Tweet

Originally Posted by daved150

lmao!!! dont ever stop doing that thing you do!!! you crack me up brotha!!!

TweetWhat I was looking to do was to show that the criteria theists use to disregard other religions is not being applied to their own religion! People hear of elephant headed gods, or alien souls, talking suns and look at it as false, yet if they used that same way of thinking on their own beliefs they would be in the position of the athiest!!

Now Klash I have read quite alot of multi-dimensions in quantum physics, it is very interesting. One article in Scientific American from last year was about the existence of 11 dimensions all within a hairs thickness to one another. I dont pretend to understand it (I have not studied meta or quantum physics academically) but it is intriging nonetheless. Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you know about it???/?????

Tweet

Originally Posted by mandarb11

What I was looking to do was to show that the criteria theists use to disregard other religions is not being applied to their own religion! People hear of elephant headed gods, or alien souls, talking suns and look at it as false, yet if they used that same way of thinking on their own beliefs they would be in the position of the athiest!!

Now Klash I have read quite alot of multi-dimensions in quantum physics, it is very interesting. One article in Scientific American from last year was about the existence of 11 dimensions all within a hairs thickness to one another. I dont pretend to understand it (I have not studied meta or quantum physics academically) but it is intriging nonetheless. Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you know about it???/?????

hey, hey, hey!!!...start a quantum physics thread!! we're hear to discuss this movie!! stay on subject like everyone else! lol

Tweet

Originally Posted by mandarb11

What I was looking to do was to show that the criteria theists use to disregard other religions is not being applied to their own religion! People hear of elephant headed gods, or alien souls, talking suns and look at it as false, yet if they used that same way of thinking on their own beliefs they would be in the position of the athiest!!

So true. It is such a blatant fundamental contradiction in the theists belief system and what is interesting to see is, how this contradiction is avoided by two theists with different ideas of god. They will each attempt to prove their idea of god is the "real" god both accepting the premise that persuasion requires a logic arguement, these people whose philosophy is based on faith attempt to reason why their god's revelation is real and the other is a delusion. Yet they never take that logic and apply it to their own god.

Originally Posted by mandarb11

Now Klash I have read quite alot of multi-dimensions in quantum physics, it is very interesting. One article in Scientific American from last year was about the existence of 11 dimensions all within a hairs thickness to one another. I dont pretend to understand it (I have not studied meta or quantum physics academically) but it is intriging nonetheless. Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you know about it???/?????

My knowledge on the issue is not academic either. It comes from magazines lectures off the internet, Stephen Hawkings books - that type of thing.

Philosophically, I suppose I conclude the same thing scalleywag stated: that something with a beginning must be a result of something. I don't see how an absolute void can result in a non-void. Remaining consistent with science and not resorting to supernatural variables, you have to conclude our universe is not a result of a void but a result of something (e.g. a black hole from another universe - of course I don't think a black whole could provide the energy necessary for an entire universe but something along those lines) and the hypothesis that I have been exposed to that fit this criteria is the multiverse and the expanding and contracting universe.

TweetYes the origin will be the hardest part to find a definitive explanation for as we humans have really only had the mental capacity to understand the universe for the last few thousand years, the universe is estimated to be 13.7 Billion Earth Years old!

One must define their version of what a "god" means. For a god may be a natural occurrence if defined in such a manner, there is also the infinity idea that what is has always been, no beginning, no end. It is hard for us to imagine due to our linear nature but is a conceivable alternative. Man I wish I was rich and had the time I would get a degree in physics as well! lol

Now interestingly enough, the original topic, the Golden Compass, has in its storyline a multiverse idea behind it!

TweetI will admit that these multiverse and expanding and contracting universe theories go way over my head. Instead of pouring over ideas I will continue to study what we know to be true.

I apologize for it taking me so long to formulate my response. I have an ongoing conversation with my father about the legitimacy of Christ (lets not get started on that one yet...lol) so I haven't been able to focus all of my attention on this. I will have a response soon.

One more question though, I have deduced from these posts that you guys feel like life here on this planet has evolved. So you agree with Darwanism, is that correct?

TweetI believe that evolution is the most valid theory. A couple examples of species in nature that illistrate macro-evolution are the skinks lizard and the boa constrictor. The skinks is often born without legs and moves around the same as a snake, and the boa is born often with legs! It harkens back in their DNA to when their species were like that! There are many examples along with the fossil record to say that evolution is a fact, it is the mechanism that is still in question!

Tweet

Originally Posted by Scalleywag

I will admit that these multiverse and expanding and contracting universe theories go way over my head. Instead of pouring over ideas I will continue to study what we know to be true.

I apologize for it taking me so long to formulate my response. I have an ongoing conversation with my father about the legitimacy of Christ (lets not get started on that one yet...lol) so I haven't been able to focus all of my attention on this. I will have a response soon.

One more question though, I have deduced from these posts that you guys feel like life here on this planet has evolved. So you agree with Darwanism, is that correct?

Hey we can start a thread about the validity of Jesus if you like, that one is right down my alley! Who is arguing what in that conversation?

Tweet

Originally Posted by mandarb11

Hey we can start a thread about the validity of Jesus if you like, that one is right down my alley! Who is arguing what in that conversation?

Hahaha....we aren't going to get into that one quite yet. I first have to convince you that God is real, then I have to convince you that he is personal, then I have to convince you that the Bible is a trustworthy historiacl book. All of that before we can get into Jesus being the Messiah.

Lets save that until we exhaust all avenues of God being real.

Oh and to answer your question, I am making my case to him for Jesus being the Messiah but he has a hang up with organized religion.

Tweet

Originally Posted by mandarb11

I believe that evolution is the most valid theory. A couple examples of species in nature that illistrate macro-evolution are the skinks lizard and the boa constrictor. The skinks is often born without legs and moves around the same as a snake, and the boa is born often with legs! It harkens back in their DNA to when their species were like that! There are many examples along with the fossil record to say that evolution is a fact, it is the mechanism that is still in question!

Just so I have this right you believe that life came into being by a chance happening and the abudance of life as we see it today has evolved from that first organism that came together by random chance? This is based off of the 1953 Miller Experiment that produced amino acids in the lab?

Is that correct?

Tweet

Originally Posted by Scalleywag

Just so I have this right you believe that life came into being by a chance happening and the abudance of life as we see it today has evolved from that first organism that came together by random chance?

How'd you like that for sentence structure? Obviously not an English major.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Scalleywag

Just so I have this right you believe that life came into being by a chance happening and the abudance of life as we see it today has evolved from that first organism that came together by random chance? This is based off of the 1953 Miller Experiment that produced amino acids in the lab?

Is that correct?

Essentially yes but this is based on all fields of science not just one study. You will not find any scientific field include god into their equations. Everything has a natural explanation, this is the first premise of science. If you can find me scientific evidence of a god then I would be ery interesting in seeing it.

Secondly the historical accuracy of the bible, Jesus interesting. read some of my posts about the historical Jesus sometime......

Tweet

Originally Posted by mandarb11

Essentially yes but this is based on all fields of science not just one study. You will not find any scientific field include god into their equations. Everything has a natural explanation, this is the first premise of science. If you can find me scientific evidence of a god then I would be ery interesting in seeing it.

You say your beliefs are based in part on the Miller Experiment of 1953 where Stanley Miller was able to produce amino acids (the building blocks of life) by shooting electricity through an atmosphere like the supposed atmosphere of primitive earth. In this experiment Miller relied heavily on atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor, Harold Urey. He choose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. What scientist now understand is that the primitive earth’s atmosphere was nothing like that used by Miller in the 1953 experiment.

As early as the mid 1970’s scientists were challenging the legitimacy of this experiment. Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin, two leading origin-of-life researchers Klose Dose and Sidney Fox are but a few of the early scientists to speak out about Miller’s “atmosphere looking nothing like earth’s early atmosphere”. Science magazine even ran an article that spoke to experts now agreeing that Miller used the wrong mixture.

Current thinking is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead the experts now agree that the atmosphere probably existed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. When the experiment was replayed using the proper conditions you do get organic molecules but not amino acids (which we already know to be the building blocks of life). The organic compounds that result from the experiment are formaldehyde and cyanide. Embalming fluid! The two organic molecules you get aren't even allowed in labs without caps because the fumes alone are so toxic. These organic molecules actually kill embryos!

Just for the sake of argument, lets say that scientists someday actually mange to produce amino acids from a realistic atmosphere from early earth (although it is not chemically possible). How far would that be from creating a living cell?

First, you would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule. Then, you’d need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds of this happening are impossible. But thats a moot point because the atmosphere wouldn't allow it.

Next we need to exam Darwinism. The theory that all living creatures had a common ancestor and that natural selection drove the eventual development of countless organisms we see in the modern world. I see it important to point out first that when Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, he himself conceeded that "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory is the fossil record we currently have". The fossil record failed to back up his theory. If species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, why do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Darwin attributed the problem with incomplete fossil records and predicted that future discoveries would vindicate this theory.

The doscoveries over the last 150 years have not vindicated his theory but in turn proven it wrong. To make a long story short the fossil records have shown an explosion of most major animal phlya that are alive today. On minute there's nothing and the next minute - BOOM! (I hate that I have to condense this so much but I have to take my daughter to her cheerleading competition so this has to be breif.) There is plenty of sedimentary rock that could have housed these animals showing gradual changes to each phyla but there in not. Quite to the contrary we see animal phyla burst onto the scene all of a sudden. Darwinism is false.

That doesn't even get into the fact that mutations can't create a whole new species. You can get a different type of dog via mutation but you won't get a cat. I can get into that latter.

What has become very apparent is that Christians are accused of following our faith blindly but I see more of that from those that adhere to Darwinism. "It said it in my text book so it has to be true". Darwinism has been proven by science to be false. Take a look for yourself at the new evidence.

I know this goes a long way from giving you scientific evidence for a Creator but this should make you think about some things you have based your beliefs on. I am still putting together my case for the Creator. I just felt this needed to be thrown our there.