Scientists Re-Create Big Bang in Lab

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL

The first part reads just like anyone else that has read an anti-evolution religion book and nothing else. The classic "missing link" argument. No matter what fossils are dug up, there's always another "missing link". LOL. There will ALWAYS be another "missing link" because there are never going to be hundreds of thousands of fossils showing every single step of the transition (assuming you could even see many of the steps from bones and other matter left after millions of years).

Don't even start me on the ghosts and other magical stuff. I recommend Carl Sagan's book for that:

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469

Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?
 
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

lol


"Science is like totally wrong bro, I know because my brother and me hotboxed his Civic on the way home from chic-fil-a one night and I swear to god we ran over the ghost from the library in ghostbusters... Also my dead cousin likes to cook ravioli at 4am just to fuck with us... debunk that you ignorant scientists"
 
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

You understand the way you presented yourself makes you sound crazy, right?

Not that you believe in ghosts. That's cool, and I hope there are real ghosts. But the way you went about doing this just writes crazy all over your forehead.
 
lol i say what i say straight out mostly. Things may sound crazy now but as soon as you experience them then it becomes reality. I go to college and don't do drugs or anything. Don't even drink. I say what i say straight truth. That event in the car was actually bone real. Everyone got scared to death. Doesn't matter what anyone says. I usually carry my camera but that one time i didn't and it happened.
 
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

Wow.. just... wow.

First you say thermodynamics proves evolution wrong, which is downright preposterous. Now you're saying that because a ghost spooked you in a car, that Carl Sagan is wrong? Hmm.. do I believe a HIGHLY respected scientist or a possibly crazy poster on an internet forum? Dunno. You did put a hell of a lot of crazy juice in that post.

That said, scientists are looking for multiple dimensions and there are things in the science world that would make what you're describing seem amusing, if not plain, in comparison. I can think of dozens of things that could replicate the light you refer to (helicopter spotlight, owl, grocery bag in a windstorm, ball lightning, tornado droppings, airplane poop drop, oncoming headlights reflecting off of fog or a cloud of bugs, etc.). I would suggest you approach things a bit more scientifically and with less pure faith if you choose to start bashing scientists or proposing crazy sounding material. Sadly, the most unbelievable part of that whole paragraph is you saying you argued with an atheist for a few hours. I know a few atheists and rarely do they find the time to argue with people of faith because they know that A) it's pointless because they "have faith" and B) there are better things to do than reverse 2000 years of lies and hypocrisy.
 
Wow.. just... wow.

First you say thermodynamics proves evolution wrong, which is downright preposterous. Now you're saying that because a ghost spooked you in a car, that Carl Sagan is wrong? Hmm.. do I believe a HIGHLY respected scientist or a possibly crazy poster on an internet forum? Dunno. You did put a hell of a lot of crazy juice in that post.

That said, scientists are looking for multiple dimensions and there are things in the science world that would make what you're describing seem amusing, if not plain, in comparison. I can think of dozens of things that could replicate the light you refer to (helicopter spotlight, owl, grocery bag in a windstorm, ball lightning, tornado droppings, airplane poop drop, oncoming headlights reflecting off of fog or a cloud of bugs, etc.). I would suggest you approach things a bit more scientifically and with less pure faith if you choose to start bashing scientists or proposing crazy sounding material. Sadly, the most unbelievable part of that whole paragraph is you saying you argued with an atheist for a few hours. I know a few atheists and rarely do they find the time to argue with people of faith because they know that A) it's pointless because they "have faith" and B) there are better things to do than reverse 2000 years of lies and hypocrisy.

One thing i learned about a lot of atheists i talk to is that they don't do their own research and they always rely on someone else to do it for them. They always say well why does everyone believe that then. If its true then why do all these people that are smart believe this. Bandwagon means nothing. Scientists aren't super human evolved creatures. Think for yourselves. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have as just as good logical and cognitive skills as anyone else. Start thinking and using your own brain. Theories and laws of science change all the time and those scientists were smart also. You could be a scientist some day if you wanted to :cool:. Tired already. Will leave it at that.


  • Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
  • Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
  • Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
  • The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
  • Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
  • Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
  • Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
  • Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
 
Who said anything about proving something? I've always talked about looking at the evidence and determining how well it supports a theory. The harder the theories are to falsify, the more confidence people will have in just accepting it, like the atomic theory. Is that simply "just a guess" to you too?

Atoms are a fact, not a theory. They've been observed. It's ignorant to think "atomic theory" is about whether or not atoms exist. Atomic Theory is educated guesses about the nature of atoms. Kids often learn that atoms are like tiny solar systems, Bohr's theory. But, this is just one guess about the nature of atoms. There are at least a dozen significant theories about the nature of the atom, most of them are not widely accepted.

Anyway, if there was a universe out there where he was wrong about the theory of the Big Bang, then the universe that he lives in MUST obey a different set of physical laws. Maybe not much different, but different nonetheless.

I don't think you got the point. By his reasoning, there are an infinite number of universes that appear just like this one, but where he is completely wrong.
 
Odd thing about knowledge is that it can be shared and accumulated between people. If everyone did their own research on everything, we really wouldn't get anywhere.

To that end, I will let the experts who have spent more years than I have been alive to their respective fields.
 
Atoms are a fact, not a theory. They've been observed. It's ignorant to think "atomic theory" is about whether or not atoms exist. Atomic Theory is educated guesses about the nature of atoms. Kids often learn that atoms are like tiny solar systems, Bohr's theory. But, this is just one guess about the nature of atoms. There are at least a dozen significant theories about the nature of the atom, most of them are not widely accepted.



I don't think you got the point. By his reasoning, there are an infinite number of universes that appear just like this one, but where he is completely wrong.

You have still ignored a lot of my comments. Dodge much?
 
One thing i learned about a lot of atheists i talk to is that they don't do their own research and they always rely on someone else to do it for them. They always say well why does everyone believe that then. If its true then why do all these people that are smart believe this. Bandwagon means nothing. Scientists aren't super human evolved creatures. Think for yourselves. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have as just as good logical and cognitive skills as anyone else. Start thinking and using your own brain. Theories and laws of science change all the time and those scientists were smart also. You could be a scientist some day if you wanted to :cool:. Tired already. Will leave it at that.


  • Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
  • Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
  • Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
  • The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
  • Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
  • Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
  • Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
  • Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

Just because some past ideas have been falsified (that's the beauty of science, btw) doesn't mean that the whole of scientific discovery and progress is invalid.

You called the late Carl Sagan "ignorant" and your justification was you think you saw a ghost once. Alright, cool story bro, but show us how the anecdote "a ghost is causing my aunts stove make noise at 4am" is falsifiable. It's the same jumping to conclusions like: "I've never a seen a fish evolve into an elephant, so GOD DID IT!". What you've said isn't evidence of anything except the fact some people go to great lengths to ignore logic whenever they want to irrationally believe something that flies in the face of physical reality and all evidence to the contrary.
 
One thing i learned about a lot of atheists i talk to is that they don't do their own research and they always rely on someone else to do it for them. They always say well why does everyone believe that then. If its true then why do all these people that are smart believe this. Bandwagon means nothing. Scientists aren't super human evolved creatures. Think for yourselves. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have as just as good logical and cognitive skills as anyone else. Start thinking and using your own brain. Theories and laws of science change all the time and those scientists were smart also. You could be a scientist some day if you wanted to :cool:. Tired already. Will leave it at that.


  • Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
  • Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
  • Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
  • The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
  • Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
  • Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
  • Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
  • Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

You guys will run out of excuses some day.
 
Atoms are a fact, not a theory. They've been observed. It's ignorant to think "atomic theory" is about whether or not atoms exist. Atomic Theory is educated guesses about the nature of atoms. Kids often learn that atoms are like tiny solar systems, Bohr's theory. But, this is just one guess about the nature of atoms. There are at least a dozen significant theories about the nature of the atom, most of them are not widely accepted.

Just knowing atoms exist doesn't mean jack if you don't know how it works, and funny enough, we've understood the nature of atoms indirectly through theoretical models long before observing them directly. That's how knew they existed in the first place. Every idea before that was philosophical armchair ideas, aka not tested and established scientifically. Your current understanding of atoms today is taken for granted.

As you say, the nature of how it works is all theoretical. And just like Korrd quoted Krauss in the lecture you watched, "Knowing the answer means nothing; testing your knowledge means everything." An armchair philosopher could share the exact same ideas as a scientist, but will not have a means to support his idea.

The atomic theory and the quantum theory is built upon a very paradoxical implication. Consider the Schrödinger's cat problem. This was a direct challenge to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which dominates our modern view of atoms today. Despite quantum mechanics being tested to 1 part in 10 billion accuracy in QED, there hasn't been a consensus for this horrible paradox. Yet, we make practical applications every day based on these theoretical principles. Again, would you totally dismiss the atomic theory for being an "just an educated guess"?

I don't think you got the point. By his reasoning, there are an infinite number of universes that appear just like this one, but where he is completely wrong.

Assuming he's actually "correct" in our universe (this is still an ongoing field of research), he wouldn't be wrong if it also turned out to be "correct" in another identical universe. That's the pure logic of the situation. Just because there's possibility an infinite number of universes doesn't mean a single one of them is logically inconsistent. Infinite universes does not mean infinite laws of logic. Science (and therefore our best understanding of life and nature) is built upon the basis of logical repeatability and consistency. Life as we know it wouldn't exist under such logically inconsistent conditions and therefore, even if such a universe exists, the scientist as we know him wouldn't exist to make such a statement. Again, our brain's ability to constantly test the structure and consistency of the world (as Carl Sagan said it) is pretty much taken for granted. In a universe where correct = incorrect, anything inside it wouldn't represent the universe that we're familiar with.
 
Not to mention, as I pointed out earlier, when Darwin proposed evolution there was no such thing as genetics. This entire field was discovered ~100 years after Darwin and corroborates evolution independent of all other lines of evidence. Quite remarkable.

Gregary Mendel was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Mendel created the modern science of genetics. But, because genetics explained variation without Evolution, Darwin and others Evolutionists rejected it. That's why it took more than a hundred years after Mendel's death for Evolutionists to accept it, after overwhelming empirical evidence forced Evolutionists to accept it. Darwin slowed the progress of science by more than a century. So, history shows you are flat out backwards, unless you want to come up with another reason why it took more than a century for Mendelian Genetics to be accepted by Evolutionists. (And, unlike Darwin, Mendel is famous for making a scientific discovery.)

Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science and has proven to have tremendous predictive value.

Do you have anything to say in the defense of Evolution that isn't rank BS? (If so, you'd be the first :D)

We can look at indels in genomes and see that they match up with the evolutionary tree (corroborated by other lines of evidence). We can look at the chimpanzee's 24 chromosomes and match up exactly where two of them fused into one to get the 23 chromosomes that humans have. The sequences match just as we would expect.

You think just because a potato has 24 chromosomes that correspond, because of fusion, with the 23 that humans have, that we have a recent common ancestor with potatoes? Sorry, you said chimps, not potatoes. But, your argument works for both.

The level of denial that some people have for science is shocking.

The level of denial that some people have for their own degree of blind faith is shocking.
 
It takes just as much faith to believe in the big bang theory as it does creationism IMO.

I was on the minecraft subreddit the other day, and this guy posted a screenshot of a huge glass spherical looking object said he spawned inside of it on a new map after the update. OP said it was naturally occuring from the game (or a corrupted save).
One particular poster called shens on him, saying "There is no way this almost perfectly spherical structure was created from the algorithm that creates procedural environments." I replied and said, "You must not believe in the big bang theory, then". I got -15 votes for that comment, but I think I was right. How can you say randomness can't create a perfect sphere in a game yet it could be responsible for this entire universe full of trillions of galaxies and life on earth? Someone who downvoted me said, minecraft =! universe.
 
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

Wow...

You know, I personally never am one to dismiss things like this as crazy. The way I see things is that we, as humans, know what amounts to pretty much amounts to jack shit about the universe. There is absolutely no reason to completely dismiss accounts of the supernatural because in all seriousness, we just don't know. Hell, I think it would be amazing to put more research into these areas to see what's out there. People who dismiss things because they haven't seen it themselves, or it is beyond their current understanding of things are fools.

However, you're going to come into a debate about scientific theories and basically tell people, "You are all wrong because I saw ****what I think**** may have been a ghost/spirit once, and my aunt's stove turns on by itself." Sorry, that's not how things work. Ghosts, spirits, demons, etc may be real (again complete closed-mindedness is foolish), but just because they exist and you are one of the first to understand this doesn't raise you to some transcendental level where you are magically more knowledgeable about the workings of the universe than everyone else.

You can't call everyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural ignorant when you, yourself, are also being extremely ignorant over other subjects that you clearly don't have much understanding. That is hypocrisy at it's finest.
 
As you say, the nature of how it works is all theoretical. And just like Korrd quoted Krauss in the lecture you watched, "Knowing the answer means nothing; testing your knowledge means everything." An armchair philosopher could share the exact same ideas as a scientist, but will not have a means to support his idea.

Why are Evolutionists so schizophrenic (not to imply that their insanity is limited to schizophrenia)? Does it have something to with trying to have their cake and eat it, too? If a theory is anything more than an educated guess, why would you test? No one tests facts. People only test guesses. Yet, you want me to believe that Evolution is a fact that is tested by scientists. No one is ever going to publish a paper to confirm that water freezes in cold temperatures. No headline is ever going to trumpet, "New evidence that gravity exists." There is no "the theory of gravity", even if there is gravitational theory. But, there is "the theory of dark energy" (anti-gravity, which supposedly is stronger than gravity. Amazingly, Newton didn't notice it.).

Assuming he's actually "correct" in our universe (this is still an ongoing field of research), he wouldn't be wrong if it also turned out to be "correct" in another identical universe.

The logic is, if he's right, then he has to be wrong in an infinite number of universes (because everything happens an infinite number of times, no matter how unlikely), even having the same evidence as he has in this universe. So, given than he's wrong an infinite number of times in other universes that appear like ours, how can you have confidence that he's right in this one? Either he is wrong about the evidence in this universe or he is wrong about similar evidence in an infinite number of other universes. Either way, his argument is lose-lose for him.

That's the pure logic of the situation. Just because there's possibility an infinite number of universes doesn't mean a single one of them is logically inconsistent.

Someone who believes that matter and energy appear without cause from nothing should be careful about talking about logic. But, the man is still wrong in an infinite number of logically consistent universes. In some universes, he might be wrong because he's a deluded Atheist bigot. On other universes, he might be wrong because of years of indoctrination in government schools. He doesn't have to be wrong because a universe is illogical. He might be wrong because he is illogical. It was interesting when he said that in the far future, scientists could think that the universe is static and consists of just our galaxy. How do you know in principle that he's not in error now because of his inadequate knowledge of the current state of the universe? He even suggested that the current appearance of the universe could have formed spontaneously recently, as unlikely as that might be, it must have happened an infinite number of times. Maybe we're brains in a jar and know only the ideas aliens have planted in our brains.
 
Gregary Mendel was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Mendel created the modern science of genetics. But, because genetics explained variation without Evolution, Darwin and others Evolutionists rejected it. That's why it took more than a hundred years after Mendel's death for Evolutionists to accept it, after overwhelming empirical evidence forced Evolutionists to accept it. Darwin slowed the progress of science by more than a century. So, history shows you are flat out backwards, unless you want to come up with another reason why it took more than a century for Mendelian Genetics to be accepted by Evolutionists. (And, unlike Darwin, Mendel is famous for making a scientific discovery.)

You need to do some research because you really dont know what you are talking about. Mendel did not create modern genetics, Mendel (who it turns out fabricated some of his work) proposed laws for inheritance that turned out to be very important, but he had no idea what a gene was or how it worked. His work wasn't rejected by Darwin--- Darwin would have loved to have known about how inheritance works because heritability is a requirement for evolution. It took about 40-50 years for Mendel's work to be rediscovered because that was when people were actually trying to figure the mechanism of inheritance. Still though, it wasn't until the 1950s that the structure of DNA was discovered and it was realized how genetic information could be passed down. It really took that long because the technology just wasn't there.

You think just because a potato has 24 chromosomes that correspond, because of fusion, with the 23 that humans have, that we have a recent common ancestor with potatoes? Sorry, you said chimps, not potatoes. But, your argument works for both.

No, the chromosomes of potatoes dont match up with the chromosomes of primates. Evolution predicts this would likely be the case (because plants and animals diverged a long time ago) and DNA sequencing proves it. The 24 chromosomes of chimps match the humans chromosomes in SEQUENCE just as evolution predicts. Human chromosome 2 contains the sequence of two of the chimp chromosomes it the exact orientation as if those chromosomes were fused end to end.


The level of denial that some people have for their own degree of blind faith is shocking.

Belief in evolution among scientists and myself is a belief based on evidence, not faith. I actually understand evolution. And, unlike you, I don't think a potato has the same DNA sequence as a human.
 
Wall of text inc!

Why are Evolutionists so schizophrenic (not to imply that their insanity is limited to schizophrenia)? Does it have something to with trying to have their cake and eat it, too? If a theory is anything more than an educated guess, why would you test? No one tests facts. People only test guesses. Yet, you want me to believe that Evolution is a fact that is tested by scientists. No one is ever going to publish a paper to confirm that water freezes in cold temperatures. No headline is ever going to trumpet, "New evidence that gravity exists." There is no "the theory of gravity", even if there is gravitational theory. But, there is "the theory of dark energy" (anti-gravity, which supposedly is stronger than gravity. Amazingly, Newton didn't notice it.).

Well first off, I don't want you to simply "believe" anything, forgive me for being being picky with the wording but that's pretty much the last thing you'd wanna resort to as an independent thinker. There may be some things out there that are hard to understand, but the best thing to do is to try and understand it as much as possible so you know when people aren't pulling things out of their ass.

Anyway, the word "theory" is being used to describe scientific principles these days because it acknowledges that everything people discover aren't solid facts no matter how obvious or compelling it is. If Newton came along with his discoveries in the 1900s, all the "laws" of gravity and motion would be called theories. Theories are not facts. They're thought processes and concepts that have various levels of support, based on how much evidence supports it.

Think of it this way: you wake up in your log cabin on a winter morning and take a look outside. You notice that your log pile and tables are messed up and out of place. The first hypothesis you make is that someone or something must have altered the original state. You notice there's scratch marks all over the table. Based on what you know about the world, this is compelling evidence that an animal caused the mess. You look around the snow and find bear tracks. You are familiar with bear tracks based on knowledge of bears (or you might have witnessed a bear leaving similar tracks yourself). Then you discover some bear shit on the ground nearby, that wasn't there before (again, you might have witnessed a bear taking a dump yourself, or learned about it).

Now the common sense thing to say is "This must have been a bear, this is a fact" even if you never saw it, because the evidence is so obvious and is "common sense" to the human experience. But the scientific way to say it is, "These bits of evidence strongly support my theory that a bear caused this mess." Notice that it leaves an openness to critiques and interpretation. When dealing with concepts that aren't so "common sense," people have to be much more careful when talking about things completely outside normal human experience because it's so difficult to describe and understand.

If people knew of "facts" then I would agree that it wouldn't require any testing because it's known 100%. But that just isn't the case in real life. If you know that water freezes at a cold temperature, you have to determine at what temperature it freezes. Otherwise, your understanding is just vague. Next, you will realize that water freezes easier at higher pressures, and the opposite at lower pressures. This requires scientific procedures to deduce the nature of water at different pressures. When the observations match the theories, it strongly supports the theory that as pressure changes, so do the freezing points of water. The tricky part is that you say "cold" which is a totally subjective word. In terms of water boiling for example, you would say "hot" temperatures. But water has no problem boiling at room temperature if the pressure is low enough. It's all relative.

As for Dark Energy, it was originally proposed by Albert Einstein as the cosmological constant because "conventional wisdom" suggested that the universe was static and unchanging. Even Newton's laws suggested that everything should collapse back on itself, which was a problem in this context. Krauss went over it in the video we watched, but you may have forgotten or overlooked it. Anyway, Einstein proposed that a force that's so dispersed that it wouldn't affect Newtonian physics on a small scale, but adds up and becomes apparent on the scale of galaxies and the universe. It's an extension to Newtonian physics not a total paradigm shift. The only reason why Newton didn't notice it is because the extent of his understanding of the cosmos was limited to the Milky Way Galaxy. He wasn't even aware of the theory of general relativity, which evidence was first observed here in the Solar System.

Someone who believes that matter and energy appear without cause from nothing should be careful about talking about logic. But, the man is still wrong in an infinite number of logically consistent universes. In some universes, he might be wrong because he's a deluded Atheist bigot. On other universes, he might be wrong because of years of indoctrination in government schools. He doesn't have to be wrong because a universe is illogical. He might be wrong because he is illogical. It was interesting when he said that in the far future, scientists could think that the universe is static and consists of just our galaxy. How do you know in principle that he's not in error now because of his inadequate knowledge of the current state of the universe? He even suggested that the current appearance of the universe could have formed spontaneously recently, as unlikely as that might be, it must have happened an infinite number of times. Maybe we're brains in a jar and know only the ideas aliens have planted in our brains.

The reason why he has some confidence to talk about universes spawning from nothing (notice that he didn't really push the idea) is because there's mathematical evidence to suggest it, where math is purely logical. I'll admit that I don't know how it works, so I'm reserving any judgement on this possibility. I'm not going to write it off as a fantasy because I haven't even seen or understood the data that suggests this theory yet. I DO know that it is far from a well-established and supported theory because there's probably next to no observational/experimental evidence to support it. See the trend here? You start with something that you aren't so sure about, then work your way up as you investigate more and more. Science is investigation, not revelation.

I noticed a problem with something you said here:

He doesn't have to be wrong because a universe is illogical. He might be wrong because he is illogical.

We're still talking about a universe identical to ours right? When you consider a universe is identical to ours, he CAN'T be illogical because he's basing the theory from the same logically-consistent data of our universe. The only times (that I can think of) where he proposes the same theory in a different universe but turns out to be illogical is A) The universe ISN'T identical and is different enough to debunk the theory (there could be an infinite number of these universes) or B) The universe obeys very different logical laws altogether and everything as we know it falls apart (again, possibly an infinite number of these universes too).
 
Why are Evolutionists so schizophrenic (not to imply that their insanity is limited to schizophrenia)?

Cause being paranoid beats manic depressive suicidal tendencies (not to imply that Creationists have bipolar disorders).
:D


Does it have something to with trying to have their cake and eat it, too?
Nope. That would be religion. We guys gotta prove that the cake is not a lie.


If a theory is anything more than an educated guess, why would you test? No one tests facts. People only test guesses.
Won't be fact if it ain't proved. I don't need to test you to know you have a brain and no, I ain't guessing or taking that on faith. Why should you test fact?

Yet, you want me to believe that Evolution is a fact that is tested by scientists.

How old is the Earth according to Creationists?
6000 years? 12000?
Ever heard of radio isotope dating? Or the age of fossils that have been excavated? there is enough fact to prove you guys are way off mark.

No one is ever going to publish a paper to confirm that water freezes in cold temperatures. No headline is ever going to trumpet, "New evidence that gravity exists." There is no "the theory of gravity", even if there is gravitational theory. But, there is "the theory of dark energy" (anti-gravity, which supposedly is stronger than gravity. Amazingly, Newton didn't notice it.).

Actually gravity does not exist if you go by the General Theory of Relativity, though nowadays we have a wild theory that gravitons are the exchange particles of gravity and all that work going on in the LHC is just to make heavier and heavier subatomic particles, starting with the Higg's boson to verify super symmetry. As energy approaches grand unification we may someday "see" a graviton but till then, even we have to rely on faith :p

Someone who believes that matter and energy appear without cause from nothing should be careful about talking about logic. But, the man is still wrong in an infinite number of logically consistent universes. In some universes, he might be wrong because he's a deluded Atheist bigot.

perhaps in another universe I am a fanatic religious pedo priest even if I am an "atheist bigot" in this one

On other universes, he might be wrong because of years of indoctrination in government schools. He doesn't have to be wrong because a universe is illogical. He might be wrong because he is illogical. It was interesting when he said that in the far future, scientists could think that the universe is static and consists of just our galaxy. How do you know in principle that he's not in error now because of his inadequate knowledge of the current state of the universe? He even suggested that the current appearance of the universe could have formed spontaneously recently, as unlikely as that might be, it must have happened an infinite number of times.

Nope. Its only religious indoctrination for millennia which has put your brains in a jar. Its heartening to know that years of teaching in schools can make "most" people see reason.
I have faith in education and science.

Maybe we're brains in a jar and know only the ideas aliens have planted in our brains.

Atheist != Scientologist :LOL:

Inception is possible!!!!!
Where's my totem.
 
I've read about half of this thread and it's sad how many [H]ers don't have a basic grasp on basic scientific principals and use outdated attack points that were never valid in the first place.

As stated about 100 times in this thread Theory != guess. Let me name some theories, germ theory (pasteurized milk, who needs it?), evolution (lol at people tying to say that only micro evolution has occured, that's what happens, radical changes don't happen over the course of a generation... There is more evidence for evolution by natural selection than there is gravity), gravity, etc etc.

If it wasn't a theory, that means it's been proven false. Theories require lots of testing and evidence to get the title 'Theory'. You can see the evidence for big bang in other parts of our galaxy, do some research.

And obviously there are many ignorant people in this thread who think the big bang was the begining of time and space. That's not the theory, I don't feel like explaining it in detail, but the big bang is just the start of the expansion that we are currently in right now.

Even the most basic level community college courses will give you this info

2q20943.jpg
 
This should help us explain why gravity is the weakest of the forces. I really enjoy hearing about all the new potential discoveries that the LHC could produce. I think there is the potential for this to help us make the next leap in scientific advance.
 
You need to do some research because you really dont know what you are talking about. Mendel did not create modern genetics, Mendel (who it turns out fabricated some of his work) proposed laws for inheritance that turned out to be very important, but he had no idea what a gene was or how it worked. His work wasn't rejected by Darwin--- Darwin would have loved to have known about how inheritance works because heritability is a requirement for evolution. It took about 40-50 years for Mendel's work to be rediscovered because that was when people were actually trying to figure the mechanism of inheritance. Still though, it wasn't until the 1950s that the structure of DNA was discovered and it was realized how genetic information could be passed down. It really took that long because the technology just wasn't there.

Who do you think you're fooling? You said genetics was unknown in Darwin's time and Mendel's work was rediscovered a century later and was a "quite remarkable" independent corroboration of Evolution. You said Mendel's work wasn't rejected. Wikipedia says, "At first Mendel's work was rejected, and it was not widely accepted until after he died. At that time most biologists held the idea of blending inheritance, and Charles Darwin's efforts to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis were unsuccessful. Mendel's ideas were rediscovered in the early twentieth century, and in the 1930s and 1940s the modern synthesis combined Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection." ("Rediscovered" means not ignored anymore.)

You still have no explanation for why it took over a century before his work was incorporated into evolutionary theory, which you owe us if you reject historical record. Wikipedia gives the historical answer, because it didn't fit with what Evolutionists wanted (blended inheritance creates new traits whereas genes pass along existing traits). If it were quite remarkable in supporting Evolution, Darwinists would have sucked it up like their favorite Kool Aid in Darwin's day. (You should stick to debating the church kids who know little about atheology, where you might get away with your propaganda).

No, the chromosomes of potatoes dont match up with the chromosomes of primates. Evolution predicts this would likely be the case (because plants and animals diverged a long time ago) and DNA sequencing proves it. The 24 chromosomes of chimps match the humans chromosomes in SEQUENCE just as evolution predicts. Human chromosome 2 contains the sequence of two of the chimp chromosomes it the exact orientation as if those chromosomes were fused end to end.

No, the 24 chromosomes in potato Mitochondrial DNA corresponds, matches in sequence, to human chromosomes, except for two two potato chromosomes which combined correspond to a single human chromosome. It's not exact, but neither is the chimp match exact (contrary to what you're saying or implying). The reason this isn't in your public school indoctrination book is because, like the Darwinian rejection of Mendelian genetics for over a century, it doesn't make good Darwinist propaganda. When it comes to potato chromosomes, suddenly chromosomes just randomly break and or fuse, without any particular relevance to Evolution.
 
Nope. That would be religion. We guys gotta prove that the cake is not a lie.

If the cake is a lie, I end up cakeless, just like you. If the cake is not a lie, I get cake, and you don't. The choice is a no-brainer. Usually, the MacGuffin isn't a lie, so I like my odds.

Won't be fact if it ain't proved. I don't need to test you to know you have a brain and no, I ain't guessing or taking that on faith. Why should you test fact?

Exactly my point. You guys want Evolution to be both a fact and a theory, even though those terms are mutually exclusive. A fact is not tentative. A theory is tentative (as is the nature of a "guess"). It's a contradiction to test a fact. You want to have it both ways, the dogma of religion and the tentativeness of science.
 
If the cake is a lie, I end up cakeless, just like you. If the cake is not a lie, I get cake, and you don't. The choice is a no-brainer.

Pascal's Wager... haha... nothing like trying to a false dichotomy a point to your argument...

As for the fact/theory BS, the scientifically minded will gladly toss a theory aside if there is proof against it, but there is no such evidence.

A theory with such overwhelming evidence (and no contradictory evidence) such as germ theory, gravity, evolution, etc., is pretty much taken for fact in the scientific community. There are no technical 'facts' when it comes to this science, otherwise it's not science. Science must be able to be tested or observed. But there are facts like the fossil record, the layers of the earth, and changes that are plainly visible that all add together to make the theory.

It's really not that hard to comprehend...
 
One thing i learned about a lot of atheists i talk to is that they don't do their own research and they always rely on someone else to do it for them. They always say well why does everyone believe that then. If its true then why do all these people that are smart believe this. Bandwagon means nothing. Scientists aren't super human evolved creatures. Think for yourselves. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have as just as good logical and cognitive skills as anyone else. Start thinking and using your own brain. Theories and laws of science change all the time and those scientists were smart also. You could be a scientist some day if you wanted to :cool:. Tired already. Will leave it at that.


  • Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
  • Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
  • Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
  • The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
  • Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
  • Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
  • Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
  • Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

A question then, you back the thought that progress in science has been made and theories evolve and update themselves as time goes on, such as the examples you provided that are mostly hundreds if not thousands of years old.

So while you are saying this and typing on your computer to do so, you back an 1800 year old Congress's book that, while interesting reading, has never seriously been debated since it's inception. If you deny science based on the fact it progresses, would you not have to deny your faith based on the fact that it's stagnant? You have purported to issue up the bible as Law, immutable and infallible, with not one shred of postulation and discussion of merit of the word in over 1000 years in most christian's cases. When there are differences to be discussed, religion tends to view in rights and wrongs while science tends to amalgamate the results to something better.

You are correct that scientists aren't some super human creature. However, the bulk of science is laid down in generations of research and data collection over the course of 6 to 10,000 years. So, do I choose to follow the word of a few people who's thoughts haven't overtly changed in 1800 years or do I look for answers with people who've amalgamated the planet's combined history of sciences and maths that is both large, well explained, and not finished evolving? You ask me about bandwagon's and avoid questioning your own faith while doing so. Who's the real one on the bandwagon?
 
Sagan is ignorant. You ever see a picture of Mother Teresa fly off the wall across the room and land right side up with the frame smashed. I was in a car of 3 people after arguing with an atheist for few hours. At 1am with another atheist friend in the car we were going back home on this dark street and a white ghostly figure started to come down from the sky then suddenly it went across the whole wind shield emitting its own white light projected itself into the car. It was super bright and it was no lightning ball of energy. There were no clouds or helicopters or high voltage power lines. There was no room for doubt. Looked like no creature at all. When it came up to the windshield my brother floored the brakes as hard as possible. After that it went away. Can't debunk it at all. It was nothing anyone can describe. No cars were around. It had a transparent type white figure. My aunts house is haunted also. Ever see the stove turn on by itself or the lights turn off and on. Cabinets opens and closing as if someone were there still. Original person diet of cancer that lived in that house. Poltergeist like activity that will scare you to death. Many nights were she had to sleep in the car because the activity was that bad. She describes it as dark transparent figure. A lot of people live there say its real. My cousin died in that house and for 2 weeks you could hear him come back around 4am and turn the stove on like if he were alive coming back from work. Room gets insanely cold. You know nothing if you think its all fake. Its all so real. My mom works for this friend as a helper and all that. The place is really old and was passed on a few generations of his. The place at night is completely haunted. She said you could hear classical music playing as the guys mom that was living there listened to classical music on the radio. Shes dead though and there are no radios up there. There are rooms where it gets really cold to the bone. Maids that have worked over night there are scared to death. She once saw a lady on the rocking chair upstairs room but it wasn't facing the hallway so you could only see the back of the head. I also know many people that have messed with Ouija boards and had some crazy stuff happen to them. Some people are just too ignorant to accept it all. Accept the fact that there's more to life than what meets the eye. Once you see you'll understand.

If have, in 30 years, never seen anything remotely 'supernatural'. It's in the eye of the beholder. If you want to believe...well...I guess you might see it. Most of this stuff that just one person "sees" is just the human brain misfiring.

Sagan has this example. He would occasionally hear someone saying his name. A talks about several times after his parent's deaths that he hears one of them saying his name. But he doesn't leap to the conclusion that their ghosts are talking to him. Humans have minor little hallucinations like this all of the time. Haven't you heard someone say your name, but it turns out, no one is in the house? This stuff tends to be much more likely a hallucination than an actual event.

Sagan makes this point about UFOs, telekinesis, ghosts, and many other things in the "demon-haunted world". If they exist...with the millions of cameras, camcorders, and such...why is there no solid evidence of any of this? The "evidence" always turns out to be something else, or a hoax. This applies even more in these days of cameras-on-every-cellphone than it was when I read the book years ago.
 
Hey, they're ramping up dark matter detection--a decidely less energetic experiment than those at the LHC--at my old stomping grounds in Sudbury, ON:

http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/dark_matter_hunt_deepens_at_ont_mine/c2e35d65

I'm not sure what you're talking about... God limits himself by being unlimited (e.g. omnisicent and omnipotent)? Ok, if you say nothing I'll drop it. ;)
Yep, if God were truly omnipotent, he could change his mind, say, by answering someone's prayer. But by doing that, he would be going against what he set in motion (infallibly) and knew would happen (omnisciently).

So either he got things perfectly right initially, and therefore and can't change his creation without making it imperfect (omniscient and infallible, but no longer omnipotent); or he is all powerful but might need to make adjustments, meaning he didn't know everything when he started (omnipotent only); or that he's not all powerful and needs to wait to make adjustments to his imperfect creation that he knew were coming (omniscient only). Or he just doesn't exist.

Frankly, I'm stunned by the idea that man-made changes to the climate (or our achievements at the LHC, Tevatron, ...) are somehow less believable than man-made changes to The Perfect Being's Mind. Whatevs.
 
A question then, you back the thought that progress in science has been made and theories evolve and update themselves as time goes on, such as the examples you provided that are mostly hundreds if not thousands of years old.

So while you are saying this and typing on your computer to do so, you back an 1800 year old Congress's book that, while interesting reading, has never seriously been debated since it's inception. If you deny science based on the fact it progresses, would you not have to deny your faith based on the fact that it's stagnant? You have purported to issue up the bible as Law, immutable and infallible, with not one shred of postulation and discussion of merit of the word in over 1000 years in most christian's cases. When there are differences to be discussed, religion tends to view in rights and wrongs while science tends to amalgamate the results to something better.

You are correct that scientists aren't some super human creature. However, the bulk of science is laid down in generations of research and data collection over the course of 6 to 10,000 years. So, do I choose to follow the word of a few people who's thoughts haven't overtly changed in 1800 years or do I look for answers with people who've amalgamated the planet's combined history of sciences and maths that is both large, well explained, and not finished evolving? You ask me about bandwagon's and avoid questioning your own faith while doing so. Who's the real one on the bandwagon?

The bulk of science advancement can be credited to the "few people of the last 1800 years". Science and religion do not have to conflict. For argument's sake, let's assume that God exists. Modern materialist scientists would be narrow mindedly following a small set of clues to determine the origin of the universe, while discarding other clues. Their results would only yield answers limited by the data they study. My point is, the methodology for many scientists is to narrow the scope of their study. If you think spirits are the cause good or bad crops, then you won't be looking through other avenues for explanation. You can say that Christians should think outside the box more. (and many of them do) But on the same token, many materialist scientist should think outside the box. Though when that happens, they get shunned by the community.

Yep, if God were truly omnipotent, he could change his mind, say, by answering someone's prayer. But by doing that, he would be going against what he set in motion (infallibly) and knew would happen (omnisciently).

So either he got things perfectly right initially, and therefore and can't change his creation without making it imperfect (omniscient and infallible, but no longer omnipotent); or he is all powerful but might need to make adjustments, meaning he didn't know everything when he started (omnipotent only); or that he's not all powerful and needs to wait to make adjustments to his imperfect creation that he knew were coming (omniscient only). Or he just doesn't exist.

Frankly, I'm stunned by the idea that man-made changes to the climate (or our achievements at the LHC, Tevatron, ...) are somehow less believable than man-made changes to The Perfect Being's Mind. Whatevs.

You're assuming God "changes his mind" in a deductive way as if God is subject to time: where thought #1 precedes thought #2, which comes at a later point in time. To humans, that may appear that God changes direction. But that's not the case if God is immutable (unchanging). Humans change position in relation to God. But that doesn't mean God changes. God sets things in motion. He sets that change must be set in motion. But that does not mean God himself changes. An eternal God is outside of time.
 
Frankly, I'm stunned by the idea that man-made changes to the climate (or our achievements at the LHC, Tevatron, ...) are somehow less believable than man-made changes to The Perfect Being's Mind. Whatevs.

Not to start a debate on that topic but I am absolutely sure no intelligent being believes that we have no impact on the climate. The debate is the outcome, the data collection, the measured impact, the causes, the money.
 
If the cake is a lie, I end up cakeless, just like you. If the cake is not a lie, I get cake, and you don't. The choice is a no-brainer.

If God's the kind of person who wouldn't give me cake because I accepted evolution then he's no god worth believing in.

Why would god need us to believe in him/her anyways? Why would an all powerful being need mere mortals beliefs and prayer to exist? Maybe it's because if no one believed in god then god wouldn't exist. :eek:
 
The bulk of science advancement can be credited to the "few people of the last 1800 years". Science and religion do not have to conflict. For argument's sake, let's assume that God exists. Modern materialist scientists would be narrow mindedly following a small set of clues to determine the origin of the universe, while discarding other clues. Their results would only yield answers limited by the data they study. My point is, the methodology for many scientists is to narrow the scope of their study. If you think spirits are the cause good or bad crops, then you won't be looking through other avenues for explanation. You can say that Christians should think outside the box more. (and many of them do) But on the same token, many materialist scientist should think outside the box. Though when that happens, they get shunned by the community.
Experimentation and peer review > Everyone's pet idea should waste my time equally

"Where's the Experiment?"

You're assuming God "changes his mind" in a deductive way as if God is subject to time: where thought #1 precedes thought #2, which comes at a later point in time. To humans, that may appear that God changes direction. But that's not the case if God is immutable (unchanging). Humans change position in relation to God. But that doesn't mean God changes. God sets things in motion. He sets that change must be set in motion. But that does not mean God himself changes. An eternal God is outside of time.
So everything is relative to God. That's great. But I can put him in a non-existent sack outside of both time and space and nothing looks any different.

Let's just stick to the things we can demonstrate are true without worrying about whether His Noodly Appendages are are manipulating the results.
 
The bulk of science advancement can be credited to the "few people of the last 1800 years". Science and religion do not have to conflict. For argument's sake, let's assume that God exists. Modern materialist scientists would be narrow mindedly following a small set of clues to determine the origin of the universe, while discarding other clues. Their results would only yield answers limited by the data they study. My point is, the methodology for many scientists is to narrow the scope of their study. If you think spirits are the cause good or bad crops, then you won't be looking through other avenues for explanation. You can say that Christians should think outside the box more. (and many of them do) But on the same token, many materialist scientist should think outside the box. Though when that happens, they get shunned by the community.



You're assuming God "changes his mind" in a deductive way as if God is subject to time: where thought #1 precedes thought #2, which comes at a later point in time. To humans, that may appear that God changes direction. But that's not the case if God is immutable (unchanging). Humans change position in relation to God. But that doesn't mean God changes. God sets things in motion. He sets that change must be set in motion. But that does not mean God himself changes. An eternal God is outside of time.

Couple of issues here. Outside of the box thinking is fine and all. Its what drives innovation. But if you start to come up with ideas that can't be tested as an explanation then its no longer science. If I walked around stated that everything I didn't understand was gods doing people would think I am crazy. I know my limitations in knowledge and its that understanding that allows me the ability and willingness to research the answer when hit my limitations.

As for drilling down information. It must be done but that is where peer reviewing comes in. You are not and will not be accepted if you throw out relevant information just because it is an outlier. If I am trying to find out if there are black holes I don't care as much about our current temperature. But I can while trying to prove that black holes exist throw out an asteroid that traveled past a theorized black hole, just because 99.9% of other asteroids seemed to get sucked in.

I understand your opinion with the last spot. But it again points back to the "its outside the rules" portion that becomes the hardest part to follow. Under your Theory he might as well be Leto Atredies II following the golden path. As mentioned here the theory of God specially of that entered into the Bible, implies a very fallible god. One that Screwed up with the Angels even though they don't have free thought yet they rebelled. One where he grants Humans free thought so that they might not follow him so he can send them to hell. One where he grants free thought and then proceeds to wipe out almost all of the race to start over from scratch. One where after starting over he proceeds to wipe out cities for their transgressions (including the innocent). One where he sends his son/self to be tortured and slain for his beliefs knowing that it will happen. One where he will once again wipe out the race by taking the righteous up to heaven then 7 years later destroy the world. This isn't an infallible god. If he was as powerful and all knowing and understanding, then he would have just created it the way he did from the start and never had to touch it again. That is where the issue is and where the point comes from if time doesn't apply to him and he knows and sees all time in an instant then the great flood as the best example would never happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top