PDA

View Full Version : Solar System Is Pretty Special, "It's Almost Like It's Custom Made !"



megimoo
08-08-2008, 08:08 PM
Solar System Is Pretty Special,According To New Computer Simulation

Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head. The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened -- like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space. Using large-scale computer simulations, the Northwestern researchers are...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807144236.htm

jinxmchue
08-08-2008, 11:13 PM
Yeah, but Intelligent Design is such bunk! :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
08-08-2008, 11:45 PM
Solar System Is Pretty Special, "It's Almost Like It's Custom Made !"

Who are you quoting? Yourself? The article you cited contains no quote about the solar system being custom-made.

The Night Owl
08-08-2008, 11:53 PM
Yeah, but Intelligent Design is such bunk! :rolleyes:

No one knows if ID is or isn't bunk because right now ID is nothing more than conjecture.

megimoo
08-08-2008, 11:58 PM
Who are you quoting? Yourself? The article you cited contains no quote about the solar system being custom-made.

Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste

I've been around for a long long year stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank held a gen'rals rank when the blitzkrieg
raged and the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
Ah what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah

I watched the glee while your kings and queens fought for
ten decades for the Gods they made
I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedy's?" when after all
it was you and me

Let me please intruduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste

And I lay traps for troubadors who get killed before they reach Bombay
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners, Saints
as heads is tails, just call me Lucifer 'cause I'm in need
of some restraint

So if you meet me, have some courtesy have some sympathy
and some taste Use all your well learned politesse
or I'll lay your soul to waste
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 12:03 AM
Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste

I've been around for a long long year stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank held a gen'rals rank when the blitzkrieg
raged and the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
Ah what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah

I watched the glee while your kings and queens fought for
ten decades for the Gods they made
I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedy's?" when after all
it was you and me

Let me please intruduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste

And I lay traps for troubadors who get killed before they reach Bombay
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners, Saints
as heads is tails, just call me Lucifer 'cause I'm in need
of some restraint

So if you meet me, have some courtesy have some sympathy
and some taste Use all your well learned politesse
or I'll lay your soul to waste
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game



You are a very odd fellow, Megimoo. I like that.

megimoo
08-09-2008, 12:09 AM
You are a very odd fellow, Megimoo. I like that.The feeling isn't reciprocated,I think you a fool !

AmPat
08-09-2008, 12:57 AM
No one knows if ID is or isn't bunk because right now ID is nothing more than conjecture.

Which is worlds better than a debunked theory like say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,evolution?:eek:

Eyelids
08-09-2008, 01:08 AM
The feeling isn't reciprocated,I think you a fool !

Haha nice megi..

OwlMBA
08-09-2008, 01:14 AM
No one knows if ID is or isn't bunk because right now ID is nothing more than conjecture.

Kind of like that un-duplicatable, non-observable, impossible, life-from-no-life Big Bang Theory?

Eyelids
08-09-2008, 01:44 AM
Kind of like that un-duplicatable, non-observable, impossible, life-from-no-life Big Bang Theory?

Exactly! Same thing goes for that god who has no evidence to support its existence.

OwlMBA
08-09-2008, 02:41 AM
Exactly! Same thing goes for that god who has no evidence to support its existence.

Both require faith. When evolutionists proclaim their theory does not require faith I have to laugh a little inside.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 07:44 AM
Both require faith. When evolutionists proclaim their theory does not require faith I have to laugh a little inside.

The theory of evolution is supported by a lot of evidence. Speculation that a god created the Universe is not supported by evidence.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 07:50 AM
Kind of like that un-duplicatable, non-observable, impossible, life-from-no-life Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang theory is based on many observations about the Universe. And, using the Large Hadron Collider, scientists will soon recreate the conditions present about one billionth of a second after the start of the Big Bang.

gator
08-09-2008, 09:29 AM
There are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sands in a giant dump truck bed. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sands on all the beaches of the earth.

Even the most improbable event has probably been replicated billions of times.

nightflight
08-09-2008, 10:02 AM
There are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sands in a giant dump truck bed. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sands on all the beaches of the earth.

Even the most improbable event has probably been replicated billions of times.

Excellent point.

megimoo
08-09-2008, 10:28 AM
The Big Bang theory is based on many observations about the Universe. And, using the Large Hadron Collider, scientists are going to very soon recreate the conditions present about one billionth of a second after the start of the Big Bang.

The Hadron Collider will perhaps expose the 'GOD 'particle and no doubt will just lead to yet another unknown .You place a lot of faith in a bunch of people groping about in the dark and pontificating on what you call science,your science is only useful in explaining what was created and perhaps why.

Has it ever occurred to your young mind to examine the symmetry in creation.How so called random creation seems to interlock and augment previous particles ? Are they really random unrelated or unified into one whole.

The quest for the origin,the one unified particle,the pico_scopic impossible point source that all matter and energy sprung from is there back in the first finite moments of creation.All your scientists can do is to search for it.

The original op points to the symmetry of our solar system and the Universe as a whole.The universe expanding into nothingness as it goes on.

The cycle of solar creation forming new systems from dying solar masses.Have you ever wondered how the very iron in your blood and the carbon in your bones at one time existed in the core of a second stage solar mass and ,if large enough,causing it to exploded into Super_Nova.

Just what have we to do with stellar carbon and How can all of that be in our very bones interrelated and still be pure chance as your heathen and ignorant college instructors insist ?It's time you cast off your ignorance and open your eyes and your mind .

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 10:46 AM
Exactly! Same thing goes for that god who has no evidence to support its existence.


Actually He left lots of clues as to his existence all across creation. I've detailed many here so look up some of my previous posts or perhaps read some of the books by Paul Davies (theoretical physist) or Francis Collins (Micro biologist specializing in DNA).

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 10:47 AM
The Big Bang theory is based on many observations about the Universe. And, using the Large Hadron Collider, scientists are going to very soon recreate the conditions present about one billionth of a second after the start of the Big Bang.

What caused the big bang?

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 10:52 AM
There are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sands in a giant dump truck bed. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sands on all the beaches of the earth.

Even the most improbable event has probably been replicated billions of times.

Probabilities are not absolutes and logic may dictate that something is possible but that doesn't make it real. Probability and chance are just fancy words meaning ignorance of initial conditions.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 10:56 AM
What caused the big bang?

The cause of the Big Bang is yet unknown. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 11:00 AM
There are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sands in a giant dump truck bed. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sands on all the beaches of the earth.

Even the most improbable event has probably been replicated billions of times.

True. As Richard Dawkins points out... the Universe is queerer than we can suppose...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html


Talks Richard Dawkins: The universe is queerer than we can suppose

About this talk

Biologist Richard Dawkins makes a case for "thinking the improbable" by looking at how the human frame of reference limits our understanding of the universe.

gator
08-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Probabilities are not absolutes and logic may dictate that something is possible but that doesn't make it real. Probability and chance are just fancy words meaning ignorance of initial conditions.

God is great. He has made a wonderful universe.

As humans we have no concept of the world that God has made. Each year we learn a little more. A few years ago we didn't even know for sure that water existed on Mars or that other planets existed.

I cannot believe that we are God's only creation.

gator
08-09-2008, 11:15 AM
Biologist Richard Dawkins makes a case for "thinking the improbable" by looking at how the human frame of reference limits our understanding of the universe.[/INDENT]

Correct. At one time we thought the whole universe revolved around the earth.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 11:21 AM
[SIZE="3"]The Hadron Collider will perhaps expose the 'GOD 'particle and no doubt will just lead to yet another unknown .You place a lot of faith in a bunch of people groping about in the dark and pontificating on what you call science,your science is only useful in explaining what was created and perhaps why.

I'm not claiming that science will answer all the big questions... only that it may. And, yes, I do place a lot of faith in science. Why wouldn't I? Science has an excellent record of accomplishment.


The original op points to the symmetry of our solar system and the Universe as a whole.The universe expanding into nothingness as it goes on.

In an event which scientists refer to as the Big Rip (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html), all the matter in the Universe will eventually be torn apart down to the subatomic level. Of course, just because matter will be torn apart does not mean that nothing will be left of it. There will always be something.

As far as anyone knows, the term "nothing" or "nothingness" is... well... nothing more than an abstract concept. In other words, nothingness, as a state of reality, may not be possible.

wilbur
08-09-2008, 11:39 AM
Yeah, but Intelligent Design is such bunk! :rolleyes:

Yes it is!

There is a difference between the supposedly scientific theory of intelligent design and the philosophical 'argument from design'. Philosophically speaking, the argument design is pretty reasonable and natural. The 'scientific' theory of intelligent design is completely bunk as you say above. The ID proponents have been particularly effective in muddying the waters by confusing the two.

Any ways, I think the purpose of this thread was to lend support to the 'fine tuning' argument... this is how I respond to that:

Conversely, one can look at the universe, and all the apparent billions and billions of stars and galaxies, as see that as far as we can tell (so far), this one little tiny planet is the only one that can support life... given that life really seems only supportable on only on this one single solar system or planet it kinda of, in my view, destroys the 'fine tuning' argument. It looks like the universe is quite hostile to life to me, with only one single exception that we can count. Most definitely not a place fine tuned for fragile organic beings.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 11:49 AM
Conversely, one can look at the universe, and all the apparent billions and billions of stars and galaxies, as see that as far as we can tell (so far), this one little tiny planet is the only one that can support life... given that life really seems only supportable on only on this one single solar system or planet it kinda of, in my view, destroys the 'fine tuning' argument. It looks like the universe is quite hostile to life to me, with only one single exception that we can count. Most definitely not a place fine tuned for fragile organic beings.

The Earth, let alone the Universe, is hostile to life. I forget who said it but one scientist once said that if any human were dropped off butt naked on any part of a certain 90% of the Earth's surface, that person would be dead within hours or days. Then again, there is Bear Grylls.

wilbur
08-09-2008, 11:50 AM
The Earth, let alone the Universe, is hostile to life. I forget who said it but one scientist once said that if any human were dropped off butt naked on any part of a certain 90% of the Earth's surface, that person would be dead within hours or days. Then again, there is Bear Grylls.

Indeed, it is really remarkable life has arisen on this one tiny planet in spite of the universe (and the planet) being the way it is!

megimoo
08-09-2008, 11:53 AM
Indeed, it is really remarkable life has arisen on this one tiny planet in spite of the universe (and the planet) being the way it is!Gee Whiz do you really think it was an accident ?

wilbur
08-09-2008, 12:00 PM
Gee Whiz do you really think it was an accident ?

Maybe, in the same way an apple falling from a tree is an 'accident'. I'm not sure 'accident' is the right word, when speaking about by products of the laws of physics.

In a universe (and planet) where there is a single incomprehensibly infinitesimal tiny surface area (like a single grain of sand on the beach) in which we can actually survive without being killed instantly, do you really think it was designed with 'us in mind'?

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 12:03 PM
God is great. He has made a wonderful universe.

As humans we have no concept of the world that God has made. Each year we learn a little more. A few years ago we didn't even know for sure that water existed on Mars or that other planets existed.

I cannot believe that we are God's only creation.


I'm sure He made others. And He was wise to keep us all really far apart.:D

Where some see science as invalidating the existence of God, I see it as confirming it. Every discovery seems to point a finger at a master Creator. I wish the ologies of science would once again work with theology. The two once did and could again compliment each other.

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 12:19 PM
The Earth, let alone the Universe, is hostile to life. I forget who said it but one scientist once said that if any human were dropped off butt naked on any part of a certain 90% of the Earth's surface, that person would be dead within hours or days. Then again, there is Bear Grylls.

That odd because Paul Davies speaks to how it seems the universe was specifically created to give rise to life. He mentions the chemical reactions that are necessary for life to exist. The existence of the carbon in the abundance that it is seems to be a fluke and life as we know it couldn't exist without carbon. The life cycle of stars seems to be perfect for creating the elements that are necessary for life in the ratios that are required to give rise to living beings. The earth just happens to be perfectly positioned to maintain life. It is the right distance, temperature, has the right gravity for certain chemical reactions to take place. The moon itself is a wonder. It is the largest of the moons in the solar system and is positioned in such a way as to block a lot of incoming asteroids and other space junk.

In the example above it is noted that 90% of the earth's surface is harmful for human life, but there is life on other sorts in those areas. Can you think of a place on the surface of the earth where there is no life? A few places in the ocean have void areas, but life is capable of passing through those areas unharmed.

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 12:50 PM
The theory of evolution is supported by a lot of evidence. Speculation that a god created the Universe is not supported by evidence.

In point of fact, the exact same evidence supports Creation.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 12:55 PM
That odd because Paul Davies speaks to how it seems the universe was specifically created to give rise to life.

How things seem is not necessarily how things are.


He mentions the chemical reactions that are necessary for life to exist. The existence of the carbon in the abundance that it is seems to be a fluke and life as we know it couldn't exist without carbon. The life cycle of stars seems to be perfect for creating the elements that are necessary for life in the ratios that are required to give rise to living beings. The earth just happens to be perfectly positioned to maintain life. It is the right distance, temperature, has the right gravity for certain chemical reactions to take place. The moon itself is a wonder. It is the largest of the moons in the solar system and is positioned in such a way as to block a lot of incoming asteroids and other space junk.

If you see a rock with moss on it, do you assume that it was placed in such a way to allow for moss to grow on it? Of course not. The fact that conditions in our solar system allowed for life on Earth does not necessarily mean that our solar system was set up for life on Earth. Of course, our solar system may have been set up for life on Earth but there is no empirical evidence that it was.

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 12:55 PM
The cause of the Big Bang is yet unknown. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Guesses are unneeded.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 12:56 PM
In point of fact, the exact same evidence supports Creation.

Well, you can argue that evidence of evolution is evidence of creation but until you have a scientific way to demonstrate that evidence of evolution is evidence of creation then all you've got is a hypothesis... which is not much.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 12:57 PM
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Okay... spare me the dogma.

:D

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 01:00 PM
Well, you can argue that evidence of evolution is evidence of creation but until you have a scientific way to demonstrate that evidence of evolution is evidence of creation then all you've got is a hypothesis.

That's all you have either way. The main difference is that my hypothesis has the author/creator/eyewitness account. Yours has a lot of guesses, most of which will be changed to some degree within the next few years.

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 01:39 PM
How things seem is not necessarily how things are.



If you see a rock with moss on it, do you assume that it was placed in such a way to allow for moss to grow on it? Of course not. The fact that conditions in our solar system allowed for life on Earth does not necessarily mean that our solar system was set up for life on Earth. Of course, our solar system may have been set up for life on Earth but there is no empirical evidence that it was.

Your moss analogy is pointless. It deals with one fact. The fact that moss is growing on a stone and how did it get their. Now if you had added that the moss seemed losely placed on the stone and there are foot prints leading to and from the stone then I might come to conclusion that it was placed there. The evidence I bring to your attention is multifaceted and forms a chain in which each link is highly improbable and yet a failure of any link brings and end to the chain and no life forms. The most perplexing point of this is of the literally billions of ways the universe could have been configured, it is configured perfectly to give rise to life. There is no reason why this should be. In fact, odds are it shouldn't be.

Your refusal to see design where there seems to be design, does not make you right. Remember you and I had a discussion a while ago where I mentioned a man made lake. You stated that even a made made lake shows evidence of design. You can come to that conclusion based on the evidence at hand yet you spend much effort to deny evidence of design because you do not wish to face the conclusions that you will draw if you have accept a Creator/Designer. Yesterday you pointed you that just because someone is bias don't automatically make them wrong and that is true. However it does give them the opportunity to misconstrue data as it is filtered through their bias. You could say that I am biased and I am misjudging the evidence, but I am offering you scientific facts to uphold my point of view and you reply with what if analogies concerning hypothetical rocks, the moss that may or may not grow on them and my reaction to the situation.

wilbur
08-09-2008, 03:24 PM
Your moss analogy is pointless. It deals with one fact. The fact that moss is growing on a stone and how did it get their. Now if you had added that the moss seemed losely placed on the stone and there are foot prints leading to and from the stone then I might come to conclusion that it was placed there. The evidence I bring to your attention is multifaceted and forms a chain in which each link is highly improbable and yet a failure of any link brings and end to the chain and no life forms. The most perplexing point of this is of the literally billions of ways the universe could have been configured, it is configured perfectly to give rise to life. There is no reason why this should be. In fact, odds are it shouldn't be.


But what are the possible outcomes of possible universes and how many of them would support life? This is what we do not know. This is what makes design speculation a little like painting a bulls eye around the arrow.

OwlMBA
08-09-2008, 04:29 PM
The cause of the Big Bang is yet unknown. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

So then matter is eternal, correct?

LogansPapa
08-09-2008, 05:47 PM
Who are you quoting? Yourself? The article you cited contains no quote about the solar system being custom-made.

Another over-humped megi-tripe.:rolleyes:

LogansPapa
08-09-2008, 05:51 PM
Both require faith. When evolutionists proclaim their theory does not require faith I have to laugh a little inside.

One requires nothing but faith. The other a shit-load of work, to the point of almost being insane, and even then, unlike faith - part or all of it can be proven to be rot in a single day by a peer. The Pope has no such worries.;)

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 06:38 PM
So then matter is eternal, correct?

Correct. Matter cannot be destroyed. Matter can only be rearranged.

OwlMBA
08-09-2008, 06:48 PM
Correct. Matter cannot be destroyed. Matter can only be rearranged.

So you believe that matter has been around forever? Thats interesting.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 06:52 PM
That's all you have either way. The main difference is that my hypothesis has the author/creator/eyewitness account.

I don't claim to be able to offer anything more than conjecture about what caused the Big Bang or about what, if anything, preceded it. Theists, however, claim to know the truth about what caused the Big Bang and about what preceded it. Theists are the ones who claim to know the ultimate truth, not me.


Yours has a lot of guesses, most of which will be changed to some degree within the next few years.

Guessing is basically speculation. As I've said many times, I'm all in favor of people engaging in speculation about that which science cannot explain. I just don't see any reason to believe in one line of speculation over another... which is what believers do.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 07:06 PM
So you believe that matter has been around forever? Thats interesting.

Until a theory for what caused the Big Bang is developed, I see no reason to establish any beliefs about the state of matter before the Big Bang. The hypothesis that matter has always existed is just that... a hypothesis.

Keep in mind that scientists aren't even in agreement about what matter is.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Your refusal to see design where there seems to be design, does not make you right. Remember you and I had a discussion a while ago where I mentioned a man made lake. You stated that even a made made lake shows evidence of design. You can come to that conclusion based on the evidence at hand yet you spend much effort to deny evidence of design because you do not wish to face the conclusions that you will draw if you have accept a Creator/Designer.

The point I made about man-made bodies of water had nothing to do with ID but I suppose we can use it in this discussion...

When I see a swimming pool, I immediately know that it is man-made because I know what pools look like and because I know what natural bodies of water look like. Would a child who has never seen a pool and who has never seen a natural body of water know that the pool is man-made? I don't think so.

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 08:54 PM
But what are the possible outcomes of possible universes and how many of them would support life? This is what we do not know. This is what makes design speculation a little like painting a bulls eye around the arrow.

Actually a guess can be ventured if we use the term "life as we know it" as the basis. Very few outcomes will produce a universe that is capable of supporting life, hence the concept that this universe was designed and not created. Very specific initial conditions are required that will result in the universe that we live in. If any of the laws of physics were changed even in the slightest then no life. The laws of physics give rise to nuclear physics and chemistry and if these are modified then no life forms. It is believed by the likes of Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Brandon Carter, Martin Rees and countless others that the universe is a seamless whole and any slight modification in one facet of the universe affects all others. With that in mind if any facet is modified to be contrary to the rise of life then the universe become uninhabitable. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of many physists from many disciplines. Most potential universes will not have life. Only a select few very specific conditions that mirror our universe will be habitable.

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 08:59 PM
Correct. Matter cannot be destroyed. Matter can only be rearranged.

Actually, if proton decay is ever verified then matter is not infinite. Protons live a very very long time but eventually matter will disappear.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 08:59 PM
I don't claim to be able to offer anything more than conjecture about what caused the Big Bang or about what, if anything, preceded it. Theists, however, claim to know the truth about what caused the Big Bang and about what preceded it. Theists are the ones who claim to know the ultimate truth, not me.



Guessing is basically speculation. As I've said many times, I'm all in favor of people engaging in speculation about that which science cannot explain. I just don't see any reason to believe in one line of speculation over another... which is what believers do.

You know, when the Creator tells us what He did, there isn't much point trying to figure out how it could have happened without Him. I don't mind people playing those games, but think they're getting way too involved when they get all upset because other people don't want to play pretend with them.

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 09:12 PM
The point I made about man-made bodies of water had nothing to do with ID but I suppose we can use it in this discussion...

When I see a swimming pool, I immediately know that it is man-made because I know what pools look like and because I know what natural bodies of water look like. Would a child who has never seen a pool and who has never seen a natural body of water know that the pool is man-made? I don't think so.


In our original discussion we were discussing a manmade lake, not a pool so the differences weren't so obvious. Anyways, it is one thing to tell a theist "your wrong and here's why" and then offer supporting evidence as opposed to saying "your wrong. I can't prove my point of view but I believe you’re probably wrong." If you can't refute the concept of a creator then what is the point of the debate? By your own admission all you can offer is your unsupported opinion and feelings. I admit that I offer you my opinion and feelings as well but I try to give you evidence of why I think that I am correct and facts that I believe support my position. I may be a person of deep faith but that does not preclude me from researching and learning about the things that back up my faith. My faith is good enough for me alone but when I discuss these topics with others I understand that my faith is not enough for those who aren't me.

megimoo
08-09-2008, 09:36 PM
Professor Stephen Hawking
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time,snip
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.snip
.................................................
Professor Stephen Hawking
Public Lectures - Life in the Universe

snip
There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.snip
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/life.html

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 10:08 PM
Actually, if proton decay is ever verified then matter is not infinite. Protons live a very very long time but eventually matter will disappear.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

Proton decay is not the destruction of matter. Proton decay is the breaking down of protons into pions and positrons... or so goes the hypothesis. Like I said, as far as anyone knows, matter cannot be destroyed... only rearranged into different forms.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 10:19 PM
In our original discussion we were discussing a manmade lake, not a pool so the differences weren't so obvious. Anyways, it is one thing to tell a theist "your wrong and here's why" and then offer supporting evidence as opposed to saying "your wrong. I can't prove my point of view but I believe you’re probably wrong."

I would be lying if I were to claim to know that you're wrong about the big questions. I do, however, think that you're wrong to suggest that there is evidence of a god or that belief in a god is rational.


If you can't refute the concept of a creator then what is the point of the debate? By your own admission all you can offer is your unsupported opinion and feelings.

I'm not trying to refute the concept of a creator. All I'm trying to do is show that there is no reason to believe in a creator.

Believing that the existence of a god is a possibility is not the same as believing that a god exists. If you believe that the existence of a god is a possiblity, then you are an agnostic... or even an atheist of sorts. If you believe that a god exists, then you are a theist. And there are varying degrees of belief, disbelief, and agnosticism.

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 10:21 PM
You know, when the Creator tells us what He did, there isn't much point trying to figure out how it could have happened without Him. I don't mind people playing those games, but think they're getting way too involved when they get all upset because other people don't want to play pretend with them.

I'm not sure I follow you. Can you rephrase or elaborate?

Troll
08-09-2008, 11:44 PM
There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis.

One of the perils of trying to use the Bible as a scientific reference book.

LogansPapa
08-09-2008, 11:46 PM
God cares nothing of physics.

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 11:53 PM
One of the perils of trying to use the Bible as a scientific reference book.

Rather, one of the perils of believing someone who hasn't read it. The Bible does NOT say "four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis." Mr. Hawking knows a great deal, but if he said this, he obviously has not bothered to read Genesis.

On the other hand, it is true that all of human history begins about that time. No civilzation seems to have existed for any longer time, no evidence of writing exists...nothing. Pretty weird, for an intelligent species that has supposedly existed for 100,000 years or more, by Mr. Hawkings measurements.

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 11:53 PM
God cares nothing of physics.

Other than the fact that He created it...

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 11:59 PM
I'm not sure I follow you. Can you rephrase or elaborate?

We have an eyewitness account from the Creator Himself. It's fine with me if people want to ignore that fact that try to figure out how the processes God made could account for all life without Him, but they go overboard when they expect everyone to buy into their little game. Obviously, scientists have made some great discoveries while studying this subject, but they're still "stacking up" the evidence incorrectly. This would be why each new discovery causes them to "restack" the pile. Eventually, if they manage to find enough information, they'll end up with a "stack" that matches the history we've been given.

Troll
08-10-2008, 12:01 AM
Rather, one of the perils of believing someone who hasn't read it. The Bible does NOT say "four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis." Mr. Hawking knows a great deal, but if he said this, he obviously has not bothered to read Genesis.

If you say. I stand by my original assertion(s) that "Creation Science" is junk, the Bible is not a science book, and my yet-to-be answered challenge of the name of the scientist(s) who disproved evolution, how they did it, and which journal they published their findings in.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 12:02 AM
If you say. I stand by my original assertion(s) that "Creation Science" is junk, the Bible is not a science book, and my yet-to-be answered challenge of the name of the scientist who disproved evolution, how they did it, and which journal they published their findings in.

Maybe you can name the scientist who proved evolution? You know, that unrepeatable, unobservable, billions of years long process that can not possibly be proven by any stretch of the scientific method.

Troll
08-10-2008, 12:13 AM
It's fine with me if people want to ignore that fact that try to figure out how the processes God made could account for all life without Him, but they go overboard when they expect everyone to buy into their little game.

I can answer that fairly easily. In order for something to qualify as science, it has to move our understanding of the physical world ahead. Just saying "God" for everything that is not yet understood does nothing to advance our knowledge; it is simply substituting one unknown for another.

As to your "science is going to prove that there is a God" angle, don't hold your breath. Science is natural, God is supernatural. Science is based on fact, God is based on faith. Unfortunately, we cannot directly test or observe God, mix God with a chemical and get a reaction, collide God with subatomic particles, shine a light at God to see if anything can escape, put God into the DNA of fruit flies, or prod God to re-create Creation. I believe that God exists, but his existence is neither proveable nor disproveable via the scientific method.

Troll
08-10-2008, 12:18 AM
Maybe you can name the scientist who proved evolution? You know, that unrepeatable, unobservable, billions of years long process that can not possibly be proven by any stretch of the scientific method.

Remember, science must be falsifiable. I will show you (again) how evolution can be disproven.

Exhibit for me one animal with no biological parents, no predecessors in the fossil record, and that came into being fully developed. Do that, and evolution is disproven.

On edit - While you're finding that animal for me, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Biblical story of creation is more scientifically valid than the Wiccan version.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/wiccancreation.html

megimoo
08-10-2008, 12:26 AM
Remember, science must be falsifiable. I will show you (again) how evolution can be disproven.

Exhibit for me one animal with no biological parents, no predecessors in the fossil record, and that came into being fully developed. Do that, and evolution is disproven.

On edit - While you're finding that animal for me, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Biblical story of creation is more scientifically valid than the Wiccan version.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/wiccancreation.htmlHow about man ?

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 12:32 AM
We have an eyewitness account from the Creator Himself. It's fine with me if people want to ignore that fact that try to figure out how the processes God made could account for all life without Him, but they go overboard when they expect everyone to buy into their little game. Obviously, scientists have made some great discoveries while studying this subject, but they're still "stacking up" the evidence incorrectly. This would be why each new discovery causes them to "restack" the pile. Eventually, if they manage to find enough information, they'll end up with a "stack" that matches the history we've been given.

You have what you believe is an account from a god.

Troll
08-10-2008, 12:33 AM
How about man ?

Unfortunately, I don't (personally) know any men that sprang into existence as adults. Perhaps Adam, but I'll need to meet with him to ask him some questions and run some DNA tests. :D

Man also has numerous predecessors in the fossil record.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

wilbur
08-10-2008, 12:34 AM
On the other hand, it is true that all of human history begins about that time. No civilzation seems to have existed for any longer time, no evidence of writing exists...nothing. Pretty weird, for an intelligent species that has supposedly existed for 100,000 years or more, by Mr. Hawkings measurements.

Humans leave behind more traces than just writing. Cave paintings date back 30,000 years. And of course, all the artifacts of the stone ages go back a couple million years. We have bones carved with decorative patterns and symbols dating back 300,000 years.

LogansPapa
08-10-2008, 12:35 AM
Man has to be perfect - from the Beginning. His image after all. No prototypes. Neanderthal was just some ugly guy with an arthritic condition.

wilbur
08-10-2008, 12:43 AM
We have an eyewitness account from the Creator Himself.


Actually this isnt really true by most Christian and Jewish theology which says that genesis is a divinely inspired text written by the prophet Moses... I don't think you are saying Moses is the eye witness are you?. "Inspired" does not mean word for word dictation or "eye witness account".

wilbur
08-10-2008, 01:51 PM
Actually a guess can be ventured if we use the term "life as we know it" as the basis. Very few outcomes will produce a universe that is capable of supporting life, hence the concept that this universe was designed and not created. Very specific initial conditions are required that will result in the universe that we live in. If any of the laws of physics were changed even in the slightest then no life. The laws of physics give rise to nuclear physics and chemistry and if these are modified then no life forms. It is believed by the likes of Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Brandon Carter, Martin Rees and countless others that the universe is a seamless whole and any slight modification in one facet of the universe affects all others. With that in mind if any facet is modified to be contrary to the rise of life then the universe become uninhabitable. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of many physists from many disciplines. Most potential universes will not have life. Only a select few very specific conditions that mirror our universe will be habitable.

Well I imagine there are quite a few initial conditions you can tinker with and get similar universes that can support life as we know it. However, since we are talking about tinkering with universal constants to create different universes (as we know them), there isnt much of a reason to restrict life to such a constraint. If life can arise in many of these different possible universes the chances of a universe that supports life becomes much better.

Of course we don't really know the answers to these questions.... but it does make the 'fine-tuning' argument particularly unconvincing to me.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:24 PM
Remember, science must be falsifiable. I will show you (again) how evolution can be disproven.

Exhibit for me one animal with no biological parents, no predecessors in the fossil record, and that came into being fully developed. Do that, and evolution is disproven.

On edit - While you're finding that animal for me, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Biblical story of creation is more scientifically valid than the Wiccan version.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/wiccancreation.html

Every species represented in the fossil record appears fully developed. Science has worked very hard to line up predecessors for each, but there are constant problems with size, vertebra count, rib count, and "extinct" creatures showing up very much alive.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:25 PM
Humans leave behind more traces than just writing. Cave paintings date back 30,000 years. And of course, all the artifacts of the stone ages go back a couple million years. We have bones carved with decorative patterns and symbols dating back 300,000 years.

Scientists think that cave paintings and stone tools are this old. Scientists are quite frequently wrong.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:26 PM
Man has to be perfect - from the Beginning. His image after all. No prototypes. Neanderthal was just some ugly guy with an arthritic condition.

Remember, God Himself put a mark upon Cain so he would not be killed for the murder of his brother.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:27 PM
I can answer that fairly easily. In order for something to qualify as science, it has to move our understanding of the physical world ahead. Just saying "God" for everything that is not yet understood does nothing to advance our knowledge; it is simply substituting one unknown for another.

As to your "science is going to prove that there is a God" angle, don't hold your breath. Science is natural, God is supernatural. Science is based on fact, God is based on faith. Unfortunately, we cannot directly test or observe God, mix God with a chemical and get a reaction, collide God with subatomic particles, shine a light at God to see if anything can escape, put God into the DNA of fruit flies, or prod God to re-create Creation. I believe that God exists, but his existence is neither proveable nor disproveable via the scientific method.

All of creation testifies to the presence and actions of God. "Religion" is based on faith. God is fact...and He is far busier in this world that the "god" of evolution, that ability He built into His creation to change with the environment.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:31 PM
Actually this isnt really true by most Christian and Jewish theology which says that genesis is a divinely inspired text written by the prophet Moses... I don't think you are saying Moses is the eye witness are you?. "Inspired" does not mean word for word dictation or "eye witness account".

Moses wrote what God told him to write. Seriously, people who think otherwise have to consider what Genesis actually says. As if some man, who was raised to believe the sun was a god, would turn around and write that light appeared before the sun and stars... :rolleyes: Inspired may not mean "dictation," it often means putting into written words the events God has shown that person.

hampshirebrit
08-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Moses wrote what God told him to write. Seriously, people who think otherwise have to consider what Genesis actually says. As if some man, who was raised to believe the sun was a god, would turn around and write that light appeared before the sun and stars... :rolleyes: Inspired may not mean "dictation," it often means putting into written words the events God has shown that person.

Hmmm.... and you know this how? How do you know Mo didn't get at least some of it wrong?

So far, this is what you say, and what you think happened, rather than what is confirmed to have happened.

You choose to believe this, on very minimal evidence, and fine, good for you. That's your choice...whatever floats your boat.

But believing something, or wanting to believe something, does not make it so.

I might like to believe that the BoE will drop the base rate tomorrow by 0.25 percent. I might even think that they should, but untill I see it confirmed, not from what Fox and CNN and BBC News say, but when I see it reflected in lower mortgage rates on what little I have left to repay on my house, I have no reason at all to think they will do, or have done.

Why should anyone place reliance on a text supposedly "dictated" to a primative middle-easterner two and a half thousand years ago, when the same middle-easterner would, had anyone bothered to ask him, told you that the sun orbited the earth?

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 03:08 PM
Hmmm.... and you know this how? How do you know Mo didn't get at least some of it wrong?

So far, this is what you say, and what you think happened, rather than what is confirmed to have happened.

You choose to believe this, on very minimal evidence, and fine, good for you. That's your choice...whatever floats your boat.

But believing something, or wanting to believe something, does not make it so.

I might like to believe that the BoE will drop the base rate tomorrow by 0.25 percent. I might even think that they should, but untill I see it confirmed, not from what Fox and CNN and BBC News say, but when I see it reflected in lower mortgage rates on what little I have left to repay on my house, I have no reason at all to think they will do, or have done.

Why should anyone place reliance on a text supposedly "dictated" to a primative middle-easterner two and a half thousand years ago, when the same middle-easterner would, had anyone bothered to ask him, told you that the sun orbited the earth?

He would? What gives you that idea? Other than the literary simplitude of ordinary speech, in which all of us still say "sunrise" and "sunset," there is no evidence at all for this statement. I suppose you can believe it if you wish, however.

As for myself, I tend to base my strongest beliefs on the things that have been proven beyond any doubt. As God is such, while the overall theory of evolution is not, I have far more faith in what He says than in some scientist's best guess...especially given that the scientist's guess will be revised innumerable times as more evidence comes to light, (always supposing that all the evidence is actually considered.) Our libraries are full of the best guesses of science...almost all now outdated.

hampshirebrit
08-10-2008, 03:27 PM
He would? What gives you that idea? Other than the literary simplitude of ordinary speech, in which all of us still say "sunrise" and "sunset," there is no evidence at all for this statement. I suppose you can believe it if you wish, however..

That's an easy one, almost painfully easy.

It took The Church 1600 years, and another few years after that of concerted efforts at suppressing this now-accepted scientific truth, before they would allow "their" "flock" to come to terms with the reality of heliocentrism.



As for myself, I tend to base my strongest beliefs on the things that have been proven beyond any doubt. As God is such, while the overall theory of evolution is not, I have far more faith in what He says than in some scienattist's best guess...especially given that the scientist's guess will be revised innumerable times as more evidence comes to light, (always supposing that all the evidence is actually considered.) Our libraries are full of the best guesses of science...almost all now outdated.

First bolded (things that have been proven beyond any doubt .. As God is such)

You give attributes to this particular thing that it obviously does not merit. This thing has clearly not been proven beyond doubt, or I would hardly be in a position to challenge it, would I?

You are confusing your desire for it to be true with its actuality of being true.

Second bolded (especially given that the scientist's guess will be revised innumerable times as more evidence comes to light).

That is the beauty of scientific theory. It allows itself to be scrutinized, to be challenged, and when required, to be superceded by a better theory. Scientfic theory does not presume that it is the last and unalterable word on the subject, unlike the man-made "word of God".

Mrs Smith, it is good to see you here. :)

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Scientists think that cave paintings and stone tools are this old. Scientists are quite frequently wrong.

Scientists are frequently wrong but they're also frequently right. If you accept that scientists are frequently right, do you also accept that you might be wrong about the age of the Earth and mankind?

Troll
08-10-2008, 05:19 PM
"Religion" is based on faith. God is fact...and He is far busier in this world that the "god" of evolution, that ability He built into His creation to change with the environment.

LOL! :D

It works 100 times out of 100 - you don't need to debate with Creationists, you just let them talk, and they'll paint themselves into a corner faster than you can say "Beetle Bailey." This phenomenon in and of itself makes CU worth visiting every day. :D

I make my challenge open-ended. Any time any of you happen upon a LIVING animal with no biological parents and no predecessors in the fossil record, please let me know.

megimoo
08-10-2008, 05:38 PM
Unfortunately, I don't (personally) know any men that sprang into existence as adults. Perhaps Adam, but I'll need to meet with him to ask him some questions and run some DNA tests. :D

Man also has numerous predecessors in the fossil record.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

You would make a great scientist and if man has any predecessors in fossil record it would be a first.
You also seem to be great at postulating your theory's without any proof.Have you any privileged view into creation,are you privy to GOD'S intent ?
Is there any evidence to creation ?YES !Just because you demand first hand evidence of the act of creation and will not accept the possibility of a creator without eyewitness proof makes you something of a an intellect
frozen in your beliefs set and unable to open your mind to the possibility's of GOD .

The evidence is all around you.It Is in vogue to refuse to accept matters without overwhelming evidence to their existence.Many greater men than you or I have beleived in a creator including Steven Hawkins and Albert Einstein !

megimoo
08-10-2008, 05:46 PM
One of the perils of trying to use the Bible as a scientific reference book.
What would you propose to use,your imagination ?

Troll
08-10-2008, 06:10 PM
Is there any evidence to creation ?YES !Just because you demand first hand evidence of the act of creation and will not accept the possibility of a creator without eyewitness proof makes you something of a an intellect
frozen in your beliefs set and unable to open your mind to the possibility's of GOD .
The evidence is all around you.It Is in vogue to refuse to accept matters without overwhelming evidence to their existence.Many greater men than you or I have beleived in a creator including Steven Hawkins and Albert Einstein !

As I've stated many times on CU, I do believe in God, and I always have. The point I'm making is that the key word here is "believe". I can neither prove nor disprove God - I have faith that He exists. If the existence of God could be proven, then there is no faith, and I'm pretty sure that Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh told us that faith is important. So if God revealed Himself to us, He would be removing one of the most important pillars of religion.

Contrast that with "accept". Accept is what you do when you're shown the facts. Whether or not the Bible makes specific reference to it, the Earth is billions of years old, and life on this planet has undergone drastic changes over millions of years. These are unassailable scientific facts. To not accept them simply gives the megaleftos a weapon to attack religious conservatives with.

megimoo
08-10-2008, 06:33 PM
Please don't think that I don't believe in God. I absolutely do, and I always have. The point I'm making is that the key word here is "believe". I can neither prove nor disprove God - I have faith that He exists. If the existence of God could be proven, then there is no faith, and I'm pretty sure that Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh told us that faith is important. So if God revealed Himself to us, He would be removing one of the most important pillars of religion.

Contrast that with "accept". Accept is what you do when you're shown the facts. Whether or not the Bible makes specific reference to it, the Earth is billions of years old, and life on this planet has undergone drastic changes over millions of years. These are unassailable scientific facts. To not accept them simply gives the megaleftos a weapon to attack religious conservatives with.

GOD has chosen not to make his existence obvious and I have no idea why ?

Why faith is important to him I have no clue .He has provided little 'glimpses 'of himself in his works and from that we have found him and obviously from his beloved son Jesus The Christ !

Science is much trumpeted and in reality it simply attempts to trace the works of GOD and creates nothing on its own.To deny the very existence of the one who's work they attempt to follow strikes me as being foolish given GOD'S creation is already in place.

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 07:25 PM
Many greater men than you or I have beleived in a creator including Steven Hawkins and Albert Einstein !

Albert Einstein subscribed to pantheism, which is the view that equates God to the laws of nature. Steven Hawking has a similar view.

"This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)." - Albert Einstein, Essays in Science.

megimoo
08-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Albert Einstein subscribed to pantheism, which is the view that equates God to the laws of nature. Steven Hawking has a similar view.

"This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)." - Albert Einstein, Essays in Science.

Hawking: God may play dice after all

Famed physicist presents divine-snowball theory for start of universe

"God may play dice then, but only if the dice are loaded. If the universe depends on observables, it also depends on we the observers, so the dice had to somehow guarantee that we humans would emerge. Physicists call this idea the so-called "Weak Anthropic Principle" from the Greek "anthropos," which means "man" or "human."

Despite an aging Albert Einstein's famous comment, "God does not play dice with the universe," renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking and his academic collaborator Thomas Hertog now suggest that God did roll the dice at least once at the moment of creation.
Like that familiar wizened sage atop the highest peak, God cast that first die down a mountain of potential energy where, according to Hawking and Hertog, it rolled like a snowball, growing, expanding and inflating into the universe we know today.

"The quantum origin of our universe implies one must take a 'top down' approach to the problem of initial conditions in cosmology," Hawking and Hertog write in their latest paper on the subject "Why does inflation start at the top of the hill?"

Inflation and creation started at the top of a potential energy mountain, the two cosmologists claim, where fundamental field particles acted like snowflakes that coalesced into cosmological snowballs. A rolling stone may gather no moss, but the rolling die of creation known to physicists as a subatomic particle called the "Hawking-Moss instanton" gathered these snowflake-like particles.

"The early evolution of our universe is a bit like a ball of snow that grows while rolling down a hill," Hertog told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview. Hertog equated the growing snowball to a field of particles. "Our calculations show that our universe was most likely created by this field at the top of a 'potential hill.'"

Like mischievous children, quantum fluctuations in the early universe rolled the cosmological snowball down the hill and it expanded.

"Because of Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle, the field at the top of the hill fluctuates," Hertog explained. "Because the top of the hill is an unstable point, these fluctuations eventually cause the field to roll all the way down."
snip
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27721

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 07:44 PM
That's an easy one, almost painfully easy.

It took The Church 1600 years, and another few years after that of concerted efforts at suppressing this now-accepted scientific truth, before they would allow "their" "flock" to come to terms with the reality of heliocentrism.



This was true for a limited period of time, but certainly not in the days of Moses. :rolleyes: As God revealed to Moses the Creation, it is highly likely that he had a much better understanding of the workings of the heavens than some "more sophisticated" folks that came along later. Like us.



First bolded (things that have been proven beyond any doubt .. As God is such)

You give attributes to this particular thing that it obviously does not merit. This thing has clearly not been proven beyond doubt, or I would hardly be in a position to challenge it, would I?

You are confusing your desire for it to be true with its actuality of being true.

Second bolded (especially given that the scientist's guess will be revised innumerable times as more evidence comes to light).

That is the beauty of scientific theory. It allows itself to be scrutinized, to be challenged, and when required, to be superceded by a better theory. Scientfic theory does not presume that it is the last and unalterable word on the subject, unlike the man-made "word of God".

Mrs Smith, it is good to see you here. :)

God has most certainly been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to millions upon millions of people. I truly feel sorry for those of you that haven't gotten there, yet. You will, though. God loves you, after all. :)

Scientific theory does allow for all those things you've listed...which is why the conclusions are always changing...and therefore, frequently wrong. If it's ever all right, then it will agree with Genesis...and the puzzle that has taken so many hours of labor will be solved. After all, God was the One Who made it, and He made sure we had a record of His actions for a reason. :)



{on edit...to change the subject...saw a story about a British man who committed a ghoulish suicide. I was sure it wasn't you, but still glad to see you on board, whole and well.}

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 07:54 PM
Scientists are frequently wrong but they're also frequently right. If you accept that scientists are frequently right, do you also accept that you might be wrong about the age of the Earth and mankind?

Are they frequently right? That isn't necessarily true. All we know for sure is that new evidence may change any portion of the "knowledge," until that evidence is discovered, we have no way to know how much is wrong.

As for the age of the Earth and mankind, I know that Biblical scholars have counted the generations and years per generation back to Adam, and come up with a figure that (coincidently??) is somewhat older than the first signs of civilization and writing. (mighty big coincidence...)

However, I have some reservations about one specific part of their figuring...the age of Adam. I can't see why Adam would have counted the years of his life when he was immortal. So long as he dwelt in the Garden, there was no death on earth, so why would he count his years?

However, once he ate of the fruit and death entered the world, counting his years made perfect sense. So, how long did he live in the Garden...and what was going on outside it all that time? Other than the fact that nothing died, we have no idea what the rest of the world was like, or how old it was.

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 09:41 PM
Are they frequently right? That isn't necessarily true. All we know for sure is that new evidence may change any portion of the "knowledge," until that evidence is discovered, we have no way to know how much is wrong.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that scientists are only sometimes right. If you accept that scientists are sometimes right, do you also accept that they might be right about Earth being billions of years old?

OwlMBA
08-10-2008, 09:43 PM
I wonder if CU could go two months without another evolution/creation debate?

I fail to see the point in debating something that neither side can prove and neither side can convert the other.

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 09:44 PM
God has most certainly been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to millions upon millions of people. I truly feel sorry for those of you that haven't gotten there, yet. You will, though. God loves you, after all. :)

Should we assume that astrology is true because millions of people believe in it? Of course not.

The number of people who believe in a god has no bearing whatsoever on whether that god exists or not.

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 09:53 PM
Hawking: God may play dice after all

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27721

Hawking does not believe in a creator. Hawking uses the term "god" in much the same way Albert Einstein did... as a metaphor for the Universe and the laws of nature.

In the following talk, Stephen Hawking states that there is nothing bigger or older than the Universe and that the Universe creating itself out of nothing...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_unive rse.html

Nice try. I can understand why you want Einstein and Hawking on your side but they aren't.

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 09:55 PM
I wonder if CU could go two months without another evolution/creation debate?

I fail to see the point in debating something that neither side can prove and neither side can convert the other.

Some of us like to fight.

OwlMBA
08-10-2008, 10:10 PM
Some of us like to fight.

Apparently!

By the way, using Hawking and Einstein is not usually a good idea. Even they admit that 90% of their theories have been disproven (often by themselves).

The best scientists are the ones that disprove their own theories.

wilbur
08-10-2008, 10:35 PM
Scientists think that cave paintings and stone tools are this old. Scientists are quite frequently wrong.

You are right... scientists are frequently wrong... hmm

What can we do to solve this problem? I've got it! You know what would be great?

If there were actually some sort of methodology... some process to weed out mistakes and refine scientific observations, and the theories that explain them... ensuring that as time goes on, our explanations get better and increase with precision. A way that helps us systematically, methodically perceive falsehoods so that we can discard them until only true possibilities remain. Why I think such a thing would be one of the greatest achievements of mankind to date?

If only.... hmmm.

Scratch that, lets just institutionalize our mistakes and call it religion. The other idea sounds like a whole lot of work.

wilbur
08-10-2008, 10:39 PM
Moses wrote what God told him to write. Seriously, people who think otherwise have to consider what Genesis actually says. As if some man, who was raised to believe the sun was a god, would turn around and write that light appeared before the sun and stars... :rolleyes: Inspired may not mean "dictation," it often means putting into written words the events God has shown that person.

So then Genesis isnt a firsthand eye witness account?

wilbur
08-10-2008, 10:45 PM
Science is much trumpeted and in reality it simply attempts to trace the works of GOD and creates nothing on its own.To deny the very existence of the one who's work they attempt to follow strikes me as being foolish given GOD'S creation is already in place.

Many scientists would probably agree with this

The Night Owl
08-10-2008, 10:45 PM
Apparently!

By the way, using Hawking and Einstein is not usually a good idea. Even they admit that 90% of their theories have been disproven (often by themselves).

The best scientists are the ones that disprove their own theories.

I'm not "using" Hawking or Einstein. I'm refuting Megi's suggestion that Hawking and Einstein are examples of theists.