. - Also, should you manage to do a page or two, if by chance you start making mistakes, that must be thrown away so you start over. -- so it would not keep it's 6's in the way you meant with your dice.]

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

wesmorris
02-02-05, 09:25 PM
Did you even read Raithere's post?

Raithere
02-02-05, 10:40 PM
Later I got involved in parapsychology and found out that there really are people that can heal by the laying on of hands as Jesus did and they are being studied by scientists.Care to provide one of these studies? Every study that I'm aware of states quite the reverse.


The Aura energy field around a healer's body can transmit healing energy to the body of the patient; this can be filmed by a technique called Kirlian photography.No, it can't. Kirlian Photography is an image of the reaction caused by applying an electric field to an object on a photographic plate. It has nothing to do with an object's "energy".

http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html


Later I studied UFOs and a UFO researcher pointed out that there are flying objects in the Bible that are associated with angels that look like the UFOs that people are taking photgraphs of today.So you're using one unfounded and unproven hypothesis to justify another based upon "appearance". How is that science?


I got a book on the occult. It said that certain sensitive people and psychics can see into the spirit world; they can see little glimpses of spiritual beings that look like points of light in the air. I started reading the New testament to see what it said. Around this time I started hearing evil and threatening thoughts coming into my mind as if from
somewhere else, they weren't my thoughts. I also started seeing little colored
flashes of light in the airYou read a book that said certain special people could see point of lights in the air. Lo and behold you start seeing lights... and hearing things too. May I offer the explanation that you seem very open to suggestion? So far every thing you come across you believe. When do we get to your critical analysis of this "data"?


Then one night when I was asleep, I saw a night vision of Jesus talking to me; it seemed like He was really there, it was not a dream.No. This is indeed a dream. When you're asleep but seeing and experiencing things as if you were awake, it's called a dream.

"Dreaming is the subjective experience of imaginary images, sounds/voices, thoughts or sensations during sleep, usually involuntarily" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream


This is an experimental control for this experiment, and it's important.Apparently you haven't the faintest clue of what an experimental control is.

"Integrity may be augmented by the introduction of a control. Two virtually identical experiments are run, in only one of which the factor being tested is varied. This serves to further isolate any causal phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiment


You need to consider what type of a test I was doing. I was probing for an answer to a question that is not bound to the physical world.No. You were not doing a 'test', at least not in any scientific sense of the word. Like any True Believer you were looking for anything to confirm your preconceptions and interpreted everything you experienced as 'proof' of that preconception. I see no evidence of skepticism or analysis. No matter how far removed from Biblical lore these things were you interpreted them as supportive of it.

This, most certainly, is not science.

~Raithere

Godless
02-03-05, 12:07 AM
Then one night when I was asleep, I saw a night vision of Jesus talking to me; it seemed like He was really there, it was not a dream.

It seems that we have another Leo on our boards!. :D :eek:

So Ghost have you sat down at the psychiatrists lately? I think that they have cures for dillusions now a days.

Godless.

duendy
02-03-05, 05:45 AM
It seems that we have another Leo on our boards!. :D :eek:

So Ghost have you sat down at the psychiatrists lately? I think that they have cures for dillusions now a days.

Godless.
shrinks have "CURES" for visions and 'unacceptable' behaviours?
No, they are rather the new priests of mechanistic science which claims that all there is is matter and when matter -'complex matter'--'produces' consciousness which is 'not-right' and nt in subservience with how things 'REALLy are' as is dictated by 'mechnaistic scientific knowledge' then is MUST be 'disease'....so they then make pills etc that ARE't a CURE but rther fuck up natrual bodymind processes

spidergoat
02-03-05, 11:37 AM
Some people I know (not on sciforums) could use anti-psychotic medication, this person could not possibly get more fucked up than he is naturally, and the pills really help him sleep and calm down, instead of (it actually happened) running through the streets with a towel on his head and shouting about non-sensical bullshit. His behavior was not only deemed unacceptable by his friends, but was also obviously totally unacceptable to himself. Mental illness is often intensly troubling to the person affected.

It's good to be skeptical, Duendy, but mental illness is no joke invented by quack doctors. You are right in that there is no cure, but the worst effects can be mitigated through chemistry.

Yorda
02-03-05, 12:57 PM
I saw jesus today. he gabe me an icecream. then he said what if yorda died?

Raithere
02-03-05, 04:03 PM
No, they are rather the new priests of mechanistic science which claims that all there is is matterActually, psychology makes no such materialistic claims. While I definitely find it to be a soft science its medical recommendations are evidence based despite the fact that they are quite vague as to the actual mechanisms employed.


so they then make pills etc that ARE't a CURE but rther fuck up natrual bodymind processesSome people's natural "bodymind" processes are fucked up to begin with... what then?

~Raithere

water
02-03-05, 05:27 PM
water
The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

Those are not "scientific reasons to believe in God". What you are trying to argue for is God by inference.

THAT is not arguing anything. I am simply preaching to you the truth.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

On the judgement day you will not be able to say that no one told you. I did.

But have you made sure I heard you?

Have you made sure I understood what you are preaching?

No.

You speak, but you do not listen.

water
02-03-05, 05:28 PM
People, is it just me or -- Ghost's arguments are textbook examples of logical fallacies. What if he does what he does deliberately, as an experiment, a project, to see how his arguments will be refuted -- but isn't a believer at all?!

ghost7584
02-03-05, 05:45 PM
It is like I said in my post about my experiment:
Caution: Devils really exist and they have telepathic contact to the minds of men. How much control Satan and his devils have over your thinking right now will affect the experiment to some extent. If you manage to become a really saved Christian, God's Holy Spirit will be sent to you, to break you free from the devil's deceptions.

Judging by some of the reactions to my post, Satan and his devils seem to have some control over the thinking in those reactions.
I expected reactions like that because of what it says in the bible:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

The genius and founder of physics, Isaac Newton, was a Christian believer and a bible scholar. He rightly believed that God created the scientific laws he was discovering.
Since Newton was probably a FAR better scientist than any of you ever will be, DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ATHEISM.
Your atheism is really your personal preference, and that is all it is.
It also has something to do with the hyprocrisy of loving your sins too much, so you don't want to repent of them. So you choose a belief system that says you don't need to.

"About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
--Sir Isaac Newton
Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton.
Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.

I tried to tell you; don't blame me, if you spend eternity in a place you really don't want to be at.

spidergoat
02-03-05, 06:03 PM
Newton was a good scientist.
Newton believed in God.
Therefore science can't justify atheism?
What about the other good scientists who didn't believe in God?
Newton was good for his time, but he didn't know everything.

....Caution: Devils really exist and they have telepathic contact to the minds of men....

Is that what you choose to call your own doubts and insecurities? How schizophrenic.

Raithere
02-03-05, 06:20 PM
Caution: Devils really exist and they have telepathic contact to the minds of men.And your evidence is?


Judging by some of the reactions to my post, Satan and his devils seem to have some control over the thinking in those reactions.Do you have any concept of how insulting this is? Or how infantile an argument?


DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ATHEISM.ATHIESM NEEDS NO JUSTIFICATION. THEISM DOES.
ONE DOES NOT NEED TO JUSTIFY NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.


Your atheism is really your personal preference, and that is all it is. It also has something to do with the hyprocrisy of loving your sins too much, so you don't want to repent of them. So you choose a belief system that says you don't need to.Actually, hypocrisy belongs to you theists who proclaim one set of beliefs but act contrary to those beliefs. We who act in accordance with our beliefs are not hypocrites.

Ad hominem attacks are not convincing either.

Keep trying. Eventually you’ll run out of arguments.

~Raithere

Cris
02-04-05, 12:39 AM
ghost,

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. Albert Einstein 24 March 1954.

Possibly the greatest scientist in the history of mankind, and an atheist.

The problem of quoting Newton is that he lived several hundred years ago when religion had a terrible stranglehold on the world. He of course did not have access to the immense knowledge we now have concerning the universe. I wonder if he lived today whether he would still hold those religious ideas.

Jenyar
02-04-05, 03:01 AM
If you manage to become a really saved Christian, God's Holy Spirit will be sent to you, to break you free from the devil's deceptions.
Ghost, you are spreading your own gospel using religious language, and probably doing more damage than good at the moment. The ability to quote the Bible doesn't make you a Christian, and you can't strengthen its message by simply invoking the devil or science or God. How do you know people even understand what you are talking about? How can they know that you even understand it?

People won't be judged by their reactions to your posts, that's mere arrogance.

Silas
02-04-05, 08:01 AM
^And this is why I respect Jenyar as a theistic poster here.

ghost7584
02-04-05, 11:46 PM
Cris

I believe Newton is in heaven and Einstein is in hell. An eternity of difference between the two.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

ghost7584
02-04-05, 11:51 PM
Jenyar
People won't be judged by their reactions to your posts, that's mere arrogance.

People will be judged by the words of the King James version New Testament.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

wesmorris
02-05-05, 12:02 AM
Cris

I believe Newton is in heaven and Einstein is in hell. An eternity of difference between the two.


So do you expect that others should share in your belief?

Medicine*Woman
02-05-05, 12:04 AM
ghost7584: I believe Newton is in heaven and Einstein is in hell. An eternity of difference between the two.
*************
M*W: Newton was a member of the Knights Templar. He was familiar with the esoteric beliefs of Christ such as Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalen. He was a member of the elite society. He really knew who Jesus was and what his mission was.

water
02-05-05, 02:58 AM
I think Ghost must be approached more biblically. With sword and fire.

Godless
02-05-05, 11:40 AM
I think Ghost must be approached more biblically. With sword and fire.

Or drown him in Water!! no pun inteded; :D

Excusemua! Water I've got a bit of a hung over; couldn't resist that remark ;)

Godless.

VitalOne
02-05-05, 10:45 PM
Ok so what created god ?
Think of it this way, That is like asking "what created time?". Time is beginningless, endless, and needs no creator. In fact, the act of creating time would take time itself. If God like time is a causeless cause, then it would be impossible for it to be created or destroyed.

Unless you're like me, and believe that time itself doesn't really exist at all, and is only a man made illusion.

Godless
02-06-05, 01:50 AM
Unless you're like me, and believe that time itself doesn't really exist at all, and is only a man made illusion.

So the next "time" you are at a red light just run it; when the freaking cop pulls you over, tell him time is nothing but an illusion, thus when you crossed that street, the light could have been green as well as red, who cares? you had "no time" to standing still. No here's one for you, hold your breath for as long as you can, since time is nothing more than an illusion to you, you should be able to hold your breath for as long as that illusion lasts!. LOL... :D :rolleyes:

Never mind me I just don't have "time" to read topcrapintellectuality or in other words non-sequirtus!.

Godless.

mountainhare
02-06-05, 01:57 AM
Then you have the idea of evolution, whereby by sheer 'fluke' intelligent life happens

Evolution does not rely on chance. Natural SELECTION is the very opposite of randomness.

VitalOne
02-06-05, 11:23 PM
So the next "time" you are at a red light just run it; when the freaking cop pulls you over, tell him time is nothing but an illusion, thus when you crossed that street, the light could have been green as well as red, who cares? you had "no time" to standing still. No here's one for you, hold your breath for as long as you can, since time is nothing more than an illusion to you, you should be able to hold your breath for as long as that illusion lasts!. LOL... :D :rolleyes:

Never mind me I just don't have "time" to read topcrapintellectuality or in other words non-sequirtus!.

Godless.
No no no, I do not mean it like that. Just as hot and cold are perceptions, time is a perception. If we had no memory of the past then there would be no illusion of time flowing, but we do have memories of the past (whether it be 1 sec ago or years ago). It is our memory of the past that creates the illusion of change, when in actuality everything is happening at once.

Jenyar
02-07-05, 01:49 AM
People will be judged by the words of the King James version New Testament.
What about people who can't understand English? Who grow up with a different native language?

Cris
02-07-05, 02:01 AM
ghost,


I believe Newton is in heaven and Einstein is in hell. An eternity of difference between the two.

And I assume you would be appropriately ashamed if such a condition were true. The injustice would be obvious but this would also reveal Christianity as a serious perversion.

Godless
02-07-05, 07:04 AM
No no no, I do not mean it like that. Just as hot and cold are perceptions, time is a perception. If we had no memory of the past then there would be no illusion of time flowing, but we do have memories of the past (whether it be 1 sec ago or years ago).

Ah!! A bit different, however I still fail to see the "logic". We perceive time, correct, but also correct, (existence exists wether we are aware of it or not". Thus existence exists, wether I exist or not. However how would such a perception explain physical growth, of say, my own body?. Thus time exists, wether we are aware of it or not. Physical time exists wether a perception such as human consciousness were an existence or not. Thus before I was an existence with a consciousness to perceive time, time existed between that time I was unaware of it, till I became aware of it. Also time will continue to exists, when I perish, because even though I will no longer "exist" time will continue to exists. Wether the human race commits genocide or not, time will exis.

Early morning I hope that made sense ;)

Godless.

Silas
02-07-05, 08:20 AM
Think of it this way, That is like asking "what created time?". Time is beginningless, endless, and needs no creator. In fact, the act of creating time would take time itself. If God like time is a causeless cause, then it would be impossible for it to be created or destroyed.

Unless you're like me, and believe that time itself doesn't really exist at all, and is only a man made illusion.
The fallacy here is that Time just is - it carries on at its relentless rate for each relative frame of reference. It does not create, destroy, exhibit any kind of humanistic motivation or other characteristic - it just is. God as an uncaused cause nevertheless was supposedly caused as an intelligent, proactive entity, or at least the one that is worshipped in churches, synagogues and mosques is. The question is, how did God come into being possessing characteristics that it took the Universe billions of years to evolve?

VitalOne
02-07-05, 02:22 PM
Ah!! A bit different, however I still fail to see the "logic". We perceive time, correct, but also correct, (existence exists wether we are aware of it or not". Thus existence exists, wether I exist or not. However how would such a perception explain physical growth, of say, my own body?. Thus time exists, wether we are aware of it or not. Physical time exists wether a perception such as human consciousness were an existence or not. Thus before I was an existence with a consciousness to perceive time, time existed between that time I was unaware of it, till I became aware of it. Also time will continue to exists, when I perish, because even though I will no longer "exist" time will continue to exists. Wether the human race commits genocide or not, time will exis.

Early morning I hope that made sense ;)

Godless.
The whole concept of "time" arises from our memory. If we had no memory of anything, then things would just be happening, no "time" involved. That is actually how they happen. The perception that things will happen, are happening, and happened are just perceptions. Similar to what Quantum Physics says, when we aren't observing anything everything is infinitely happening. Time never really existed, so when you die, it will continue to not exist :)

VitalOne
02-07-05, 02:41 PM
The fallacy here is that Time just is - it carries on at its relentless rate for each relative frame of reference. It does not create, destroy, exhibit any kind of humanistic motivation or other characteristic - it just is.
Actually, though time doesn't carry any humanistic motivation, it can be characterized as a creator, maintainer, and destroyer. Without time nothing is ever created, maintained, nor destroyed. Time is the causer of everything, without time there is no change.



God as an uncaused cause nevertheless was supposedly caused as an intelligent, proactive entity, or at least the one that is worshipped in churches, synagogues and mosques is. The question is, how did God come into being possessing characteristics that it took the Universe billions of years to evolve?
This depends on which religion you look into. If you are thinking of God as something with personal attributes, as in some type of God in the sky I don't think you're thinking of God in the right frame of mind. If God is a causeless cause, it has to just be, just as time just is. Perhaps God has no personal attributes and these were just labeled by humans, characterized as such.

Godless
02-07-05, 10:07 PM
The whole concept of "time" arises from our memory.

Well perhaps, I'll concede to this statement; though it makes no sense to me. However I read the above and couldn't help thinking of the movie "Fity First Dates". Drew B. and Addam (*forgot last name, memory lapse* LOL..*) anyhow she only remembered the day of her accident, and there was also in that movie a character. that forgot everything within 2min. Hi my name is bob, two minutes latter, Hi my name is bob, and so forth. So perception does play a big part to perceiving time. However even before humans were walking the earth, time elapsing, moving, existing, only when human capacity to perceive did we know the compcept of time.

Sorry for rambling but this just trips me out!. LOL.. :D :confused:

Godless.

Silas
02-08-05, 04:48 AM
This depends on which religion you look into. If you are thinking of God as something with personal attributes, as in some type of God in the sky I don't think you're thinking of God in the right frame of mind. If God is a causeless cause, it has to just be, just as time just is. Perhaps God has no personal attributes and these were just labeled by humans, characterized as such.But that God is nothing more than a personification of the Universe. I believe in the Universe, I just don't believe in a personal, anthropomorphic Creator God. If you're claiming that this non-persona God is additional to the existing Universe, I would need to see some kind of evidence - even as much "evidence" as there exists for the Biblical God. And I wonder why go to all the bother in believing in such a God?

Billy T
02-08-05, 05:16 AM
The whole concept of "time" arises from our memory. If we had no memory of anything, then things would just be happening, no "time" involved. That is actually how they happen. The perception that things will happen, are happening, and happened are just perceptions. Similar to what Quantum Physics says, when we aren't observing anything everything is infinitely happening. Time never really existed, so when you die, it will continue to not exist :)

I agree with you. In another thread I gave a mathematical proof of the non existance of time and paste it below. WARNING BORING READING BELOW :o

About time's existance: Time is not invisible material that flows, dragging the events that happen with it. If the passage of time were universally "paused" and them resumed, no one would know. It would be like you were one of the characters in a movie who had just knocked over a glass of water, half of which had spilled out, when time "paused" - When the movies resumes, it shows the other half spills out. etc. just as if the movie never paused.

The best way to think of time is that it is a convenient parameter the can link many different events together. For example, (considering only one half cycle of a pendullum's swing), the pendulum of a grandfather clock and the advance of the clocks hands. If the position of the hands is described by a function of time, h = H(t), and the position of the pendulum by the function p = P(t) where "t" is time, h is hand positions, and p is pendulum paosition, one can solve (invert) these equations to get: t = T1(h) that is time expressed as a function of hand position which I have called T1 to distinguish it from different function T2. The inversion of the equation p = P(t) yields: t = T2(p).

Now we can eliminate t from these two equations. I.e. T1(h) = T2(p). That is with this equation we have a direct relations (NO TIME VARIABLE) between p and h. It would be possible to establish direct relationship equations between any two observable events you like, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO TIME; however, it would be an extremely inconvent way to describe the universe because every equation would be unique and complex, but this illustates that "time" is not necessary to a complete description of the universe, even one with mathematical percision. Thus time is not material, or even necessary and if it "paused" we would not know. Time is only a very convenient concept for understanding how events are related. Without linking all observable events to this parameter we call time, the equations of physics would be much to complex to actually use for almost everything we can describe via time.

We naturaly tend to think of time a some unseen "flow" to which all events are tied, but this is only a convenience. Time really does not exist either as a material or non matreril flow. Events cause the change in other events, not passage of time. The clock's hands advance because the pendulum swings etc.

Prester John
02-08-05, 07:02 AM
Think of it this way, That is like asking "what created time?". Time is beginningless, endless, and needs no creator. In fact, the act of creating time would take time itself. If God like time is a causeless cause, then it would be impossible for it to be created or destroyed.

Unless you're like me, and believe that time itself doesn't really exist at all, and is only a man made illusion.




Actually time is a property of the Universe. Time began when the universe began.

wesmorris
02-08-05, 10:15 AM
Man I'm slow. It just occurred to me that the nonsense of the thread is exposed in the title.

Science? I'm down, but it is a little boring.

Reason? Hellz yeah. It's even interesting.

God? Uh... (singing) One of these things is not like the other....

I suppose that's slightly unfair, as it is reasoning that lead to god's invention. Distinctly flawed reasoning (as has been demonstrated clearly ad-infinitum), but reasoning none-the-less.

You are the weakest link!

Goodbye.

TruthSeeker
02-08-05, 04:50 PM
I wonder what is the probability for life to appear in this universe as opposed to on earth. Even because oxigen atoms are not incredibly abundant themselves (assuming life like ours).......

Medicine*Woman
02-08-05, 05:50 PM
Silas: But that God is nothing more than a personification of the Universe. I believe in the Universe, I just don't believe in a personal, anthropomorphic Creator God. If you're claiming that this non-persona God is additional to the existing Universe, I would need to see some kind of evidence - even as much "evidence" as there exists for the Biblical God. And I wonder why go to all the bother in believing in such a God?
*************
M*W: I like your description of who/what you think God to be. The Universe did, in fact, create everything including humanity, and we are still in the process of our creation.

ghost7584
02-09-05, 01:34 AM
wesmorris
So do you expect that others should share in your belief?

Jesus plainly said that many will go to destruction and few will find the way that leads to eternal life in heaven. It is like that in every generation.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The title of this post is "scientific reasons for God".
I am in this discussion to present the reasons, and make them available to people. In the hope, that some might be saved from hell by it. I expect opposition from most. I am presenting this discussion to try to lead the few, to salvation.
If you want to know what is the way that leads to life in heaven:
It is in the King James version New Testament. Ask God to help you understand it right before you read it. You can listen to it on your computer at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

Sarkus
02-09-05, 03:50 AM
If god does not exist - it will exist - it is inevitable. We measure ourselves (humans) in short measures - and fail to reason what we are and were we come from. Orders of magnitude seperate us from what we are now and what our origin was. Orders of magnitude and time - are all that separate us from what we are now; and what a god will be.

Scientific reasons for god = if god does not exist now - it will probably exist in a future beyond (not measured by) any single (human) life.
Please define what you mean by "god".
If you merely mean an advanced lifeform then this is not "God".
You could certainly assign the label of "god" to any life-form that has superior abilities (technologically, intellectually, physically etc) if you so wish, but then this is not "God" as in the Christian understanding of the word / label - but merely a superior being in the same way as we are "superior" to an amoeba.

Are we an amoeba's "god"?

I think you just need to define what you mean by the label of "god".

Silas
02-09-05, 07:17 AM
That Audio Bible - is that the Larry King one from The Simpsons? :)


Hi, I'm Larry King. In the Beginning, God made the Heaven and the Earth...
...
...begat.....begat....begat....begat...
...
...lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Well, that's it. Old Fred [?] is standing by, we'll get some coffee,
we'll get some matzo-ball soup. I love the San Antonio Spurs,
by the way, if you're betting on the NBA this year, I think they'll
win it all. So I guess there's nothing more to say but... [closing music]

Joking aside...

I am in this discussion to present the reasons, and make them available to people. In the hope, that some might be saved from hell by it. I expect opposition from most. I am presenting this discussion to try to lead the few, to salvation.
If you want to know what is the way that leads to life in heaven:
It is in the King James version New Testament. Ask God to help you understand it right before you read it. You can listen to it on your computer at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.htmlA hint here that once again ghost is actually yanking our chains. There must be tons of written Bible sources all over the Internet, my personal recommendation is for the University of Biola Unbound Bible project at http://unbound.biola.edu. This allows concordant readings from different translations (including the KJV). But to recommend a spoken word Bible from an Internet source with all the inconvenience that implies almost beggars belief!

As you say, ghost, this thread is the Scientific Reasons for God. Nothing irrefutable has been held up as scientific proof of God. In the meantime science frequently disproves what is stated in that Bible you apparently worship. If I believed in God, which I don't, I would never believe that salvation would come from persistent blind denial of the truths about the Universe He created which we have independently discovered.

TruthSeeker
02-09-05, 10:57 AM
Ask God to help you understand it right before you read it. You can listen to it on your computer at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
Ohhh..... OMG! Is this the voice of God!?!?!?!? :eek:



Sorry, I couldn't resist.... :D :D

ghost7584
02-09-05, 07:32 PM
medicine woman

M*W: Newton was a member of the Knights Templar. He was familiar with the esoteric beliefs of Christ such as Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalen. He was a member of the elite society. He really knew who Jesus was and what his mission was.

Newton was never a member of the knights templar. The knights templar was a roman catholic organization. Newton was a protestant that believed that the pope is an antichrist. Newton could never have been a member of any roman catholic organization like the knights templar.
Jesus was never married to Mary Magdalene, and Newton was a bible scholar that never would have believed a lie like that.

ghost7584
02-09-05, 07:49 PM
A hint here that once again ghost is actually yanking our chains. There must be tons of written Bible sources all over the Internet, my personal recommendation is for the
Silas
University of Biola Unbound Bible project at http://unbound.biola.edu. This allows concordant readings from different translations (including the KJV). But to recommend a spoken word Bible from an Internet source with all the inconvenience that implies almost beggars belief!

The real unaltered scriptures, recopied word for word and handed down, is the byzantine or textus receptus for the New Testament, and the massoretic text of the Jews for the Old Testament. The King James version, the Tyndale bible and Luther's german bible are translations of these.
The modern versions use a corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in with it a about 5% of the words were deliberately changed in Alexandria Egypt by Egyptian philosophers called gnostics.
Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp

The real unaltered Bible, translated into middle English is the King James version.
The modern versions are fake bibles with the words changed; 5% error.
Roman catholic bibles all have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in. The catholic church is behind the publishing of all of these fake bibles. They are trying to push the protestant bible, the kjv, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bibles.

The real inspired Word of God, unaltered, is the King James version Bible.
In the King James version New Testament you will find the way that leads to heaven and an eternal life of happiness.

wesmorris
02-09-05, 08:27 PM
The real inspired Word of God, unaltered, is the King James version Bible.
In the King James version New Testament you will find the way that leads to heaven and an eternal life of happiness.

Did you know there is was a spaceship behind a comet that escorted members of Heaven's Gate to alien worlds?

I'm glad you think you care, but really you should shut up.

Silas
02-10-05, 04:12 AM
ghost7584, you're repeating yourself, and I don't think you got my point, which is "why are you promoting a spoken word Bible?"

I was hoping you'd enter the discussion about the King James Bible on a thread on that subject I started here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44806

ghost7584
02-19-05, 09:22 PM
ghost7584, you're repeating yourself, and I don't think you got my point, which is "why are you promoting a spoken word Bible?"

I was hoping you'd enter the discussion about the King James Bible on a thread on that subject I started here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44806

One of the principles of God, that can be plainly seen in His universe which He created is balance. Heat is balanced against cold, summer balanced against winter, breathing out balanced against breathing in and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Eternal punishment is balanced against eternal reward. etc.
God is testing men to see if they will choose to do good or evil. This is to ensure that anyone allowed in heaven in the future will be proven faithful and there will not be anymore rebellion in heaven, like what happened with Satan and the fallen angels. God is allowing Satan and his devils to test men to see if they will choose good or evil. This is done by allowing Satan and his devils to have telepathic contact to the minds of men. The battle field for good and evil is in the thoughts of man. So, to keep things in balance; those that choose to get right with God and follow Him are going to have thoughts coming into their minds from God, leading them into the truth and into obeying God. So, Satan controls the thoughts of evil men, and the evil that they speak out of their mouths and what they write. And to keep things IN BALANCE, for a fair contest, God controls the thoughts of the righteous Christians that obey Him and the righteous words that God inspires to come out of their mouths and what they write. That is why you have a Word of God, the King James bible, which was inspired by God, to be written by men that were His servants, yielded to His will.
So, that is the answer to your question.

Raithere
02-20-05, 12:22 AM
God is testing men to see if they will choose to do good or evil. This is to ensure that anyone allowed in heaven in the future will be proven faithful and there will not be anymore rebellion in heaven, like what happened with Satan and the fallen angels.So what you're saying is that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.


God is allowing Satan and his devils to test men to see if they will choose good or evil.In other words, Satan and his devils are doing God's will.


And to keep things IN BALANCE, for a fair contestApparently, God isn't good either. He's more interested in balance than being compassionate and loving.

Interesting God you believe in.

~Raithere

duendy
02-20-05, 07:07 AM
Ghost....you talk about balance. ie., hot---cold, wet----dry, he-----? so what's missin?
you harp on about a 'his' universe. is that so? that idea Is the problem and thats why your interpretation of balance is UN-balanced
this is evidenced in where you silp into your faulty logics 'heaven' and 'hell'. Now, if you are the commited christian you think you are, you surely MUSt believe in everLASTING reward and, everlasting punishment, no? but ...wiat, how can that be. that added idea doesn't fit in with your Taoist-like understanding of balance at all. for when one does understand DYNAMIC balance one groks that heat can beCOMe cold, and good bad, and down up. you have seen the Taoist yin/yang symbol i take it?
we have a symbol that is two 'snake' shapes going rund each other. look closely and you see a speck of the others colur in each head. that means that when one complimentary opposite goes to its extreme in truns into the other.....so example, the goody woody christian trying to save the world from evil can become that very evil!

so, ghost, therer cant be such a reality of an everlsting ANYthing. lest of all the pernicious Orphic-Christian idea of everlasting reward or punishment. as it would go against natrual dynamic balance

wesmorris
02-20-05, 12:03 PM
One of the principles of God, that can be plainly seen in His universe which He created is balance. Heat is balanced against cold, summer balanced against winter, breathing out balanced against breathing in and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Eternal punishment is balanced against eternal reward. etc.

Hmm.. how does the reality of entropy fit into that "balance"?

thelight
02-20-05, 04:28 PM
Theres no order in the universe; hence this is a common flaw of theists thinking that everything has order. Fact is the Universe is chaotic.

Buy the book; have a nice read: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4374.html

Nuf Said!.
Godless.

The world seemed chaotic to those with out the understanding of how the chaos is needed for the order in which the world works. The Universe, in the same manner, is ultimately bound by gravitational forces that work in such a percise order that Stephen Hawkings believes that if the forces were just a little to strong or weak that our planet and solar system would have never existed.

buy the book; have a nice read.

duendy
02-20-05, 04:58 PM
The world seemed chaotic to those with out the understanding of how the chaos is needed for the order in which the world works. The Universe, in the same manner, is ultimately bound by gravitational forces that work in such a percise order that Stephen Hawkings believes that if the forces were just a little to strong or weak that our planet and solar system would have never existed.

buy the book; have a nice read.

chaos HAS BEEN SUPRESSED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BY THE RULE OF THE FATHERS..oppps soory about caps. Chaos isn't only in the universe ...we Are Nature and universe, so suppression includes us too. Chaos is deeply connected to order, but it is the creatrix. all of this is in pre-patriarchal myth, as the Dark Goddess etc, the Womb of creation. what we seen in patriarchal myth is male solar heroes fighting, subjugating, and killing Chaos/Dragon

an example how it is suppressed for us? the e suppression of ecstasy (not MDMA)

TruthSeeker
02-21-05, 11:08 AM
Hmm.. how does the reality of entropy fit into that "balance"?
I actually thought about the same thing...... :eek:

But isn't entropy just balance? When the water moves through the membrane, isn't it just balancing out the quantity of water in both sides of the membrane?

wesmorris
02-21-05, 11:18 AM
Entropy is the death of energy. 'heat death'. As such, energy itself is not balanced. It's constantly diminishing. Order->Disorder.

I have a personal theory that "the life force" is actually the balance of this, but don't need a god concept to help explain it. (not that "I don't need god", but that since god - if it exists, is unknowable to humans, utilizing it as a concept to explain something has no value).

TruthSeeker
02-21-05, 11:24 AM
Entropy is the death of energy.
Huummm.... A complete state of balance might be the death of energy.... but what about the process of making the balance? Won't that process produce energy?


'heat death'. As such, energy itself is not balanced. It's constantly diminishing. Order->Disorder.
Is it? Or this is just one perspective that we can look at? For example, in the same way we see it as order->disorder, we can also see it as unbalance->balance.


I have a personal theory that "the life force" is actually the balance of this, but don't need a god concept to help explain it. (not that "I don't need god", but that since god - if it exists, is unknowable to humans, utilizing it as a concept to explain something has no value).
And what is this theory?

wesmorris
02-21-05, 11:44 AM
Huummm.... A complete state of balance might be the death of energy.... but what about the process of making the balance? Won't that process produce energy?

No, that is the process of energy being used up. The process of making the balance is energy dying. You can't unburn the gas in the tank of your car. It came to balance in the chemical reaction in your engine, and cannot be recovered. It's gone. Sure you can get more gas, but the gas you burnt is gone forever, as it's energy met its death in the cylinders in your car.


Is it? Or this is just one perspective that we can look at? For example, in the same way we see it as order->disorder, we can also see it as unbalance->balance.

That wouldn't be balance. Unbalance - balance? Notice the contradiction there, please.


And what is this theory?

I've gone over it a number of times. Basically, "the life force" is the phenomenon opposite of entropy bleeding through from other spatial dimensions. It's the driving force behind evolution, and it's roots are perpendicular to normal time.

I don't really see "the life force" as a force in terms of physics, but I mean "force" in the general sense - a source of energy maybe. Some cause of molecular organization pushing matter in the particular manner that yeilds life. Not that it necessarily "pushes it" but rather, it's intrinsic to space-time just as entropy or gravity is.

Raithere
02-21-05, 01:30 PM
No, that is the process of energy being used up.Just to be picky the energy never gets used up, it is never "gone". It simply gets diffused. The energy from the gasoline is converted into the movement on the car, the heat of the engine, wind movement (as the car pushing the air), and heating up the tires and the road. Energy never goes away... it's like, eternal man.


I don't really see "the life force" as a force in terms of physics, but I mean "force" in the general sense - a source of energy maybe. Some cause of molecular organization pushing matter in the particular manner that yeilds life. Not that it necessarily "pushes it" but rather, it's intrinsic to space-time just as entropy or gravity is.The forces that cause life to occur are the same as those that cause all chemical reactions to occur, they are simply the fundamental forces of physics. There's no need to run off haphazardly positing a special, unknown, "life force".

~Raithere

Medicine*Woman
02-21-05, 01:43 PM
ghost7584: Newton was never a member of the knights templar. The knights templar was a roman catholic organization. Newton was a protestant that believed that the pope is an antichrist. Newton could never have been a member of any roman catholic organization like the knights templar.
*************
M*W: I've cut-n-pasted this article that may be of interest.

The End of the World is Nigh - according to Newton

I recently watched The Dark Heretic a documentary about Sir Isaac Newton which was first broadcast on BBC2 on 1st March. This excellent production showed another side of the brilliant man's life, a hidden occult aspect which dominated his life.

Newton, who gave us laws of motion and gravity, calculus and many other scientific advances, was driven by a search for truth. Newton appears to have been largely a recluse, locked away in his lodgings at Cambridge studying 18 hours a day. He was an intensely religious man, wholly dedicated to God but not in a conventional sense. He was puritanical in outlook and vigorously opposed to Catholicism.

His secret interest was alchemy. Newton believed that it could help him discover God's secret. He also believed that secrets had been handed down through sacred writings, not just the biblical writings but through myths and poetry too. These writings were codes and when deciphered gave recipes which could be 'worked through alchemy. In Ovid, for example, he found a recipe for something called 'the net' which resulted in a purple alloy. Just as the mythic codes gave the recipes the alchemical recipes were given strange colourful language to conceal the ingredients used.

The ultimate purpose behind all this was to find the philosopher's stone - God's secret. Newton believed that he himself had been chosen and equipped to do this work. He translated his name into Latin, played around with anagrams of this and discovered that he was a chosen, an adept.

He worked tirelessly on scientific experiments to the extent of endangering himself and after work on the true nature of colour made the discovery that white light was not 'pure' as previously thought but consisted of all the colours of the rainbow. He was offered a chair at Trinity Cambridge but this was awkward for him as to accept meant taking holy orders which he didn't want to do.

Newton had also researched the history of Christianity and believed it to have rested on a mistake or many. He, like many before and after him, read himself into heresy. He denied both the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. He thought the fault mainly lay with the early church fathers in 4th century who were villains and had distorted true Christianity. This, however, was all part of his dark secret and would have been very dangerous to divulge at that time.

Newton hated the Catholic Church with a vengeance and among his favourite texts were the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation. He identified the scarlet woman as the Catholic Church - a harlot who had corrupted Christianity with non-biblical teaching.

Part of Newton's worldview came from alchemy and hermetic ideas contained therein. He believed in something called salnitrum - a substance or energy that made the earth a living being. This was a sort of magical ingredient which enabled metals to grow like plants - the vegetation of metals. The earth itself was a great animal or more correctly an animate vegetable. Through ideas like this he explained the law of gravity. This imperceptible material was in effect the very hand of God that influenced all things and this proved to Newton that Descartes theory of Deus ex machina was wrong.

Newton joined the Royal Society and amazed them with his treatise on the properties of light. Here again he expounded the theory that nature was circular alchemy had given him many new insights

Another interest of Newton was sacred architecture. Newton believed that ancient temples held secrets and most especially Solomon's temple. He spent years attempting to break the code was held in that temple. He was also concerned with the heavenly temple of Revelation and speculated what it looked like. He believed that the temple would one day be rebuilt in Jerusalem and that it was a blueprint for creation.

Another temple he was interested in was Stonehenge. He did not go there but visited it only in his imagination. He believed, however, that it was in many respects like other ancient temples which revealed that ancient peoples had been given important knowledge concerning the universe. Amongst other things the layout of temples demonstrated that the ancients knew that the sun was the centre of the universe.

In 1684 Halley asked him a question regarding the movement of planets which led to the discovery of the law of gravity. Soon afterwards Newton produced his most famous work the Principia Mathematica which explained the laws of motion and the universal law of gravity. Here too was alchemical magical stuff in action. Something on one side of the universe exerts a force which has an effect on the other side.

Newton also had an alchemical explanation for comets. Comets were instruments of God's wrath and would bring about the apocalypse. In another sense however they also contributed to sustain the universe because the tails of comets sink down to the world and feed back into the sun so fuelling it. The end of the world, the final apocalypse would bring in the 1000 years of pure Christianity. In manuscripts by Newton found in Jerusalem it was discovered that Newton predicted that this would occur in 2060.

But don't worry too much. In an article I found on the internet Matthew Goff* suggests that from Newton's book on the Revelation it is likely that it was the institution of the Holy Roman Empire that Newton was principally concerned with. Instituted in 800 and lasting for 1260 years (from the prophetic books) Newton predicted its end in 2060. But Newton was wrong about this. Napoleon 1 formally dissolved the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

1693 He carried out what may have been his final alchemical experiment which he thought would reveal God's ultimate secret. Mixing gold and special mercury the stuff swelled before his eyes. But it was a failure. Newton who had had success in every other area felt that he had failed at alchemy. Soon after this he had a nervous breakdown.

This time marked a complete change in his life and instead of being a reclusive academic he sought and gained power and money. 1696 Newton became warden of the royal mint and in 1703 president of the royal Society. When he died he refused the sacraments and revealed his heretical interests but said that the time was not right to tell about it. Two close friends helped the cover up. It only came to light in 1936 when journals and personal work of Newton were auctioned. John Maynard Keynes, the economist bought them and later made the announcement that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."

I found the documentary quite fascinating and wonderfully climactic with the disclosure of the apocalyptic date at the very end. It amused me to discover that Newton so often hailed as the first modern scientist and invariably considered to be a thoroughgoing rationalist turns out to have been a hermeticist. This of course could make him an even more modern scientist.

Newton's name has been linked with occult secrets in other ways. In the Holy Blood, Holy Grail the authors maintain that Newton, and many other members of the Royal Society, were involved in a secret society linked to the Templars and Masons. But having seen the documentary I wondered if this was really that likely.

For one thing, Newton was portrayed largely as a recluse and while he was definitely interested in Temples, the models he constructed were based on Ezekiel's 'heavenly' temple not on any secret knowledge he had obtained by virtue of a secret society.

On balance I think that Newton was a religious man, a heretic yes, but deeply religious nevertheless who pursued truth and knowledge and found it.

Although Newton would certainly be classed as an occultist I find in him an interesting contrast to latter day occultists. Newton worked hard in his quest for truth and although it was a quest for God's truth he uncovered a great deal of use in this world. Modern 19th century occultists, on the other hand, searched for hidden secrets and codes and found them but these on the whole do not seem to have generated anything useful to the world in the same way.

The overriding impetus behind Newton's great work was a search for the truth of God. Perhaps in his times the search for scientific knowledge could not be truly separated from theology but nevertheless what he discovered and how was astounding.
*************
ghost: Jesus was never married to Mary Magdalene, and Newton was a bible scholar that never would have believed a lie like that.
*************
M*W: I'm afraid you're going to have to show me some proof that Jesus and MM were not married as biblical scholars for the past 20 or so years have provided the proof that they were married and sired children.

wesmorris
02-21-05, 03:07 PM
Just to be picky the energy never gets used up, it is never "gone". It simply gets diffused. The energy from the gasoline is converted into the movement on the car, the heat of the engine, wind movement (as the car pushing the air), and heating up the tires and the road. Energy never goes away... it's like, eternal man.

I'm with you. I'm not so good with the explanations of it. Thanks for the clarification. I say that wrong shit almost every time I talk about it. Bah. It's the availability to do work that goes away.


The forces that cause life to occur are the same as those that cause all chemical reactions to occur, they are simply the fundamental forces of physics. There's no need to run off haphazardly positing a special, unknown, "life force".

Sure, but rocks and stars don't ask questions. Seems to me there's a little something extra there. In my weird scheme of things, there is dimensional bleed-thru that gives rise to life rather than just a bunch of rocks and gas and stuff.

Life seems like anti-entropy to me, since it seems like order from disorder.

Raithere
02-22-05, 12:10 AM
It's the availability to do work that goes away.Bingo.


Sure, but rocks and stars don't ask questions. Seems to me there's a little something extra there. In my weird scheme of things, there is dimensional bleed-thru that gives rise to life rather than just a bunch of rocks and gas and stuff.

Life seems like anti-entropy to me, since it seems like order from disorder.Order from disorder isn't against the rules, in fact it's an expected consequence of entropy as ordered movement is more efficient at dispersing energy. Remember, a local increase in energy is allowed as long as it's balanced by a decrease elsewhere, until the whole thing reaches stasis there will be order and complexity and patterns. Happily resulting in us. ;) As of yet, there is nothing to indicate that life operates under anything but the same laws that apply to the rest of the Universe.

~Raithere

Raithere
02-22-05, 12:29 AM
Eternal? Like what - protons(?); but then again they're not actually.
(10^36 year half-life)Nope, eternal like forever (or at least the life of the Universe). When a proton decays it releases energy, it doesn't just disappear (E=mc2, don't you know). Otherwise it would be all but impossible to detect proton decay (you'd have to monitor individual protons for 10^36 years waiting for them to disappear). That energy never goes away; it just continues to travel along its merry way until it interacts with something else.


There is no reason why energy cannot simply cease to exist; in the very distant future.One can imagine anything, but thus far everything we observe is merely the shuffling around of energy, there is no evidence to support the idea that it will cease to exist. It just changes form (part of my personal version of unity). Light into chemical energy into kinetic energy into heat (sun - plants - animals). All the energy is still there, it's just moved around a bit. The problem is how much is available to do work because since there is no mechanism that is 100% efficient we can never harness all the available energy.

~Raithere

TruthSeeker
02-22-05, 10:57 AM
So... why there is entropy, why it behaves that way? :confused:

Raithere
02-22-05, 11:41 AM
So... why there is entropy, why it behaves that way?Why not?

No one knows really. I've read the hypothesis that it's sort of a relaxation from a point of zero entropy (singularity, big bang) although this is in contention.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/time/arrow.html

Interestingly, entropy is why time appears to have a direction. Think about it this way, if entropy reversed the broken glass would come together and form into a wine glass and jump back up on the table. The sun would leech energy from life and suck it back in, converting heavier elements into hydrogyn and eventually disapating into a cloud of gas. You would remember what you hadn't yet done and forget it once it happened.

Hawking at one time posited that entropy might reverse if the Universe went into collapse but he has since changed his mind.

Cool stuff though.

~Raithere

TruthSeeker
02-22-05, 02:32 PM
Why not?

No one knows really. I've read the hypothesis that it's sort of a relaxation from a point of zero entropy (singularity, big bang) although this is in contention.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/time/arrow.html

Interestingly, entropy is why time appears to have a direction. Think about it this way, if entropy reversed the broken glass would come together and form into a wine glass and jump back up on the table. The sun would leech energy from life and suck it back in, converting heavier elements into hydrogyn and eventually disapating into a cloud of gas. You would remember what you hadn't yet done and forget it once it happened.

Hawking at one time posited that entropy might reverse if the Universe went into collapse but he has since changed his mind.

Cool stuff though.

~Raithere
Now that is interesting.... :) :cool:
Altough that is only a consequence of it? I don't know. Does entropy creates time or entropy is just an aspect of a larger thing? :confused:

Raithere
02-22-05, 04:30 PM
E=mc2; is a mathematical abstraction of predictable reality; it is not in fact reality.All language consists of abstraction. E=mc2 simply describes what happens. I'm not sure what your point is here.


Of course I doubt (that I) will be around to witness proton decaySince there is a release of energy it's easier to monitor large numbers of protons by careful experiment, increasing the odds. Who knows, it could happen. These people are hopeful:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/imb/imb.html


I never said their energy would disappear; based upon; the half-life decay (10^36 years); I was just indicating that reality as we need it to exist; will certainly not exist; in the very distant universeLikely? Yes. Certainly? No.


As far as reality (energy) ceasing to exist; it is still a possibility; no theory is ever complete over an infinite-like amount of time.What a bold assertion. How do you know? ;)


IF you can explain (understand) how energy came into existence (without coping out with a its always been there [like god] statement); then you can explain (understand) energy can cease to exist.There are a number of explanations some theoretical other purely hypothetical or speculative. The question is, which is correct? Suffice it to say that there is presently no evidence that energy ever ceases to exist. Every experiment and observation to date supports the law of conservation.

~Raithere

ghost7584
02-22-05, 06:08 PM
As far as energy ceasing to exist (I continue that it is [only] a possibility; of which there are 2; it remains; or it doesn’t); I cannot comprehend a reality without energy; because reality is dependant upon it. And I cannot comprehend energy not always existing (in some form or other); but pre-existing (always existing) energy does not make sense either. I entertain the idea (the converse; the energy-pops-out-of-existence idea); because I entertain the other oddity (abstraction); that energy would be infinitely always existing prior to this incursion of reality.


Energy caught in a black hole. Does it cease to exist or not?
[By cease to exist I mean cease to exist in the physical world perhaps spilling into another space-time dimension different from the physical world.]
Just speculating. No experiments to test this theory or the others you are talking about. Science without experimental tests is bordering on philosophy.

Lord_Phoenix
02-22-05, 07:43 PM
Ghost:
One of the principles of God, that can be plainly seen in His universe which He created is balance. Heat is balanced against cold, summer balanced against winter, breathing out balanced against breathing in and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Eternal punishment is
balanced against eternal reward. etc.

What I want you to understand ghost is that things have a way of balancing themselves. Forexample when too much charge builds up on the earth or clouds, then lightning occurs. These kinds of things are common. So do not mistake them for "mystical" acts

Raithere
02-22-05, 10:12 PM
Abstractions are mental abstractions, but you already know that; just a comment; that's all - no biggie.

Point: it (all) abstractions describe reality (many very well - indeed); but those mental abstractions are not reality. Conservation; etc; whatever physical law (mental abstraction); is shown to be predictable over near-term time-frames (even if you think 10^100 years; or 10^100000000 years; is a long time; it is still finite-time), the ultimate end is still not known.

As far as certainty; that was overstated (true; bad choice of a word); one “likely” (universal) death to reality as we know seems plausible and the other as “likely” too (frozen; or crunch; how would you like your universal end served up).

As far as energy ceasing to exist (I continue that it is [only] a possibility; of which there are 2; it remains; or it doesn’t); I cannot comprehend a reality without energy; because reality is dependant upon it. And I cannot comprehend energy not always existing (in some form or other); but pre-existing (always existing) energy does not make sense either. I entertain the idea (the converse; the energy-pops-out-of-existence idea); because I entertain the other oddity (abstraction); that energy would be infinitely always existing prior to this incursion of reality.Agreed.

:)

~Raithere

Raithere
02-22-05, 10:21 PM
Energy caught in a black hole. Does it cease to exist or not?
[By cease to exist I mean cease to exist in the physical world perhaps spilling into another space-time dimension different from the physical world.]
Just speculating. No experiments to test this theory or the others you are talking about. Science without experimental tests is bordering on philosophy.No, energy falling into a black hole increases the mass of the black hole. Mathematically it's quite sound, built upon empirically well founded theories. Practiaclly, it's a bit difficult to test, no direct observations have been made.

~Raithere

Billy T
02-24-05, 01:34 PM
ditto what Raithere and itopal said,

Plus:

In appendix 3 to Dark Visitor there is a simple math proof (too simple to be fully correct as it does no even required calculus) that the energy even a single proton acquires while falling into a black hole is infinite!

I suggest that because of the infinite energy in zero volume, each black hole could spon a new universe like the big bang did ours. Ours could be just one in a long chain of BH created universes. Again this is all based on very simple math a highschool student can follow - not fully correcct, but interesting (I think).

TruthSeeker
02-24-05, 04:47 PM
In appendix 3 to Dark Visitor there is a simple math proof (too simple to be fully correct as it does no even required calculus) that the energy even a single proton acquires while falling into a black hole is infinite!
I would say it actually goes to infinity. So you need some calculus for that...

Billy T
02-24-05, 05:34 PM
I would say it actually goes to infinity. So you need some calculus for that...
No there are many divergent series that go to infinity. I used one. Basicly I imagined the energy gained by a set/ series of reductions of the distance to the BH by half the remaining distance. (proton never gets there - infintite number of steps) It is possible (easy) to show that the energy gain in each of these steps is at least as large as the prior one. I call it a "Zeno Approach" if your are familiar with some of his paradoxes. In any case, a sum of an infinite number of never decreasing, non-zero term diverges to infinity. - simple highschool math, no calculus, as I said.

ghost7584
03-03-05, 12:58 AM
No there are many divergent series that go to infinity. I used one. Basicly I imagined the energy gained by a set/ series of reductions of the distance to the BH by half the remaining distance. (proton never gets there - infintite number of steps) It is possible (easy) to show that the energy gain in each of these steps is at least as large as the prior one. I call it a "Zeno Approach" if your are familiar with some of his paradoxes. In any case, a sum of an infinite number of never decreasing, non-zero term diverges to infinity. - simple highschool math, no calculus, as I said.

Heaven and hell are diverse and they go to infinity. You will be spending eternity in one or the other.