|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 8/28/2003 5:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 12966
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html  |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 6:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 12966
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). As the above verse says, God was in the beginning (when the universe was created). But, beyond that, how does someone know if there really is a God? An effective way to demonstrate there is a God is to show the enormous amount of design at life's molecular level. Since there is a design there must be an intelligent designer. I had the privilege of attending a seminar put on by the head of the medical school at Johns Hopkins University. He is a world-renowned expert in DNA. As he pointed at a 30' x 30' slide of a large lake, he said that the chances of our getting DNA from primordial slime (theory of Darwinian evolution) via a lightning strike are the same as the chances of taking an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and one monkey's (by chance) typing out the entire series of Encyclopedia Britannica without error. The crowd behind me murmured at the prospect of this scientist's wiping out Darwin's theory in one fell swoop. The next slide was that of an ape and a man with the respective DNA code under each. The scientist showed a lot of similarities but also pointed to many differences. He said that the chance of one difference in ape DNA mutating to make man's DNA is the same chance of having an infinite number of typewriters with an infinite number of monkeys and one monkey's typing out the Encyclopedia Britannica. The next slide was a giant Bible opened at Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The Chairman of the Johns Hopkins University said that the only way we could have DNA is if there were a higher power to create DNA. I was exstatic. Darwin himself said that if it could be proved that anything in man could not be put together a little at a time then his theory would be wrong. As the head of Johns Hopkins University proved, DNA is irreducibly complex - which means if you don't have all of the DNA then it doesn't work. (For example, if you just have the plank of a mousetrap you are not going to catch any mice.) Irreducible complexity shows that there must be an Intelligent Designer. The only way there can be DNA is if there is a DNA maker. |
| Date: 8/28/2003 6:18:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Thanks for the reply! Your right! The complexities of the DNA code are incredible, irreducibly complex, as you put it. Nevertheless, please remember that this debate is a cosmological one, not biological. |
| Date: 8/28/2003 7:03:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 LC - I checked out the link you provided in your profile about the Morovian church and I was wondering if you could tell me where the church originated. I appreciated your comments about DNA, and would love to hear your views on the Big Bang. |
Date: 8/28/2003 8:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 48689
The Big Bang Theory~ God Spoke, and BANG, it happened! *hugs*  |
Date: 8/28/2003 8:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I lean more toward a Divine Creation, but not the Biblical version. I think there is too much to indicate random design.  |
| Date: 8/28/2003 9:04:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Ironically, the universe does exhibit extraordinary balance and complexity, which is diametrically opposed to what one would expect an immense explosion to produce. For example: when is the last time you saw a piano form itself from an explosion of wood and strings and metal? It wouldn't happen. Explosions cause chaos and disorder, not order and comlexity. |
Date: 8/28/2003 11:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Okay, I personally think that it went something like this..the Earth was forming its little pools and the primordial ooze was geeting started..the earth is being bombarded with comets and such. On the tails of these comets are organisms from another planet that happen to mix just right with things that Earth's surface already possessed and voila..the introduction of organisms with DNA that evolved over time and created all forms of life. It's not so far fetched..I mean take cooking for example..alot of recipes came about by accidentally mixing some ingredients that would never have been thought of as mixing well or creating anything edible..yet they do.  |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
remember the chaos theory from Jurassic Park.."life finds a way".. |
Date: 8/28/2003 11:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
i think the universe has been and always will be here because the scientist cant predict anything when it comes to the universe, they still cant properly predict the age of the earth, not to mention they are saying the univers is growing, well if it goes on forever how does it grow  |
|
Date: 8/29/2003 6:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 62146
I do not belive in the big bang thoery or that there was a creater. The universe has no begining or end in age wise. *Cosmic Freak*  |
Date: 8/29/2003 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
Ok, they say that everything came from an explosion, there was nothing, and then an explosion. Can someone explain to me, how can nothing blow up. |
|
Date: 8/29/2003 9:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62243
Well, DRKPTRS. . . . that seems to be a major issue for a lot of people. Where DID the universe come from. Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, was one of the first scientists to propose that the origins of the primordial matter for the Big Bang was nothing. He says: "In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both." Also: "So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness." This idea is now propagated and taught as the true origins of the Big Bang though it may defy common sense. Science seems to have gone from assuming that time is eternal (with no beginning, thus eliminating the need for a creator), to having an oscillating universe with energy always existing, to having our univeral origins as absolutely nothing. To me it seems that many scientists are just unwilling to admit to the existence of a force outside of time and space, a first cause (creator). |
Date: 8/29/2003 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
"unwilling to admit"....heh heh...yeah right. Funny, how people who have not the basics of REAL science, or any knowledge of the Scientific Method, fall for all this "scientific facts". Rubbish; sheer nonsense.  |
Date: 8/29/2003 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Nothing = potentiality, like that awesome few moments before a baby lets out that nerve shattering scream. Being a sort of Deist I believe that all energy is creative energy. Everything that makes up the universe, seen and unseen, is pure energy vibrating at different speeds and frequencies. All energy strives towards order. We are not apart from anything else in this universe. The phrase 'We are all One' is not just a new age phrase. It is the literal truth. We are the creators of this universe through thought and action. At the expense of putting some people's backs up, I would like to put forward this: That the Bible may indeed have been describing the true origin of the universe in Genesis. At the time the men wrote the Bible they didn't have the sophisticated language we have now to describe cosmic scientific phenomena. They put the knowledge into an allegorical form that could be understood at that time. It's just a thought right? Thought precedes action. Therefore thought is the creative potential.  |
| Date: 8/29/2003 10:49:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Koolade. Did you ever read George Berkely's "Conversation between Hylas and Philonous?" He shows something similar to what you say. Basically, if all matter is simply the sum of his qualities, and qualites exist only in the mind, then the whole objective universe of matter and energy, stars and atoms, exist only in the mind, as a construction of our conciousness, an edifice of the mind. It's really interesting. You should check it out. |
| Date: 8/29/2003 10:52:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Also, you say that "nothing = potentiality." Thats like saying that this theoized preexisting vacuum could be nothing more than a world with made of only potential energy. Which, matter or energy to create gravity, potential energy is essentially "nothing." So, if I understand what your saying, your statement could be rewritten as "nothing = nothing." |
Date: 8/29/2003 1:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62243
I'm sorry, let me rephrase my last reply (I must have not been awake when I typed that...). Anyways,you say that "nothing = potentiality." That's like saying that this theoized preexisting vacuum could be nothing more than a world made of only potential energy (representing "potentiality" . Without matter or energy to create gravity, potential energy is essentially "nothing." So, if I understand what your saying, your statement could be rewritten as "nothing = nothing." |
| Date: 8/29/2003 1:32:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Thinker. What exactly is your stance regarding the Big Bang, and why? |
| Date: 8/29/2003 2:22:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Cosmic Freak, are you saying that you believe the universe has always existed? If so, does that mean that you don't believe in the Big Bang, or that you do? |
|
Date: 8/29/2003 6:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 62146
I beliveing the univers has no begining or end in all scenses you can not travel to the end or start at the beginig the univers has no birth and will never die. There for I do not belive in the big bang thorey. I can not belive something started from nothing. the univers is a mysterious thing.Creatures that have atleast unstood there own solar sytem would be more advanced to figure out how the unverse started and we bearly know our own world and ourselves. How the univers started is going to be one of those things that is going to be argued about for centuries like what is god what is good and evil and so on and so forth. I think finding out how existance it self started will take awhil to come to a conclusion so right now we have got years of argueing to come. *Cosmic Freak* |
|
Date: 8/29/2003 8:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62243
Cosmic Freak. Your posistion on cosmology is one that MANY people choose when deciding not to believe that the universe could come from literally nowhere. The Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said this: To avoid the issue of creation (meaning a beginning to our universe) it would follow that no hydrogen could exist. He showed that throughout the universe the element hydrogen is steadily converted into helium, and this is a one way process; meaning that no hydrogen can be produced in any appreciable means by the breakdown of other elements. Again, it thus follows that had the universe existed forever, all hydrogen would have been changed to helium, and there would be no hydrogen for life to have evolved from (assuming an evolutionary stance). The observation that the universe is abundant with hydrogen is an important one. It shows that our world popped into existence sometime in the past. This and other problems puzzled philosophers (like Immanuel Kant) who assumed that the universe had existed forever, leaving philosophy open to the idea that a force outside of time and space could have set this world into motion. |
Date: 9/2/2003 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Cosmic Freak is correct. The universe had no beginning and will have no end. The amount of hydrogen can't be used to prove jack. The cute little proof you're using to disprove his theory is still based on the idea that time passes in a linear direction, whereas by cosmicfreak's assertion, time is simply an illusion. Hydrogen can exist in abundance because time is not really passing and the universe is not going in one direction. Even if the "known universe" at one point did pop into existance and will at some point apparently cease to exist, it still had to come from somewhere and has to go somewhere, so cosmic freak's definition of "the universe" includes the place where this one came from and will go to, and THAT universe is infinite. No beginning, no end, no time.  |
| Date: 9/2/2003 2:44:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Please keep in mind that our universe is governed and controlled by Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. I (and science) agree with you to a certain extent that time is illusionary. Einstein said that space is simply a possible arranged order of matter and objects. Likewise, time is simply a possible order of events. Energy in motion creates matter which, still in motion, creates events. Events create our concept of time. Think about it like this: the sense of time, like sense of color, is a form of perception. It’s how our mind understands a sequence of events and categorizes them according to the criterion of “earlier” and “later”, or “before” and “after.” Also, know that the element hydrogen in itself has no notion of time, just like a rock flying through space at a thousand miles per hour has no notion of time, or space, or motion, or existence. However, these objects in motion create our notion of time and are how we measure it. If in eternity past (assuming eternal time) there were no intelligent life forms, then there would be no use of measuring time. However, this isn’t to assume that all “events” happen simultaneously just because conscious life isn’t here to know it. Time is merely how we measure a series of events. So, if hydrogen is energy, and if energy is in motion, then there exists a series of successive motions (events). If events exist, then there exists “time.” Now we can follow this chain of proceedings back to the element hydrogen and discover that hydrogen does exist, and thus “time” exists. If “time” exists then the universe must have a beginning, for if it did not, there could be no hydrogen. *Ender* |
|
Date: 9/2/2003 4:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 22974
I’m back and with improved English to boot. Hey Ender, how are you. Hello Thinker, still as close minded as ever, eh. Anyway I was reading this and Ender makes a lot of really strong and good points. You see I would know seeing as I’m working on my master in theoretical physics at MIT this year. Now for all of you who like to listen to science types like myself the universe cannot be infinite for quite a few basic reasons. Ok, did anyone take High School Physics, well lets assume you haven’t, the first(well really the second because of the zero law) law of thermodynamics alone proves that the universe cannot be infinite, ah, hem : When heat is converted to work, the process is never totally efficient, an example would be when steam drives a piston, most of the heat energy in the steam is converted into mechanical energy however a small amount is wasted heating up the sides of the cylinder. Basically the first law of thermodynamics states that the work done must equal the amount of energy used plus the heat lost in the process. In this the heat basically flows downhill and eventually dissipates into radiation. Now, this coupled with the laws of The Law Conservation of Energy and The Law of Entropy, which state this respectively: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only it’s form can be change. Since heat flows downhill, everything that is within a closed system will eventually reach the same temperature. The particles inside of a system become disorderly(all parts of the system have different temperatures) , and it has been mathematically proven that the universe tends to lean towards order, not chaos, there are two ways the system may achieve balance: 1.) Energy can be inserted from an outside source (in the case of our universe the is no outside source) 2.) Everything can conform, or simply have the same temperature. If you didn’t know that don’t feel bad, your knowledge is only a reflection of the poor standers of public education in this country. Now to addresses the masses. O.K. number 62100, well your theory is very nice except for the fact that those microorganism had to come from somewhere, so you hypothesis only serves to make the argument more complex. Also, yes it is true that almost all of the recipes that exist were discovered by accident. However, someone discovered them, they didn’t make themselves. O.K. Thinker, Cosmic Freak, Slappy White; Enders theory has a lot weight, you see there are two forces when you think of the hydrogen conversion problem. Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission. Nuclear Fusion takes place inside of stars it is the process in which atoms are fused by the extreme heat cause by the pressure of the density inside a star. It converts hydrogen into helium, helium in to iron, iron to lead, and in a few Super Giants, lead into uranium. Then there is Nuclear Fission on the other hand is the exact opposite. In fission atoms are split, does the phrase “splitting the atom” come to mind? Anyway fission does not under any circumstances occur naturally in nature. So, logically after a long time, there would be no helium left in the universe. Not only that, but logically a majority of all the matter in the universe would be lead, not Hydrogen. Oh, Sir Frederick Hoyle is a strident atheist and one of the most respected astronomers of the modern age. Thinker what you say couldn’t be farther from the truth, you see Ender is also working on his masters in physics this year and he did quite wheel on his mid-terms and finals in the last two years. If anyone doesn’t know what they are talking about it would be you seeing as you have no scientific training and research into the “discoveries” of crackpots. No, I am not a creationist, or a Christian. I however know what I am talking about and have the knowledge to back it up. Hiro Mochizuki. |
| Date: 9/2/2003 4:06:00 PM From Authorid: 22974 Ender retype my reply for me and get rid of those “s O.K. |
|
Date: 9/3/2003 1:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Poor classical physicists trying with all their might to feel useful in this quantum universe of ours. Conservation of energy itself states pretty blatently that the universe is infinite, not dimensionally, but chronologically, I guess you could say. If energy cannot be created, there was no "beginning" to the universe. Since energy cannot be destroyed, there can be no end. As far as actual size goes, the known universe is already so much larger than any humanely conceivable notion of infinity, we can pretty much assume, for most intents and purposes, that it's infinitely large as well. |
|
Date: 9/3/2003 6:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
LOL@Slappywhite! nice reply. |
|
Date: 9/5/2003 2:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62243
Hey. I'm sorry I haven't replied for a while - i've been having a lot of trouble w/ my password. Anyways....SlappyWhite. I feel like this is turning into a bit of an argument about time rather than a debate, and that's what i'm trying to avoid. However, I still want you to understand the implications of my comments. The universe cannot be inifite in time for a few different reasons: (1)because of the hydrogen problem i've presented above (which unless the law of conservation on energy was broken, the universe cannot have existed forever). (2) (And this is a new point) Until the early years of the twentieth century, it was thought in the scientific community, that the universe was essentially constant in time, never ending and never beginning. Stephen Hawking says this: "It might have existed for an infinite time, but that seems to lead to absurd conclusions. If stars had been radiating for an infinite time (if they had been forming and dying forever), they would have heated up the universe to their temperature. Even at night, the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, because every line of sight would end either on a sttar or on a cloud of dust that had been heated up until it was as hot as the stars. The observation that we have all made, that the sky at night is dark, is very important. It implies that the universe cannot have existed forever in the state we see today." Basically, he means, that if the universe had existed forever, and all energy therein, then throughout an infinite time, there would have been an infinite amount of stars that would have formed, and light from them would have had an infinite time to reach us. Thus the entire night sky would be as bright as the sun. Since this is obviously not so, then the universe is finite in time (remember when I showed that anywhere matter exists, time exists). (3) Another reason why the universe could not have existed forever is the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increasing entropy and decay. It states that in every physical process in this universe, some energy becomes less available. Energy is lost. Things die, they decay, and ultimately turn to complete disorder. If the universe is dying, it logically implies that the universe had a birth. (4)Keep in mind that the Standard Model of the universe's origins, the BB theory, does teach that the energy in our universe came from nowhere, thus, seemingly violating the law of Conservation of energy. The last point I want to make is that there is no reason that is scientifically or philosophically necessary to point to the necessity of an infinitely large universe (in size). In fact, combined with the observation of an expanding universe, common sense would tell us that the universe has a physical boundary, center, and edge (many scientists, however, like to steer clear of an idea such as this - one that opens the opportunity for questions such as "Well, then what's beyond THAT?" |
|
Date: 9/5/2003 2:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to each of your points. Let's leave it at that we obviously have very different views and definitions on concepts such as "the universe" and "time" and "infinity". You take the currently popular in the world of science view and I take the view that will become the currently popular view within the next 20 years and I'm fine with that. |
|
Date: 9/5/2003 3:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
The current fad in creationism is the so-called "intelligent design" theory, which states that the universe, or elements within it, bear signs of requiring intelligent design, rather than being able to have come into effect through impersonal processes of evolution. The best response to that claim is Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." Intelligent design, as championed by Behe and Dembski, is also in essence a 'negative' theory. It does not so much put forward CONCRETE principles and explanations, a reasoned case of its OWN, but relies on supposedly DISCREDITING evolution as an adequate explanation, thinking to emerge from the ruins as the ONLY alternative. But that claim of 'discrediting' is largely an illusion of their own making, as scientists like Dawkins have demonstrated. Intelligent design is merely the most recent version of the "god of the gaps" argument—what science has not yet explained , the creationists claim must require the hand of a Deity. (We can't explain the evolution of the eye? Yep, Must be a God who did it.) *rolls eyes* But those 'gaps' have been shrinking from the time of Descartes, and the gaps in science's explanation of how certain things can have evolved without a designer are shrinking as well. Soon the intelligent design position will likewise be squeezed out. A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of MISUNDERSTANDINGS that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that THEIR understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't even understand the theory of evolution.) Someone who doesn't even KNOW basic science; or don't know what the scientific method is, will read all the "intelligent design" gobbaly gook, mumbo-jumbo, "scientific sounding" arguments and go: "Yeah, that sounds good" and swallow it hook-line-and-sinker. The CREATIONIST "scientist" or Clergy KNOW VERY WELL that their already predisposed gullible believers will not check out the facts. |
|
Date: 9/5/2003 3:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Do you know what the fallacy of SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE is? When true and relevant information is left out for any reason, the fallacy called Suppressed Evidence is committed. Because of the absence of important facts, this fallacy is sometimes called "Evading the Facts." The fallacy of Suppressed Evidence is categorized as a Fallacy of Presumption because it creates the presumption that the true premises are COMPLETE. It is also sometimes called Unstated Premises or referred to by the Latin phrase Audiatur et altera pars, which means "let us hear the other side." Perhaps the most common use of the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence is in advertising. Most marketing campaigns will present really great information about a product, but will also ignore problematic or bad information. They will ONLY show you THEIR side; THEIR data and only what they WANT you to see. We sometimes see this fallacy committed in scientific research whenever someone focuses on evidence which supports THEIR hypothesis but ignores data which WOULD tend to disconfirm it. This is why it is important that all experiments can be replicated by others and that the information about how the experiments were conducted be released. Other researchers might catch the data which was originally ignored. Creationism is a good place to find fallacies of Suppressed Evidence. There are quite a few cases where creationist arguments simply ignore evidence relevant to their claims, but which would cause them problems. For example, when explaining how a "Great Flood" would explain the fossil record: 4. As the water level began to rise, the more advanced creatures would move to higher ground for safety, but more primitive creatures would not do so. This is why you find less complex creatures further down in the fossil record, and human fossils near the top. All sorts of important things are ignored here, for example the fact that marine life would have benefitted from such a flood and the would not be found layered in such a way for those reasons. Creationists leave out all sorts of EVIDENCE because they KNOW that the believers will not seek out REAL scientists works and writings; or track down the source of an alleged quote, or check the credibility of an author. That whole thing that Liquid Chicken posted up there is a GREAT EXAMPLE. She took that from a creationist website, and in no way does she even understand what it IS saying. She didn't even proof read it before hitting submit, because it says something about attending a lecture at John Hopkins? She doesn't say if it is "HER" that went? WHO? What is the name of the person who said what? References? SOURCE? We can't go and check it out. She didn't realize it but she just did an excellent job of demonstrating exactly what creationists do and how they operate. |
|
Date: 9/5/2003 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
You can avoid committing the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence by being careful with regard to any research you do on a topic. If you are going to defend a proposition, you should make an attempt to find CONTRADICTORY evidence, not simply evidence which supports your presupposition and beliefs. By doing this, you are more likely to avoid missing crucial data and it is less likely that anyone can reasonably accuse you of committing this fallacy. YOU need to KNOW (and understand!) exactly what the REAL scientific community is saying; and whether the author, scientist, etc. IS credible; whether he/she is really who they CLAIM, or the creationist CLAIMS them to be. This is very very important. Some of the wild hair claims on creation websites, books, are so far out there, and have no basis whatsoever in truth; and certainly nothing to do with real science or the scientific method. Just assumptions, conclusions, and assertions in an attempt to "shock-and-awe" and overwhelm and confuse; THUS making it look like they know what they are talking about. |
| Date: 9/5/2003 6:36:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Thinker. Are you accusing me of something? I don't understand. Regardless, I would love to hear your views on cosmology and the origin of the universe if you'd like to share. So feel free. *Ender* |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.totallyup.com
demo.totallyon.com
demo.starlightmysteries.com
demo.blognexus.org
demo.allaboutmysteries.com
demo.crywithme.com
demo.make-money-home-based-businesses.com
demo.internetmysteries.com
demo.hobbyhobbit.com
demo.realmysteries.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
