|
Post by xna on Aug 3, 2015 21:02:14 GMT -5
Yes, I too like the NOMA. When people say "It all started with the Big Bang" they are saying that our universe sprang into being with all its intricate and precisely arrayed variables which made our world. Only, they are saying that this Big Bang was caused by magic, ie no space, no time, no laws, no energy, no matter. It just happened - it was a miracle greater than the one we read of in the bible. We have a good idea of events in the last 10 years, but when you start adding zeros we are less certain.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 3, 2015 21:07:36 GMT -5
Yes, I too like the NOMA. When people say "It all started with the Big Bang" they are saying that our universe sprang into being with all its intricate and precisely arrayed variables which made our world. Only, they are saying that this Big Bang was caused by magic, ie no space, no time, no laws, no energy, no matter. It just happened - it was a miracle greater than the one we read of in the bible. Jack Price use to say: "The chance of the Big Bang Theory happening is the same as an explosion happening at a printing press and the result being Websters Dictionary" It sounds like the Watchmaker Analogy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 3, 2015 21:23:25 GMT -5
Yes, I too like the NOMA. When people say "It all started with the Big Bang" they are saying that our universe sprang into being with all its intricate and precisely arrayed variables which made our world. Only, they are saying that this Big Bang was caused by magic, ie no space, no time, no laws, no energy, no matter. It just happened - it was a miracle greater than the one we read of in the bible. It's interesting that an atheist is advising the Pope now. news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062315-758703-pope-francis-science-advisor-is-an-atheist.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 21:28:58 GMT -5
And Jack Price would be Wrong. IF something "caused" the Big Bang, with all its correct variables, then the world we know COULD have come into existence. Workers are pretty dumb about science, in the same way scientists are dumb about religion.
The deeper question is - someone had to "make" the Big Bang go bang. No cause - no effect.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2015 21:31:23 GMT -5
Yes, I too like the NOMA. When people say "It all started with the Big Bang" they are saying that our universe sprang into being with all its intricate and precisely arrayed variables which made our world. Only, they are saying that this Big Bang was caused by magic, ie no space, no time, no laws, no energy, no matter. It just happened - it was a miracle greater than the one we read of in the bible. Of course the one of the theories has some support by mathematics and the data being collected from ongoing experiments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 21:31:54 GMT -5
As an aside to this about Workers and science. If you take an anti-science position, and you are proven Wrong - what then? I grew up with Workers telling me that science could never create life. We can now synthesize viruses from basic test-tube chemicals. We can create whole genomes. We are close to making an entire living cell. At what point is that Worker wrong? He or she isn't going to admit it.
A Worker told me that he "couldn't imagine life on other planets." Well, he's come a long way - once devout Christian people couldn't believe that planets were other worlds, like Earth. These days we can orbit or land on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 22:13:11 GMT -5
As an aside to this about Workers and science. If you take an anti-science position, and you are proven Wrong - what then? I grew up with Workers telling me that science could never create life. We can now synthesize viruses from basic test-tube chemicals. We can create whole genomes. We are close to making an entire living cell. At what point is that Worker wrong? He or she isn't going to admit it.
A Worker told me that he "couldn't imagine life on other planets." Well, he's come a long way - once devout Christian people couldn't believe that planets were other worlds, like Earth. These days we can orbit or land on them. ya but bert they have had to use existing virus's and bacteria to "create" new ones
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2015 22:41:29 GMT -5
ya but bert they have had to use existing virus's and bacteria to "create" new ones I believe there are living cells that contain DNA created in the laboratory. The new DNA contains the four usual adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine (ATCG) links as well as two created links that are not found in nature. And it self replicates. As Monty Python noted - "We're just simply spiraling coils Of self-replicating DNA". At some point soon it will no longer be possible to come up with reasons/excuses to deny that life created in the laboratory exists.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2015 22:54:08 GMT -5
Jack Price use to say: "The chance of the Big Bang Theory happening is the same as an explosion happening at a printing press and the result being Websters Dictionary" (rofl) He could have also said that the chance of the universe being created from the big bang is comparable to a hypothetical tornado passing through a hypothetical junkyard resulting in a 747. It would also be a great example of the logical fallacy of argument by false analogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 0:49:59 GMT -5
I believe there are living cells that contain DNA created in the laboratory. The new DNA contains the four usual adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine (ATCG) links as well as two created links that are not found in nature. And it self replicates. As Monty Python noted - "We're just simply spiraling coils Of self-replicating DNA". At some point soon it will no longer be possible to come up with reasons/excuses to deny that life created in the laboratory exists. when I see them create something alive from NOTHING or from dead matter from pure will then i'll worry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 7:56:13 GMT -5
Wally, I am not sure but all you need is a DNA Synthesizer, plus chemicals and a "map" of your target DNA. All a virus is is DNA wrapped in a protein coat. Yes, you need a cell for it to grow in. But that's what virus' do. And soon we will create a living cell, complete with cell wall and genes. There's no "spark of life" involved. I think the "breath" that is mentioned in Genesis concerns the living spirit in man. No other animal, plant, virus or bacteria needed this "breath."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 8:00:37 GMT -5
As an aside to the tornado analogy. Nature doesn't work that way - it's not all or nothing. Nature makes the tiniest thing "work" and then adapts that for something else - taking its time and trillions of trials and errors at each step. We know this works because we use the same techniques in some computer programs; chemical testing systems and the like.
But, having said that - if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then in theory the chance of a 747 appearing out of junk is likely to be 100%.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 4, 2015 10:26:24 GMT -5
As an aside to the tornado analogy. Nature doesn't work that way - it's not all or nothing. Nature makes the tiniest thing "work" and then adapts that for something else - taking its time and trillions of trials and errors at each step. We know this works because we use the same techniques in some computer programs; chemical testing systems and the like.
But, having said that - if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then in theory the chance of a 747 appearing out of junk is likely to be 100%. After the last round of tornadoes I think I read that there were piles of "747s" that were almost right. Some with the wings sticking out of wings and the tail section on the wrong end of the structure.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 4, 2015 11:07:34 GMT -5
As an aside to the tornado analogy. Nature doesn't work that way - it's not all or nothing. Nature makes the tiniest thing "work" and then adapts that for something else - taking its time and trillions of trials and errors at each step. We know this works because we use the same techniques in some computer programs; chemical testing systems and the like.
But, having said that - if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then in theory the chance of a 747 appearing out of junk is likely to be 100%. Given this theory, you're claiming God made many errors (trillians) in coming up with his creation?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 4, 2015 11:30:05 GMT -5
As an aside to the tornado analogy. Nature doesn't work that way - it's not all or nothing. Nature makes the tiniest thing "work" and then adapts that for something else - taking its time and trillions of trials and errors at each step. We know this works because we use the same techniques in some computer programs; chemical testing systems and the like.
But, having said that - if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then in theory the chance of a 747 appearing out of junk is likely to be 100%. Given this theory, you're claiming God made many errors (trillians) in coming up with his creation? Given this theory god was not making errors or directing the evolution of the various lifeforms. They do that all by themselves. You can tell by looking at some of the end results! Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 4, 2015 13:36:54 GMT -5
Quote - ...my question has always been: why do people want to believe in something beyond proof? I really don't understand that. What is the draw of believing in an invisible being that lives outside any possible proof that judges us and sends us to hell or heaven? It works both ways When people talk about the "anthropic principle or what initiated the Big Bang they are also delving into the miracle.Not really. The Big Bang only relates to us what we have observed. It doesn't try and explain anything beyond that. There are gaps in our understanding but we don't try to fill those gaps with anything until we do more science and find new things. For example, I don't think any scientist has ever said they know anything about what happened a few seconds after the Big Bang before we were able to track the evolution of the universe. We don't know why it occurred and don't say we do, that I know of anyway.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 4, 2015 13:53:21 GMT -5
The way I see it is if things had been different in the beginning of our universe, the results would also be different. And, if those results were self aware questioning beings they would think that everything was made perfect for them too. But, they could be nothing like we are. We are the outcome of the way things were and how they evolved. Nothing was made 'for us' we are just the result of how things progressed. There is really no difference between people thinking God made everything and everything came from nothing. At some point, if there is a God, it had to come from nothing and on it goes. I see no use for bringing a judgmental god into the picture. The reason for the Big Bang can't be explained and neither can the existence of God. We have a much better chance of science one day knowing the reason for the Big Bang than we have of proving there is a Christian God.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 4, 2015 17:54:36 GMT -5
Some astrology quotes Job 38 31-32 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Jeremiah 10:2-3 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. Isaiah 47:12-15 Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2015 0:34:25 GMT -5
Quote - "Given this theory, you're claiming God made many errors (trillians) in coming up with his creation?"
Errors as in "errors" when someone beats the house at Roulette or Poker. Did the Casino err in having someone "beat" them? No, "errors" are built into the system. The longer you play, the more the odds are in the Casino's favor.
Maybe a bad analogy...
In nature "errors" are DESIGNED INTO THE SYSTEM. Thus the AIDS virus has an error rate of 1%. That's really terrible for DNA copying - but the upshot is that the virus can try a lot more different "locks" with its dodgy key, so to speak, and evolve very fast.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2015 9:53:54 GMT -5
Quote - "Given this theory, you're claiming God made many errors (trillians) in coming up with his creation?" Errors as in "errors" when someone beats the house at Roulette or Poker. Did the Casino err in having someone "beat" them? No, "errors" are built into the system. The longer you play, the more the odds are in the Casino's favor.
Maybe a bad analogy...Perhaps. The odds don't change. Probability smooths the outcome to confirm to the odds I don't know where the 1% replication error rate came from for HIV. I think mutations occur at a higher rate but not all mutations have the same effect. Viral Mutation Rates
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 5, 2015 11:29:50 GMT -5
I'm actually with you on this Bert, I was just curious how you would answer the question.
I feel that science and God do not contradict each other. I feel that God is behind it all. He lets happen what will happen in so many things, but he is behind the ultimate plan. It will all fit in to his overall plan.
Just not sure about your casino analogy tho....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2015 13:24:59 GMT -5
I'm actually with you on this Bert, I was just curious how you would answer the question. I feel that science and God do not contradict each other. I feel that God is behind it all. He lets happen what will happen in so many things, but he is behind the ultimate plan. It will all fit in to his overall plan. Just not sure about your casino analogy tho.... Do you think man is part of that ultimate plan? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 5, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -5
You know my yes/no answer to this so I'll just try to explain the "why" I BELIEVE so;
I believe when we read of him creating us after his own image, that this is a big reason for the "why".
As you know, most women, and for the most part men have a desire to have children of their own. At a very young age, these children cannot do much for their parents except possibly love them back, and depend on them. Despite this, the parents love them unconditionally. Probably love them more than anything else, including each other. This, I believe is how God created us after his own image. So then, we can begin to understand why he created us, and what pleases him.
But I'm shouting into an empty barrel here so I won't go on. I just didn't want not to answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2015 15:14:19 GMT -5
You know my yes/no answer to this so I'll just try to explain the "why" I BELIEVE so; I believe when we read of him creating us after his own image, that this is a big reason for the "why". As you know, most women, and for the most part men have a desire to have children of their own. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012.
If you think about the fact that some of the women who had children may not have wanted them then you statement might not be true. I take it you haven't worked in child protective services. What you state is the ideal but it is not reality. That comparison certainly does not put god in a good light. Oh, don't stop. That activity is something to be enjoyed! You can't holler down my rain barrel, You can't climb my apple tree, I don't want to play in your yard, If you won't be good to me.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 5, 2015 15:34:23 GMT -5
You know my yes/no answer to this so I'll just try to explain the "why" I BELIEVE so; I believe when we read of him creating us after his own image, that this is a big reason for the "why". As you know, most women, and for the most part men have a desire to have children of their own. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012.
If you think about the fact that some of the women who had children may not have wanted them then you statement might not be true. I take it you haven't worked in child protective services. What you state is the ideal but it is not reality. That comparison certainly does not put god in a good light. Oh, don't stop. That activity is something to be enjoyed! You can't holler down my rain barrel, You can't climb my apple tree, I don't want to play in your yard, If you won't be good to me.
So a 15 year old child is part of the census, and included in your persentages of how many have had children? Do you know WHY the ones that haven't had children - havn't had them besides the fact that many of them still live at home with mommy and daddy? yes, God's purpose is that there would be joy....It doesn't always happen though. Can't argue with that one.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2015 16:59:10 GMT -5
So a 15 year old child is part of the census, and included in your persentages of how many have had children? :D So the government says. I guess it depends on the woman. I guess the question would be what could prevent an omniscient omnipotent being from realizing their purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 2:19:57 GMT -5
Quote - "Just not sure about your casino analogy tho...."
Some religious people are offended at the thought that "mere chance" brought them into the world (that becomes as philosophical issue BTW) But Casinos run their business on "mere chance" and you won't hear of them going bust because there were too many winnings. Like "nature" itself, Casinos understand probability and work with it.
BTW the gambler tends to work AGAINST the laws of probability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 2:28:23 GMT -5
Some scary physics, just to demonstrate how we can never grasp the depth of our world:
Weight is not a "fundamental" or single thing, but two things.... Weight is composed of mass verses gravity. In orbit your car "weighs" next to nothing.
"Speed" is not fundamental either, it is composed of two fundamentals, time verses distance.
But here's the kicker - some scientists say that both "time" and "distance" aren't fundamental either. I can sort-of-imagine that time is an illusion --- but distance!!!
Makes you realize that everything around us is just illusion.
|
|