PDA

View Full Version : There are NO such things as aliens...



The Rusty Lander
2002-Apr-08, 11:51 PM
I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died. The genuine saucers that have been seen are in fact these secret flying crafts and nothing to do with aliens. Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?

Silas
2002-Apr-09, 12:24 AM
If we had anti-gravity technology, we'd have a moonbase (maybe a Mars base!) by now. The government would sell the technology to Lockheed in return for a 1/4 per cent return on profits, and there would be no national debt.

Why would anyone try to keep secret such a treasure?

Did Fleischmann and Pons try to keep "Cold Fusion" a secret? (Hmm... Actually, if they had, they might be millionaires today...)

Silas

Jovianboy
2002-Apr-09, 12:47 AM
Rusty Lander,

That there are no aliens visiting Earth is something I whole-heartedly agree with (along with most people on this bulletin board, I presume). The existence of intelligent life eleswhere in the universe is, in my opinion, probably extremely uncommon (I'm a "rare-Earther"), in accordance with the arguments put forth by Ward and Brownlee (which I won't go into now). So no contention with your assertions there. However, I have to agree with Silas - secret US anti-gravity technology seems almost as far-fetched as visiting aliens! That's just replacing one conspiracy theory with another. Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I would be interested if you do. But please do not provide links to the tired old conspiracy theory websites - I would prefer something more concrete.

BTW, Silas - I'm not quite clear on your meaning regarding cold fusion - since it was fraud, how would Pons and Fleischmann have become millionaires by keeping it a secret? Wouldn't they have merely preserved their reputations?

Cheers.
_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-04-08 20:52 ]</font>

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-09, 02:36 AM
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves.


Like those who have already responded, some serious evidence would be key here.

I would like to mention one (of several dozen) arguments in opposition to this conspiracy theory that you have proposed: By keeping such technology secret the US government would not be able to use it as an effective deterrent. To wit, anti-gravity technology would have truly massive implications for weapons development, but unless one's enemies know about a weapon they cannot fear it. Therefore anti-gravity-based weapons technology would be most effective if it were paraded around so other states and NGOs could see it. This was in fact the motivation behind some falsified weapons tests in the late 1980s - in what turned out to be a successful attempt to overburden the Soviet Union with an expensive arms race, the Reagan administration authorized testing of potential SDI weapons, and recently declassified documents indicate that some of those tests went rather poorly. But at the time, the test results were inflated to make the technology appear more viable, and hence more of a deterrent, than it actually was.

Martian Jim
2002-Apr-09, 06:17 AM
no aliens visiting earth

really?

(notice my name)

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-09, 06:37 AM
You're from the jim?

Phobos
2002-Apr-09, 10:27 AM
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?


I believe you made an error in your referance to "Lazarus" - With respect to Area 51 the person you are probably referring to is Bob Lazar.

The following link gives some details;
Bob Lazars Website (http://www.boblazar.com/intro_home/home.htm)

I suppose it is possible that Bob Lazar may have been used as part of some psycological experiment. If you follow this line there is always the possiblility that his recollections never actually took place but were planted memories.

Since Mr Lazar has been milking his experiences on the lecture circuit you have to put a big question mark on his credibility as a witness.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-09 06:28 ]</font>

2002-Apr-09, 11:00 AM
<a name="20020409.4:44"> page 20020409.4:44 aka A LIE N S
not only do i think the word exists {at this time}[on this planet]
my guess would be the probability of
organic matter {carbon based}
Not origionally on Earth 4.5 Billion Yr ago
at conception?
...anyway the probability of that higher
that the probability of that should be
---------------------------------------
never mind the arguement i disagee.
===================================
now my point, just a while ago
I some way by mistake enter a couple of posts
into the general area..thinking i was on
the Against partition.. opun discover I was
in the wrong space i did go back & delete THOSE
& it looked to me like they did delete themselves
in proper time frame..anyway thats MY guess about this.

The Rusty Lander
2002-Apr-09, 11:13 AM
The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about that was discussed in the 50s is more to do with, electified magnestism, that is, making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system. This would not work outside the Earth which is why it has not been used for space travel.

Bob S.
2002-Apr-09, 01:28 PM
The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about that was discussed in the 50s is more to do with, electified magnestism, that is, making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system.

Sounds like you're talking about something like a mag-lev propulsion system now in study for mass transit.
http://www.calmaglev.org/
http://216.181.117.50/
Again, sadly, not too practical for flight... yet.

Phobos
2002-Apr-09, 02:01 PM
More likely the propulsion system that Rusty refers to is something like this;

Lifter Research (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm)

or similar to recent NASA sponsored research;

More NASA related Anti-Gravity research (http://popularmechanics.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=49930224&EXTRA%20_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2Ecfg&host_id=1&page_id=2590&query=taming+gravity&hiword=T%20AMING+GRAVITY+GRAVITYS)


While an operational device is at least five years in the future, developers of what can be loosely termed a force-field machine say it has cleared major theoretical hurdles. To demonstrate their claim, they invited POPULAR MECHANICS to visit their Huntsville, Ala., laboratory to see the most important component of their proof-of-concept demonstrator. It is a 12-in.-dia. high-temperature superconducting disc (HTSD). When the force-field machine is complete, a bowling ball placed anywhere above this disc, which resembles a clutch plate, will stay exactly where you left it.

Reading throught the article I found this thought provoking quote;


Build a larger disc and the force field above it should be controllable. "It's a gravity-like force you can point in any direction," says Campbell. "It could be used in space to protect the international space station against impacts by small meteoroids and orbital debris."

I have researched this report and found an interesting bullitin board discussion which seems to confirm the details;

Skeggs & Ning Li on Gravitational Modification -- Superconductors, varying magnetic field (http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htm)

The site confirms that Ning Li works for the University of Alabama, Huntsville and does a lot of work with NASAís Manned Space Flight Center.

Based on the results of her experiments so far, then perhaps we can expect future spacecraft from NASA to be saucer shaped ...

Whilst the research that I refer to is recent, it is theoretically possible that the miliary have been conducting research in this field for some time.

Phobos


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-09 10:08 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-09, 04:11 PM
Where do you get this "4.5 billion years ago"? The rate of decline of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that 10,000 years ago it would have had the strength of a magnetic star.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-09, 04:23 PM
On 2002-04-09 12:11, Prince wrote:
Where do you get this "4.5 billion years ago"? The rate of decline of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that 10,000 years ago it would have had the strength of a magnetic star.


That's based on a dubious extrapolation of 150 years of data, forced to an exponential curve rather than a linear one, ignores the increase in the nondipole field over the same period of time, and ignores all of the considerable geological evidence for magnetic field reversals.
Age of the Earth: Deterioration of Earth's Magnetic Field (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#magnetic)

Meanwhile, I could point out that the rate of decay of radioactive elements indicates that the Earth is billions of years old. Why do creationists only make assumptions of uniformity when it suits them?


_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-04-09 12:24 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-09, 04:36 PM
The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years. The field bends cosmic rays away from the Earth, reducing the amount of C14 generated in the upper atmosphere, affecting the total amount reaching the biosphere, reducing the calculated time since the death of an organism. Brown says that reducing the field to zero would double the amount produced. With a creation 6000 years ago, this would allow for 4 doublings, 137 units at creation. It is easy to see how the ground level C14 has risen slowly to its present level, falsifying all those extrapolations that assume a near constant stabilised rate of production.

Silas
2002-Apr-09, 05:22 PM
Just to clarify my quip... If Fleishcman and Pons had been frauds, they could have gone the route of so many other fraudulent perpetual-motion-machine inventors and proceded to bilk millions out of gullible investors. In my opinion, the fact that they went public indicates that they were probably honest, and honestly mistaken.

Prince: C-14 dating is generally useful for fairly recent samples: it's useful for dates less than 50,000 before present, and, quite obviously, the more recent the sample is, the better the accuracy of the result. Carbon 14 dating is largely irrelevant to the issue of the age of the earth. It's useful to determine the age of a sample of frozen mastodon flesh, for example, or the possessions of the "Ice Man."

Silas

ToSeek
2002-Apr-09, 05:27 PM
The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years.

This is not true. As this site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html) points out, the field dropped noticeably until 1935 but has been basically steady since then. I also find it hard to believe that one could deduce a definitive exponential decay rate from the data, which is graphed as a meandering little line on this (Creationist) page (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-122.htm).

The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years.

Again, this assumes a remarkably accurate calculation of an exponential curve based on a handful of data points that are fairly close together.

The field bends cosmic rays away from the Earth, reducing the amount of C14 generated in the upper atmosphere, affecting the total amount reaching the biosphere, reducing the calculated time since the death of an organism. Brown says that reducing the field to zero would double the amount produced. With a creation 6000 years ago, this would allow for 4 doublings, 137 units at creation. It is easy to see how the ground level C14 has risen slowly to its present level, falsifying all those extrapolations that assume a near constant stabilised rate of production.

This at least has the merit of a certain amount of scientific consistency, but doesn't explain how C-14 dating has managed to be correlated with tree rings, ice layers, and historical artifacts with clear provenance.

It also ignores the myriad other means of radioactive dating and particularly the fact that C-14 dating is too short-term (on the order of tens of thousands of years) to have anything to do calculating the age of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth.

[corrected typo]
_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-04-09 14:23 ]</font>

Firefox
2002-Apr-09, 05:38 PM
Another thing to keep in mind (I know many here know about it, though I'm not sure about the YECers,) is that carbon dating is effective only in dating organic remains, as I understand it correctly. For age of the Earth, you would need something more appropriate for nonorganic materials.

Karl
2002-Apr-09, 08:06 PM
This at least has the merit of a certain amount of scientific consistency, but doesn't explain how C-14 dating has managed to be correlated with tree rings, ice layers, and historical artifacts with clear provenance.

It also ignores the myriad other means of radioactive dating and particularly the fact that C-14 dating is too short-term (on the order of tens of thousands of years) to have anything to do calculating the age of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth.


One interesting radiometric technique which has use in dating both human artifacts and geological features is known as "fission-track" dating. This method uses the fission decay of Uranium which emits a high energy alpha particle leaving a damage track in glassy material. The material is etched and the tracks can be counted. By irradiating the remaining material, the actual amount of Uranium in the sample can be determined, and given the fission decay rate, the length of time since the material was annealed or hardened determined.

The "clock" is reset by heat, which anneals the track damage. This makes the method useful for dating pottery glazes, glasses, obsidian spearheads, and making thermal history profiles of oil bearing rock.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Apr-09, 11:47 PM
Im no scientist but c'mon there has to be some scientific proof out there to show the earth is more than just a few thousand years old? Isn't there rocks or something older than this? Hasn't there been "C-14" dating on dinosaur bones to prove otherwise?

Jovianboy
2002-Apr-10, 12:17 AM
On 2002-04-09 13:22, Silas wrote:
Just to clarify my quip... If Fleishcman and Pons had been frauds, they could have gone the route of so many other fraudulent perpetual-motion-machine inventors and proceded to bilk millions out of gullible investors. In my opinion, the fact that they went public indicates that they were probably honest, and honestly mistaken.

Silas



Thanks Silas. I see what you mean. I must confess to having very limited knowledge of the Cold Fusion scandal. I had always assumed that it was a case of outright fraud, based on falsified data. I will endeavour to do some more reading on the subject. Perhaps it was more a case of misread data/faulty assumptions arising from emotively desired results rather than scientifically-sound results. A bit like what the Creationists usually do, eh? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Cheers.

JB

Karl
2002-Apr-10, 03:06 AM
On 2002-04-09 19:47, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
Im no scientist but c'mon there has to be some scientific proof out there to show the earth is more than just a few thousand years old? Isn't there rocks or something older than this? Hasn't there been "C-14" dating on dinosaur bones to prove otherwise?


There are many ways to show the age of the earth to be older than a few thousand years. The simplest methods involve just counting. Several lakes (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html) around the world have yearly cycles of organic and inorganic sediment that lays down identifiable layers or 'varves'. Since these layers trap organic material, they are useful for providing the small corrections to C-14 dating due to variations in cosmic ray flux.

Likewise, ice cores (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icgate.html) from Greenland and other thick ice flows show layers due to yearly snow accumulation, also trapping dust and chemicals from the atmosphere. So we can count down for instance to the layer corresponding to 1623BC and find shards of volcanic glass chemically identical to ash from the eruption of Thera that devastated the Minoan civilization. What happens if we keep counting down a few more thousand layers, past 6-10 thousand years ago? Nothing special. As an added benefit, the snow deposited carries an isotope marker that permits the researchers to determine the temperature of the water it evaporated from. O18, due it's higher mass required slightly more energy to evaporate. So warm temperatures will provide a snow with a higher O18/O16 ratio. This allows a good summer/winter boundary marker when the dust layer becomes less distinct, and also gives a good data set for determining climate changes due to events such as volcanic eruptions.

How far down do the ice cores go? The bottoms are dated a more than 100,000 years.

Added final sentance.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-09 23:08 ]</font>

Fix spelling and clarify.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-09 23:12 ]</font>

dapted
2002-Apr-10, 05:59 AM
The mean distance to the moon is a little less than 400,000 KM away. It gets ~4 cm further away each year. Counting backwards and assuming (thats always a problem) it has always moved away from us at that rate means 100 years ago it was 4 meters closer. 100 million years ago it was 4,000 km closer and 10 billion years ago, it was part of the earth. It travels thru space around the core of earth at approximately the same speed as the surface of the earth does 1000 to 1100 miles per hour. If we ever get to study the geology of the moon in great detail we may find the remains of what ever form of life may have existed on earth then, before what ever broke that chunk of the planet off.

Life is said to have begun on earth sometime between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years ago. Maybe so, but maybe life just re-started then. If something hit us hard enough to put a chunk of the planet into orbit, it would stand to reason that life would have to start all over again sometime after that calamity. What fun it would be to look for fossilized signs of life on the moon. Other than the rover and that other 60's era litter I mean.

Keep grinning and wondering.

Dan

ToSeek
2002-Apr-10, 11:39 AM
On 2002-04-10 01:59, dapted wrote:
The mean distance to the moon is a little less than 400,000 KM away. It gets ~4 cm further away each year. Counting backwards and assuming (thats always a problem) it has always moved away from us at that rate means 100 years ago it was 4 meters closer. 100 million years ago it was 4,000 km closer and 10 billion years ago, it was part of the earth.

Several problems:

- The current recession rate is unusually high.
- On the other hand, the farther away the Moon gets, the slower it recedes.
- In any case, the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, so the 10 billion figure is clearly inaccurate.

Your suggestion that there might be fossils of early Earth life on the Moon seems unlikely, since the collision that formed the Moon is believed to have happened when the solar system was still forming, and the Earth was too hot for life to develop. Interesting thought, though.

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-10, 06:54 PM
...and besides, the collision would have vaporized the resulting debris, so the Moon would have re-accreted with no trace of any pre-existing life (even if there was any).

Prince
2002-Apr-10, 09:23 PM
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"

Jovianboy
2002-Apr-10, 11:23 PM
On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"



You can see this Creationist nonsense thoroughly debunked at this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/

This long article is so interesting that I printed it out and kept it. It mentions the usual Creationist habit of misreading and misquoting data, referring to data that is often out of date, and making logical leaps based on poorly understood evidence. Why do they do this? Because their blind need to absolutely, positively prove the inerracy of Genesis precludes their ability to see the facts in front of their eyes and to actually do some REAL science.

This kind of Creationist sloppiness (and downright dishonesty) is also delt with thoroughly in "Telling Lies for God", an excellent book by Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer (Plimer makes the interesting point that Creationism is not only "junk science", but also "junk religion"). Grab a copy if you can.

JB

The Rat
2002-Apr-11, 12:38 AM
On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!


Nope. It was revealed a few years ago that it was not a weather balloon. It was a part of 'Project Mogul', which was an effort to determine the feasibility of detecting evidence of Soviet nuclear tests with high altitude balloons. So, were we lied to? Most definitely. Was it in the interest of national security? Yes. Was it necessary? Oh boy, we could debate that for years. But that's as nefarious as it gets.

_________________
Baileyís second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rat on 2002-04-10 20:39 ]</font>

The Rat
2002-Apr-11, 12:44 AM
On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?


Might I trouble you to post your creationist theories over at;

http://www.weirdcrap.com

You may find some,...um,...interesting counter points.


(Heeheeheeheeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Another lamb to the slaughter!)

dapted
2002-Apr-11, 03:36 AM
Both evolution, and creationism can be true. They need not contradict each other. Time is the constant which causes the problem. We assume time is a constant by its very definition, but we have nothing to measure it against to determine this to be true. It seems ironic that we assume time to be a constant thru a leap of ,,, gulp,,, FAITH.

Evolution may be the tool used by a creator to create.

The best evidence for creationism, which by the way I do not believe in, comes from the watchmaker story. I don't remember the author. The story goes that if you find a watch sitting on a stump in the forest and watches had never been created at that time how could you possibly believe that it evolved? You would look at it and it's complexity and come to the conclusion that it was made by somebody or something.

Granted it is possible, given enough shaking, stirring, melting, force and gravity it could just occur on its own.

Life and the universe of physics we see around us is far more complex than any watch could ever be. Yet we believe it just happened? No big watchmaker to create it?

Seems inconsistent to me. And I still don't believe in creationism.

But I don't see any reason to believe carbon decomposition always occured at the same rate it does right now. Nor do I see a reason to believe it was ever different than right now. So why not explore both possibilities? Can't hurt anything, who knows we might learn something.

The non-believer in me swears there is no heaven or god, but also prays there is no hell or devil.

Dan

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-11, 09:50 AM
The "Watchmaker" argument isn't an argument at all, it's an analogy.

A similar analogy is being used right now in the debate over "Intelligent Design", which (in my opinion) is just creationism in a new package. One of the major proponents uses Mount Rushmore as an illustration. If you'd never heard of it, and stumbled across it, would you assume that it had appeared by chance? Or would you decide that an intelligent designer had been at work?

It seems like a strong argument, until you realize that nature is not quite so obvious. What if, instead of Mount Rushmore, you had stumbled across the New Hampshire formation known as "The Old Man of the Mountain"? You might be misled into thinking that some intelligent creator had carved the mountainside into the profile of a human, but in fact it's a natural formation. From other angles it doesn't look at all like a face.

The same can be said about the so-called evidence for ID and creationism. You may look at some detail of cell biology and say, "Well, I can't see how evolution could ever have produced something like this, so a designer must have done it." But the next gal, maybe a bit more clever than you, or armed with more knowledge of intermediate forms, might well see exactly how evolution produced that feature.

Let's have no more arguments from incredulity, please!

ToSeek
2002-Apr-11, 01:01 PM
On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"


Actually, as the BA points out in his book, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, there should be 0 supernova remnants, since even the most short-lived stars will last for more than 6,000 years.

DJ
2002-Apr-11, 01:38 PM
On 2002-04-11 05:50, Donnie B. wrote:
The "Watchmaker" argument isn't an argument at all, it's an analogy.


It might even be a parable. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I can make the point that the original point must have been created.


That's not necessarily the original point of the big bang. It's the original original original original ... original original original point. [ad nauseum]

Absolutely everything has a beginning. We may not be able to put "the beginning" into a framework we can understand.

But it had to start. And some*thing* had to start it.


DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-11 09:40 ]</font>

Bob S.
2002-Apr-11, 02:13 PM
Absolutely everything has a beginning. We may not be able to put "the beginning" into a framework we can understand.
But it had to start. And some*thing* had to start it.

Unless you're a Steady-State theorist. /:-)

But here is where the theology and cosmology overlap. Is what started the universe a random collision among possibly countless similar collisions in a multiverse of energy membranes? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
Or can one reasonably believe (that is not know for sure with irrefutable facts) that the balance of forces in our universe that make it hospitable to life are a result of some external intelligent entity that is able to manipulate said forces. Are we mere microbes in some Super Being's climate controlled petri dish? Reasonable people can disagree because we can never truly know.

DJ
2002-Apr-11, 02:57 PM
Unless you're a Steady-State theorist. /:-)
<snip>
Is what started the universe a random collision among possibly countless similar collisions in a multiverse of energy membranes
<snip>
Are we mere microbes in some Super Being's climate controlled petri dish? Reasonable people can disagree because we can never truly know.


Steady States = *needs to start somewhere somehow by something* All energy in those states must have initiatied in some way (Laws of Thermodynamics require that)

Countless similar collisions of energy membranes = *needs to start somewhere somehow by something*

Microbes = *needs to start somewhere somehow by something*

The one you didn't mention, and is more along my line of reasoning, is that we are not separate of "it"... but instead, we are a PART of "it"... All too often I hear folks talking of this great separate entity with white flowing beard that speaks in tongues and causes us to write down things and lives out there somewhere beyond the edge of the known universe. Cute, but not very realistic. Kind of humanomorphic.

The universe is very big indeed HUGE! Unconsciously huge. Many go bonkers when they understand even a little tiny corner of it. I just cry.


DJ

Edited for clarity, brevity, and vastness.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-11 10:58 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-11 10:59 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-11, 03:12 PM
Since so many of you break out in a rash at a mere mention of the "C" word, let's call it "Intelligent Design".

This article from Yated Neeman last week:

"The latest general alternative
to evolution in the US is some-
thing known as "the theory of
intelligent design." It seems to be
an approach that is more re-
spected than was the earlier
"Creationist" approach. This
idea is certainly very far from
the Torah truth, but it represents
an interesting effort to try to
leave a space for Divine influ-
ence in America's officially se-
cular education.
The Ohio Board of Educa-
tion is in a heated internal de-
bate over whether to include it in
the official state science curricu-
lum or not.
The theory of intelligent de-
sign disputes the idea underlying
evolution, that the astounding
complexity of the earth's plants
and animals could have just
happened through natural selec-
tion, the force that Darwin sug-
gested drives evolution. An
intelligent Designer must have
gotten the ball rolling, they con-
tend. Some of them acknowl-
edge that the earth is billions of
years old and they also accept
that organisms change over
time, according to commonly
held principles of evolution.
In Ohio a majority of a
school board committee favored
inserting intelligent design
along3ide evolution in the state's
new teaching standards. If the
full 18-member state board up-
holds it, it would be the first
major victory for the intelligent
design movement, which has
gained attention in recent years
even as creatiom-ts suffered set-
backs.
Opponents of intelligent de-
sign view it as a ariation on the
decades-old effort to force the-
ism into the public schools.
Proponents of intelligent de-
sign insist that science taught in
the schools should be supple-
mented with what they call ori-
gins science, defined as the study
of intelligent causes that are
empirically detectable in nature.
They are not against teaching
about long-time evolution.
John H, Calvert. a Kansas
City lawyer who is co-founder of
the Intelligent Design Network,
called on Ohio to establish "a
level playing field" by having
science teachers suggest in clas-
ses that "a mind or some form of
intelligence is necessary to" pro-
duce life and its diversity." Evo-
lutionary science is elitist and
unfairly "inhibits theism," he
said.
Supporters of intelligent de-
sign claim the support of various
academics and scientists, includ-
ing Dr. Michael J. Behe, a biol-
ogy professor at Lehigh
University in Pennsylvania,
who set out the theory in his
book Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolu-
tion. He argued that various
biochemical structures in cells
could not have been built step by
Darwinian step.
But critics say that testing,
not credentials, must ultimately
verify any scientist's new claim."

DaveC
2002-Apr-11, 04:07 PM
If one argues for intelligent design on the basis that "something must have started everything", it begs the question. What created the intelligent designer?

If the big bang theory is correct and the universe arose from a sigularity that existed "for all eternity" prior to the event, that seems to be a more reasonable postulation than one which rests on the eternal existence of an intelligence. Similarly, the arisal of life from the random collisions of atoms and molecules which happened at some point to result in self-replicating molecules seems to me to be more likely than the existence of a magical being that created everything from nothing.

Thermodynamics often gets cited by creationists as proof that the big bang theory is wrong, I think because of a refusal to accept that a singularity could have essentially infinite energy and mass (although perhaps in a form that was neither). The fact that the singularity could, at the instant the universe started to expand, "explode" seems to suggest a need for a cause - the cause-effect relationship that we are all so familiar with.
Stephen Hawking's view is that the laws of the universe must be applicable to the big bang, although we don't yet know how. I have a simple layman's view of it - before the big bang, time didn't exist, so the normal sequence of cause preceding effect may not have been applicable. The effect (the BB) therefore need not have had a cause at all. In fact, the circumstances may have made it impossible for there to have been a cause because it couldn't happen "before" the event.

Just my random thoughts on this.

informant
2002-Apr-11, 04:50 PM
I agree.
Whether the universe is eternal or whether it had a beginning, there is no need for it to have been created.
More that that: there is no objective proof either.

Here are two enlightening lines from a Philip K. Dick novel:

Timothy Archer (talking about the universe): 'But, if there is a creation, there must be a creator, wouldn't you agree?'
Angel Archer: 'Who said it was a creation?'

And that, gentlemen, is common sense.

DoctorDon
2002-Apr-11, 05:30 PM
On 2002-04-10 23:36, dapted wrote:
We assume time is a constant by its very definition,


No, we don't. That's one of the main points of relativity theory.



The best evidence for creationism, which by the way I do not believe in, comes from the watchmaker story. I don't remember the author.


I believe it was St. Anselm who first formulated it. Since you don't believe in creationism, you will be glad to know that the watchmaker argument (a.k.a. the teological argument) doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I look at it this way: in essence, the argument is pulling a bait and switch. It argues that the watch is "too complex" to have come into existence "by chance". But those are poorly-defined words in the context of the argument! "Complexity" is a relative term, and is here implicitly defined as a contrast to "by chance", which presumably means the background noise. That is, we recognize the watch as "artificial" against the "natural" background.

However, then the argument turns around and argues that the *background* is too complex to have come about by chance. But this takes away the very basis for the definition of "chance" and "complex"! If the tree stump is, upon examination, just as complex as the watch sitting on it, if not more so, we have *not* proven that the tree stump is created, we have merely removed the basis by which we called the watch "complex" in the first place. Ironically, the argument implicitly assumes that the "natural" environment is *not* created, precisely to make the contrast with the created watch, and then it turns around and claims the environment is created, too! The whole argument is essentially a misapplication of Bayes's Theorem.

The other problem with the argument is akin to the "throw metal into a wind tunnel and get a 747" argument, in that it mischaracterizes the role of "chance" in evolution. Evolution through natural selection (replication with mutation plus non-random death) is *not* just throwing bits together and seeing what happens: each step is built on what came before, and is affected by how it interactes with the environment. Such systems can *easily* mimic intent, because systems that do not have the necessary properties to survive don't do so (practically by definition), thus leaving a strong selection bias in the observables of the systems such that they appear to have been designed to meet the criteria of the environment. It's not a coincidence that many Kuiper Belt Objects are in resonance with Neptune: nobody *put* Pluto just so such that it would revolve twice for every three of Neptune's orbits. There were lots of other KBOs around Pluto, but they didn't have the resonance, and so they got kicked out of the system long before we came around to find them.

And that's not even an example with a mutating replicator!

Theologically, the teological argument bothers me because it's at heart an argument from ignorance ("I believe in god because I don't know a better explanation"), which I think is a poor excuse for a religious faith. If someone is going to have a religious faith, I think it should be based in experience and knowledge, not ignorance.

That's my perspective, anyway,

Don

DaveC
2002-Apr-11, 06:10 PM
Religious faith should be based on ----- faith - and the faithful should simply be honest enough to say so and avoid trying to haul out science to prove their faith is correct.

DStahl
2002-Apr-11, 06:43 PM
You are in excellent intellectual company with your argument, Dr. Don--as you may know, David Hume gave some compelling refutations of the argument from design in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."

Is there any functional difference between these two hypotheses:

1. Since everything currently known to science has a preceding cause, I will define God as that which needs no cause and cite Him as the prime mover of creation. I must of course also assume that God has the necessary attributes to give rise to the universe.

2. Since everything currently known to science has a preceding cause, I will define a state of no-space and no-time which needs no cause and cite this as the prime mover of creation. I must of course also assume that the no-space and no-time has properties to give rise to the universe.
--------

Wait a minnit, we were talking about extraterrestrial life, BEMs and little green men...

The fact that we've been able to achieve so much technologically which was once considered impossible has, I think, conditioned people to think that given enough time and technology we can do anything. But I suspect the laws of physics might not go along with our expectations: perhaps faster-than-light travel, or hyperspace travel, or whatever, is truly impossible, truly forbidden by the laws governing spacetime and matter/energy.

--Don Stahl

DJ
2002-Apr-11, 07:36 PM
LOL -- you guyz went back and re-read your college philosophy books. I remember well the Hume arguments.

Let's be serious for a second:
1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics = St. Thomas Aquinas

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

But to be fair, almost every comment on this board fails to recognize just how big this "god" thing is. If you are looking at something through your eyepiece, and you can see it's edges, then quite frankly, your viewpoint is just not big enough.

I'll take your rebuttals with glee.

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-11 15:42 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Apr-11, 09:53 PM
DJ let me take up your challenge.

The arguement that you raised can easily be used against itself !

Let me explain. A crude summary of what you said is that every effect has a cause, every current effect has a previous cause, and in order for effects to exist now there must have been a first cause, and you refer to that first cause as God (the creator).

But why stop there - what preceeding event caused God to make the universe ?

Follow the logic, all of Gods actions (including the creation of the universe) will have had a cause (eg. he was bored so he decided to create the Universe so he could practice his killing, torture and dictatorship skills). Now in order for him to cause that effect we require things to happen beforehand (eg. the idea).

We end up with a cause/effect domino chain which continues to go backwards until we reach the point where God was created, but by whom?

You see the cause/effect problem is not solved simply by the introduction of God, that only differs the problem backwards in time. You only end up saying that if the argument is correct then another God created this God, but who created the God that created God ?

Phobos

The Rusty Lander
2002-Apr-11, 11:46 PM
Noone created God. He always was, is, and is to come. He is outside the realms of time in the realm of eternity. Everything that has yet to happen (eg: the next few minutes) has already been and is yet to be. I see the whole history of Earth (and the universe) like an already completed CD. But we are in it and it happens to be running (say) track 6 right now for us where we are because we are part of it. But outside time, in the realm of eternity, God can go to any part of the CD at any time - its already finished. As he is omnipresent, he is always at every part of the CD. The past, present, and future are all the same. Our lives are less than the blink of an eye. What is 70 to 80 years compared with eternity?

Why did he create the universe then? Simply put, he wanted to create living entities in which to share his creation but he didn't want robots, he wanted beings who would be able to make free choice, specifically free choice to believe and submit and trust God as a loving Father, the perfect true infinite indescribable love, the unconditional love beyond any love you could ever comprehend here on Earth.

The resulting mess is not God. It is the result of bad free choice to not trust or believe God. This is a common mistake to blame God for the mess. God is good and everything he made is good but mankind messed it up. Wars, starvations etc all caused by selfish mankind refusing to believe and trust in a creator and going about things their own way. We have not been designed to function without the presence of God, and by cutting out the God factor, we can see the blatant results. And things are simply going to get worse and worse as God is continually taken out of the equation.

The evidence of God is in his creation. God creates in abundance, far more than we need. He could've just created the Earth, but no, he created a whole universe just to show how creatively abundant he is. I do not believe God created other beings in the universe who may one day visit us or some such, this is the mistake that is assumed if you take out the God factor and think everything was some sort of evolutionary accident; He simply created a whole universe because he could as evidence that He was a God that created in a loving joyful awesome abundance.

DStahl
2002-Apr-12, 02:22 AM
Sten Odenwald wrote an essay called What are the basic ideas and issues in contemporary Inflationary cosmology? ("") which lists several possible scenarios which seem to provide for a plausible, purely physical origin for the universe. Now, his essay seems to include material only as recent as 1994, so this is neither cutting-edge material nor should it be unknown to anyone with a serious interest in cosmology. It's quite non-technical but refers to specific researchers so one can at least search out the original papers.

It's relevant to the current discussion because some of the ideas posit eternal macro-universes which spawn big bangs endlessly; a breakdown of causality 'outside' the big bang which renders talk of prime movers moot; and non-existence of which "...one may not logically inquire where that negated state arose since to do so would imply that either a place or time exist prior to the universe's coming into being, and neither of these concepts has any meaning. All further talk of 'prior states' is halted once and for all."

Interesting stuff, and actually on-topic for the BABB to boot!

--Don "hoping that makes up for prior philosophizing" Stahl

Phobos
2002-Apr-12, 06:46 AM
Noone created God. He always was, is, and is to come. He is outside the realms of time in the realm of eternity. Everything that has yet to happen (eg: the next few minutes) has already been and is yet to be. I see the whole history of Earth (and the universe) like an already completed CD.
If this is your belief, then it is incompatible with the idea that the universe requires a creator. You can't have it both ways - if the universe requires a creator then so does the creator. If the creator needs no creator, then using your beliefset we have a mechanism under which things can come into being without the requirement of a creator, and therefore that mechanism could equally have created the universe.

In short, using only the rules of your beliefset, our universe could have come into being without the assistance of a creator.


Why did he create the universe then? Simply put, he wanted to create living entities in which to share his creation but he didn't want robots, he wanted beings who would be able to make free choice, specifically free choice to believe and submit and trust God as a loving Father, the perfect true infinite indescribable love, the unconditional love beyond any love you could ever comprehend here on Earth.

If God is so loving why does the bible contain numerous references to instances where he commits mass murder and torture (best examples are the flood and sending people to be tortured in hell - his creation).


The resulting mess is not God. It is the result of bad free choice to not trust or believe God. This is a common mistake to blame God for the mess. God is good and everything he made is good but mankind messed it up. Wars, starvations etc all caused by selfish mankind refusing to believe and trust in a creator and going about things their own way.

This argument is flawed on several levels. You do not state precisely what you refer to as a "mess", so I will have to hazzard a few guesses;

Deseases - According to religion these are acts of God. So every victim of Ebola etc is being tortured by God.

War - Relgion seems to be heavily involved in practically all wars. The conflicts are usually between peoples with differing God viewpoints.

Overpopulation - Many countries suffer overpopulation. One of the principle contributors to overpopulation seems to be down to refusal to use contraceptives on religious grounds (also abortions of unwanted pregnancies).


The evidence of God is in his creation. God creates in abundance, far more than we need. He could've just created the Earth, but no, he created a whole universe just to show how creatively abundant he is. I do not believe God created other beings in the universe who may one day visit us or some such, this is the mistake that is assumed if you take out the God factor and think everything was some sort of evolutionary accident; He simply created a whole universe because he could as evidence that He was a God that created in a loving joyful awesome abundance.

You seem to look at the world though tinted glasses. The real world can be far more brutal than you make out. When one animal kills another there is usually suffering involved. Why would God create suffering in animals (you cant blame people here, this happens in the absense of people) ?

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-12 02:49 ]</font>

DJ
2002-Apr-12, 09:34 AM
Ah, Phobos, the last eternal mystery. To understand the meaning of it all.

I have no answer for you yet. But it is a noble question, and a noble quest.

Suffice it to say, my observations indicate that EVERYTHING eats.

Since we can't know the mind of the woodchuck, how do we know it suffers? Suffering is a human trait. (Pain, on the other hand, is not.) When the tiger kills the gazelle, only we find it horrific. The tiger enjoys a good meal. The gazelle? Heck, maybe that was his whole purpose.

On a cosmological scale, black holes eat energy too. When that black hole ate gamma alpha 3, or whatever planet that was with all those cute little critters on it, did they suffer? Who knows.

A very wise woman once told me: god always loves you, it's only when you don't love him that there is suffering.

SeanF
2002-Apr-12, 11:17 AM
On 2002-04-12 02:46, Phobos wrote:

Deseases - According to religion these are acts of God. So every victim of Ebola etc is being tortured by God.



Please don't make generalities like this about religion. Throw a "some" in that first sentence, will you?

DaveC
2002-Apr-12, 12:17 PM
"The resulting mess is not God. It is the result of bad free choice to not trust or believe God."

But if God had the "whole CD" he knew before he created the universe exactly what would happen everywhere for all time. And he presumably could have made his creation in any way he wanted. He knew he was going to flood the earth and kill virtually everything living, and he knew that would accomplish absolutely nothing.

To postulate the existence of such an entity, behaving in the way he is alleged to have behaved, bears a remarkable resemblance to the Apollo hoax theory. Incredulity gets piled on incredulity until the whole story is such a fantastic web of improbabilities that it makes no sense.

If you chose to have children and knew that before they were grown you would kill them, but you also had the ability to create a different future history where you wouldn't kill them, which would you choose?

Prince
2002-Apr-12, 01:11 PM
Just as in the physical universe our sensorium perceives only a tiny fraction of the total picture, how much more so in the spiritual universe. There the Creator, souls
and Angelic beings hold totally revealed sway. The Afterlife is analagous to another
part of the electromagnetic spectrum to which in this life we are oblivious: "No Man
can see Me & live" (Exodus). Except on rare occasions in history, God chooses not
to openly reveal Himself in this world, as a test of mankind's virtue. But there is
good & evil, reward & punishment: a pain here, a twinge there, a sickness, worry,
disappointment, frustration and failure are meted out in controlled doses to make the
punishment tolerable. Better to be punished in increments this side of the grave than
the total fury awaiting for the really wicked on the other side of the Matrix: "No eye has seen except Yours O Lord, that which awaits those who wait for You. How
great is the good that You have stored away for those who fear You" (Isaiah).

DaveC
2002-Apr-12, 01:35 PM
But isn't that all just speculation based on the writings in a single book that has absolutely no corrobating evidence? The Bible can't be used as the source of information about God, the nature of whom is only described in the Bible. What if the book was only ever intended as a work of fiction? Since we can't query the writers, we simply don't know.

What other sources can one draw from to establish the nature of God?

DJ
2002-Apr-12, 01:45 PM
We need to take a sharp curve up ahead to stay on topic for the BABB.

The Nature of Time & Space by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose expose the universe in an interesting (and possibly dated) way. However, the fundamentals they speak of in this text must be understood to have a clear picture of what we are learning today.

The cool thing about this book, which is very heavy compared to A Brief History of Time by Hawking, is that both try to paint the picture of what we are seeing today. It's the "nature" of space & time. I think that helps answer the post above... because in essence, everything we see and learn is a byproduct of the big bang.

Whether the big bang was the true first cause or not is not discussed. The big bang, which I actually think happened, is neither here nor there on the topic of evolution or creation. It's just another piece of it all.

A revision to my earlier comment, after talking with a philospher friend of mine is:

If you're looking through your eyepiece and you think you can see the edge of something, then perhaps the "I" is too big.

(I'm still laughing at that one)

DJ

Phobos
2002-Apr-12, 02:20 PM
SeanF;

Deseases - According to some religions these are acts of God. So every victim of Ebola etc is being tortured by God.

Phobos /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-12 10:27 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Apr-12, 04:10 PM
If there is a God, he probably has better things to do with his time than cause (or prevent) diseases on some insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in a HUGE and expanding universe.
Makes more sense to me that Ebola and all the other scourges of humanity are just lifeforms that evolved into a niche that happens to be one that causes us problems. The Bible attempts to blame the suffering in the world on the fact that humans have turned away from God, but humans who have no concept of that God (and therefore couldn't have turned away) also suffer. Killing the innocent isn't consistent with any concept of a merciful God. Pain and suffering and death are all the byproducts of life - which I believe to be the product of evolutionary forces -period.

However (just to attempt to keep this post on topic for the BABB) it could well be that God gave that singularity a boot, setting off the big bang, while he was walking between a couple of his other universes.

Phobos
2002-Apr-12, 04:17 PM
On 2002-04-12 12:10, DaveC wrote:
If there is a God, he probably has better things to do with his time than cause (or prevent) diseases on some insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in a HUGE and expanding universe.
Makes more sense to me that Ebola and all the other scourges of humanity are just lifeforms that evolved into a niche that happens to be one that causes us problems. The Bible attempts to blame the suffering in the world on the fact that humans have turned away from God, but humans who have no concept of that God (and therefore couldn't have turned away) also suffer. Killing the innocent isn't consistent with any concept of a merciful God. Pain and suffering and death are all the byproducts of life - which I believe to be the product of evolutionary forces -period.

However (just to attempt to keep this post on topic for the BABB) it could well be that God gave that singularity a boot, setting off the big bang, while he was walking between a couple of his other universes.


Perhaps the universe was made by an imperfect, but well meaning extra-terrestrial scientist.

Phobos

DaveC
2002-Apr-12, 04:30 PM
"Perhaps the universe was made by an imperfect, but well meaning extra-terrestrial scientist."

And where would that well-meaning scientist have come from?

Silas
2002-Apr-12, 05:07 PM
On 2002-04-12 12:30, DaveC wrote:
"Perhaps the universe was made by an imperfect, but well meaning extra-terrestrial scientist."

And where would that well-meaning scientist have come from?


Aha! You see, the Big Bang happened, and life came about, and human beings evolved intelligence, and we developed advanced sciences, see... And we got more and more curious, and started messing around with super-high-energy physics, see... And one day, oops, we started a chain reaction that bent time and space back on themselves and that's what started -- The Big Bang!

("I'm my own gram'paw!")

Silas

DaveC
2002-Apr-12, 05:17 PM
"And one day, oops, we started a chain reaction that bent time and space back on themselves and that's what started -- The Big Bang!"

Now that's a theory I could "have faith" in. Is there a scientific method that one could postulate to determine that the effect and the cause have a cyclical rather than linear relationship?

dapted
2002-Apr-13, 06:35 AM
Creationists, and Evolutionists are saying the same thing.

Evolutionists say it all started when cosmic dust colapsed in on itself with a big bang. Where did the cosmic dust come from? The Answer: It always was, is and will be, time is irrelevant to it.

Creationists say it all started with a creator who figuratively snapped his fingers and BANG it all started. Where did God come from? The Answer: He always was, is and will be, time is irrelevant to him.

It is the same thing, one side uses the name God, the other uses the name cosmic dust. Ergo God=Cosmic Dust

It is all the same.

Firefox
2002-Apr-13, 05:19 PM
Funny, I had always assumed "evolutionists" were those who subscribed to the theory of evolution, a biological theory that had nothing to do with cosmology. Silly me.


-Adam

ToSeek
2002-Apr-15, 11:02 AM
On 2002-04-13 02:35, dapted wrote:

Evolutionists say it all started when cosmic dust colapsed in on itself with a big bang. Where did the cosmic dust come from? The Answer: It always was, is and will be, time is irrelevant to it.


No one except creationists think that the Big Bang theory has anything to do with dust. The Big Bang was a singularity according to current theory, meaning we don't know what happened before and don't really have any way of finding out.

DaveC
2002-Apr-15, 12:38 PM
"No one except creationists think that the Big Bang theory has anything to do with dust. The Big Bang was a singularity according to current theory, meaning we don't know what happened before and don't really have any way of finding out."

Although it's difficult for the human mind to fathom, there was no "before" the big bang, unless we invoke a different concept of time and space than what exists in our universe. Time isn't a constant, independent commodity - it is inexorably tied to change in the universe. If the singularity was the only thing in existence prior to the BB, and it underwent no change until the BB, time would have no frame of reference - that is, we could expect that it stood still.
The dust to which creationists refer came a long time after the big bang when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for matter to exist. Life came a long time after that.

SeanF
2002-Apr-15, 01:43 PM
DaveC said:


Although it's difficult for the human mind to fathom, there was no "before" the big bang . . .

and then:


If the singularity was the only thing in existence prior to the BB, and it underwent no change until the BB . . .


It's so hard to fathom that even DaveC, after stating how hard it is to fathom, doesn't fathom it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

(I don't mean to pick on you, Dave, I just found this an ironic demonstration of just how difficult of a concept this really is!)

DaveC
2002-Apr-15, 02:16 PM
I was invoking a different concept of space and time!

Thanks for pointing out the irony of my words. I'm usually more careful when I talk about the "time before the big bang" by refering to it as "the instant of the big bang." It's Monday and I'm not fully functional yet.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-15, 02:20 PM
On 2002-04-15 08:38, DaveC wrote:
The dust to which creationists refer came a long time after the big bang when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for matter to exist. Life came a long time after that.


I have read some creationists who claim that the Big Bang was caused when a bunch of dust came together and exploded - and that this explanation can be found in textbooks. Where they got this from, I don't know.

DaveC
2002-Apr-15, 05:33 PM
What they are referring to is the "big crunch" - a theory that actually had some currency years back and likely still appears in older books. Modern cosmology doesn't support the big crunch or oscillating universe theory - not enough mass in the universe to make it collapse. But - we don't know everything yet. There may be hidden forces that could tip the scales toward contraction and another big bang.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-15, 05:39 PM
On 2002-04-15 13:33, DaveC wrote:
What they are referring to is the "big crunch" - a theory that actually had some currency years back and likely still appears in older books. Modern cosmology doesn't support the big crunch or oscillating universe theory - not enough mass in the universe to make it collapse. But - we don't know everything yet. There may be hidden forces that could tip the scales toward contraction and another big bang.


I think you're making the unfounded assumption that they actually know what they're talking about.

DaveC
2002-Apr-15, 06:23 PM
OK - tooshay - as they say in Quebec. I perhaps leapt to the conclusion that the books to which creationists refer actually exist and that they speak with something more than an "intuitive understanding" of how things work. It won't take much to convince me that the YEC crowd just makes up their "science" on the fly, though.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-16, 10:28 AM
On 2002-04-15 14:23, DaveC wrote:
OK - tooshay - as they say in Quebec. I perhaps leapt to the conclusion that the books to which creationists refer actually exist and that they speak with something more than an "intuitive understanding" of how things work. It won't take much to convince me that the YEC crowd just makes up their "science" on the fly, though.


What has been suggested is that they're confusing solar system formation with the Big Bang.

DaveC
2002-Apr-16, 12:03 PM
"What has been suggested is that they're confusing solar system formation with the Big Bang.

Yes that would make sense, since they also confuse evolution with the big bang. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-16 08:04 ]</font>

DJ
2002-Apr-16, 04:43 PM
It is more than just a crude theory that there is an oscillating universe.

The initial conditions for the universe do seem consistent with a singularity, and the original expansion of the universe would be nice and euclidean, and very very smooth. (Smooth in this context means nicely distributed.) However, after a certain point, there are fundamental changes to the wave and ground state functions and how they interact at the Planck constant. Once these start interacting (I'm no expert here, just relaying from Hawking/Penrose), we quickly see that the expansion will take on lorentzian expansion, which would remove homogenous structures, allowing clumping. The theory goes that certain parts of the universe have expanded, and in those regions, we see life and other bounties, while in others, where a clump didn't form, we would not see expansion.

It's all very complex.

But, since we can't see before the beginning, at some point we're going to need faith. Otherwise, the correct and observable answer will be: there is a beginning we cannot see and will never understand. Or the cop out: since I can't see or understand a beginning, it must be thus that it never happened. Whammo, you're a steady-state theorist.

Seems like something must fill that gap. I know of only one solution that fills the gap, and it doesn't break down depending on the size or shape.

DJ

DaveC
2002-Apr-16, 08:17 PM
I have a simpler view. I don't know conditions at the instant of the big bang, I don't know if there was another universe in existence, and I am comfortable with the knowledge that I may never know. I don't really need faith, nor do I need to buy the steady state cosmology to help me over my ignorance. It would be nice to know, but invoking a creator doesn't, in my mind, get me any closer to the answer - it just pushes the unknown further back. The mechanisms are still a mystery.

Thr0n
2002-Apr-17, 12:36 AM
On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"


Where are you pulling these numbers from? And are you sure they account for the amount of time light takes to reach us?

Aside from that, why would a discrepancy in the number of massive star deaths be evidence of a younger universe? That's arbitrary. There is no law stating that a star must SN every 25 years. When you start relying on statistics instead of actual data, you get bit in the arse.

There is simply too much evidence pointing to a 15+ billion year old universe for a petty amount of 'evidence' such as this to convince anyone otherwise.

dapted
2002-Apr-17, 05:52 AM
I don't see evidence of a big bang, It looks more and more to me like a pop corn event. Multiple big bangs going off each one expanding its own galaxy, some overlapping and some rather further apart. Perhaps all the kernels started popping when some unknown event "heated" up the universe enough to start the reation. Perhaps something along the lines of a sypathetic explosion of all the "kernels" because of the explosion of one. Kind of like one stick of dynamite exploding just because it is close enough to another which exploded.

DStahl
2002-Apr-17, 08:04 AM
dapted, oddly enough the galaxies probably didn't explode outward. They curdled and clumped together instead, leaving vast areas between them almost void of matter. This gravitational clumping of matter is pretty well predicted by theory and can be modelled to a degree on computers, I think.

It's interesting to read a good narrative of the current best guesses at the sequence of events that are generically called the big bang scenario--it has very little in common with a chemical, nuclear, or even a supernova explosion. The details of how matter and antimatter annihilated, how the observed ratios of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium formed in the first several minutes of the universe's existence, and suchlike are fascinating.

Well, fascinating to a geek like myself, I suppose! *grin*

--Don Stahl

Firefox
2002-Apr-17, 11:35 AM
Another good way of thinking of it is that the galaxies are not flying farther apart...rather, space between them is expanding...I think.


-Adam

Thr0n
2002-Apr-17, 11:48 AM
On 2002-04-17 07:35, Firefox wrote:
Another good way of thinking of it is that the galaxies are not flying farther apart...rather, space between them is expanding...I think.


Imagine the singularity that existed as the entirety of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. This point encompasses not only all matter and energy (same thing /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif), but all space as well. When the singularity explodes "outwards", it is, in a way, exploding "inwards". There is nothing outside of this singularity -- indeed, there is no outside. [This may be assuming that the universe is closed]

So according to most modern theories, you're right. The galaxies aren't flying away from some central point out into nothingness. Space is expanding, and they accelerate "outwards" with it.

2002-Oct-24, 11:04 AM
<a name="2-10-24.rlw"> page 2-10-24.rlw aka arl w
On 2002-04-09 16:06, Karl wrote To! 4:11 A.M.HUb'2-10-24
I did do a search, to find obsidian;
hopefully still present in the text below
there were at the time three occurances
once found {i then used LYNX search } to locate the page
that was a first ever and quitee a trip .. to arive{hip hi..}



[b]One interesting radiometric technique which has use in dating both human artifacts and geological features is known as "fission-track" dating. This method uses the fission decay of Uranium which emits a high energy alpha particle leaving a damage track in glassy material. The material is etched and the tracks can be counted. By irradiating the remaining material, the actual amount of Uranium in the sample can be determined, and given the fission decay rate, the length of time since the material was annealed or hardened determined.

The "clock" is reset by heat, which anneals the track damage. This makes the method useful for dating pottery glazes, glasses, obsidian spearheads, and making thermal history profiles of oil bearing rock.

2002-Oct-24, 11:35 AM
<a name="2-10-24.MFS"> page 2-10-24.MFS aka Magnetic Field Spikes
On 2002-04-09 13:27, ToSeek wrote: To?: HUb'


This is not true. As this site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html) points out, the field dropped noticeably until 1935 but has been basically steady since then. I also find it hard to believe that one could deduce a definitive exponential decay rate from the data, which is graphed as a meandering little line on this (Creationist) page (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-122.htm).




i've no data:
however
i always did wonder::
about the Earths Magnetic field 'PLOT"
{when was it exactly agan}
{{ April 1958? Yes but i mean a Spike{absorbtion}(DIP) ?/? in the morning ? um NIGHT Cut}}
well if you have a link to
PLOT
_________________?
4:44 A.M. PDT October 24, 2002
20021024.xxx

2002-Oct-24, 11:49 AM
<a name="2-10-24.plu"> page 2-10-24.plu aka +
On 2002-04-09 23:06, Karl wrote: To# 2HUb'
yeah:
Q1= in the dust / in the ice core /
how much of its extra_Teristral
Q1b: How much extral terstrial dust falls / MILLION years (in Centimeters}
q2: to be added when it returns to active memory

Chip
2002-Oct-25, 05:32 AM
On 2002-04-09 07:13, The Rusty Lander wrote:
The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about...is more to do with...making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system.


...............................steady! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
..............................whoa!
..........................oops!
...........................
......................oh my!
.......................
..............whoops..
........hey!....
Nope, can't be done. We tried it here and...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-25 01:35 ]</font>

The Rusty Lander
2002-Oct-25, 07:30 AM
Electro-magnetic propulsion. In the 1950s they seemed very close to a breakthrough; I've still got phtocopies of articles with me at home. Then suddenly - all went quiet. Nothing. Zilch. Not even a "well, didn't we go way off track back there in the 50s". My contention is that they did indeed invent it but them hid it from the world as the implications to the world economy would be giantic plus they like the power of monopolising these things much like other secret technology like water cars and so on. Some of those UFO sightings are in fact this hidden technology, others are hoaxes. While officially denying aliens exist, they unofficially keep the myth alive thus detracting from the fact that they have this tecnology themselves.
_________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-10-25 03:33 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Oct-25, 05:08 PM
Who is this mysterious they that have had this revolutionary technolgy since the 1950s? You seem to have bought into the standard conspiracist propaganda that the oil industry somehow keeps them from unleashing this miracle technology on the world. But transportation is less than half of the demand for fossil fuels, and in a world where the oil gluttons in North America can't meet their own needs, where is the political or financial incentive to continue to hide a technology that would reduce imports. The fuel industry would simply raise prices to maintain profitability, and should be thrilled to know they'll be in business that much longer.

Unless your argument is that Saudi Arabia has the "magic magnets" technology. Of course, that wouldn't account for the "UFO sightings" in the U.S. would it? You have a theory about hidden technolgies and a possible motive for them to be kept hidden. But put all the pieces together and the logic fails.

UFO sightings are simply that - unidentified flying objects. On that I agree with you. To conclude that they are either alien spaceships or some completely new technology is a leap of faith that isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. Some UFO sightings are undoubtedly related to new military aircraft designs that are being tested, but I don't think you can conclude they have anything other than a very conventional propulsion system.

Kizarvexis
2002-Oct-26, 11:48 PM
On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died. The genuine saucers that have been seen are in fact these secret flying crafts and nothing to do with aliens. Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?


Who knew J. Michael Straczynski is a Hollywood whistle blower? Check out this page below.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/512.html

Overview
The Excalibur encounters a pair of aliens who are convinced that humans have visited their world and their government has conspired to cover the contact up.

Hilarous episode. Too bad TNT Atlanta killed 'The Babylon Project: Crusade'. It had a lot of promise in my opinion.

Kizarvexis
Off topic: my opinion on creation, cosmic evolution and biological evolution is the following. "God created the universe. He used cosmic evolution and biological evolution has His tools to create life here on Earth and very probably elsewhere as well. We are working our way towards a fuller understanding of His universe." See, science and religion are not at odds and the Bible, IMO, is not literal. It is allegory, like the parables. end of off topic post, please forgive me.

overrated
2002-Oct-27, 01:43 AM
The oil industry lobby IS responsible for keeping lots of alternative technologies out of the mainstream. But it's not insidious or conspiratorial--it's politics, and it's all well-documented.

So in response to Chip, the incentive to not reduce imports comes from the lobbying of the companies that import oil and the companies that build machines (cars, for instance) that use petroleum products.

But in response to Rusty Lander, it's still a leap of logic to say that a) technology X might exist and b) we don't know for sure because there is a conspiracy covering it up. Neither one of those statements is necessarily true and (a) certainly isn't the antecedent to (b). Further, if the new technology were so marvelous, it wouldn't matter whether it used oil or not... the military would want in on the ground floor. (witness, say, nuclear-powered naval vessels) And since in the past 50 years since this tech was "developed" we haven't seen any antigravitational military hardware materialize, nor have there been any provable scientific claims of such a system... well.... the only argument you're left with is "there are UFOs," therefore "those UFOs must utilized supressed antigrav technology." And that's as fallacious as saying UFOs must be piloted by aliens.

nebularain
2002-Oct-27, 02:17 AM
On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died.
Well, I think it can be considered a given that the government at least allowed the perpetuation of "aliens" to cover the activities of the military. I don't know about anti-grav machines, but the military has come out with some pretty high tech air craft that needed to be kept secret for security reasons. These alone have and would warrent "cover up" measures to safe-guard the technology from falling into enemy hands. Do I have a problem with this? No, because I believe the primary purpose of the U.S. military is to protect our country.

2002-Oct-27, 08:18 AM
<a name="."> page . aka
IN MY "history of the solar sysem"
theres just one Mainevent {the astroids}
for its my belief {nothing more} that pre
astroides there existed a planet in orbit
at that distance .. that was obliterated..
{smashed into a Billions of pieces}
and it was at that time {when astrolopolis became astroides}
that the Earth aquired .. Lunar Orbits..
Thus Lunar Orbits are only as {less} OLD as
astroids from Astolopolis.. so heres my Question
for AstronohMY .. when did the astroids become astroids
let me rephrase.. 'poise i had a Gin bottle
clearly stamped Made in Austrailia in 1945
but it was now broken into four big pieces
How do you find the date of the breakup?
um assume today was October 27, 2002 at 1:26 A.M. PDt

Gsquare
2002-Oct-28, 03:58 PM
On 2002-10-26 19:48, Kizarvexis wrote:
Off topic: my opinion .... "God created the universe. He used cosmic evolution and biological evolution has His tools to create life here on Earth and very probably elsewhere as well. ... end of off topic post, please forgive me.


Oh yea?, what are you going to do with scriptures like, " He SPOKE and it was created, He commanded and it stood fast". ? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.
I used to feel the same as you, Kiz, but then I realized that by trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution I was really impuning the integrity of God. In my opinion God (of the Bible) by definition is absolutely truthful and if He had used evolution to create the universe then He would have said so rather than giving us the obvious senario whereby He speaks things into existence. Actually, I think its awesome that the Bible talks about a God that has enough power & authority that even at his Word things come into existence. End of off topic response, please forgive.
G^2 /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
"And God said let there be light and....





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-28 11:04 ]</font>

Zathras
2002-Oct-28, 09:21 PM
On 2002-10-28 10:58, Gsquare wrote:
. . .
Oh yea?, what are you going to do with scriptures like, " He SPOKE and it was created, He commanded and it stood fast". ? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.
I used to feel the same as you, Kiz, but then I realized that by trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution I was really impuning the integrity of God.
. . .

I really don't get this about creationism. "He spoke and it was created?" How can you reduce the language of God to physical terms such as a length of time. How do you know the grammar of God, let alone the oratorical method of God's delivery?

To paraphrase a relative of his, do not judge God by the standards of man. That is why the allegory of Genesis is necessary, so that it could convey deep truths that could not be conveyed literally at the level of science of the time.

In an attempt to tie this to astronomy, I would say that the same applies to the description of the creation of the universe in Genesis, in that it is as well described as it could be described, given the science at the time. "Billions of years" was simply not within the language of the time. To try to use the Genesis book to prove the age of the universe is preposterous, because the literal truth (i.e., BB, et al.) was outside the comprehension of people 3,000+ years ago.

How would you explain the theory of inflation, superstring theory, or quantum foam in ancient Hebrew?

nebularain
2002-Oct-28, 11:15 PM
Didn't Isaac Newton, when he discovered calculus, say something about having discovered the "language of God"?

I tried searching for it, but this is the closest I could find:
"Numero pondere et mensura Deus omnia condidit
God created everything by number, weight and measure." - Sir Isaac Newton

(OK, another debate to throw into the mix.)

_________________
"But I can see the Covenant colors [that] the sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky"
- Rich Mullins, The Howling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-28 18:16 ]</font>

Gsquare
2002-Oct-29, 06:33 PM
The Bible is quite clear about the awesome method by which God created the universe. There is no doubt about what it teaches and is quite evident to those who want to understand.
The Bible says, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth".

That's one powerful Creature!
It was the incredible authority & power of His Word that brought all things into existence:

"For He spake and it was DONE, He commanded and it stood fast".

The power is in His spoken Word and it became obvious to me He needs no puny 'tools' like evolution to get the job done. His methods are not our methods, and I was certainly foolish to believe at one time that He would be limited to my evolutionary understanding of how it ought to have been done. His power and understanding is so infinite its almost beyond belief and probably why some of us don't want to believe it. Nevertheless, that's what the Bible says, and it has convinced me that when it comes to creation, God says what He means and means what He says. When He speaks...things happen!
G^2

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




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-29 13:48 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Oct-29, 07:01 PM
Which, of course, is only relevant if that old book is accurate. What if it's not and God did need evolution to get us where we are today? What if He just booted that timeless singularity and started the whole thing before heading off to another universe? What if the rest of the story of creation is just human speculation?

Zathras
2002-Oct-29, 09:36 PM
On 2002-10-29 13:33, Gsquare wrote:
The Bible is quite clear about the awesome method by which God created the universe.
There is no doubt about what it teaches and is quite evident to those who want to understand.


Oh really? Did the animals come first, and then man (Genesis 1:21, 26), or was man first, and then the animals (Genesis 2:7,19)?




The Bible says, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth".

That's one powerful Creature!
It was the incredible authority & power of His Word that brought all things into existence:

"For He spake and it was DONE, He commanded and it stood fast".


This is all good and well, but what is "God's breath"? Does it have the same O2/CO2 composition as our breath? Or is this speaking of a deeper truth that is inexpressible in the language of ancient Hebrew (or 16th century English)?




The power is in His spoken Word and it became obvious to me He needs no puny 'tools' like evolution to get the job done. His methods are not our methods, and I was certainly foolish to believe at one time that He would be limited to my evolutionary understanding of how it ought to have been done.


Nor is He limited by our puny understanding of what His methods are. Creationism puts God in the box of a 4,000 year old understanding of the universe, while evolution is yet another method by which God continues to reveal Himself to us.




His power and understanding is so infinite its almost beyond belief and probably why some of us don't want to believe it. Nevertheless, that's what the Bible says, and it has convinced me that when it comes to creation, God says what He means and means what He says. When He speaks...things happen!
G^2

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



Last I checked, God did not put forth his Word in medieval English. If you want to use his literal word, only Hebrew (or Aramaic/Greek for the NT) will suffice.




On 2002-10-29 14:01, DaveC wrote:

Which, of course, is only relevant if that old book is accurate. What if it's not and God did need evolution to get us where we are today? What if He just booted that timeless singularity and started the whole thing before heading off to another universe? What if the rest of the story of creation is just human speculation?



Hey, don't go around knocking old books. You'll learn a lot more about human nature by reading a book of Plato than if you read a psychology text. As for your what if's, I would just say that it is slightly less absurd than the alternatives, but you, of course, can believe in what you will.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2002-10-29 16:55 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Oct-29, 10:17 PM
On 2002-10-29 16:36, Zathras wrote:
Hey, don't go around knocking old books. You'll learn a lot more about human nature by reading a book of Plato than if you read a psychology text. As for your what if's, I would just say that it is slightly less absurd than the alternatives, but you, of course, can believe in what you will.


I like old books and didn't think I was knocking them at all. The term "old book" wasn't a criticism of the Bible. It is an old book.
"Slightly less absurd than the alternatives" is pretty high praise. So, from a spectrum of absurd theories on the origin of the universe and diverse life on earth, my speculation is the least absurd? Thanks! And I wasn't even giving it serious consideration. I was really just trying to drag the thread somewhat back to relevance to this BB. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Zathras
2002-Oct-29, 10:37 PM
On 2002-10-29 17:17, DaveC wrote:


On 2002-10-29 16:36, Zathras wrote:
Hey, don't go around knocking old books. You'll learn a lot more about human nature by reading a book of Plato than if you read a psychology text. As for your what if's, I would just say that it is slightly less absurd than the alternatives, but you, of course, can believe in what you will.


I like old books and didn't think I was knocking them at all. The term "old book" wasn't a criticism of the Bible. It is an old book.
"Slightly less absurd than the alternatives" is pretty high praise. So, from a spectrum of absurd theories on the origin of the universe and diverse life on earth, my speculation is the least absurd? Thanks! And I wasn't even giving it serious consideration. I was really just trying to drag the thread somewhat back to relevance to this BB. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


In my use of slightly less absurd I was paraphrasing an author (Walker Percy) who was explaining why he was a Christian. Upon further review, it doesn't look right out of context. Kindly ignore the word "slightly" from my post.

Gsquare
2002-Oct-29, 10:58 PM
On 2002-10-29 14:01, DaveC wrote:
Which, of course, is only relevant if that old book is accurate.

I believe it is.


What if it's not and God did need evolution to get us where we are today?

I'll answer you like Jesus answered the Pharisees, "You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God".
According to the Bible God doesn't "need" anything to accomplish whatever He wills. Being all powerful He is hardly forced to comply with man's opinions or theories to accomplish His purpose.

Secondly, if God did what you suggest then He wouldn't be God. (You missed my 1st post). God by definition is faithful (absolutely truthful), meaning His Word corresponds to His actions; the two are inseparable. He cannot say He did it one way when He did it another or He would be not God but simply a liar. That's why I said that trying to force God to be an evolutionist is impuning the integrity of God. I certainly don't want to be in the shoes of someone who calls God a liar.



What if the rest of the story of creation is just human speculation?


What if evolution is just mindless human speculation?
The whole point I was making in my first post is that the Bible leaves you no option. You can't have it both ways, either its like the Bible says, God spoke it into existence OR...its evolution.
Believing in evolution is throwing the Bible in the trash can; God for you becomes a liar, his Word can't be depended upon, and Jesus is just a lunatic; there is no hope for humanity; and we are simply at the mercy of random chance.
BUT.. if the Bible is the Word of God then there is no option.... God (by definition)must be faithful (truthful) and He did do it exactly as He said He did; He did create us for a purpose; Jesus becomes the hope of all mankind; evolution is not permitted and is seen for what it really is -

So my advice is to chose carefully which side you should be on.

Thanks for the inquiry, Dave. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-29 18:22 ]</font>

The Rusty Lander
2002-Oct-30, 12:48 AM
Darwin's motivation for coming up with evolution is important here. At the time, he was in deliberate rebellion against God or a belief in God. His intellectual mind needed to grasp onto something to justify his stand so he conjured up this alternative to creationism from the vanity of his own imagination which has in itself become like another religion in that it requires a "leap of faith" to interpret the evidence, a tunnel vision which ignores creationist evidence. Towards the end of his life, however, he acknowledged his error, repented, turned to God, and renounced his own evolutionary ideas. No doubt, he knew in the end, that there was a choice between wither creationism or evolution but not both. A pity that so many professed Chritians today have been suckered into this inbetween compromise, something that Darwin knew was not possible.

_________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-10-29 19:50 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-10-29 19:51 ]</font>

overrated
2002-Oct-30, 01:06 AM
How did we get from freaking aliens to evolution?

I hold that Christianity and evolution are not, repeat not, at odds. If you interpret the Bible literally, you run into some tough questions, such as: Is man's interpretation perfect? Are all the translations throughout the past 2,000-plus years accurate? As Dave C. (I think) put it so eloquently, how can we presume to understand the grammar of God? There's a great quote--and it bugs me to NO END that I can't remember the theologian who said it--that says every word that man has ever spoken about God is false, because man is an imperfect being.

Now. Can we discuss antigrav and little green men?

Jovianboy
2002-Oct-30, 01:46 AM
On 2002-10-29 17:58, Gsquare wrote:

What if evolution is just mindless human speculation?
The whole point I was making in my first post is that the Bible leaves you no option. You can't have it both ways, either its like the Bible says, God spoke it into existence OR...its evolution.
Believing in evolution is throwing the Bible in the trash can; God for you becomes a liar, his Word can't be depended upon, and Jesus is just a lunatic; there is no hope for humanity; and we are simply at the mercy of random chance.
BUT.. if the Bible is the Word of God then there is no option.... God (by definition)must be faithful (truthful) and He did do it exactly as He said He did; He did create us for a purpose; Jesus becomes the hope of all mankind; evolution is not permitted and is seen for what it really is -

So my advice is to chose carefully which side you should be on.

Thanks for the inquiry, Dave. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
G^2


That's the most narrow and overly simplistic view of Christianity I've heard for a long while. Yep, it's gotta be one way or the other. Choose carefully which side you're on - and for the sake of your soul it had better be Gsquare's side.

I can't be bothered explaining the divisive folly of this mindset again, so I'll just repost some opinions I wrote earlier this year in response to a creationist.

"...my understanding of creationists is that they generally like to maintain a strictly polarized view of the interactions between Christianity and mainstream science. That is: "atheist-evolutionist-scientists VERSUS god-fearing-bible-believing-creationists" ...and never the twain shall meet.

I point out again the large numbers of scientists who are Christians AND acknowledge that evolution and modern cosmology are accurate representations of reality. Do all creationists like to pretend that these people don't exist? I'm not sure, but polarizing an issue into a basic "us and them" has always been a useful tool in garnishing the support and subsequent loyalty of the less educated ("If you're not with us, you're against us, and therefore not a REAL Christian" etc). This kind of over-simplification seems to come naturally to most creationists, after all, it underpins their very (pseudo)science. At least we can't accuse them of being inconsistent."

JB

Afterthought - Why on Earth was an aliens-related thread from April resurrected just to be steered towards theology? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

(edit to fix smiley)
_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-10-29 20:51 ]</font>

Gsquare
2002-Oct-30, 01:47 AM
On 2002-10-29 19:48, The Rusty Lander wrote:
A pity that so many professed Chritians today have been suckered into this inbetween compromise, something that Darwin knew was not possible.

Yes, thank you Rusty; that was my main point (and quite correct about Darwin).
I can understand the ignorance of the 'unbeliever' (like the childish one that keeps trying to interupt). They are just doing what they are suppose to do - wrestling scriptures to their own destruction. (Its actually quite humorous watching them getting all upset trying to convince us how the Bible isn't true. As if we should take their word for it rather than God's. Ha Ha /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
BUT for those who HAVE come to understand the Scripture, there should be little excuse.____

Nevertheless, let us not judge since we were once among that crowd - (many years!). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
Sometimes ,as I'm sure is the case with_Kizarvexis, its just a matter of finding out what the Bible really says and thinking things through and its not a matter of not wanting to understand.

Thanks for the post

G^2





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-29 20:58 ]</font>

Jovianboy
2002-Oct-30, 02:27 AM
On 2002-10-29 19:48, The Rusty Lander wrote:
Darwin's motivation for coming up with evolution is important here. At the time, he was in deliberate rebellion against God or a belief in God.


And what was the motivation behind this "rebellion against god"?



His intellectual mind needed to grasp onto something to justify his stand so he conjured up this alternative to creationism from the vanity of his own imagination


Conjured up? Imagination? You mean to say that years of intense zoological research aboard the HMS Beagle had no bearing on his theories? Please.



which has in itself become like another religion


There is nothing about evolution that even remotely resembles religion. There is no central figurehead, no organised clergy, no worship, no laws of ethical behaviour, and most important of all, no dogma.



in that it requires a "leap of faith" to interpret the evidence, a tunnel vision which ignores creationist evidence.


A leap of faith is not required if you understand evolution and its premises, which clearly, you do not.

Creationist evidence? Evidence? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif



Towards the end of his life, however, he acknowledged his error, repented, turned to God, and renounced his own evolutionary ideas.


I'd like to see your source material for this dubious historical account.



No doubt, he knew in the end, that there was a choice between wither creationism or evolution but not both. A pity that so many professed Chritians today have been suckered into this inbetween compromise, something that Darwin knew was not possible.


On the contrary, Darwin was a deeply religious man, and I think you'll find that he had very little difficulty in envisaging a god behind the principles of evolution. A god in whom belief need not be based upon the child-like literalist intepretations of an allegorical text.

I'll stop here - I've a feeling the BA isn't going to tolerate this off-topic thread for much longer.

JB

_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-10-29 21:28 ]</font>

Zathras
2002-Oct-30, 02:33 AM
On 2002-10-29 20:46, Jovianboy wrote:
Afterthought - Why on Earth was an aliens-related thread from April resurrected just to be steered towards theology? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif


Sorry, that was partially my fault. Stop me before I meander again! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

In an attempt to bring this back to the main thread, I would ask this question (I apologize if previously discussed): Do any creationists believe in extraterrestrial life? I don't think these two are necessarily logically mutually exclusive (as if that ever stopped a creationist /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif)--you just have another world with a similarly short lifespan (6,000 years, right?). I see three possibilities for this scenario:

1) There is intelligent life, and Jesus came to them in a separate incarnation. This would fit in with the Mormon worldwiew well, since Mormons believed that Jesus came to the Native Americans after his death.
2) There is intelligent life, and it is pagan, but is awaiting our arrival to convert them.
3) There is life, but it is not intelligent, so the issue of alien souls does not arise.

Anyone here anything on this issue?

StevenG
2002-Oct-30, 03:56 AM
Yup, no doubt this thread is way off topic.

Life on other planets, I say with 99% confidence that there is life out there somwhere else in this universe.
To quote the electronic/pop musician MOBY "We're all made of stars". The way molecules interact with each other gives me the impression that it is very likely that there is life somwhere else in the universe.
I'm willing to bet that our solar system has the same types of molecules as the next solar system.

Ever hear of the experiment performed by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey?
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

I think it's very likely that somewhere in our universe there are a few planets with the nessasery combinations of chemicals for this sort of occurance to happen. Just think about how old the universe is. It's like pumping quaters into a slot machine for eternity. Eventually you're going to hit the jackpot.

Have any aliens visited us? nope.


A final note I'm curious, to what degree do the anti-evolution here understand biology or genetics? (This isn't a flame I would honestly like to know)

nebularain
2002-Oct-30, 04:09 AM
On 2002-10-29 20:06, overrated wrote:
How did we get from freaking aliens to evolution?

Tangents happen all the time on this Board. And, well, some of us actually like discussing theological implications with science.



On 2002-10-29 21:27, Jovianboy wrote:
And what was the motivation behind this "rebellion against god"?

I heard it explained that Darwin's father was a strong athiest and that Darwin's teacher was likewise atheistic, but he held onto his religious devotion - that is until his beloved daughter died. His grief turned to anger towards God for her death, and he then embraced the views of his father and his teacher and turned very anti-God, and thus had a reason to turn his scientific beliefs against a belief in God.



There is nothing about evolution that even remotely resembles religion.
It could be easily argued that the real battle is not between Christianity and science, the problems Christians have is with a philosophy called Naturalism (http://skepdic.com/naturalism.html) that is behind evolution (http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/In+the+Beginning+Were+the+Particles.htm) , which is difficult to argue because those who believe in Naturalism don't believe they are believing anything, or so it seems.

(Sorry for sticking my foot back in this door that you were trying to close, but - r-r-r-r-r - I couldn't resist. Again, sorry.)



On 2002-10-29 21:33, Zathras wrote:
In an attempt to bring this back to the main thread, I would ask this question (I apologize if previously discussed): Do any creationists believe in extraterrestrial life?


On 2002-10-29 20:06, overrated wrote:
How did we get from freaking aliens to evolution?...
Now. Can we discuss antigrav and little green men?

I don't know why, but these questions brought to my mind the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian fell off the roof and landed in an alien craft that just happened to be zipping on by.

I don't know - religion - UFO....


_________________
"But I can see the Covenant colors [that] the sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky"
- Rich Mullins, The Howling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-29 23:26 ]</font>

Colt
2002-Oct-30, 04:20 PM
"Daisy, daisy, all for the love of you.." -Colt

sts60
2002-Oct-30, 06:43 PM
It could be easily argued that the real battle is not between Christianity and science, the problems Christians have is with a philosophy called Naturalism that is behind evolution, ...

You make evolution sound like a plot. It isn't. Do you have any evidence that Darwin conceived his ideas to "get back at God"? Even if he did, those ideas have stood, with improvements just like in any other science, on their own merits.

I'm a Christian. I'm not against Naturalism in science. Science only works if you assume natural explanations and try to find them. Attacks on "methodological naturalism" by William Bennett and others who ought to know better are the result of offended theology, not any concern for rational inquiry. Here's a few more concerns they should address while they try to inject ID, etc. into the science classroom:

"Naturalism is behind cosmology"
"Naturalism is behind plate tectonics"
"Naturalism is behind chemistry"
"Naturalism is behind [insert offending science here]..."

... which is difficult to argue because those who believe in Naturalism don't believe they are believing anything, or so it seems.

Some "believers" in naturalism (small 'n') are atheists, or agnostics. Some, like me, recognize its applicability to certain fields of inquiry - like science. Please don't try to lump us all together as some sort of cabal trying to take down the Big Guy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-10-30 13:45 ]</font>

overrated
2002-Oct-30, 11:17 PM
On 2002-10-29 23:09, nebularain wrote:
Tangents happen all the time on this Board. And, well, some of us actually like discussing theological implications with science.


I do, too. But it's frustrating sometimes when it feels like a substantial thread has been detoured into a realm that really has enough substance to be its own thread. I think the evolution vs. religion debate (and why there should or should not BE a debate) falls into that category.




I heard it explained that Darwin's father was a strong athiest and that Darwin's teacher was likewise atheistic, but he held onto his religious devotion - that is until his beloved daughter died. His grief turned to anger towards God for her death, and he then embraced the views of his father and his teacher and turned very anti-God, and thus had a reason to turn his scientific beliefs against a belief in God.


Nope. Here's a bbc biography of Darwin (a pretty good one--happened to be available online). He was raised Unitarian and educated Anglican. Then he went to divinity school, which is where he learned a lot of his botany (from clergy, no less). One of those teachers got him his job on the HMS Beagle. He did, however, turn agnostic after two of his 10 children died. I think he had 10, anyway. But he didn't have any sort of violent disagreement with religion, nor did he re-embrace Christianity on his deathbed (as someone else in this thread suggested).
Here's that link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm

stargirl
2002-Oct-31, 07:59 AM
Disclaimer:
The following is a very shortened version of the Judeo/Christian creation myth and is not presented as a claim for the only version for the creation of the universe, or even the correct version. It is merely an observation I made in my youth.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
He/She/It also created all the creatures that walked upon the land and swam in the seas.
God looked at that which He/She/It had created and said it was good.
God then decided something was missing and created man and woman.
However, soon after coming into being man/humanity rapidly started going down hill.
Contemplating the sorry state of affairs that have existed throughout human history
I canít help thinking about the billions and billions of stars in the universe.
And considering the number of new stars that are still being formed, or created if you prefer.
I can only assume that if there is a God He/She/It must believe in that old adage.
If at first you donít succeed, try, try again! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah, as I recall the assistant pastor conducting my confirmation class didnít find it amusing either.

Jovianboy
2002-Nov-15, 06:04 AM
On 2002-10-31 02:59, stargirl wrote:
Disclaimer:
The following is a very shortened version of the Judeo/Christian creation myth and is not presented as a claim for the only version for the creation of the universe, or even the correct version. It is merely an observation I made in my youth.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
He/She/It also created all the creatures that walked upon the land and swam in the seas.
God looked at that which He/She/It had created and said it was good.
God then decided something was missing and created man and woman.
However, soon after coming into being man/humanity rapidly started going down hill.
Contemplating the sorry state of affairs that have existed throughout human history
I canít help thinking about the billions and billions of stars in the universe.
And considering the number of new stars that are still being formed, or created if you prefer.
I can only assume that if there is a God He/She/It must believe in that old adage.
If at first you donít succeed, try, try again! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah, as I recall the assistant pastor conducting my confirmation class didnít find it amusing either.


I thinks it's excellent. Although different in its underlying philosophy, it reminds me of an old hypothesis I developed for fun one day when I was in my late teens (in other words it's not something I necessarily believed in). Goes like this:

God kick-started the Universe with the Big Bang, which eventually led to the formation of the Solar System and the evolution of humanity. But it did not lead to the formation of any other intelligent life, then or now. We are totally alone. God's purpose for his created humans? To progress to a point where we will populate the entire cosmos. Thought God to Him/Her/Itself: "Why create a billion trees when all I have to do is plant one seed on a single world?"

Like I said, I don't actually believe this. Although I think extraterrestrial intelligent life is probably very rare, I'm not ready to give up on its existence just yet.

And as for the question of purpose, it's an obviously anthropomorphic notion to assume the Universe even has one.

Oh well, it was a good hypothesis for a day's musing!

Cheers /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JB