The bible is providing scientists with answers they could not come up with.

[Lutroo]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

If I may critique your arguments?

That our comprehension of the laws of physics doesn't grasp the seemingly irrationality of quantum mechanics, the other side of the event horizon, or the singularity of the Big Bang does not mean that all or any of those are because of a creator/designer. Not that they exclude one either. But the argument you are essentially making is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy. "Because we do not understand these phenomena God is responsible" is bad science and bad theology.

When it comes to DNA, you are making the argument that it is too complex for natural processes to have created. There must have been a creator/designer who intervened. This is 1) an argument from complexity fallacy: just because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed, 2) this is also an argument from incredulity fallacy - just because it's hard for you to believe that natural processes gave rise to complexity does not necessarily mean it didn't happen that way and 3) even if DNA is the result of creation/design, that gives no indication of the creator/designer's identity or divinity: perhaps we are the products of an advanced scientific project conducted by non-divine entities.

Scientifically, an explanation needs no other additional metaphysical explanation. For example, water turns to ice at and below 0 degrees celsius. We don't need to add to that: water freezes because God freezes water at and below 0 degrees celsius. Personally, you can believe that without violating scientific precepts, but were one to attempt to make and test such an hypothesis they would quickly find that it would be impossible to do so. So, science can not test whether DNA is the product of design because it can not put God in a laboratory therefore the scientific explanation necessarily must be naturalistic/materialistic. Furthermore, without knowing the process through which the creator/designer influences physical reality the explanation "God did it" doesn't add any further understanding to the scientific explanation.

Why make a decision on these big questions, which are so fascinating to think about, when really there is not yet sufficient data to decide upon an answer?

Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. It is the product of intelligence. DNA contains information, therefore it is the result of intelligence. There is no other explanation for it. Intelligence came first. You call it the God of the gaps argument. I could say that your arguments are like a science of the gaps argument... Science cannot explain it, but they say that they will, given enough time. It's a wonder that they can be so blind. Such incredible complexity in our universe, and atheists continue to cling desperately to the time and chance myth.

 

[Boss]

That our comprehension of the laws of physics doesn't grasp the seemingly irrationality of quantum mechanics, the other side of the event horizon, or the singularity of the Big Bang does not mean that all or any of those are because of a creator/designer. Not that they exclude one either. But the argument you are essentially making is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy. "Because we do not understand these phenomena God is responsible" is bad science and bad theology.

No, you misunderstand. I did not say this MEANS anything other than... we DON'T know far more than we DO know. It's NOT "god of the gaps" because that is essentially, "there is a gap, so god did it!" ..."God did it" is a conclusion and science can do nothing with a conclusion. It has no power to do anything with a conclusion. I'm simply making the observation that our comprehension of what we have always comfortably believed in... physics, math, physical nature... is not EVERYTHING. If it were, these things would comport with our understandings and they clearly don't. So we must remain open minded to the possibility there is something beyond physical nature we have yet to discover. Indeed, our universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter, of which we cannot interact with directly.

When it comes to DNA, you are making the argument that it is too complex for natural processes to have created. There must have been a creator/designer who intervened. This is 1) an argument from complexity fallacy: just because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed, 2) this is also an argument from incredulity fallacy - just because it's hard for you to believe that natural processes gave rise to complexity does not necessarily mean it didn't happen that way and 3) even if DNA is the result of creation/design, that gives no indication of the creator/designer's identity or divinity: perhaps we are the products of an advanced scientific project conducted by non-divine entities.

Again... you misunderstand me. I am NOT saying anything "MUST HAVE BEEN" ....that is a conclusion and science can't do one goddamn thing with a conclusion.... Once you've drawn a conclusion, science hits the time clock and heads to the pub for a brewsky... day's over... it's work is done! This is true whether you conclude we all evolved from monkeys or conclude we were created by a Deity. So let's knock off this "argument from X fallacy" nonsense because 1) you don't know what's a fallacy and 2) I am not making the argument.

I said not a damn thing about "identity or divinity" ....just that our DNA is some very meticulously intricate and incredibly complex 4-bit digital code. It seems highly unlikely this just happened to fall into place by fluke and happenstance. I mean... if you discovered a computer and you'd never seen one before.. didn't know what one was... and you turned it on and suddenly a desktop appears with all these programs you can run, email and word processing, calculators and spreadsheets... would you surmise that the silicon and electronics combined with electricity and somehow it managed to produce this thing from nothingness... or would you consider the possibility that something else was at play? Well okay... DNA is 1000x (at least) more complex than any computer code man has ever developed.

Scientifically, an explanation needs no other additional metaphysical explanation. For example, water turns to ice at and below 0 degrees celsius. We don't need to add to that: water freezes because God freezes water at and below 0 degrees celsius.

Excuse me but where did you explain WHY water happens to have properties which make it freeze at 0 Celsius? I missed that explanation if you presented it.

Furthermore, without knowing the process through which the creator/designer influences physical reality the explanation "God did it" doesn't add any further understanding to the scientific explanation.

Again... I will reiterate, because this is very important and crucial... I am not stating "GOD DID IT!" That would be a conclusion and science can't do a thing with a conclusion! But you have to also remember that when you start trying to dismiss the possibility of an Intelligent Designer or Creator. Conclusions are not Science... they are actually the antithesis of Science and when you state a conclusion you have abandoned science for faith... you are now practicing a faith-based belief in your conclusion. Science is down at the pub.

I am merely trying to add to the point made in the OP while maintaining a respect for Science. It's fascinating to me that whenever man believes he is about to unlock the mysteries of the universe and discover the end-all-be-all... he runs into more unanswered questions. Recently, you'll recall the discovery of the Higgs boson. People were calling it the "God Particle" because it was supposedly what tied everything together and completed the Standard Model of particle physics... well guess what? It doesn't complete it... we find there is MORE! It does complete a level... it is a major piece of the puzzle but the puzzle became much more complex than we previously imagined. We now think there may be as many as 11 dimensions, only 4 are perceptible to us as physical beings. That's kind of mind-blowing for someone who believes in Spiritual Nature. I'm not claiming it PROVES anything but it HAS to make one think. Right???

 

[zaangalewa]

... That our comprehension of the laws of physics doesn't grasp the seemingly irrationality of quantum mechanics, the other side of the event horizon, or the singularity of the Big Bang does not mean ...

This "event horizon" is not, the universe is not a black hole, black holes including their event horizon are a part of the universe. Inside of a black hole you can see the outside. You are only not able to send something out. But the "outside" of the universe is nothing, not even an "outside". And "before" is nothing, not even a "before". What we don't know is only wether we are not able to say something about this or wether something what looks like nothing, feels like nothing, smells like nothing, is not thinkable like nothing, gives us no information like nothing and so on and so on is really nothing. The oldest 'idea' in this context is: "God made everything out of nothing". It's by the way for Christians not a catastrophe if someone finds another solution - if god made it in another way, why not? - if a multiverse is existing, why not? - but since more than long 1500 years no one found any better explanation.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. ...

It's a long time that I have learned something about the Cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Very fascinating. If I remember in the right way then simple regulatory circuits have the ability to build very complex information systems without any influence of will and intent. Indeed I would say will and intent are contraproductive for thinkers and/or in meditations. An information system gets some informations - makes something with the informations - and gives depending on the input and marginal conditions something back. Unfortunatlley ist seems to me here in the internet are existing lots of virtual communication systems which give something back independent from the input. I call this "the cucumber is a longlike green fruit which contains 99% water"-problem. If someone knows nothing at all - except this - then you can ask him whatever you will ask him: he will always find a way to give this answer.

 

[Lutroo]

... Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. ...

It's a long time that I have learned something about the Cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Very fascinating. If I remember in the right way then simple regulatory circuits have the ability to build very complex information systems without any influence of will and intent. Indeed I would say will and intent are contraproductive for thinkers and/or in meditations. An information system gets some informations - makes something with the informations - and gives depending on the input and marginal conditions something back. Unfortunatlley ist seems to me here in the internet are existing lots of virtual communication systems which give something back independent from the input. I call this "the cucumber is a longlike green fruit which contains 99% water"-problem. If someone knows nothing at all - except this - then you can ask him whatever you will ask him: he will always find a way to give this answer.

Have you checked out my thread on DNA? People seem to be avoiding it for some reason. It explains why a naturalistic origin of life is impossible. Better yet, here is the link to the article.

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

 

[zaangalewa]

... Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. ...

It's a long time that I have learned something about the Cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Very fascinating. If I remember in the right way then simple regulatory circuits have the ability to build very complex information systems without any influence of will and intent. Indeed I would say will and intent are contraproductive for thinkers and/or in meditations. An information system gets some informations - makes something with the informations - and gives depending on the input and marginal conditions something back. Unfortunatlley ist seems to me here in the internet are existing lots of virtual communication systems which give something back independent from the input. I call this "the cucumber is a longlike green fruit which contains 99% water"-problem. If someone knows nothing at all - except this - then you can ask him whatever you will ask him: he will always find a way to give this answer.

Have you checked out my thread on DNA?

I spoke not about DNA here. I spoke about Cybernetics and communication systems.

People seem to be avoiding it for some reason.

It needs a lot of time to study what DNA is and what DNA not is. Lots of myths around this theme.

It explains why a naturalistic origin of life is impossible.

The most harmonic picture for our materialistic and naturalistic existence is the creation of Adam and Eve out of dust and spirit and their life in paradise.

Better yet, here is the link to the article.

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Since a very long time I did not understand what the english speaking world (and meanwhile also lots of Germans) are discussing by discussing the theme 'creation vs evolution'. I never understood this discussion, because creation and evolution are [nearly] completly different things. But who takes a look at the living creation all around and sees not that there are animals which are in a greater neighborhood and a wider neighborhood with us, then I don't understand why people doubt about things they can see with their own eyes. Your hand for example as well as the excellent good orientation in space (necessary for our coordination of the body) is for example a product of the trees. The ape who had fallen as a child from the tree is not our ancestor. How this directly corresponds with our genetical structure is completly unclear to me, because the DNA is producing proteins. Are we our proteins? I would say: "No", because identical twins are able to be completly different human beings. On the other side Konrad Lorenz was able to show that even instinctive behavior is defined by genetics. How works this? How produce genes proteins and proteins not only complex bodies but also parts of behavior?

 

[Lutroo]

... Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. ...

It's a long time that I have learned something about the Cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Very fascinating. If I remember in the right way then simple regulatory circuits have the ability to build very complex information systems without any influence of will and intent. Indeed I would say will and intent are contraproductive for thinkers and/or in meditations. An information system gets some informations - makes something with the informations - and gives depending on the input and marginal conditions something back. Unfortunatlley ist seems to me here in the internet are existing lots of virtual communication systems which give something back independent from the input. I call this "the cucumber is a longlike green fruit which contains 99% water"-problem. If someone knows nothing at all - except this - then you can ask him whatever you will ask him: he will always find a way to give this answer.

Have you checked out my thread on DNA?

I spoke not about DNA here. I spoke about Cybernetics and communication systems.

People seem to be avoiding it for some reason.

It needs a lot of time to study what DNA is and what DNA not is. Lots of myths around this theme.

It explains why a naturalistic origin of life is impossible.

The most harmonic picture for our materialistic and naturalistic existence is the creation of Adam and Eve out of dust and spirit and their life in paradise.

Better yet, here is the link to the article.

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Since a very long time I did not understand what the english speaking world (and meanwhile also lots of Germans) are discussing by discussing the theme 'creation vs evolution'. I never understood this discussion, because creation and evolution are [nearly] completly different things. But who takes a look at the living creation all around and sees not that there are animals which are in a greater neighborhood and a wider neighborhood with us, then I don't understand why people doubt about things they can see with their own eyes. Your hand for example as well as the excellent good orientation in space (necessary for our coordination of the body) is for example a product of the trees. The ape who had fallen as a child from the tree is not our ancestor. How this directly corresponds with our genetical structure is completly unclear to me, because the DNA is producing proteins. Are we our proteins? I would say: "No", because identical twins are able to be completly different human beings. On the other side Konrad Lorenz was able to show that even instinctive behavior is defined by genetics. How works this? How produce genes proteins and proteins not only complex bodies but also parts of behavior?

I'm a bit confused here. I may have replied to the wrong post.

 

[Moonglow]

NASA Found That Everything the Bible Says Is True...

That sheep go to heaven and goats,,go to Hell?

 

[yiostheoy]

NASA Found That Everything the Bible Says Is True...

It is somewhat fascinating that the order of creation outlined by Moses is similar to what archaeology tells us regarding the evolution of the Earth --

- first a molten rocky planet;

- then it gets buried under the seas presumably by collision with an icy comet;

- then dry land appears;

- then the plants appear;

- then the fishes appear;

- then the animals and birds appear;

- finally mankind appears.

 

[yiostheoy]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

If I may critique your arguments?

That our comprehension of the laws of physics doesn't grasp the seemingly irrationality of quantum mechanics, the other side of the event horizon, or the singularity of the Big Bang does not mean that all or any of those are because of a creator/designer. Not that they exclude one either. But the argument you are essentially making is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy. "Because we do not understand these phenomena God is responsible" is bad science and bad theology.

When it comes to DNA, you are making the argument that it is too complex for natural processes to have created. There must have been a creator/designer who intervened. This is 1) an argument from complexity fallacy: just because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed, 2) this is also an argument from incredulity fallacy - just because it's hard for you to believe that natural processes gave rise to complexity does not necessarily mean it didn't happen that way and 3) even if DNA is the result of creation/design, that gives no indication of the creator/designer's identity or divinity: perhaps we are the products of an advanced scientific project conducted by non-divine entities.

Scientifically, an explanation needs no other additional metaphysical explanation. For example, water turns to ice at and below 0 degrees celsius. We don't need to add to that: water freezes because God freezes water at and below 0 degrees celsius. Personally, you can believe that without violating scientific precepts, but were one to attempt to make and test such an hypothesis they would quickly find that it would be impossible to do so. So, science can not test whether DNA is the product of design because it can not put God in a laboratory therefore the scientific explanation necessarily must be naturalistic/materialistic. Furthermore, without knowing the process through which the creator/designer influences physical reality the explanation "God did it" doesn't add any further understanding to the scientific explanation.

Why make a decision on these big questions, which are so fascinating to think about, when really there is not yet sufficient data to decide upon an answer?

We all always need to remember to keep science and religion separate.

And religion should not interfere in science, which consists of data collection and inductive reasoning about the causes of the data.

And science should not take the place of religion either, since science in only an Empirical analytical method.

 

[yiostheoy]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

In case there was nothing before the universe was: A nothing is not able to have a critical mass. I guess what you like to say with "critical mass" is it, that the universe has not an unlimited amount of energy, what's astonishing. It's gigantic - but even gigantic is nearly nothing compared with the infinite. The problem is indeed this little word "nearly" - why this nearly and not another nearly? And I also don't see how the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is hurted. Before the first planksecond was over (=5,39116 · 10^-44 s) we are not able to say anything. Afterwards the natural laws were active. Also the law Δx·Δp ~ h.

We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

In the beginning was pure energy - not atoms. They came later. It needed about 3 minutes. That's a very long time while billlions of years are sometimes able to be a very short time. The last billion years was not very different from the billion years before.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

The changes in genetics follow the principle "shit happens" on no special reason. Under nearly all conditions a change in the genetics has negative consequences - is a sickness. Only very very seldom such a change has an healing effect. It's by the way astonishing for me, that the most people seem to think a tool of evolution is the result of evolution. If a modifiction in biology is made planful ("from god") or without plan ("from the devil") changes nothing. A hammer works as a hammer works - and a form as a form works. We are not able to understand the plan of god as well as we are not able to understand random changes. But it looks not like the created nature is only a perverted world - it's indeed a very wonderful world.

Due to red shift data sent back by the Hubble Space Telescope, we now know the Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

We already knew from archaeology that the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

So, so much for the ancient theories in philosophy that the Universe and/or the Earth are/is endless and immortal.

We know they are both finite.

As to what happened 13.82 billion years ago to start everything up we have no idea or clue.

Something stupendous happened however. We just don't know what it was.

 

[Lutroo]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

If I may critique your arguments?

That our comprehension of the laws of physics doesn't grasp the seemingly irrationality of quantum mechanics, the other side of the event horizon, or the singularity of the Big Bang does not mean that all or any of those are because of a creator/designer. Not that they exclude one either. But the argument you are essentially making is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy. "Because we do not understand these phenomena God is responsible" is bad science and bad theology.

When it comes to DNA, you are making the argument that it is too complex for natural processes to have created. There must have been a creator/designer who intervened. This is 1) an argument from complexity fallacy: just because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed, 2) this is also an argument from incredulity fallacy - just because it's hard for you to believe that natural processes gave rise to complexity does not necessarily mean it didn't happen that way and 3) even if DNA is the result of creation/design, that gives no indication of the creator/designer's identity or divinity: perhaps we are the products of an advanced scientific project conducted by non-divine entities.

Scientifically, an explanation needs no other additional metaphysical explanation. For example, water turns to ice at and below 0 degrees celsius. We don't need to add to that: water freezes because God freezes water at and below 0 degrees celsius. Personally, you can believe that without violating scientific precepts, but were one to attempt to make and test such an hypothesis they would quickly find that it would be impossible to do so. So, science can not test whether DNA is the product of design because it can not put God in a laboratory therefore the scientific explanation necessarily must be naturalistic/materialistic. Furthermore, without knowing the process through which the creator/designer influences physical reality the explanation "God did it" doesn't add any further understanding to the scientific explanation.

Why make a decision on these big questions, which are so fascinating to think about, when really there is not yet sufficient data to decide upon an answer?

We all always need to remember to keep science and religion separate.

And religion should not interfere in science, which consists of data collection and inductive reasoning about the causes of the data.

And science should not take the place of religion either, since science in only an Empirical analytical method.

Science and religion, or I should say the Bible, should not be kept separate. Think about it. God created the universe. Science tries to understand that universe. The only reason it can do this is because God created an ORDERLY universe. Could you imagine being a scientist when you cannot even perform repeatable experiments?

 

[Lutroo]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

In case there was nothing before the universe was: A nothing is not able to have a critical mass. I guess what you like to say with "critical mass" is it, that the universe has not an unlimited amount of energy, what's astonishing. It's gigantic - but even gigantic is nearly nothing compared with the infinite. The problem is indeed this little word "nearly" - why this nearly and not another nearly? And I also don't see how the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is hurted. Before the first planksecond was over (=5,39116 · 10^-44 s) we are not able to say anything. Afterwards the natural laws were active. Also the law Δx·Δp ~ h.

We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

In the beginning was pure energy - not atoms. They came later. It needed about 3 minutes. That's a very long time while billlions of years are sometimes able to be a very short time. The last billion years was not very different from the billion years before.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

The changes in genetics follow the principle "shit happens" on no special reason. Under nearly all conditions a change in the genetics has negative consequences - is a sickness. Only very very seldom such a change has an healing effect. It's by the way astonishing for me, that the most people seem to think a tool of evolution is the result of evolution. If a modifiction in biology is made planful ("from god") or without plan ("from the devil") changes nothing. A hammer works as a hammer works - and a form as a form works. We are not able to understand the plan of god as well as we are not able to understand random changes. But it looks not like the created nature is only a perverted world - it's indeed a very wonderful world.

Due to red shift data sent back by the Hubble Space Telescope, we now know the Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

We already knew from archaeology that the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

So, so much for the ancient theories in philosophy that the Universe and/or the Earth are/is endless and immortal.

We know they are both finite.

As to what happened 13.82 billion years ago to start everything up we have no idea or clue.

Something stupendous happened however. We just don't know what it was.

Scientists like to believe that they have answers, but the truth is that they have no clue about life, the universe, or anything. All they can do is perform experiments and make observations. I'm a firm believer when it comes to the hard sciences, but evolution is not science. Never was.

 

[Montrovant]

NASA Found That Everything the Bible Says Is True...

Is this a satire site? "As scientists were inspecting the positions of several space objects including the Sun, the Moon and the planets and their positions in 100 and 1000 years – this is done regularly in order to prevent our satellites from colliding with the orbits of the planets.".

 

[zaangalewa]

... Information theory blows that argument out of the water. You cannot have information without will and intent. ...

It's a long time that I have learned something about the Cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Very fascinating. If I remember in the right way then simple regulatory circuits have the ability to build very complex information systems without any influence of will and intent. Indeed I would say will and intent are contraproductive for thinkers and/or in meditations. An information system gets some informations - makes something with the informations - and gives depending on the input and marginal conditions something back. Unfortunatlley ist seems to me here in the internet are existing lots of virtual communication systems which give something back independent from the input. I call this "the cucumber is a longlike green fruit which contains 99% water"-problem. If someone knows nothing at all - except this - then you can ask him whatever you will ask him: he will always find a way to give this answer.

Have you checked out my thread on DNA?

I spoke not about DNA here. I spoke about Cybernetics and communication systems.

People seem to be avoiding it for some reason.

It needs a lot of time to study what DNA is and what DNA not is. Lots of myths around this theme.

It explains why a naturalistic origin of life is impossible.

The most harmonic picture for our materialistic and naturalistic existence is the creation of Adam and Eve out of dust and spirit and their life in paradise.

Better yet, here is the link to the article.

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Since a very long time I did not understand what the english speaking world (and meanwhile also lots of Germans) are discussing by discussing the theme 'creation vs evolution'. I never understood this discussion, because creation and evolution are [nearly] completly different things. But who takes a look at the living creation all around and sees not that there are animals which are in a greater neighborhood and a wider neighborhood with us, then I don't understand why people doubt about things they can see with their own eyes. Your hand for example as well as the excellent good orientation in space (necessary for our coordination of the body) is for example a product of the trees. The ape who had fallen as a child from the tree is not our ancestor. How this directly corresponds with our genetical structure is completly unclear to me, because the DNA is producing proteins. Are we our proteins? I would say: "No", because identical twins are able to be completly different human beings. On the other side Konrad Lorenz was able to show that even instinctive behavior is defined by genetics. How works this? How produce genes proteins and proteins not only complex bodies but also parts of behavior?

I'm a bit confused here. I may have replied to the wrong post.

This question is important if you compare our behavior in case of abortion. If someone kills a child in the age of 6 month, then we grow immediatelly very very angry. If we would not be encultured, socialized and civilized human beings then we would kill in most brutal ways this one who is doing such an unbelievable, undescribable, terrible crime. But if someone is minus 3 month old: nothing. Our emotions say nothing. That's understandable, because a baby in this age is in the most save thinkable position: We are placental mammals.

Now we are living in a time of machines and machine minds. We are not able to compensate with our intelligence, knowledge and moral what mother nature teached us via evolution: "Survive! Save children first!". We are lost meanwhile in the empty pseudointellectual phrases of the world. Only our spirituality and trust in god is still able to transform the animal in us into an intellectual fight for all and every life - without suffering desperation, because our father in heaven helps us not to be desperated but to be always full of hope. But instead to accept the love of god for us we use our intellectuality for war, death, destruction and abortions or senseless discussions about wether god exists or not. What can I say? We are idiots! But nevertheless we don't have any other chance than to be the idiots, who are doing the right things and let it be to do the wrong things.

There's a joke about someone who is drunken and looks for his lost keys under a latern. Someone helps him. After a while the helper finds out the man lost the keys in the darkness on another place and searches now under the latern because there's light. What to wish? Have a nice search?

 

[zaangalewa]

I realize this thread is going to quickly turn into the same typical and tired anti-religion vs. religion debate as always... never fails when the issue of the Bible and Science comes up... but I want to interject my observations here as a non-religious Spiritualist.

I find Science to be fascinating and always have. I love learning new things and discovering more about this miraculous and amazing universe around me. I have never found anything to be in conflict with my spiritual beliefs, to the contrary, I constantly find things supporting my spiritual beliefs.

For instance... When we finally reached the technological ability to observe atoms at their most fundamental level... we find that natures fundamental elements refuse to allow us to measure them. Electrons defy physical principles we've all come to expect in nature... they appear in two places at the same time... they disappear completely and occupy no space at any time... This means the fundamentals of mathematics which all nature is understood to be governed by completely breaks down... 1+1=1... or 1+0=0... How is that possible? We have no idea but it's what we find at the smallest most fundamental level of physical matter.

On the other end of the spectrum, we finally have the technology to observe the largest enigma in our physical universe, black holes. Again, we find that, at the Event Horizon, the principles of modern physics spiral wildly out of control.... things no longer make sense. As matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This is the basis for Einstein's theories of relativity but even more important, when matter reaches the speed of light, passage of time stops completely. This is why we see nothing inside a black hole. Some will state that gravity is so strong it doesn't permit light to escape, but that's not accurate. There is literally no time for light to escape. Formulas end with infinities... a nightmare for any astrophysicist. Again, conventional physics and mathematics are defied by fundamental nature.

One final blow is the theories of origin of our universe. We comprehend through the work of Isaac Newton, that our universe is in motion, therefore, it must have been set into motion by some energy working on matter. So theories surrounding this seemed to center on the possibility of a Singularity. A Singularity is defined as a concentration of all the physical matter and energy of the entire universe compacted into the tiniest infinitesimal space where the energy supposedly reaches 'critical mass' and an explosion (Big Bang) happens. But... the problem with this theory has always been that it doesn't comport with modern physics due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

In case there was nothing before the universe was: A nothing is not able to have a critical mass. I guess what you like to say with "critical mass" is it, that the universe has not an unlimited amount of energy, what's astonishing. It's gigantic - but even gigantic is nearly nothing compared with the infinite. The problem is indeed this little word "nearly" - why this nearly and not another nearly? And I also don't see how the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is hurted. Before the first planksecond was over (=5,39116 · 10^-44 s) we are not able to say anything. Afterwards the natural laws were active. Also the law Δx·Δp ~ h.

We can never account for all the atoms in the universe and because of the space needed for the nucleus and electrons to function in matter, it is impossible.

In the beginning was pure energy - not atoms. They came later. It needed about 3 minutes. That's a very long time while billlions of years are sometimes able to be a very short time. The last billion years was not very different from the billion years before.

So we end up with three basic areas where our comprehension of physics simply breaks down and can't explain things. At the subatomic level, beyond the event horizon of black holes and the literal origin of our material universe. When we have finally been able to "peek under the rock" we have revealed the hand of God. There is really no other rational explanation.

Another additional argument can be added from the field of genetics... DNA. When we examine DNA, we find what amounts to billions upon billions of lines of intricate 4-bit digital code which defines every aspect of a living thing. To break this down in layman's terms, a modern computer uses millions of lines of 2-bit code... zeroes and ones. DNA is thousands of times more complex. Those who reject a Creator or Designer simply dismiss this evidence as meaningless and superficial. We're expected to accept that it's this way "just because" and no further explanation is needed.

The changes in genetics follow the principle "shit happens" on no special reason. Under nearly all conditions a change in the genetics has negative consequences - is a sickness. Only very very seldom such a change has an healing effect. It's by the way astonishing for me, that the most people seem to think a tool of evolution is the result of evolution. If a modifiction in biology is made planful ("from god") or without plan ("from the devil") changes nothing. A hammer works as a hammer works - and a form as a form works. We are not able to understand the plan of god as well as we are not able to understand random changes. But it looks not like the created nature is only a perverted world - it's indeed a very wonderful world.

Due to red shift data sent back by the Hubble Space Telescope, we now know the Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

CERN in Switzerland/France made this new approximation 13,7 -> 13.82 when they found out that indeed the Higgs field is existing and transformed the belief in the standard model of Quantum mechanics into knowledge.

We already knew from archaeology that the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

So, so much for the ancient theories in philosophy that the Universe and/or the Earth are/is endless and immortal.

The very great performance of the ancient cultures is a supernova compared with an US-american campfire.

We know they are both finite.

Since John Irving (1828) exists the american myth the people in the middle ages or earlier had believed the Earth is not a sphere. Besides that Erasthosthenes calculated the size of the Earth in the 3rd century BC with 40,000 km (real size: 40,007.76 km) Christians followed the philosopher Aristotle who gave reasons why the earth is a sphere in the 4th century BC. Without Aristotle and or the christian churches - specially the holy catholic church - universites today would not exist. In this context is also "the interpreter" of Aristotle important: The Muslim Averroes - also known under the name Ibn Rushd.

I could also say something about calculations of infinities and/or what we seem to know and not to know about the limitations of our Cosmos - but this would need to much thoughts and time now. Short: You are far away with your ideas from the people who made with their brilliant genius our lifes more easy.

As to what happened 13.82 billion years ago to start everything up we have no idea or clue.

True. But then we have to do something to change this. We have just simple the problem that we are not able to take a look in the planksecond -1, so we don't know wether it exists or not. We should find a way to be able to decide this.

Something stupendous happened however. We just don't know what it was.

What doesn't mean god knows not every hair on everyones head, only because we forgot to give every hair a name.

 

[Boss]

we are not able to take a look in the planksecond -1, so we don't know wether it exists or not.

what is meant by 'exist'?

 

[Boss]

We all always need to remember to keep science and religion separate.

And religion should not interfere in science, which consists of data collection and inductive reasoning about the causes of the data.

And science should not take the place of religion either, since science in only an Empirical analytical method.

Why do we always need to remember this? What if science leads us in the direction of religion? What if the data and inductive reasoning leads us to something traditionally considered religious, should we ignore that?

I wrote a short story in high school about a preacher in the future who made first contact with extraterrestrial life through prayer. He couldn't get anyone to believe that he was really making contact with life on another planet. They dismissed him as a religious nut. For decades, he maintained that he was in contact with them, no one believed he really was except his son who carried on in his father's footsteps. As his father was on his death bed, the son finally got someone's attention at NASA when he warned them of an impending asteroid that was a near miss. They began looking at his father's correspondence which had been recorded over many years and discovered all kinds of things that had proved to be true and valid.

This goes back to my earlier post... We don't know what we don't know. Humans seem to have this hubris in thinking that we know all there is to know at any given time in history. In spite of discovering new things all the time, we still foolishly presume we know virtually everything... We don't. We are like children in a crib in a dark room. We may have some spacial awareness of our surroundings, we may even observe items in the vague darkness of our little room... we have no idea what's beyond the door.

As you are sitting there reading my post... dark matter is passing through your body. You are totally unaware of it but it's there. It makes up 96% of our universe... 96% ....that's significant. It means, everything we can comprehend and relate to as physical material things, all the planets, all the elements, all the atoms...everything we can test, measure and observe... it's only 4% of what is actually there.

 

[aris2chat]

NASA Found That Everything the Bible Says Is True...

>>Hill is wrong about why NASA calculates the positions of the planets, about what they would have done in the event an unexpected result turned up, and wrong about the ability of a computer to calculate the existence of a missing day. These errors are all the more mind-boggling because Hill claims to have been a consultant to NASA! Hill admits he did not actually witness the incident, but he stands by its authenticity. He should have had enough competence to spot the story as a fake or at least tell it without so many glaring mistakes. Hill is actually an electrical engineer. Being in a NASA facility no more makes a person a space scientist than being in a garage makes one a car. It turns out that Hill's connection to NASA was slender indeed. His company had a contract to service some electrical generators at Cape Canaveral. He was never in any way connected with mission operations or planning. It was, by the way, some intellectually responsible conservative Christians who first investigated the truth behind Hill's NASA connections.<<

 

[Likkmee]

NASA Found That Everything the Bible Says Is True...

While I do not doubt the Bible, I think this is a bunch of BS. How could scientists determine if there was a day missing? I don't buy it.

They saw it on Farcebook ?