a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

The flaw of this whole argument is that a "GOD" was responsible for all this.

There is no proof that God created matter or energy. It is more likely that some unknown force or unknown event, beyond our comprehension,occurred that set in motion a chain of events that created the universe.

But to say "God" did it, and to only have faith to back it up, is not rational.

I agree, matter and energy do not simply exist out of nothingness. Something can't just exist without ever having an origin.

But to say some omnipotent being, God, created it all is just a cop-out.

I call it a cop-out because you can't believe that all things have some sort of origin without also saying the God HIMSELF must have some sort of creator.

And then if you believe that, then every creator MUST have a creator, going back to infinity.

Whatever the ultimate source of all things that exist in our universe is, it's likely we'll never find out what it is or even comprehend it if it was discovered.

To that end, the "God" figure that many believe in can't possibly account for the origin of the universe, because that "God" figure himself woudl also need an origin, and so would all his predecessors.

Netherscourge

We've already been through that argument. Since God is outside Time, and outside space (having created both during the Big Bang), we can't assume that God has to go by the Cause and Effect law that rules our Universe. God doesn't need a creator, we just can't comprehend the concept of something existing in a timeless reality (which as we've been discussing in this thread, Light shares that property)

If we're dealing only with facts, then we must only accept that which can exist or be proven according to a set of scientific rules and parameters.

This thread is supposing that there is scientific proof that God exists - well, if he exists outside of the physics and rules of the known universe, then he can't possibly exist scientifically.

"God", is nothing but a unobservable hypothesis, which can never be proven or even tested. It's simply an idea made up for the sake of argument.

That I will agree with. The closest science can come to "proving" the existence of some sort of Higher Power, is if it eventually discovers exactly where subjective experience and self-aware consciousness comes from. If it truly is generated in the brain through some complex biochemical process, then that's that. But if it's found to be something that is transmitted through the brain and is actually fundamental in nature, then it's going to change everything about how we view the Universe. God is untestable and unobservable, except through his Creation, which even then we can only understand a small fraction. Goes back to my analogy, of the screw in a computer trying to understand how the computer works, and how it was built. We can get close, but we'll never know for sure. Our personal lives here on Earth probably don't serve much of a higher purpose. We're just tiny cogs in an unfathomably complex and vast system that simply creates, sustains, and evolves the Universe.

And the original OP was nothing but a copy/paste from some other website that the TC said he didn't even really agree with, so this thread technically ISN'T purporting to have scientific evidence. God is unknowable until we die, so until then we all should be focusing more on the experience of living and enjoying our time here rather than trying to answer questions we can't answer and know things that obviously isn't meant for us to know here. If it was God's will that we all have complete understanding then we would, but that would defeat the experience of living in physicality.

It is unfortunate how so many people, religious and non-religious alike, are so focused on proving and disproving the literal events in these holy texts, and not concentrating on the fact they garner far greater worth as psychological exercises.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

It is unfortunate how so many people, religious and non-religious alike, are so focused on proving and disproving the literal events in these holy texts, and not concentrating on the fact they garner far greater worth as psychological exercises.

xaos

You know how funny that sounds coming from the devil? :P

The bible is my favourite fictional novel.MisturKite

[QUOTE="MisturKite"]The bible is my favourite fictional novel.tocool340

As I've said multiple times in this thread already, the best description you could probably use would be Historical Fiction with a dash of fantasy/adventure just for good measure.

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="MisturKite"]The bible is my favourite fictional novel.MystikFollower

As I've said multiple times in this thread already, the best description you could probably use would be Historical Fiction with a dash of fantasy/adventure just for good measure.

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="MisturKite"]The bible is my favourite fictional novel.MystikFollower

As I've said multiple times in this thread already, the best description you could probably use would be Historical Fiction with a dash of fantasy/adventure just for good measure.

Metaphorical Fiction is what I would call the bible - all bibles and holy books, to be quite frank, are just metaphorical fiction.

I would would not use Historical Fiction to classify the bible, since it's more biographical then chronological.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] I think the correct term is science fiction. Correct me if I'm wrong...Netherscourge

As I've said multiple times in this thread already, the best description you could probably use would be Historical Fiction with a dash of fantasy/adventure just for good measure.

Metaphorical Fiction is what I would call the bible - all bibles and holy books, to be quite frank, are just metaphorical fiction.

I would would not use Historical Fiction to classify the bible, since it's more biographical then chronological.

Well, considering how many different authors it has, and the huge period of time in which it was written, the Bible has plenty of accurate historical accounts, along with metaphorical stories, misinterpretations, probably a few embellishments in certain areas, but the entire thing is not metaphorical by any means. Plenty of metaphor, but plenty of authenticated historical events as well.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

It is unfortunate how so many people, religious and non-religious alike, are so focused on proving and disproving the literal events in these holy texts, and not concentrating on the fact they garner far greater worth as psychological exercises.

MystikFollower

You know how funny that sounds coming from the devil? :P

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Karen Armstrong, a scholar of comparative religion, has described it as a form of idolatry, treating the text as being more sacred than the meaning of the text. For me, I've always thought that the literal truth or falsehood of the bible or any body of sacred instruction is far secondary to the transcendent "Truth" it points to.xaos

You know how funny that sounds coming from the devil? :P

Yeah everybody! Take heed from Xao's example. All you have to do to get dominion over Earth is to lead a rebellion against God. Who's in? :P

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Please, don't even go there. There are numerous stories in the Bible that historians don't even attempt to question. Those in themselves make the book nonfiction.

EDIT- Nonfiction when read in context, as a whole, and not interpreted to you by the Catholic Church and most mainstream religions. I'm not going to stand by and say that all of the mainsteam interpretations about what's in the Bible are correct. Simply that everything in the book did, from some perspective, happen.

foxhound_fox

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

hartsickdiscipl

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

hartsickdiscipl

Many people would not read the bible at all. What are we going to find soon?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Mankind will most likely never ever reach any where close to the speed of light in a vehicle or projectile.. The energy alone is staggering to what it takes.. Literally it would take all the energy the world produces in a week to get something the mass of a bowling ball to go anywhere near that speed.. Furthermore we have things like exploding super novas that give off more energy then we can possibly believe not able to break such barriers.. The only thing that does break any barriers is a black hole, in having a gravity acceleration thats faster then the speed of light, but thats a tear in reality.

MystikFollower

One of the most interesting theories that I've read about involves causing the expansion and contraction of dark energy around a vessel. By doing that, you're changing the very fabric of space around the craft.. and changing our whole perception of "reality" in the process. Dark energy is a physical reality in our universe, and part of what supposedly keeps us from going faster than light. It's part of the very fabric of space. Change the fabric, and you change the rules. Granted, it would take an incredible amount of energy, but it's not impossible, at least in theory.

I've read about that theory and it actually has a solid foundation, though we are still VERY far from even beginning to develop a vehicle that can shrink and expand space faster than light. It's probably the only way we'll be able to effectively break the laws of physics without actually breaking them.

.. It would require the power of a super nova.. Mankind will never harnass that.. Furthermore going those speeds, if you run intoa pebble going those speeds its going to hit with the force of a atomic bomb.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

GabuEx

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

I would guess that he may be referring to Ezekiel and his "ascension" in a large wheeled craft. And in the Book of Enoch (which was removed from the Bible at the Council of Nicea I believe) in which he is taken by celestial beings and taught the secrets of the Universe. Those stories could be interpreted (and have been by some) to be accounts of an alien abduction. I'm certain if humans in that day and age had encountered extra terrestrials with highly advanced technology, they'd see it as something supernatural and divine.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

GabuEx

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

Angels coming down from heaven and mating with human women, Noah being given specific dimensions and instructions on how to build a nearly unsinkable (as tested by modern methods) boat that nobody else in the world would even come close to matching for 2000 more years, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the Isrealites being nourished with manna while in the desert, the incredible powers that the Ark of the Covenant was said to have, the Walls of Jericho falling, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the powers that Jesus was said to have, his resurrection, etc..

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

One of the most interesting theories that I've read about involves causing the expansion and contraction of dark energy around a vessel. By doing that, you're changing the very fabric of space around the craft.. and changing our whole perception of "reality" in the process. Dark energy is a physical reality in our universe, and part of what supposedly keeps us from going faster than light. It's part of the very fabric of space. Change the fabric, and you change the rules. Granted, it would take an incredible amount of energy, but it's not impossible, at least in theory.

sSubZerOo

I've read about that theory and it actually has a solid foundation, though we are still VERY far from even beginning to develop a vehicle that can shrink and expand space faster than light. It's probably the only way we'll be able to effectively break the laws of physics without actually breaking them.

.. It would require the power of a super nova.. Mankind will never harnass that.. Furthermore going those speeds, if you run intoa pebble going those speeds its going to hit with the force of a atomic bomb.

In theory it's not impossible though. We would certainly have to develop some form of shielding for the pebble problem, and until we come up with different ways of creating large amounts of energy then yes, it reams in the realm of improbability.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

MystikFollower

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

I would guess that he may be referring to Ezekiel and his "ascension" in a large wheeled craft. And in the Book of Enoch (which was removed from the Bible at the Council of Nicea I believe) in which he is taken by celestial beings and taught the secrets of the Universe. Those stories could be interpreted (and have been by some) to be accounts of an alien abduction. I'm certain if humans in that day and age had encountered extra terrestrials with highly advanced technology, they'd see it as something supernatural and divine.

Yes, those are other examples. The Book of Enoch is a HELL of a wild read.

Yes, those are other examples. The Book of Enoch is a HELL of a wild read.

hartsickdiscipl

Good to know you enjoyed it. Is there a specific reason why you believe in the Bible?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, those are other examples. The Book of Enoch is a HELL of a wild read.

bloodling

Good to know you enjoyed it. Is there a specific reason why you believe in the Bible?

Because it makes alot more sense to me than anything else I've read. It also helps give my life some meaning, in my view.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I agree that the main everyday use for the Bible is to learn moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons from it that we can apply in our own lives. The purpose of the book isn't just to recount history, you have my total agreement on that. I do, however, think that many parts of the book talk about some pretty wild things happening that could be interpreted as extraterrestrial intervention. Of course, most people will either read those sections and view them either as fiction, or as attributing supernatural traits to naturally-occurring events. I think we'll find out fairly soon which of those is true.

hartsickdiscipl

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

Angels coming down from heaven and mating with human women, Noah being given specific dimensions and instructions on how to build a nearly unsinkable (as tested by modern methods) boat that nobody else in the world would even come close to matching for 2000 more years, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the Isrealites being nourished with manna while in the desert, the incredible powers that the Ark of the Covenant was said to have, the Walls of Jericho falling, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the powers that Jesus was said to have, his resurrection, etc..

You can't think of any other explanation for these things than alien intervention?

I mean to give one example, the ten plagues of Egypt were almost certainly fallout from a volcanic eruption (the events basically perfectly match up with what we've observed from volcanic eruptions), and the parting of the waters was likely due to an incoming tsunami created from the seismic activity accompanying this eruption - tsunamis cause waters to recede significantly before their arrival.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, those are other examples. The Book of Enoch is a HELL of a wild read.

hartsickdiscipl

Good to know you enjoyed it. Is there a specific reason why you believe in the Bible?

Because it makes alot more sense to me than anything else I've read. It also helps give my life some meaning, in my view.

I agree that there's a lot of religions and atheist theories that don't make much sense if taken separately. I believe in natural reincarnation.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Good to know you enjoyed it. Is there a specific reason why you believe in the Bible?

bloodling

Because it makes alot more sense to me than anything else I've read. It also helps give my life some meaning, in my view.

I agree that there's a lot of religions and atheist theories that don't make much sense if taken separately. I believe in natural reincarnation.

I've always liked that idea. It doesn't even necessarily mean there's a God, just cause we have a soul. For all we know the soul could be just another natural part of existence that we don't know or understand as of yet and we just continually go through cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. I don't know if I believe it, but I like the idea definitely.

There's nothing scientific in this "proof" (lol), you're just taking things out of their contextes.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What "wild things" are we specifically talking about here?

GabuEx

Angels coming down from heaven and mating with human women, Noah being given specific dimensions and instructions on how to build a nearly unsinkable (as tested by modern methods) boat that nobody else in the world would even come close to matching for 2000 more years, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the Isrealites being nourished with manna while in the desert, the incredible powers that the Ark of the Covenant was said to have, the Walls of Jericho falling, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the powers that Jesus was said to have, his resurrection, etc..

You can't think of any other explanation for these things than alien intervention?

I mean to give one example, the ten plagues of Egypt were almost certainly fallout from a volcanic eruption (the events basically perfectly match up with what we've observed from volcanic eruptions), and the parting of the waters was likely due to an incoming tsunami created from the seismic activity accompanying this eruption - tsunamis cause waters to recede significantly before their arrival.

So the volcanic fallout killed off just the firstborn of Egypt, nobody else? And the lice, and the festering boils on just Egyptians, and the.. need I go on? There are so many holes in that theory I can't even begin to see how anybody could believe that.

As for the parting of the Red Sea- A tsunami so perfectly-timed, and so controlled that thousands (if not millions) of people could cross the sea, and then have the waters destroy the pursuing army behind them? Just in time, just like that? The likelihood of those things working out so perfectly due to a tsunami is much less likely than some outside force controlling the events.

Face it, Science, you will one day bow before your Creator, but then it will already be too late.ZCatan

One day you will be an atheist... After reincarnating!

[QUOTE="ZCatan"] Face it, Science, you will one day bow before your Creator, but then it will already be too late.bloodling

One day you will be an atheist... After reincarnating!

So the volcanic fallout killed off just the firstborn of Egypt, nobody else? And the lice, and the festering boils on just Egyptians, and the.. need I go on? There are so many holes in that theory I can't even begin to see how anybody could believe that.

hartsickdiscipl

You don't even know what the basis of this theory is or what arguments there are in its favor and you're already prepared to discard it?

No offense, but you don't exactly sound terribly open to new ideas.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="ZCatan"] Face it, Science, you will one day bow before your Creator, but then it will already be too late.ZCatan

One day you will be an atheist... After reincarnating!

Have fun in heaven. I'll enjoy my infinite lives.

And, you know, when you get down to the root of the issue, the Big Bang Theory has a few major sinkholes in it. For example, where did the compact ball of matter come from which exploded into everything we see? Where did the explosive force come from that blew up the compact ball of matter? Did the compact ball of matter just suddenly appear, or was it always there? If you say it was always there, then why do you reject the idea that there is an eternal God who was always there? Please, someone respond.ZCatan

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the singularity other than the evidence indicates that it existed. That evidence includes such phenomena as the redshifting of all distant celestial objects, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the distribution of elements in the universe. Science is set up such that it does not need to have all of the answers to have some of the answers.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So the volcanic fallout killed off just the firstborn of Egypt, nobody else? And the lice, and the festering boils on just Egyptians, and the.. need I go on? There are so many holes in that theory I can't even begin to see how anybody could believe that.

GabuEx

You don't even know what the basis of this theory is or what arguments there are in its favor and you're already prepared to discard it?

No offense, but you don't exactly sound terribly to new ideas.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

One day you will be an atheist... After reincarnating!

bloodling

Have fun in heaven. I'll enjoy my infinite lives.

If he has found the truth, and he believes that it is the truth, and he knows that it is the truth, then why would he stray from it? And you yourself don't sound too terribly open to new ideas, because you apparently reject the idea that the 10 Plagues of Egypt were really 10 Plagues, thus rejecting the Bible. We stand for our beliefs just as adamantly as you stand for yours. We Christians get tired of being called "closed minded" when our accusers are equally closed minded.ZCatan

Um, I'm not terribly open to new ideas because I have arrived at a conclusion?

I'm not quite sure I understand the connection.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]And, you know, when you get down to the root of the issue, the Big Bang Theory has a few major sinkholes in it. For example, where did the compact ball of matter come from which exploded into everything we see? Where did the explosive force come from that blew up the compact ball of matter? Did the compact ball of matter just suddenly appear, or was it always there? If you say it was always there, then why do you reject the idea that there is an eternal God who was always there? Please, someone respond.GabuEx

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the singularity other than the evidence indicates that it existed. That evidence includes such phenomena as the redshifting of all distant celestial objects, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the distribution of elements in the universe. Science is set up such that it does not need to have all of the answers to have some of the answers.

Yeah you do that. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying eternal life in Heaven with God my Creator.ZCatan

Only you and him?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So the volcanic fallout killed off just the firstborn of Egypt, nobody else? And the lice, and the festering boils on just Egyptians, and the.. need I go on? There are so many holes in that theory I can't even begin to see how anybody could believe that.

ZCatan

You don't even know what the basis of this theory is or what arguments there are in its favor and you're already prepared to discard it?

No offense, but you don't exactly sound terribly to new ideas.

You have a point, but science is the study and observation of the world around us, and how it works through experimentation and data gathering. When the scientific and physical evidence mounts for ideas that go against what a 2,000 year old book says, many Christians are way to quick to just completely disregard it, even if the evidence is staring you right in the face. The Bible has no true evidence, nor does the existence of any Higher power. I have faith that there IS some sort of Higher power, but I don't believe humanity has even come close to understanding what that power is, it's purpose, and it's true motives in creating all this. By it's very nature science is completely open to new ideas, cause that is the only way it progresses. Through further study, asking questions, and trying new ideas. A lot of times, religion is quite the opposite, clinging to ancient ideals and understandings that in many cases go against scientific observation of the physical world we experience.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]If he has found the truth, and he believes that it is the truth, and he knows that it is the truth, then why would he stray from it? And you yourself don't sound too terribly open to new ideas, because you apparently reject the idea that the 10 Plagues of Egypt were really 10 Plagues, thus rejecting the Bible. We stand for our beliefs just as adamantly as you stand for yours. We Christians get tired of being called "closed minded" when our accusers are equally closed minded.GabuEx

Um, I'm not terribly open to new ideas because I have arrived at a conclusion?

I'm not quite sure I understand the connection.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]And, you know, when you get down to the root of the issue, the Big Bang Theory has a few major sinkholes in it. For example, where did the compact ball of matter come from which exploded into everything we see? Where did the explosive force come from that blew up the compact ball of matter? Did the compact ball of matter just suddenly appear, or was it always there? If you say it was always there, then why do you reject the idea that there is an eternal God who was always there? Please, someone respond.ZCatan

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the singularity other than the evidence indicates that it existed. That evidence includes such phenomena as the redshifting of all distant celestial objects, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the distribution of elements in the universe. Science is set up such that it does not need to have all of the answers to have some of the answers.

There you go.

I don't get the notion of science and religion not getting along. This isn't in every religion and most scientists exlude the possibility of things happening by coincidence. Trees in woods don't come together by themselves and turn into furniture. Just as man grows trees and makes furniture out of them, some greater power has and is making all what we see around us. Whether religions today are calling to believe in that power or not is an entirely different subject.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]Yeah you do that. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying eternal life in Heaven with God my Creator.bloodling

Only you and him?

Theories are broad generalizations that can explain why phenomena occur. But if a Theory, such as the Big Bang one, cannot itself be explained by the Laws of Nature, then how on Earth can it be credible? Please, man, you have to understand: Matter cannot come from non-matter. Period! It completely violates the laws of physics! Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!ZCatan

Um, yes, and the Big Bang Theory does not say that matter came from non-matter. The Big Bang Theory does not even discuss where the singularity came from. It simply says that the evidence indicates that it existed. I am now basically repeating word-for-word the post to which you replied. Did you read it? :?

Okay, so you've drawn your own conclusions. So have we. So, why do you taunt us by saying that we are not open to new ideas, when you yourself are the same? (Please, I don't want this to escalate into a bitter argument.)ZCatan

What in the world are you talking about?

My comment was in reference to the fact that he was prepared to discard an idea without even making the slightest effort to learn about its merits. It had nothing to do with his conclusions.

I skimmed it.

I don't care for religions, and think that it's impossible to prove a God exists until he himself proves it.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You don't even know what the basis of this theory is or what arguments there are in its favor and you're already prepared to discard it?

No offense, but you don't exactly sound terribly to new ideas.

MystikFollower

You have a point, but science is the study and observation of the world around us, and how it works through experimentation and data gathering. When the scientific and physical evidence mounts for ideas that go against what a 2,000 year old book says, many Christians are way to quick to just completely disregard it, even if the evidence is staring you right in the face. The Bible has no true evidence, nor does the existence of any Higher power. I have faith that there IS some sort of Higher power, but I don't believe humanity has even come close to understanding what that power is, it's purpose, and it's true motives in creating all this. By it's very nature science is completely open to new ideas, cause that is the only way it progresses. Through further study, asking questions, and trying new ideas. A lot of times, religion is quite the opposite, clinging to ancient ideals and understandings that in many cases go against scientific observation of the physical world we experience.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So the volcanic fallout killed off just the firstborn of Egypt, nobody else? And the lice, and the festering boils on just Egyptians, and the.. need I go on? There are so many holes in that theory I can't even begin to see how anybody could believe that.

GabuEx

You don't even know what the basis of this theory is or what arguments there are in its favor and you're already prepared to discard it?

No offense, but you don't exactly sound terribly open to new ideas.

The basis for a theory that explains how a volcanic eruption killed off just the firstborn and nobody else? How a volcano caused an excess of lice or a skin disease confined to Egyptians?

Please, do share.

There you go.

I don't get the notion of science and religion not getting along. This isn't in every religion and most scientists exlude the possibility of things happening by coincidence. Trees in woods don't come together by themselves and turn into furniture. Just as man grows trees and makes furniture out of them, some greater power has and is making all what we see around us. Whether religions today are calling to believe in that power or not is an entirely different subject.

gamingqueen

That's the main reason religion and science are in constant collision.

You don't get to say something invented imposes order over empirically proved theories. It's a paradox.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

It's not. There are many, many forms of radiometric dating. There's an entire cIass of dating techniques known as isochron dating that is used to date rocks based on minerals within those rocks, and these techniques have the added benefit as well that they are unaffected both by contamination and by initial quanties of the child element produced by the radioactive decay. Many of these are accurate up to billions of years in the past due to the very, very slow decay of the elements involved.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Why are we as humans not evolving? And I'm not talking about just genetic evolution. If you're going to say evolution is a fact, then you must apply ever aspect of it to a subject.

GabuEx

What are you talking about, then? I'm not sure I understand, as I did illustrate two instances of human evolution (melanin levels in the skin and the alleles for sickle-cell disease). And evolution as spoken of in biology is genetic evolution; anything else is beyond the scope of biology.

I do believe evolution is true to an extent. I just don't thing it can be applied to the origin of life. You pointed out all the useless genetic "stuff"(for lack of a better word) that we have in us. I think that is merely the product of benign mutations at work.

KH-mixerX

But the thing there is that there's so much junk DNA. If we were all created only a short while ago, there's no way that we'd have already accumulated as much junk DNA as we have today. I mean some animals, such as the pufferfish, have junk DNA make up as much as 90% of their total DNA.

We have. I presented an example in the form ofring species. Ring species is the situation where animals in the same species are separated by geographical boundaries. The animals at each boundary can interbreed fine; however, the animals at the start and end cannot. This is textbook speciation: you take two groups of the same species, put them in different environments, and slowly but surely natural selection plus mutations will produce two separate species no longer capable of interbreeding.

That isn't a sufficient example. I'm specifically referring to an animal evolving into an entirely new animal over a long period of time. Whether we've had enough time yet to witness it or not is irrelevant. Until it is documented properly, evolution as a whole should not be as widely accepted as it is. It's not right to simply witness evolution to an extent, then just assume that the rest is true as well. Evolution should have a proper counterweight that is fairly represented until it is an undoubtedly proven fact. And might I add that Intelligent Design is not represented fairly. It holds much more water than is let on by the scientific community. Most of it is simply suppressed. Research some of Dr. Robert Genty's work on the Young Earth theory. He actually had a lawsuit against the Los Alamos National Laboratory personnel fordeleting histen scientific paperson cosmology and astrophysics from their U. S. government sponsored e-print archive, prior to their scheduled release on the Internet on the evenings of 2/28/01 and 3/5/01.

________________

MiscIassifications and hoaxes happen. Humans aren't perfect; that's just a fact of life. However, every single one of the miscIassifications and hoaxes was rectified and fixed by scientists. That's the way science works; if something doesn't fit into our knowledge base, then scientists will work to figure out what's going on until we find out what does fit. Modern science is very good both at keeping out falsehoods and at quickly removing falsehoods that happened to find their way in.

That still doesn't explain why we have yet to find an irrefutable "missing link." I would argue that it's because there is no such thing. The examples I've provided were all at one time raised on a pedestal as proof of our missing ancestry. But each one was eventually quietly phased out because of new discoveries that completely shattered the original argument.

________________

What are you talking about, then? I'm not sure I understand, as I did illustrate two instances of human evolution (melanin levels in the skin and the alleles for sickle-cell disease). And evolution as spoken of in biology is genetic evolution; anything else is beyond the scope of biology.

The key word here is "micro." Those are instances of micro evolution. Melanin levels in the skin and the alleles for sickle-cell disease. I'm talking about actually physical mutations on the macro level. It is simply impossible that we as humans should look anatomically identical as we did since our beginning till now according to evolution. And the tool/creativity adaptation argument is insufficient.

________________

But the thing there is that there's somuchjunk DNA. If we were all created only a short while ago, there's no way that we'd have already accumulated as much junk DNA as we have today. I mean some animals, such as the pufferfish, have junk DNA make up as much as 90% of their total DNA.

Who is to say that we couldn't have accumulated that much junk DNA? Based on what we know about evolution(whether it is valid as a theory or not), we simply don't know enough about it yet to state with 100% accuracy that it is impossible to have accumulated that much junk DNA. We can argue all day on how (im)possible it is, the simple truth of the matter is that we just don't know enough yet to say with 100% accuracy either way.

EDIT: For some reason, every time I quote you, it screws up. I didn't mess with the code at all though. Why is this happening? And it won't let me quote your entire post either.

There you go.

I don't get the notion of science and religion not getting along. This isn't in every religion and most scientists exlude the possibility of things happening by coincidence. Trees in woods don't come together by themselves and turn into furniture. Just as man grows trees and makes furniture out of them, some greater power has and is making all what we see around us. Whether religions today are calling to believe in that power or not is an entirely different subject.

gamingqueen

So you're saying god made every single animal including extinct animals and he also designed nice trees but we can't see them now because they're extinct now. I don't see that as a good argument, personally.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]Theories are broad generalizations that can explain why phenomena occur. But if a Theory, such as the Big Bang one, cannot itself be explained by the Laws of Nature, then how on Earth can it be credible? Please, man, you have to understand: Matter cannot come from non-matter. Period! It completely violates the laws of physics! Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!GabuEx

Um, yes, and the Big Bang Theory does not say that matter came from non-matter. The Big Bang Theory does not even discuss where the singularity came from. It simply says that the evidence indicates that it existed. I am now basically repeating word-for-word the post to which you replied. Did you read it? :?

Okay, so you've drawn your own conclusions. So have we. So, why do you taunt us by saying that we are not open to new ideas, when you yourself are the same? (Please, I don't want this to escalate into a bitter argument.)ZCatan

What in the world are you talking about?

My comment was in reference to the fact that he was prepared to discard an idea without even making the slightest effort to learn about its merits. It had nothing to do with his conclusions.

The evidence that there is a Creator stares us in the face all the time. Matter cannot come from non-matter, energy cannot come from non-energy, and life cannot come from non-life UNLESS there is an Ultimate Source of all matter, energy and life, time, and eternity: GOD the LORD!!ZCatan

So, where does God come from?