Culture & Lifestyle

Rave

On the Issue of Faith

Posted 17 months ago|45 comments|986 views
By Him All Things Consist
VIDEOS
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
Written by
On the Issue of Faith

Why are we here? Is there any purpose behind the universe? Those are big questions to which many folk spend their entire lives trying to answer while others just ignore.

Is there any hope in this universe outside of the agency of man? Many think not. I beg to differ.

I believe every human being on this earth was created on purpose and has a role to play on this planet. We are not accidents; we were created on purpose and have a lifetime on this planet to fulfill our destiny. What is that destiny you say? Our job is to purpose to find that out and then to fulfill it.

Science and faith should not been seen as mutually exclusive. After all the fathers and mothers of modern science for the most past were people of faith. Also, most of the greatest artists, musicians, and writers of all time have been people who understood that they were made and that this universe is no accident.

Many may have disagreed as to Who or What this creator is, but they had the honesty and capacity to recognize the intelligence behind the creation. They also had respect with regard to the creator and the creation. Even if they thought He was unknowable they did not mock their Maker by calling Him a "Spaghetti Monster." That's not just irreverent, it's dumb.

What is faith? Faith is assurance. Faith is strong conviction. The best faith is that which is based on evidence but we do not always need evidence to act on our faith. Many times once we stretch out and take the step we find that the evidence presents itself immediately. In the long run, our faith is only as good as the object in which that faith is invested.

We should have faith in good science, but when things leave the realm of science, yet continues to parade itself as that, it needs to be shot down.

Spontaneous generation is a myth. There is not s shred of scientific evidence that even hints at nothing being the creator of anything.

That's non-sense in the highest order. Matter cannot be eternal based on the he second law of thermodynamics alone.

Also information does not come from a vacuum. To discount the possibility of it coming from an intelligent source could hardly be considered objective.

When someone speaks to special creation as being "magical" right off the bat I know that I am dealing with someone who either has not seriously thought about it, is parroting one of their gurus, or does not even know where to begin when considering the supernatural.

Life does not come from non-life but from other life. Creatures do not morph into other creatures. According the very laws of genetics (Gregor Mendel, anyone?) every creature produces after its kind. That also happens to concur with Genesis chapter 1.

Also, anyone who studies genetics knows that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or even fatal to organisms. Even when subjected to intended genetic manipulation, animals remain the same kind, there are no new species created. Time has no factor here and chance has no creative ability whatsoever.

The theory of evolution as it is touted today has its origins in religion and mythology, not science.

The fact of evolution is that populations of living things change over time, both in their genes and in their observable traits. They do not however become different creatures than what they are. They remain the same type.

The theory of evolution refers to scientific explanations of how exactly populations of organisms change over time. Much of the explanations here are the stuff of fairy tales. That's where the plane many times crashes and burns.

To believe that creatures evolved over millions or billions of years genetically mutating in positive adaptations is to believe something that is not only scientifically implausible but quite impossible. Given an infinite amount of time the impossible still remains just that, impossible. Not only impossible, but irrational. I've been there and done that. I even have the T-shirt to prove it.

I was asked about Richard Dawkins on another post. I've read some of his work, listened to seminars and seen him quite a few times on television. I've also read works by Marx, Freud, Huxley, Russell and many others in that vein.

Speaking specifically to Dawkins, I stand by what I've posted elsewhere. He is not scientifically objective, he is biased. He is a biased religious bigot who has an axe to grind with anyone who even hints a belief in a Creator, the possibility of intelligent design being evidenced in the universe, or even the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Very closed-minded versus scientifically objective. He's one I consider so smart that he's stupid.

Anyone who discounts the possibility of infinite intelligence must believe that they themselves have it. Talk about arrogance. That's why atheism is irrational. Agnosticism makes far more sense than that.

Many folk remain skeptics because they find peace in their skepticism. They don't have to make any decisions that way or come to any conclusions other than those that are pleasing or don't make them feel uncomfortable. Makes it easy to live any way that they want, do whatever they want to do, say whatever they want to say. Total unaccountability. The idea of a moral Creator makes their skin crawl or makes them angry because they know that if He does in fact exist, they are in trouble.

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process."
G.K. Chesterton

I will continue to question and I am very selective as to who's report I am going to believe. We all exercise faith; it's just a matter of where that faith is placed. For me, I don't have time to waste. I'm on a mission.

Thank you for reading,

HN


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6R99V-i...
PRONG – Beg to Differ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ilLiglPg...
Deliverance – Pseudo intellectual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtli...
Ben Stein Interviews Richard Dawkins

http://www.elyrics.net/read/p/prong-lyri...
Lyrics – PRONG – Beg to Differ

http://www.metrolyrics.com/pseudo-intell...
Lyrics – Deliverance - Pseudointellectual
UPDATE - 7 months ago
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to? believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
17 months ago: Thanks Huey,

Great post!
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: There are many items in the above post to which I might reply, but let's try the quote: It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process." -- G.K. Chesterton. There may well have been some unthinkable power which created the universe by means of some unthinkable process, although quite possibly with greater scientific knowlege that process would be thinkable. The universe was created in its present form by a Big Bang, and that in turn may have been created by some presently unknown process which may or may not have involved some conscious entity. You pretend to have detailed knowledge of that creation, based upon biblical mythology which is presented as a revelation, with no evidence being required. Someone claims that God said something to him, and that then becomes religious dogma. You are then duly contemptuous of those who do not accept that dogma. The point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is actually quite intelligent despite your dismissal of it as dumb, is that anybody can invent any religion they like and claim it as a divine revelation, and it will be just as plausible as any other supposedly divine revelation. Those who argue that God must exist as long as there is no proof that he doesn't, would have to believe in the Flying Spgahetti Monster as well, since its existence also cannot be disproved.

I am not going to extend this into an endless debate. I have said enough. It was clear from the beginning that there will be no meeting of the minds.
soulreaver
soulreaver
Los Angeles, CA
17 months ago: I beg to differ. Check out the comment that I left, this is not in your defense but an observation. Good luck mate.
17 months ago: "The universe was created in its present form by a Big Bang, and that in turn may have been created by some presently unknown process which may or may not have involved some conscious entity."

The Big Bang is not a proven fact. It is a belief, an assumption that is accepted by faith.

The big bang isn't testable, repeatable laboratory science. It doesn't make specific predictions that are confirmed by observation and experimentation. In fact, the postulation of a big bang is at odds with a number of principles of real operational science. If you take the time to study the cosmology behind it, there are plenty of problems with this theory that make it not only very suspect, but not worthy of total acceptance as fact to say the least.

At least you admit the possibility of an intelligent Creator. In that regard you are light years (pun intended) ahead much of the evolutionist crowd.

"You pretend to have detailed knowledge of that creation, based upon biblical mythology which is presented as a revelation, with no evidence being required"
Number one, I'm not pretending anything and number two where do I say that? Where do I ever state (here or elsewhere) that one should believe anything specific with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? I seem to be a square peg that you are striving to put in a round hole. Doesn't fit, does it?

As far as the Bible, there are plenty of good things in the books that can help a person to navigate the course of life. It just so happens that many recoil at the morality that is presented. Plain and simple.

When folk want to lie, cheat, steal and fornicate they are not going to find any solace in those books. They are going to get slapped up. That's why folk rebel against the teachings.

I am not a Universalist, however if one takes the time to look, there are many good principles that can be found in other religions. All the stuff you have spouted, most of which is unproven, only leads to meaninglessness.

Also, before you write the books off, I think you ought to give them a good objective read and not spend so much time watching "Discovery" and the "History Channel." Try the Gospel according to John for starters.

As far as contempt, I am not contemptuous of those I disagree with. I tend to be very direct and I just call 'em like I see 'em. This life is short and it's a waste of time to harbor negative emotions like contempt. I don't have time for that non-sense.

Back to genetics - most mutations are HARMFUL and often LETHAL to the organism. Random mutation through natural selection creating ever more complex life forms is a joke. It's not science, it's a lie. If someone wants to put their faith there that, it is their prerogative, but that does not make sense unless you are purposefully looking to avoid the alternative because it does not fit what is comfortable.

As for the "Spaghetti Monster" there is nothing intelligent about it. To say that all the religious folk in the worlds beliefs are as plausible or on the same level as believing in the existence of a "Spaghetti Monster," is not just condescending and insulting but sophomoric and juvenile. At that point you are not taking any person's spirituality seriously and to say that you are is to lie to their face.

"It was clear from the beginning that there will be no meeting of the minds. "

That was your perception from the beginning. I've considered what you have said. I've heard it before, I have listened again. Nothing new. I have valid reasons for my own skepticism with regard to that and the evidence to the contrary of that particular dogma is quite more compelling.

As I said before, I am very selective of who's report I am going to believe. The so-called theory of evolution that is touted as dogma today has enough holes to drive a tractor trailer through. I've given it serious consideration and found it flawed and wanting
soulreaver
soulreaver
Los Angeles, CA
17 months ago: Really Huey, you're on a mission? Like Mission Impossible... or no wait like a "Crusade" and anybody who differs with your perception of "God" would get the ax for being irrational.

On the topic of mutation... Plants do it, plants from different species in the wild have been known to cross pollinate and create a new species. And in the natural animal world well, I'll leave that up to you to find out.

Its been said -God works in mysterious ways. What if "God" really did manifest himself as a "spaghetti monster" to that man, maybe even as a child? Who are you to question God's work?

You ever heard the true life story of "Joan of Ark?" How "God" manifested himself to her? She was only 19 (still a teen) when she was betrayed "burned at the stake as a witch" in England after she actually led the army of France against England- also inspiring the people to join, giving the power back to the Dauphin when he was off and hiding in the country.
17 months ago: Mission possible.

My mission is to fulfill my purpose, embrace my destiny and to leave a positive impact on this planet. It's hardly a "crusade" but it is motivating.

I do not feel that everyone who disagrees with is irrational. However, anyone who believes in spontaneous generation yet discounts even the possibility of a personal, intelligent Creator of the universe is not just irrational but foolish.

Again with the Spaghetti Monster. If someone wants to truly believe that, go for it. However most folk that bring that up are taking a shot at spiritual people, they are not defending their right to believe. That is a lie. It's a rather weak shot at that but at least it locates where the perps are coming from.

Don't know a lot about Joan of Ark, but you've raised my curiosity level.

Thanks for stopping by.
soulreaver
soulreaver
Los Angeles, CA
17 months ago: Mr. Newton any belief is ultimately a utensil or a lie in the extreme, it can only point to the truth at best, but it is not the truth.

Again who are you to judge what is foolish and what is divine creation? Most great discoveries were unexpected- even risky endeavors like the formulation of the Nuclear-Bomb by which "Einstein" reluctantly negated to talk about turning his
E=mc-2 energy formula into the foundational formula for creating weapons with such energy.

The only people who find the concept of the "spaghetti monster" "insulting" or even "serious" are those to whom their false sense of self is identified by those "thoughts or beliefs", who in contrast is challenging the superficial latter.

Hey, you don't need to believe anything, you already know the truth- you just need to discover it for your self. Good luck on your mission.

The essence of truth and integrity comes from the heart. "For the mind has no heart and the heart has no reason."
17 months ago: Jesus claimed to be the Truth. He's good enough for me.

Like I said previously others can believe what they want. It's their life and they will have to deal with their own consequences.

Also, any person in their right mind needs to decide for themselves what is foolishness and what is not. That's called discernment.

Something that is foolish to some, may not be foolish to another but that's life.

Everyone makes their own decisions as to what is worthy of believing and what is not. What is the truth and what is a lie. We all have to decide how we are going to live and what we are going to give honor and respect to.

Again, the folk touting the pasta deity in no way shape or form are expressing tolerance or anything positive with regard to spiritual people or spiritual matters. They could care less because they believe it is all a delusion. They don't take any of it is seriously. It's a shot, albeit a weak one. No skin off my apple.

Also, I don't believe in luck and my mission has thus far been a fruitful and a blessed one.

Thanks for the good will.
17 months ago: Almost forgot, mutations.

There are no new species evolving.

There are no new species being created either naturally or in the lab. There are variations within kinds and there are new species being discovered but that's all.

New 'species' may form, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus. But that is not what the dogmatic version of Darwinian evolution teaches.

I've already researched it and I am not going to chase that goose again. If you have any examples, please post them here and I'll check them out.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: I am going to post another comment even after having announced my withdrawal from the debate. Perhaps I shouldn't, however, I find that I have some extra time this morning. I hope no one will be too annoyed.

Your claim that "The Big Bang is not a proven fact. It is a belief, an assumption that is accepted by faith" reflects a profound ingnorance of the science of astronomy, and of science in general. Science does not operate by faith and never has. It is based upon two things only: observation, and logical reasoning. In the specific case of the Big Bang, there is a vast amount of observation which confirms that event. Analysis of the doppler shifts of astronomical objects (stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.) shows a general pattern of an expanding universe, which if extrapolated back in time shows that everything came from a single location, nearly 14 billion years ago. As additional confirmation, there is a low frequency background radiation that has been observed coming from all directions in space, which has the expected attributes of energy left over from the Big Bang. It's very convincing to those who bother to examine the evidence.

I do not, and will never have enough time to comment on all the erroneous statements which you make so freely. I will reply to your statement that "Matter cannot be eternal based on the second law of thermodynamics alone." Actually, the second law of thermodynamics only tells us that the usuable energy in the universe must eventually run out (resulting in what is called "The heat death of the universe") not that matter itself is not eternal or cannot persist for an indefinite period of time. The universe has not run down yet, since 14 billion years is not long enough. But then, this does seem to place a limit on the age of the universe - that is, unless there is some anti-entropic process which introduces new usable energy. You have no difficulty identifying God as an anti-entropic agency; others would say that quantum fluctuation is a better explanation. There may be other explanations of which we presently have no knowledge. In any event, I have already said that I don't really know what caused the Big Bang. It is more honest to admit what you don't know, than it is to accept some unproven hypothesis such as God, in the absence of any real data. I will post another comment after this one.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: There are so very many things to argue about in your comments, but let's consider this assertion: "Anyone who discounts the possibility of infinite intelligence must believe that they themselves have it. Talk about arrogance." This is a somewhat odd formulation of the argument, since it is usually said only that God's mind is greater than that of mere humans, not that God's intelligence is actually infinite, but let's say that God is supposed to have infinite intelligence. Just because I do not see good evidence that a being of infinite intelligence exists, would not mean that I haven't considered the possibility. All sorts of things are possible but many of those are not actual, there is a difference. In any event, it is supposedly arrogant of me to come to a conclusion about the existence of God, and humility would require me to be an agnostic instead. On the other hand, you have no difficulty proclaiming that God does exist. Apparently, you do have the infinite intelligence needed to come to a conclusion about the existence of a being of infinite intelligence. Of course, it does not actually require infinite intelligence to reach a reasonable conclusion about God, just as it is possible to reach conclusions about the Flying Spaghetti Monster without having a brain that is made of spaghetti. I apply exactly the same kind of logical reasoning to questions about God that I would apply to any other question. Of course, we might imagine that God is hiding from me, or has deliberately created a universe which looks like it came about by natural, rather than supernatural means, as a test of my faith. I could also imagine that I am asleep and this whole conversation is a dream. We can imagine lots of things, but some hypotheses are more reasonable than others. All else being equal, simpler explanations work better than complicated ones (this is a philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor). You buttress implausible hypotheses with needless complexities.

I will also post a comment on the theory of evolution, of which you are so critical.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: To begin with your opening salvo, "Life does not come from non-life but from other life. Creatures do not morph into other creatures. According the very laws of genetics (Gregor Mendel, anyone?) every creature produces after its kind. That also happens to concur with Genesis chapter 1." If life only come from life, that the existence of life must imply that the first living creature, God, always existed and therefore comes from nowhere, there is no explanation for God's existence. You simply ignore this problem. In fact, biologists have very good evidence that life can evolve from non-living systems. Given a large enough mass of chemicals and a long enough period of time, all sorts of chemical reactions can and will take place, and there is no reason why we cannot get a self-replicating chemical which can then evolve to something recognizable as life.

We have certainly observed the appearance of variations on existing species. We can caused such variations ourselves, by breeding all kinds of domestic animals which are significantly different from their ancestral species. We have also seen the appearance, for example, of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria; this is another form of evolution. So yes, creatures DO morph into other creatures, and we have seen it happen.

The laws of genetics, to which you refer, do not state that genetics never change. You are aware that mutations do take place, but you discount this on the basis that mutations are usually harmful. Of course, the key word here is usually. If there are a trillion harmful mutations for every beneficial mutations, evolution can still take place. The defective mutants perish, and the superior mutants survive and reproduce. All of this was explained a long time ago by Darwin, and better explained by more recent writers such as Stephen Jay Gould, whom I have already recommended earlier in this discussion. All of your arguments about evolution reflect your ignorance of the topic. You really need to do more reading about evolution before you presume to offer a critical analysis to the public.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
17 months ago: There are evidences and clues that at times appear to point in some evolutionary directions but much of it is hardly totally convincing to anyone who has any amount of discernment and objectivity.

Again there is no scientific proof whatsoever of life coming from non-life, or for genetic mutations creating better plants and animals. That is a fairy tale. If someone wants to believe that fine, but that is not scientifically proven in the least. Keep the dogma if you like.

Far from being ignorant on this topic, I am quite well versed. You just don't like my conclusions.

The planet earth "just happened" to be the right size and "just happened" to be the right distance from the sun so that life "just happened" to arise. Then through the process of random mutations and natural selection, we humans "just happened" to appear on the scene. To me that is not only illogical but quite impossible.

The list of "coincidences" goes on and on. As it turns out the slightest tinkering with the values of the fundamental forces of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces—would have resulted in a universe where life would be impossible.

I don't have the kind of faith to believe that this is an accident. Evidently you do. It also seems like you vastly prefer that idea of no Creator since you are fighting the very real possibility of His existence so vehemently.

To address the laws of thermodynamics AGAIN, the first law (conservation of matter) implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning. That being said, something eternal to the universe must have caused it to come into existence.

The idea of creation is no mere matter of religious faith; it is a conclusion based upon the most straightforward reading of the evidence.

The second law is the law of decay and implies that the universe is winding down. What decays cannot be eternal therefore matter is not eternal and there is not a shred of evidence to prove that it is.

As for the Big Bang guess, it really delivers a near death blow to naturalistic philosophy, for the naturalistic dogma regards reality as an unbroken chain of events of cause and effect that can be traced back endlessly. The Big Bang represents a sudden discontinuity in that chain. A scientific wall. Far from supporting naturalism the theory shows the limits of all naturalistic accounts of reality by showing that nature itself (time,space, matter) came into existence at a finite period of time ago.

Many so called scientists continue to avoid rather than explore the possibility of a Creator. They do this knowing that if they ever find Him they will no longer be their own gods. It makes folk like Dawkins quite uncomfortable (did you actually watch his video that I posted?)

You have drawn your conclusions from the evidence that is available and I have drawn mine.

Again, agnosticism makes a lot more sense than atheism. I happen to be neither and that is a position that you simply can't seem to understand or appreciate.

skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: Regarding your claim that "There are evidences and clues that at times appear to point in some evolutionary directions but much of it is hardly totally convincing to anyone who has any amount of discernment and objectivity" you are spectacularly wrong. There is a solid consensus in the scientific community, among the people who have the very best discernment and objectivity, as well as education and intelligence, that the theory of evolution is correct. But I am not going to spend the rest of my life, or even the rest of the day arguing with you. I know a futile endeavor when I see one.
17 months ago: No worries. Because there are many in the scientific community, among people who have the very best discernment and objectivity as well as education and intelligence that believe the theory of evolution as is taught today is not not only spectacularly wrong but in many cases what is presented is not even science but myth and philosophy.

It's great to be able to discern the difference.

It also seems to me you are simply are have trouble believing that there are intelligent and objective people who have valid reasons for disagreeing with that particular dogma and won't swallow it hook, line and sinker like many others. That's just too bad.

I know there are smart folks on the other side but they simply have not convinced me. As a matter of fact, the way they play the "I'm smarter and more enlightened than you are card because you believe the evidence points to an Intelligent Creator" makes their arguments even less compelling.

The number of dissenters who beg to differ is in fact growing and that is exactly why there is an all out attack to protect the sacred cow these days.

If someone's religion tells them they are evolved slime mold that squiggled up from primordial ooze, that they have no future and no ultimate purpose in the universe, more power to them.

I happen to believe that humanity is the crowning achievement of God's creation.

I also know that if more folks saw themselves that way and lived like it in honor, respect, and love for one another regardless of their differences, our world would be a far better place.

Content Removed by Huey Newton
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: Skeptic is right on one point. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of God. Even Moses failed to convince Pharaoh, except for a short time, and Pharoah quickly forgot the lesson he had been shown.

As far as the Big Bang, sure, many indicators lend themselves to the theory. But just as many indicators seem to prove the Big Bang mechanism impossible.

To Skeptic

Your statement concerning the Big Bang:
"which if extrapolated back in time shows that everything came from a single location"

Can you cite a reference for this, because to best of my limited understanding, the entire universe is expanding at a uniform rate, homogeneously distributed with matter and energy, and there is no indication of a central "point".

Curiously awaiting you reply.
17 months ago: "The big bang isn't testable, repeatable laboratory science". Do you live in a cave?
17 months ago: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: Can you explain what you have posted? What insights were revealed as to the nature of a primordial universe? Can taking existing matter apart really explain how it was created from nothing?
17 months ago: He has no clue.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: The big bang theory doesn't allow for a "before the big bang". So if there was no before, then time in the first few moments of its existence would have had to stretch back infinitely.

One thing I haven't read yet concerning the Big Bang. Everyone talks about it as if it was the result of internal forces, an explosion of sorts, which does not add up.

More likely, it was the result of external forces, a vacuum bubble brought into being by tremendous outside influences, much like the gas bubbles formed when lowering the pressure surrounding a liquid. This theory of mine would explain why there is no observable center of our universe, why matter and energy are homogeneously distributed throughout, and why the farthest objects are expanding faster. We are in a bubble, that was brought into existence, not from nothing, but from something acted on by a vacuum.

Can anyone out there prove me wrong?

I'll be available to pick up my Nobel prize anytime after six on weekdays.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: A bubble makes a "bloop" sound. So I'm calling my theory of a vacuum induced universe "The Big Bloop". Do you think it'll catch on?
17 months ago: It has been spedulated that what was in existence before the big bang was another universe that had crashed in on itself. In effect the big bang was the yo-yo in the hand between throws. To imagine the universe expanding in all directions think of a sharpie mark on the outside of a ballon. When you blow up that ballon the mark expands in all directions. Now think of that in 3 dimensions, as opposed to the 2 of a ballon surface.) Yes, near objects in space can be approaching us as opposed to going away from us but that is a result of other forces (like specific gravity.)
To answer one point from Huey - the Earth is in a habitable zone around the sun but it has been shown by astronomical calculation (& super computer simulation) that the "habitable zone" can extend out past Mars and in as far as the inner planets. In addition there is conflict in the scientific community over just what is habitable. Habitable zone calculations currently assume life on other planets based on the same biological building blocks as our own. But that does not have to be the case. NASA scientists recently produced an Arsenic based microbe. And there's evidence for methane based life on one of Jupiters moons. Another factor that can influence the habitable zone in a solar system is volcanism. Let's say a planet is too far from the central star but it has a lot of volcanoes... To say that there are too many coincidences in the formation of life on this planet is to be ignorant to the reality we see in our own solar system. Several hundred years ago you could be put to death for believing the earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to the other way round. There will be more discoveries in the years and decades ahead that show life is not unigue to this planet.
17 months ago: Maybe, maybe not.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: Just for fun, an exercise in free association.

Imagine nothing. Not nothing like outer space, where you can see stars and stuff, but simply nothing. Nothingness so strong that anything put into that nothing would have to expand to try to fill the nothing. A complete and total void, the ultimate vacuum. No physical matter in it what so ever to weaken the vacuum.

Now imagine a single piece of matter being placed into the ultimate vacuum, and watch as it expands, getting bigger and bigger like a balloon, until it is finally ripped to shreds, pieces of it flying outward to fill the void, fulfilling nature's requirement that a true vacuum cannot exist as long as there is matter to fill it.

End of exercise.

New Exercise

Imagine the same nothingness, the same void, the same total emptiness. Now try to imagine every star, every planet, every comet, every asteroid, every one of the billions upon billions of entire galaxies coming out of a speck no bigger than the point of a needle. Can you see it?

Really?
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: To Out Of The Box, In reply to your question, [Your statement concerning the Big Bang:
"which if extrapolated back in time shows that everything came from a single location"

Can you cite a reference for this, because to best of my limited understanding, the entire universe is expanding at a uniform rate, homogeneously distributed with matter and energy, and there is no indication of a central "point".]

First of all, the universe is definitely not expanding at a uniform rate everywhere, nor does it consist of a homogeneous distribution of matter and energy. Astronomical observations show that with the exception of our local galactic cluster (which is gravitationally bound together) the farther away any galaxy or other visible object is, the faster it is receding from us. The current limit of observation, which is about 13 billion light years, shows objects moving at nearly the speed of light away from us.

If the universe was homogeneous and expanding at a uniform rate, that would have supported the now discredited Steady State theory, rather than the Big Bang theory.

I am not going to post a link for you, however, it is very easy to research this subject on the internet, just as it is easy to research almost any subject on the internet. Look up Big Bang on google and go to the wikipedia entry on the astronomical theory (not on the TV series of the same name) and you will get a richly informative article which is also filled with links leading to further information. It is all there, at your fingertips.
17 months ago: When you observe items in space you are looking at things that occurred at some point in the past. 13 billion lightyears means the object being viewed is 13 billion years old. That was relatively soon after the big bang so it stands to reason that those objects are/were moving faster than relatively close objects. 13 billion years ago the universe was a fairly hot place. But it has cooled considerably since then. And no the universe is not uniformely distributed with matter although in the aggregate there is no one sector more packed than another. Soon after the big bang matter was flying out fairly uniformly. But there were tiny clumps spread thru-out. After millions and billions of years those clumps started to come together more tightly due to gravity. These are the stars, solar systems, and galaxies we can now observe.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: Ok, if you won't post citations, I will. Here is from the kids section on NASA.gov

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/phone...


"The Big Bang cannot have happened at a particular place in the universe, because before the Big Bang there was no universe! The Big Bang happened everywhere at once, about 14 billion years ago, bringing space and time into existence. "

"If we had a powerful telescope that could see all the way to the end of the universe, would we find more of the universe on one side of Earth than on the other? No. We would find that it looks the same in all directions."

"Space itself is curved, so as the universe expands from the Big Bang, it is somewhat like the two-dimensional space on a balloon. But just like the surface of that balloon, there is no center in the universe. "
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: It is quite true that the Big Bang happened everywhere at once, when it happened, but everywhere at that time was very limited. Space itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, and it was the rapid creation of space which resulted in what is known as the inflation of the universe (see the inflationary theory), by which the universe expanded tremendously faster than light (the Einsteinian limitation on speed does not apply to the creation of space, it only applies to the motion of objects within an existing space). The Big Bang happened in a small volume of space, perhaps an arbitrarily small volume approaching zero. That small volume was all the space there was, since at the time, there were no other locations, and no other space.

Since the universe is expanding now, imagine time running in reverse, in which case the universe would be contracting. The end result of the contraction of the universe would be, I think you'll agree, a very small universe. I don't think that we can say precisely how small the Cosmic Egg was (the Cosmic Egg is what astronomers call the object which exploded in order to create the Big Bang) but it may even have had zero volume, in which case it was a singularity. Personally I am skeptical about singularities, but I can't rule them out. If it wasn't a singularity, the Cosmic Egg was still very small compared to the present, hugely expanded universe.

So if the universe actually was very small when it originated, and has expanded since then, it follows that the universe does originate in a specific location. What about the balloon analogy? That works too. If you start with a very small balloon and then inflate it into a very large balloon, then all the objects drawn onto the surface of the balloon really were all in a relatively small location before they wound up in more distant locations, and there really was a location from which the expanding balloon started to expand. Right? Not a singularity, but still a small location.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: And this expansion has been extrapolated to precisely where?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: The balloon explanation rests on the principle that the universe is a two dimensional plane in the shape of a sphere, which it is obviously not. There are galaxies inside the balloon. What is happening here is man, in his desire to know his creation, is making up ways that it could have happened, and then interpreting the observations in a manner to support this belief system.

Consensus or not, popular belief or not, it is all conjecture, not even an actual scientific Theory, but merely hypothesis. For anyone to state these theories as fact is deceitful.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
17 months ago: I am not going to continue this discussion indefinitely, but there are a few points that I will reply to. First, it is of course a very fair question to ask for the specific location at which the Big Bang occured some 13.7 billion years ago. Unfortunately, I do not have that information. The universe is (as you know) extremely large, and it is difficult for us to observe it in its entirely and to draw conclusions about the location where it began to expand. Science is often criticised as a system of knowlege, because it does not know everything. However, it does know something, and that is better than knowing nothing. In comparison, religions claim to know everything, although they have no eividence with which to support this amazing claim. You have to take it on faith. Would the Pope lie to you?

Secondly, you (Out Of The Box) have complained that it is deceitful for anyone to state these (cosmological) theories as fact. I don't know if you are implying that this is what I have been doing, or that any scientist has been presenting theory as fact, but allow me to reassure you. Scientific theories are always presented by scientists as theories and not as fact. We know the difference. That is why it is always possible for any scientific theory to be replaced by a new theory which better explains the facts. This can be compared to religion which always regards itself as being beyond question, regardless of the facts, because it would be heretical, blasphemous, or otherwise disrespectful of religious authority to question or disbelieve a religious claim.

So you have your choice, religious dogma or scientific theory. I for one would never stand in the way of whatever choice you choose to make. And if you have lots more questions for me, I am not going to answer them. There is only so much time that I wish to devote to this discussion, and I think that it is about up. Bye bye.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: You are right, let's not argue. So in closing, I'll just remind you of your previous comments.

"Your claim that "The Big Bang is not a proven fact. It is a belief, an assumption that is accepted by faith" reflects a profound ingnorance of the science of astronomy, and of science in general."

"In the specific case of the Big Bang, there is a vast amount of observation which confirms that event."

"Analysis of the doppler shifts of astronomical objects (stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.) shows a general pattern of an expanding universe, which if extrapolated back in time shows that everything came from a single location, nearly 14 billion years ago."

I personally believe that scientific FACT and belief in God and creation (notice I didn't use the word religion) can co-exist. I also believe that will be the key to finally getting it right.
17 months ago: Folks, you cannot pinpoint the location of the big bang. In essense it happened everywhere at once. If you look out in any direction (far enough to overcome local differences) you will see the universe expanding at the same rate, away from us. It's the ballon effect that has already been mentioned. You blow up the ballon and notice that everything expands away from every individual location. It has also been mentioned that there was no space prior to the big bang. If that infinitely small piece of realestate was all there was to space and it rapidly expanded then we are in that expanded space and in effect were at the center of the expansion (as was everything else.) This might lead the more religious amongst us to proclaim that we are at the center of "god's" creation. But that is just fantasy derived by a human trying to find reason for humanity. There is evidence for this expansion as has been mentioned many times over. And if there are intelligent life forms on the other side of our galaxy they too would notice that the universe is expanding in all directions away from them. And the religious in their community could come to the same conclusion - that they are the center of "god's" creation.

One of Dawkins' most convincing arguements is that in order for there to be a god he/she/it would have had to have been more complex than the creation. It's simple physics. Likewise that means that this creator could not exist in a less complex system. So at best you have the deist theory of religion. That is that god created the universe but then stepped back and now has no role in his creation. That is what many of our founding fathers believed; most notably Thomas Jefferson. This is what causes me to be agnostic as opposed to being a total atheist. I have no idea what came before the big bang. Maybe there was some cosmic intelligence, maybe there was nothing. But I'm am pretty damn certain there is no god whatching over us. How concieted and ego-centric to think that humans, alone in the universe, are the chosen life forms of a creator. It is far easier (intellectually if not spiritually) to assume life is a coincidence of propitious chemical combinations.

As for the arguement that almost everyone spouts; that without religion there would be no morals, no right and wrong. That's complete crap. Evolution explains morals beautifully well. We don't need religion in order to do the "right thing." Please give me one example of someone doing the "right thing" for any reason other than their own, our their relatives, benefit. Even when someone donates a large sum of money anonymously, that person is deriving some personal benefit. Maybe his wife knows or his mistress. And that makes him a wonderful humanitarian in their eyes. Or maybe he's the only one who knows. But he derives a certain sense of moral superiority from his action. It's very possible that he doesn't even realize this sense of superiority. Maybe it manifests itself as a warm feeling. But that is explainable from evolutionary theory...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
17 months ago: That's why the explosion analogy is inaccurate. It's more like a bubble acted on by vacuum, in which space would increase in size and everything in the bubble would expand away from each other.

However, observations in 2008 measured the expansion in half of our observable universe as greater than in the other half, which would also lend credence to the bubble in a vacuum theory, provided the Earth is not at the center.

As for religion being the center of morality, it is not. I know many many good and moral non-religious people, people who do not cheat on their spouses, get drunk, hurt others, steal, murder or lie. What's the difference between them and me? I honor God, and give Him the glory. I accepted the gift Jesus gave when he died to atone for the sins I do commit. That's the only difference between me and you.
17 months ago: "I honor God, and give Him the glory."

Makes all the difference. Word up.
17 months ago: I have heard a lot of info... and I just want to say I believe in the BIG BANG... but it hasn't happened yet...

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise (BIG BANG), and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
2Peter 3:10
Content Removed by Edward Lee
17 months ago: "The Big Bang! Impossible, how can there be a Big Bang, can nothing explode?

You would have had to have a humongous planet or something to explode and distribute all of the planets and suns that we now have.

How can nothing explode, and if there was something humongous where did it come from?

The answer is that God is eternal and the universe has always been there, God did not just appear, that would be impossible. the only logical explication is that He has always existed.

17 months ago: First of all, thank you Huey for an honest and sensible approach to this subject.

Second a real skeptic does not discount any idea before giving it serious consideration.

Third real atheists don't believe in religion therefore they don't spend time arguing with religious people. They instead go on to live their nonreligious secular lives.

Fourth people who do argue against religion, especially Christianity mostly have a bone to pick and they do under false pretences.

Fifth one of the most basic principles of science is that mass cannot be created/destroyed so it is illogical and absurd to think that there was a beginning from nothing.

That's all for now, thanks.
17 months ago: Thanks for the addition. Rounds out the entire piece nicely. :)
17 months ago: Well said.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: Another goofy rant/rave by that fabulously confused Huey Newton...laughter.

This whack-head has a lot to say about everything folks...sorta like "The World according to Huey Newton"

This boy IS amusing.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: Speaking of issues, you seem to have quite a few of your own. Live and let live? Not one of your strong points.
We will, however, maintain a modicum of decorum, and leave the name calling on the school playground.
This is the second time you have been reminded to please read the Community Guidelines page.

http://www.rantrave.com/community-guidel...
10 months ago: Thanks Box.

Methinks owlafaye has been losing sleep thinking about the information I've posted here and getting up the nerve to post again after our last little go 'round.

Good.
7 months ago: "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.