I don't neessarily have a disbelief in God. What I have problems with is fundementalists taking the bible as litteral fact instead of a collection of stories, poems and songs used for educating the people of the time.
Why couldn't God have created the universe the way it is hypothesized in the big bang hypothesis. The theory states that a sing point of eneryg changed to mass and began to expand. Why couldn't that single point of energy have come from God?
Why couldn't eveloution be God's way of creating man? Maybe he created apes, decided he like them and further refined them to what we are.
The Bible is not science any more than any religious text of any religion.
I don't expect you to understand...
Moderators: Aaronw, kendale, John Sayers
-
Eric Best
- Senior Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:51 am
- Location: Lansing, MI USA
- Contact:
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
See, but where does this necessity for God even come in? The term "God" has specific implications. By definition a god is some sort of thinking and feeling entity, is it not? Whatever it was that "sparked" the Big Bang didn't have thoughts and emotions. Likewise, how does an external thinking and feeling entity play into the biochemical mechanisms of evolution? The process works on its own with no supernatural intervention required. And even if you don't agree, on what basis do you postulate God? Isn't a big black monolith from outer space just as plausible a guess?Eric Best wrote: Why couldn't God have created the universe the way it is hypothesized in the big bang hypothesis. The theory states that a sing point of eneryg changed to mass and began to expand. Why couldn't that single point of energy have come from God?
Why couldn't eveloution be God's way of creating man?
You're a smart man Eric, so you realize that mythologies are incongruent with science. But if you look at it even deeper you'll realize that, at least at this point in the game, science has absolutely no need for gods to explain anything.
If we ever find ourselves in a position where we need to write something like:
E = MC^2 + God
Then we can have a serious discussion of God' s role in science. Until then it's simply an arbitrary and unnecessary anthropomorphization of natural processes.
-
DDev
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:24 pm
- Location: Wichita, KS
For the sake of discussion, let's talk about how the universe theoretically came into it's current form without the hand of a "god" involved.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on all this, and I will accept critical correction on any points where I stray from established science. I am writing this without the aid of any of the materials I have been studying, so I am sure my fallible brain will make some errors along the way.
Theory states that our universe began with a big bang. An intense amount of energy was released from something, and matter came into being from nothing (or something we haven't been able to determine yet). This explosion of matter expanded from the point of the explosion at a rate that has, in recent years, been deductible through data gathered and theories postulated, which leads back to a definite point in time, as we know it, where the universe began. This expanding matter began to coalesce into chemical combinations that turned into solid matter in the form of physical particles and gaseous vapors. As the expansion pushed these materials outward from the point of origin, the number of combinations increased and the variety of matter we know and understand came into being (ie. stars, planets, etc. but not "living beings"). At some point these larger chunks of matter gathered together through mutual forces to form what we refer to as solar systems (this is very generic and probably not quite the right sequence).
So far, so good in theory. There are complex mathematical models which have been developed (of which I understand only a minor fraction of the math, so I have to rely on a laymans explanation) which can go this far, but not much further, in the development of the known universe. To me, all science starts with math, so that is how I relate to it. Anyway...
Now comes the point where there is this magical handwaving that science calls theory and religious nuts like me call the creativity of God [oops, I said I wouldn't mention God, sorry...]).
With a solar system in place physically you have a star which is composed of an enormous mass of particles in a gaseuous form, which, due to its enormous mass, causes other smaller collections of mass to be drawn to it (gravity in simplistic form). These articles begin to take up an orbit with the star due to the interaction of this gravitational field and the velocity at which these particles have been drifting along with on the cosmic tide. As time progresses the amount of material orbiting around a particular star begins to stabilize as other matter in the universe that was not caught in the gravitational struggle continues to move outward and away from this "location" in space. The end result is an interactive system like our solar system. Each piece of mass has an effect on every other piece of mass, and there becomes, once again, a mathematical relationship between the movements of these masses. The cycle has stabilized for the most part now, so what else is there? We have a collection of disorganized matter that has become loosely organized, but we still do not have anything that looks like a lifeform. So, how do we get from this to a life form?
The theories state that this disorganized matter begins to have further interaction. The planets begin to develop atmospheres because the exactly correct balance of different chemical elements exists to become gases, then liquids. Pressure and temperature are critical to chemical reactions, so these have to be added into the calculation to determine how these chemical reactions will advance from one state to another. A complex sequence of reactions occurs, with each subsequent reaction being more complex than the last (note that this defies the second law of thermodynamics) until a living cell develops. This living cell is not a simple little blob of goo, but is a complex creature complete with a genetic code that allows it to multiply itself in the correct environment. If it couldn't multiply, life would have stopped. Now, as this cell multiplies it begins to mutate into other cellular formations with different types of genetic information (that came from where?). This genetic information caused cells to branch out and become different types of living material, which eventually became classified as plant and animal (very general, I know).
I'll stop here for now and pick up later. Fire away, ye scientists, and lets get this theoretical model ironed out in as concise a fashion as we can to get us all on the same page.
Darryl.....
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on all this, and I will accept critical correction on any points where I stray from established science. I am writing this without the aid of any of the materials I have been studying, so I am sure my fallible brain will make some errors along the way.
Theory states that our universe began with a big bang. An intense amount of energy was released from something, and matter came into being from nothing (or something we haven't been able to determine yet). This explosion of matter expanded from the point of the explosion at a rate that has, in recent years, been deductible through data gathered and theories postulated, which leads back to a definite point in time, as we know it, where the universe began. This expanding matter began to coalesce into chemical combinations that turned into solid matter in the form of physical particles and gaseous vapors. As the expansion pushed these materials outward from the point of origin, the number of combinations increased and the variety of matter we know and understand came into being (ie. stars, planets, etc. but not "living beings"). At some point these larger chunks of matter gathered together through mutual forces to form what we refer to as solar systems (this is very generic and probably not quite the right sequence).
So far, so good in theory. There are complex mathematical models which have been developed (of which I understand only a minor fraction of the math, so I have to rely on a laymans explanation) which can go this far, but not much further, in the development of the known universe. To me, all science starts with math, so that is how I relate to it. Anyway...
Now comes the point where there is this magical handwaving that science calls theory and religious nuts like me call the creativity of God [oops, I said I wouldn't mention God, sorry...]).
With a solar system in place physically you have a star which is composed of an enormous mass of particles in a gaseuous form, which, due to its enormous mass, causes other smaller collections of mass to be drawn to it (gravity in simplistic form). These articles begin to take up an orbit with the star due to the interaction of this gravitational field and the velocity at which these particles have been drifting along with on the cosmic tide. As time progresses the amount of material orbiting around a particular star begins to stabilize as other matter in the universe that was not caught in the gravitational struggle continues to move outward and away from this "location" in space. The end result is an interactive system like our solar system. Each piece of mass has an effect on every other piece of mass, and there becomes, once again, a mathematical relationship between the movements of these masses. The cycle has stabilized for the most part now, so what else is there? We have a collection of disorganized matter that has become loosely organized, but we still do not have anything that looks like a lifeform. So, how do we get from this to a life form?
The theories state that this disorganized matter begins to have further interaction. The planets begin to develop atmospheres because the exactly correct balance of different chemical elements exists to become gases, then liquids. Pressure and temperature are critical to chemical reactions, so these have to be added into the calculation to determine how these chemical reactions will advance from one state to another. A complex sequence of reactions occurs, with each subsequent reaction being more complex than the last (note that this defies the second law of thermodynamics) until a living cell develops. This living cell is not a simple little blob of goo, but is a complex creature complete with a genetic code that allows it to multiply itself in the correct environment. If it couldn't multiply, life would have stopped. Now, as this cell multiplies it begins to mutate into other cellular formations with different types of genetic information (that came from where?). This genetic information caused cells to branch out and become different types of living material, which eventually became classified as plant and animal (very general, I know).
I'll stop here for now and pick up later. Fire away, ye scientists, and lets get this theoretical model ironed out in as concise a fashion as we can to get us all on the same page.
Darryl.....
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
For the most part it sounds like a reasonable layman's outline. A couple points of clarification:
1. Matter did not come into being from nothing. It came from the energy of the Big Bang. E = MC^2 Where the energy came from is still a mystery.
2. Organic chemistry and biochemistry do not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Highly ordered systems can and do spontaneously form out of disordered systems. Galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, lakes, rivers, etc, are all examples. The only rule is that the ordered path must yield a net gain in entropy (disorder). Every biological organism obeys this law .
I still don't follow your necessity for God in all of this?
1. Matter did not come into being from nothing. It came from the energy of the Big Bang. E = MC^2 Where the energy came from is still a mystery.
2. Organic chemistry and biochemistry do not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Highly ordered systems can and do spontaneously form out of disordered systems. Galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, lakes, rivers, etc, are all examples. The only rule is that the ordered path must yield a net gain in entropy (disorder). Every biological organism obeys this law .
I still don't follow your necessity for God in all of this?
-
DDev
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:24 pm
- Location: Wichita, KS
Thomas,
Point number 1: agreed.
Point number 2: not sure I have been convinced from anything I have read that highly ordered systems can spontaneously form out of disordered systems without external influence (ie. closed system vs. open system). Any resources you can suggest that I could study? Like I said, I have not gone through advanced formal science education, only the intermediate level stuff required for my engineering degree (formally). Informally, in the last few years I have attempted to digest some cosmology. I think I understand enough to wade through most advanced science with the exception of quantum physics. I would appreciate any furtherance to my education.
As far as my necessity for God in all of this, the short answer, which will not provide anything substantive for this discussion, is that it is based on some personal experiences that defied any natural or scientific explanation. In my quest to find answers I found myself facing a choice to either believe that what I know I experienced did not really happen and I had totally lost my mind, or I could believe that there was some higher power, to borrow a phrase, that could do the unexplainable. I decided to try believing that there could be a god in control of things, and I have never since found a reason to doubt that. Like has been said before, it has been a personal thing and it is difficult to explain in a way that will cause anyone who does not want to believe to become a believer. In the last few years this whole debate over scientific proof (or lack thereof) for a creator has become highly interesting to me and I try to absorb as much information as I can about anything related to it. I guess my main reason is probably so I can partake in conversations like this one and not sound like a total idiot (only slightly stupid is my goal!!).
My hope for this turn in the discussion is to lay out a baseline scientific view of the nature of our universe without resorting to religious-sounding jargon (from we holy rollers) and without resorting to calling each other ignorant because we lack a common frame of reference. I am genuinely interested in learning your viewpoint, but I want a rational, scientific or mathematical explanation and do not want to be lambasted because I am not a "pure" scientist and because I happen to believe that God exists. If you get over my head, I'll request some time to do some more learning, and I will try to review anything you can suggest that I should read.
Anyway, if you are game to go forward on an intellectual level and leave whatever personal problems you have with Christians aside, I promise to not preach but to participate in the same vain.
Darryl.....
Point number 1: agreed.
Point number 2: not sure I have been convinced from anything I have read that highly ordered systems can spontaneously form out of disordered systems without external influence (ie. closed system vs. open system). Any resources you can suggest that I could study? Like I said, I have not gone through advanced formal science education, only the intermediate level stuff required for my engineering degree (formally). Informally, in the last few years I have attempted to digest some cosmology. I think I understand enough to wade through most advanced science with the exception of quantum physics. I would appreciate any furtherance to my education.
As far as my necessity for God in all of this, the short answer, which will not provide anything substantive for this discussion, is that it is based on some personal experiences that defied any natural or scientific explanation. In my quest to find answers I found myself facing a choice to either believe that what I know I experienced did not really happen and I had totally lost my mind, or I could believe that there was some higher power, to borrow a phrase, that could do the unexplainable. I decided to try believing that there could be a god in control of things, and I have never since found a reason to doubt that. Like has been said before, it has been a personal thing and it is difficult to explain in a way that will cause anyone who does not want to believe to become a believer. In the last few years this whole debate over scientific proof (or lack thereof) for a creator has become highly interesting to me and I try to absorb as much information as I can about anything related to it. I guess my main reason is probably so I can partake in conversations like this one and not sound like a total idiot (only slightly stupid is my goal!!).
My hope for this turn in the discussion is to lay out a baseline scientific view of the nature of our universe without resorting to religious-sounding jargon (from we holy rollers) and without resorting to calling each other ignorant because we lack a common frame of reference. I am genuinely interested in learning your viewpoint, but I want a rational, scientific or mathematical explanation and do not want to be lambasted because I am not a "pure" scientist and because I happen to believe that God exists. If you get over my head, I'll request some time to do some more learning, and I will try to review anything you can suggest that I should read.
Anyway, if you are game to go forward on an intellectual level and leave whatever personal problems you have with Christians aside, I promise to not preach but to participate in the same vain.
Darryl.....
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
Darryl,
Yes, I'd like very much to discuss this on an intellectual level. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, or any other faith. My only problem is when people try to insert religious explanations into science with absolutely no substantive evidence and, often, very little understanding of science itself. I don't mind being told when I'm wrong. And I don't think it's impolite to point out someone's lack of understanding on a particular topic. Although, I personally don't like it when I'm accused of being immoral or having a "failed" upbringing. If we keep it off that level, then we should have a great debate!
Anyhow, on to the discussion.
Self-organization occurs constantly everywhere around us. I mentioned stars and planets that, fueled by gravity, are formed out amorphous clouds of gas. Likewise, when an amorphous gas like water vapor cools it condenses into discrete water droplets. When those water droplets cool further they form complex ice crystals. The ocean churns at the shoreline and forms bubbles and foam. This is all self-organization and the list of such phenomena could go on forever. In all cases, and however complex the structures formed, there is always ultimately a net gain in entropy.
I'm certainly no expert in chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics, but there are formal theoretical arguments to be made as well. If you want to learn more, do a google search on "Glansdorff & Prigogine", "chaos", and "self-organization".
I said earlier that biochemistry obeys the 2nd Law. This is absolutely true on a macroscopic scale, but even the 2nd Law is not absolute. When we get to the quantum level strange things start to happen. Quantum mechanics permits things to occur that are not energetically favorable. Quantum mechanical balls can sometime spontaneously roll up hill, if you know that I mean. Universally the 2nd Law always holds, but individual interactions can and do violate it. For example, a mixture of two chemicals might not react macroscopically because the energetics are unfavorable. However, there will likely be trace levels of compounds formed between the two due to quantum interactions. Statistically, for every unfavorable exothermic reaction there will an unfavorable endothermic reaction, and a closed system will remain in global equilibrium. Nonetheless, the unexpected has it's way of creeping in. So, if you try to use the 2nd Law to argue against exotic organic compounds, you must be aware that Quantum Mechanics may indeed allow for such things.
Yes, I'd like very much to discuss this on an intellectual level. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, or any other faith. My only problem is when people try to insert religious explanations into science with absolutely no substantive evidence and, often, very little understanding of science itself. I don't mind being told when I'm wrong. And I don't think it's impolite to point out someone's lack of understanding on a particular topic. Although, I personally don't like it when I'm accused of being immoral or having a "failed" upbringing. If we keep it off that level, then we should have a great debate!
Anyhow, on to the discussion.
Self-organization occurs constantly everywhere around us. I mentioned stars and planets that, fueled by gravity, are formed out amorphous clouds of gas. Likewise, when an amorphous gas like water vapor cools it condenses into discrete water droplets. When those water droplets cool further they form complex ice crystals. The ocean churns at the shoreline and forms bubbles and foam. This is all self-organization and the list of such phenomena could go on forever. In all cases, and however complex the structures formed, there is always ultimately a net gain in entropy.
I'm certainly no expert in chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics, but there are formal theoretical arguments to be made as well. If you want to learn more, do a google search on "Glansdorff & Prigogine", "chaos", and "self-organization".
I said earlier that biochemistry obeys the 2nd Law. This is absolutely true on a macroscopic scale, but even the 2nd Law is not absolute. When we get to the quantum level strange things start to happen. Quantum mechanics permits things to occur that are not energetically favorable. Quantum mechanical balls can sometime spontaneously roll up hill, if you know that I mean. Universally the 2nd Law always holds, but individual interactions can and do violate it. For example, a mixture of two chemicals might not react macroscopically because the energetics are unfavorable. However, there will likely be trace levels of compounds formed between the two due to quantum interactions. Statistically, for every unfavorable exothermic reaction there will an unfavorable endothermic reaction, and a closed system will remain in global equilibrium. Nonetheless, the unexpected has it's way of creeping in. So, if you try to use the 2nd Law to argue against exotic organic compounds, you must be aware that Quantum Mechanics may indeed allow for such things.
-
bigdaddyd
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:28 pm
- Location: spokane, wa
For me this is the bottom line- you have those who believe in science. They will look to history and the earth for proof of their beliefs. There is noone to rescue them, no creator, man must be left to forge his future with theorys and guesses. And the result is obvious. Here we are on a beautiful planet, in an awe inspiring universe, and man slaughters himself, tortures, kills, etc. To quote a scripture, "man will rule man to his injury".
Then....
there is those who believe in God. They look to proof of their beliefs. There is proof, Prophecies have been fulfilled, will continue to be fullfilled. The future before a true christian is eternal life. To those caught up in science, this having faith cannot be grasped. I dont blame people for "not getting it". I can understand why those raised with belief in god could get side tracked and have doubts. The devil will do ANYTHING to divert a believer, even give him false beliefs.
I could quote half a dozen scriptures denouncing the failures of science to solve mans problems.
1 timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith
Romans 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
to name a few.
Science cannot rid people of sickness, death, war, etc.. the bible adresses all of these and will rid the earth of them soon.....
Then....
there is those who believe in God. They look to proof of their beliefs. There is proof, Prophecies have been fulfilled, will continue to be fullfilled. The future before a true christian is eternal life. To those caught up in science, this having faith cannot be grasped. I dont blame people for "not getting it". I can understand why those raised with belief in god could get side tracked and have doubts. The devil will do ANYTHING to divert a believer, even give him false beliefs.
I could quote half a dozen scriptures denouncing the failures of science to solve mans problems.
1 timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith
Romans 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
to name a few.
Science cannot rid people of sickness, death, war, etc.. the bible adresses all of these and will rid the earth of them soon.....
If someone chops down your family tree, plant a new one and care for it yourself.
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
there is those who believe in Allah. They look to proof of their beliefs. There is proof, Prophecies have been fulfilled, will continue to be fullfilled. The future before a true Muslim is eternal life. To those caught up in Christianity, this having Muslim faith cannot be grasped. I dont blame people for "not getting it". I can understand why those raised with belief in Allah could get side tracked and have doubts. The devil will do ANYTHING to divert a believer, even give him false beliefs.
Can't you see that a Muslim could just as easily have written these words about your beliefs? And that you would have nothing to repudiate him other than your Bible, which he would reject because he thinks his book is correct?
The arguments you make are very convenient. All you have to say is my beliefs are correct and anyone who doesn't believe is being deceived by the devil. No proof required.
But this has absolutely no relevance to science whatsoever. It's like you're in a debate and you're just repeating, "I'm right and you're wrong", "I'm right and you're wrong", "I'm right and you're wrong". Fine, so you think you're right. I understand. And like I said before, you're welcome to your beliefs. But you're really not offering up anything that challenges any scientific issue at all.
-
bigdaddyd
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:28 pm
- Location: spokane, wa
If you reread my post, youll see I never once said Im right, your wrong. Quite the opposite. I said that I understand both sides. I can reason why science exists. I can agree to disagree. I will never turn religious discussion into insults and arguments. But, again, we have two different futures, and you have to admit- if both futures were a reality and you had to choose, you would choose eternal life.
You cant blame me for being excited about living in the time of the end, when world conditions are fulfilling bible prophecy. Ive vioced my excitement about the future, and shared a few scriptures.
Do this for me. Any one who believes in science proove a few things for me. I dont want a scientific guess. proof. Give me the temp at the center of the sun. What killed the dinasaurs. Proof. All I hear are different guesses.
Tell me how a universal explosion of matter can spawn the veriety of planets in our solar system. not some guess. Proof. we have gas planets, rock, etc. all different. And what about the moon. Ive seen theories that it was a chunk of the earth that broke off?!? And what... the surface of the moon is as much as 50% glass just happened by accident. The bible said it was set as a luminairy which make way more sence than BANG, there it is...
Here is a quote from a book on the subject....
"Scientists, examining moon material brought back to earth by the astronauts, have found that as much as 50 percent of the moon’s “soil” is made up of glass. This glass is in different shapes. Some of it is perfectly round, elliptical, teardrop-shaped, or dumbbell-shaped. Also the glass ranges in size from tiny specks up to beads a millimeter (about 1/25 inch) in size.
The surfaces of these glass beads are very smooth. When a light is shined on them they are extremely lustrous. Dr. Wernher von Braun, prominent in United States spaceflight programs, wrote of them as “glistening in sunlight like light-reflecting glass beads in a highway sign.” While most of this glass is colorless, some of it is brown, yellow, red or green.
Even the moon’s rocks show that they were made to reflect light, for they are pitted with small glass-lined hollows. Some of them are covered with spattered drops of glass and appear as if they were glazed."
Yeah, this just broke off the earth and 'just happened' to be the perfect soil composition to reflect light..
The moon ALONE tells of a creator. But I will listen if anyone has another worthwile explination. Again, Im not here to argue, but I cant see how else this could have happened.
if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
to quote Darwin-"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous."
The book Processes of Organic Evolution: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils."
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."
A Guide to Earth History says: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."
There is no fossil record of evolution. It is an idea, theory that even darwin said there is not proof of. No future there......
You cant blame me for being excited about living in the time of the end, when world conditions are fulfilling bible prophecy. Ive vioced my excitement about the future, and shared a few scriptures.
Do this for me. Any one who believes in science proove a few things for me. I dont want a scientific guess. proof. Give me the temp at the center of the sun. What killed the dinasaurs. Proof. All I hear are different guesses.
Tell me how a universal explosion of matter can spawn the veriety of planets in our solar system. not some guess. Proof. we have gas planets, rock, etc. all different. And what about the moon. Ive seen theories that it was a chunk of the earth that broke off?!? And what... the surface of the moon is as much as 50% glass just happened by accident. The bible said it was set as a luminairy which make way more sence than BANG, there it is...
Here is a quote from a book on the subject....
"Scientists, examining moon material brought back to earth by the astronauts, have found that as much as 50 percent of the moon’s “soil” is made up of glass. This glass is in different shapes. Some of it is perfectly round, elliptical, teardrop-shaped, or dumbbell-shaped. Also the glass ranges in size from tiny specks up to beads a millimeter (about 1/25 inch) in size.
The surfaces of these glass beads are very smooth. When a light is shined on them they are extremely lustrous. Dr. Wernher von Braun, prominent in United States spaceflight programs, wrote of them as “glistening in sunlight like light-reflecting glass beads in a highway sign.” While most of this glass is colorless, some of it is brown, yellow, red or green.
Even the moon’s rocks show that they were made to reflect light, for they are pitted with small glass-lined hollows. Some of them are covered with spattered drops of glass and appear as if they were glazed."
Yeah, this just broke off the earth and 'just happened' to be the perfect soil composition to reflect light..
The moon ALONE tells of a creator. But I will listen if anyone has another worthwile explination. Again, Im not here to argue, but I cant see how else this could have happened.
if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
to quote Darwin-"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous."
The book Processes of Organic Evolution: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils."
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."
A Guide to Earth History says: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."
There is no fossil record of evolution. It is an idea, theory that even darwin said there is not proof of. No future there......
If someone chops down your family tree, plant a new one and care for it yourself.
-
Eric Best
- Senior Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:51 am
- Location: Lansing, MI USA
- Contact:
1. The Earth and Moon are composed of a lot of Silicone."Scientists, examining moon material brought back to earth by the astronauts, have found that as much as 50 percent of the moon’s “soil” is made up of glass. This glass is in different shapes. Some of it is perfectly round, elliptical, teardrop-shaped, or dumbbell-shaped. Also the glass ranges in size from tiny specks up to beads a millimeter (about 1/25 inch) in size.
The surfaces of these glass beads are very smooth. When a light is shined on them they are extremely lustrous. Dr. Wernher von Braun, prominent in United States spaceflight programs, wrote of them as “glistening in sunlight like light-reflecting glass beads in a highway sign.” While most of this glass is colorless, some of it is brown, yellow, red or green.
Even the moon’s rocks show that they were made to reflect light, for they are pitted with small glass-lined hollows. Some of them are covered with spattered drops of glass and appear as if they were glazed."
Yeah, this just broke off the earth and 'just happened' to be the perfect soil composition to reflect light..
2. Sand is almost all silicone and Oxygen (SiO2).
3. Glass can be made from sand when heated to high temperature.
4. When an object (such as a meteroid) strikes another object large amounts of heat are created.
5. The heat melts the Silicon Oxide and the impact will through it away from the moon so it can cool and re from into a solid as it falls back to the surface.
6. A liquid that changes into a solid in freefall forms a sphere.
Q.E.D
"It don't get no better than this"
-
Eric Best
- Senior Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:51 am
- Location: Lansing, MI USA
- Contact:
I still can't see how the scientific process of glass on the moon proves or disproves a creator. I'm telling you the process of how it happened. Whether or not you believe God had a hand in it, that is how it happened, meteorite impact. God did not create it that way, the meteorite impacts happened. God might have set up the process to cause the meteorite to impact the moon, but he didn't create it that way, and it definitely does not prove the existence of a creator.
"It don't get no better than this"
-
DDev
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:24 pm
- Location: Wichita, KS
Interesting to see the interchanges happening here. I am on the road this week so will not have much time to add anything to my part of the "intellectual discussion" that will include any research I don't currently have permanently etched into my brain. Thomas - thanks for the references. I'm going to do some surfing and reading while I'm away from home and will try to get a handle on the concepts you spelled out.
Bigdaddyd - please do not take this as an offense (because none is intended), but please bear in mind that scripture says that "the wisdom of God is foolishness to those who do not believe", so a full on assault of scripture-laden references is not going to win any arguments with someone who does not share your belief in the infallibility of scripture. Can we, as Christians, prove that God exists and that the Bible is more than a storybook, without resorting to using the Bible as our proof? Is there validation from modern science of concepts that are written in the Bible that were written in a time when scientific understanding could not possibly have provided that same explanation? Are there obvious Biblical passages that are absolutely contradicted by verifiable modern scientific research?
If we want someone to come to an understanding of our point of view we also have to put forth the effort to understand their point of view. This is the essence of an intellectual discussion. I do not have any idea where this discussion will lead (I'll probably fall flat on my face and totally prove that I'm an idiot), but for me it is providing the chance to stretch my mind in an effort to reconcile the 2 points of view which are evident in this discussion. Is your faith big enough to do the same? I think one of our biggest shortcomings as Christians is that we resort to easy answers "because the Bible says so" without doing the hard work of formulating solid, quantifiable rationale for why we believe what we believe. There is nothing wrong with having this faith, but you cannot expect to have your opinion accepted as having value to an intellectual if you are unwilling to do the hard work of learning something new.
OK, I've said my piece. I hope I haven't beaten anyone's brow too harshly. I just think that this discussion has the potential to allow all of us to expand our understanding of our universe and I don't want it to devolve into a religious argument about whose set of beliefs are right or wrong (each of us in our own minds are right; but what does the universe tell us about itself that can put us on a common page?). It will be difficult to keep this on track, so I am asking that all involved make the attempt to keep your minds open for the sake of understanding.
Now, back to the real discussion. I got as far as the formation of a single celled organism previously. Who wants to take it through the next step?
Thanks,
Darryl.....
Bigdaddyd - please do not take this as an offense (because none is intended), but please bear in mind that scripture says that "the wisdom of God is foolishness to those who do not believe", so a full on assault of scripture-laden references is not going to win any arguments with someone who does not share your belief in the infallibility of scripture. Can we, as Christians, prove that God exists and that the Bible is more than a storybook, without resorting to using the Bible as our proof? Is there validation from modern science of concepts that are written in the Bible that were written in a time when scientific understanding could not possibly have provided that same explanation? Are there obvious Biblical passages that are absolutely contradicted by verifiable modern scientific research?
If we want someone to come to an understanding of our point of view we also have to put forth the effort to understand their point of view. This is the essence of an intellectual discussion. I do not have any idea where this discussion will lead (I'll probably fall flat on my face and totally prove that I'm an idiot), but for me it is providing the chance to stretch my mind in an effort to reconcile the 2 points of view which are evident in this discussion. Is your faith big enough to do the same? I think one of our biggest shortcomings as Christians is that we resort to easy answers "because the Bible says so" without doing the hard work of formulating solid, quantifiable rationale for why we believe what we believe. There is nothing wrong with having this faith, but you cannot expect to have your opinion accepted as having value to an intellectual if you are unwilling to do the hard work of learning something new.
OK, I've said my piece. I hope I haven't beaten anyone's brow too harshly. I just think that this discussion has the potential to allow all of us to expand our understanding of our universe and I don't want it to devolve into a religious argument about whose set of beliefs are right or wrong (each of us in our own minds are right; but what does the universe tell us about itself that can put us on a common page?). It will be difficult to keep this on track, so I am asking that all involved make the attempt to keep your minds open for the sake of understanding.
Now, back to the real discussion. I got as far as the formation of a single celled organism previously. Who wants to take it through the next step?
Thanks,
Darryl.....
-
bigdaddyd
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:28 pm
- Location: spokane, wa
You see, I havent given a full on assault. Just sharing my side of the conversation and offering what I have as proof. Not to win an argument, but to bring ones to a knowledge before its too late.
If anyone could see inside my head, you would know that my persistance is motivated ONLY by the fact that this sick world is on its way out, there is a bright future ahead, and I would like others to join with me. I have this vision of the flood happening, and all those people gulping down water, wishing someone would have just tried a little harder to get through to them...
A motivation from the heart.. so dont let it get under your skin everyone.
After a brief pause-- BIGDADDYD gets up and walks to the Fridge, looking for a way to make a statement. Yes... maybe he should sacrafice something. Pushing aside the MGD he is frozen for a moment at the thought of a cold glass just one door over and a beer. Licking his lips- slowly..., he snaps out of it and settles for meat- balogna. The sacred sacraficial meat.
After slicing off a piece of bolagna (actually it is symbolic as its pre sliced) BIGDADDYD offers up a final act of mercy for the sacred bologna, he places it between the holy white bread, and coats both sides with soothing mayonaze.
After licking his lips slowly, he snaps out of his daze...
"Where am I"....
Hmmm, that was weird.
He grabs a napkin, takes a bite of his sandwitch, cracks open a frosty cold one, Walks by the computer and unchecks the box marked "notify me when a reply is posted", signs off, and rounds up his kids for a mean game of Destruction derby on PS2.
(Ive said my piece, thanx yall.)
d
If anyone could see inside my head, you would know that my persistance is motivated ONLY by the fact that this sick world is on its way out, there is a bright future ahead, and I would like others to join with me. I have this vision of the flood happening, and all those people gulping down water, wishing someone would have just tried a little harder to get through to them...
A motivation from the heart.. so dont let it get under your skin everyone.
After a brief pause-- BIGDADDYD gets up and walks to the Fridge, looking for a way to make a statement. Yes... maybe he should sacrafice something. Pushing aside the MGD he is frozen for a moment at the thought of a cold glass just one door over and a beer. Licking his lips- slowly..., he snaps out of it and settles for meat- balogna. The sacred sacraficial meat.
After slicing off a piece of bolagna (actually it is symbolic as its pre sliced) BIGDADDYD offers up a final act of mercy for the sacred bologna, he places it between the holy white bread, and coats both sides with soothing mayonaze.
After licking his lips slowly, he snaps out of his daze...
"Where am I"....
Hmmm, that was weird.
He grabs a napkin, takes a bite of his sandwitch, cracks open a frosty cold one, Walks by the computer and unchecks the box marked "notify me when a reply is posted", signs off, and rounds up his kids for a mean game of Destruction derby on PS2.
(Ive said my piece, thanx yall.)
d
If someone chops down your family tree, plant a new one and care for it yourself.
-
Eric Best
- Senior Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:51 am
- Location: Lansing, MI USA
- Contact:
Well said!!I think one of our biggest shortcomings as Christians is that we resort to easy answers "because the Bible says so" without doing the hard work of formulating solid, quantifiable rationale for why we believe what we believe. There is nothing wrong with having this faith, but you cannot expect to have your opinion accepted as having value to an intellectual if you are unwilling to do the hard work of learning something new.
That is why in my debate game with friends from home (I've even started up with their pastor) quoting from scripture is not allowed. It provides no argument.
(this group has conceded that evolution might have been God's way of creating the different kinds of life so they are pretty open minded.)
"It don't get no better than this"