Questions about the Big Bang
Bear
The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
noted as a belief.
How did the universe start and evolve?
"WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
the BB and what was it called?
2 Has science applied a label to the pre-BB event?
3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
it existed?
4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
"This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from whence all life
arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate
particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe."
That is very interesting.
6 What was the "ultimate particle accelerator".
7 What did it consist of?
8 Where did it come from?
9 How did it come into existence?
10 How do scientists know that Elementary particles were created and
destroyed at that time?
11 Where did the space come from that all these events took place
in?
12 How did the BB create time?
"There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
annihilated each other and created light."
Seems like a rather dogmatic statement to me
13 How is it known that matter existed before the BB or, was it
supposedly created by the BB?
14 How do they know that matter and antimatter met?
15 What caused them to meet?
16 Is there an explanation somewhere that describes how their
destruction "created light"?
17 How long did the "light last" and how is that known?
18 Assuming the light at some point vanished, how was the sun
formed?
"Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
"Somehow, it seems�"?
19 So do I understand correctly that it is not a known fact, only an
assumption?
20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
is that incorrect?
21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
they created?
22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
know there was any in the first place?
23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
amount of light"?
24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
suggested earlier, what was there left to evolve over the billions of
years?
25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
matter, is that incorrect?
27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
"Today, WMAP measures that there is more than a billion times more
light than matter."
28 How can they possibly measure how many more times of light there
is than matter?
29 Earlier, they said that matter and antimatter annihilated each
other, now they are saying there is "more than a billion times more
light than matter", what am I missing?
I have been told by some that believe in evolution, I'm sorry, the BB,
"all evolution" can be tested, observed and/or duplicated, is this a
mistake and if not, how is it explained?
When I read the above article from NASA, it appears to me there are
some glaring inconsistencies, assumptions and huge amounts of
speculation that have never been observed, cannot be tested, nor can
it be duplicated in a lab.
The believers in the BB and evolution seem to have to start their
theories at some point "after" the, "in the beginning" point. That
does not answer questions of what happened prior to the BB.
Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that. OTOH, there
seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
creation, why is it being taught in our schools? It is my opinion
that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
something like, there are a couple of different views of the
beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
universe evolve as we know it today.
To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
Bear
AusShane
"To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching. "
I am sure some of our physics orientated colleagues will elucidate you
on the your questions - bearing in mind this has all been gone through
before. However you above statement requires a direct answer.
1) Observations and hypotheses have certain rationales that must be
fulfilled before they can be classed as science. They are very
specific and well known. I am sure you can look them up. The issue is
that some of those viewpoints are not science, fail the tenets of
science on every level and have frequently been proven to be either
misrepresented or fraudulent. (You are suggesting we should teach
known and proven untruths as science???)
2) You have fallen into the trap of believing a controversy exists
when it clearly doesn't. The only controversy is dishonest people
trying to pass off superstition and myth as science - teach it as
religious studies or philosophy by all means, but don't pretend it
falls under the tenets of what we use to describe the universe. There
are good reasons we do not teach spontaneous generation and phlogiston
and alchemy in science classes. They have been proven to be false - as
has intelligent design - yet you are suggesting we should teach it???
If you mean we should teach our young people facts and not proven
fairy tales - well I guess that is indoctrination. The same sort of
indoctrination that teaches us that the sun is not the god Ra flying
his chariot across the sky.
Cory Albrecht
> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
> universe evolve as we know it today.
Problem is, Bear, one of those "views" has a heck of a lot more
supporting information and data and plain old *evidence* behind it than
the other does.
> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
Science doesn't restrain any views - it simply demands that they be
supported with evidence and be potentially falsifiable via testing - the
Big Bang Theory is exactly that and Intelligent Design isn't even in the
ballpark.
When one "view" has so much evidence it becomes unreasonable to deny it
and the other "view" has no evidence at all, do you really think that
they should be given equal time?
VoiceOfReason
<...>
> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
Wrong. It's ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public schools because
it's a religious belief. The fact that it's demonstrably false is
just a minor detail by comparison.
> OTOH, there
> seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
> scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
> creation, why is it being taught in our schools?
Theories are not taught as fact. They are taught as theories.
Something tells me you didn't do well in school.
> It is my opinion
> that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
> a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
> can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.
> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
> universe evolve as we know it today.
>
> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
You mean the way creationists constantly try to pass laws blocking the
teaching of evolution? How dishonest can you be? There have been a
number of famous court cases that shot down creationist attempts
censorship.
* Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) Supreme Court decision
* McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
* Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Supreme Court decision
* Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)
Such is the dishonesty of creationism.
pegleg
Pegleg:
At one time I gave consideration to the BB......not so much anymore.
8-) Look at this.... Why God had a ~plan~! I just bet it was a
~bueprint~! 8-) Most people do not understand that this was the ~
FIRST~ creation by God. That the creation in Genesis was a ~re-
creation~ of the earth alone.8-)
1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
2 "Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
'This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!'
Job 38:1-11 (NKJV)
Bear
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>Bear wrote:
>
><...>
>
>> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
>> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
>> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
>
>Wrong. It's ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public schools because
>it's a religious belief. The fact that it's demonstrably false is
>just a minor detail by comparison.
>
I only have a couple of comments and/or questions.
Can you provide any evidence stating that it is illegal to teach
creation in public schools? I know that it is illegal in science
classes but not in religious studies, and as I stated, neither do I
think it should be.
I did express a desire to see some evidence substantiating comments,
unless it was clarified as being a belief. If it makes you feel
superior to others by ridiculing, mocking and making assertions that
you know nothing about and cannot prove, then do so until your heart
is content. It is very easy for your type to make accusations and
ridicule; it seems to prove much more difficult for you to answer
questions in a productive manner.
Bear
Free Lunch
<pegleg...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
OF course we all know that the cosmology described in Job is wrong.
Bear
wrote:
Of course, Free Lunch knows everything, only if he does not have to
answer questions and provide proof of his dogmatic assertions.
Bear
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I don't know shit about science
Worthless babble deleted from OP and factually correct summary inserted for
everyone's convenience.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ike E 11/16/09
"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u5sgg5hbu9cmosfoe...@4ax.com...
>
>
> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
> noted as a belief.
>
> How did the universe start and evolve?
>
> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>
> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
> the BB and what was it called?
The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
BECAME void and without form."
When did it become void and without form?
At the end of Revelation.
And where did the proto atom that started the universe come from?
The end of the story.
So then, the universe breaths in and out, repeating the same story
over-and-over again.
Hence, the scientists are on the mark about this one.
> 2 Has science applied a label to the pre-BB event?
There is no "pre-BB event," unless you want to go back and count the
collapse of the universe at the end of the story the precursor to the
beginning of the story, because one has the same problem with this that one
has with Jesus "I Am the root AND offspring of David"--in a singularity,
there is no "beginning" or "end."
> 3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
> it existed?
Factual reasoning: All of the matter in this universe (which is NOT
infinite, as previously thought) collapses into the proto atom at the end of
the story, which establishes the Big Band at the beginning of the story,
just as God spoke, "In the beginning, there was LIGHT."
In fact, I'm not sure why you're even taking ISSUES with the Big Bang
theory, as the Bible TEACHES THE SAME THING.
> 4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
The immense pressures of the proto atom--when you pack all of the matter in
the universe into ONE ATOM, it's GOING to be HOT.
> 5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> "This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from whence all life
> arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate
> particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe."
>
> That is very interesting.
>
> 6 What was the "ultimate particle accelerator".
The collapse of the universe.
> 7 What did it consist of?
Everything in the universe.
> 8 Where did it come from?
Everywhere.
> 9 How did it come into existence?
The collapse of the universe at the end of the story, just like the Psalmist
wrote...
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are
the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of
them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and
they shall be changed:
[snip, as one answer answers all these "foolish and unlearned" questions]
> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
> annihilated each other and created light."
This is the coolest aspect of all about Astronomies newest discovery: For
every 1 billion antimatter particles, there were 1 billion and 1 matter
particles.
In a matter of speaking, both the "evil" and the "neutral" are both wiped
out, leaving only the "remnant" in its wake.
Very prophetic.
[snip the rest of the pointless questions by one who is ignorant of both
science AND the Bible]
> I have been told by some that believe in evolution, I'm sorry, the BB,
> "all evolution" can be tested, observed and/or duplicated, is this a
> mistake and if not, how is it explained?
The Bible teaches both evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as two
separate events.
If you weren't busy making an ass of yourself, you would see that they go
together hand-in-hand.
[snip]
> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
YOU are the one who is indoctrinated, and who indoctrinates, teaching
childish interpretations of the Bible as "fact," just like the flat-earthers
in the dark ages.
You would think by now people would grow up and learn to read the Bible like
ADULTS instead of like silly little school children.
Ike
Ike E 11/16/09
[snip]
> Of course, Free Lunch knows everything, only if he does not have to
> answer questions and provide proof of his dogmatic assertions.
Just like you.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:u5sgg5hbu9cmosfoe...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
>> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
>> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
>> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
>> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
>> noted as a belief.
>>
>> How did the universe start and evolve?
>>
>> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>>
>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>> the BB and what was it called?
>
>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>BECAME void and without form."
>
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
outstanding qualifications.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
quotes below.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
>Ike
>
Bear
VoiceOfReason
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:31:32 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>
I see you dodged the rest of the issues. That speaks volumes.
duke
>How did the universe start and evolve?
God almighty willed it into existence.
>"WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>the BB and what was it called?
There was nothing. That's why it's called creation. Something out of nothing
into nothing.
>2 Has science applied a label to the pre-BB event?
Nothing.
>3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
>it existed?
It's here now and expanding.
>4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
Massive density.
>5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
The equivalent massive internal pressure.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:u5sgg5hbu9cmosfoe...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
>> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
>> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
>> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
>> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
>> noted as a belief.
>>
>> How did the universe start and evolve?
>>
>> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>>
>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>> the BB and what was it called?
>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>BECAME void and without form."
Wrong bubba. The universe has been determined to be expanding at an increasing
rate. This means there is insufficient mass (gravity) to reverse the expansion.
If the mass is not there, it was not there "before". Hence, no big crunch.
Welcome the science of physics, herman.
duke
>Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
>outstanding qualifications.
>Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
>man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
>dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
>quotes below.
He isn't.
duke
wrote:
>Bear wrote, on 11/21/2009 11:07 PM:
>> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
>> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
>> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
>> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
>> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
>> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
>> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
>> universe evolve as we know it today.
>
>Problem is, Bear, one of those "views" has a heck of a lot more
>supporting information and data and plain old *evidence* behind it than
>the other does.
>
>> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>
>Science doesn't restrain any views - it simply demands that they be
>supported with evidence and be potentially falsifiable via testing - the
>Big Bang Theory is exactly that and Intelligent Design isn't even in the
>ballpark.
The theory accurately takes us back to the fractions of a second pre explosion.
And evolution is the intelligent design in operation.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
Are you telling us that you really believe that the earth is flat and
sits on foundations and is covered by a colander that allows the
starlight through? Do stars sing a lot? Where is the cornerstone of the
earth's foundation?
Yes, I know it is wrong and everyone who has made any effort to know
about astronomy and geology know that it is wrong. What makes you
special?
It is nice to see you retreating to being a flat-earther, however. Most
creationists laugh at that.
duke
wrote:
>Bear wrote:
>
><...>
>
>> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
>> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
>> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
>
>Wrong. It's ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public schools because
>it's a religious belief. The fact that it's demonstrably false is
>just a minor detail by comparison.
Please describe "creation". I believe that God willed the universe into being
(creation) and then turned it over to evolution.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Im glad you indicated the Big Bang was a Theory , because it is and a
pretty silly one ... all in an effort to give The Personal Designer/
Creator (God) his due honor and glory . To assert a big explosion
produced the incredible razor edge precise Fine Tuning required of our
Cosmos/Solar System/Earth for life enablement, requires an crazy
amount of blind faith. Instead, Im going with a personal God who
crafted this Cosmos and who is available for everyone to get to know
on an intimate basis . It sounds like you do too . And thats really
great my Friend ! :
The Cosmological Constant is to within 120 decimal places and the
Expansion Rate of the Universe according to Prof. Stephen Hawkins is
1/1,000,000 th otherwise we arent here. Considering these two , plus
the following that has been scientifically verified, it is completely
absurd to think this Universe/Solar System/Earth wasnt pre-planned ,
incredibly well designed , and Created by a Mind at work ....and one
is so powerful that it boggles the Mind. Your ultimate purpose to
living is to get to know this obvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court ; the wise among us make the effort putting aside
pride :
The table below lists the parameters required for a planet to be able
to sustain life. Individually, the probabilities of occurrence of each
parameter are not particularly impressive. The fact that all of these
parameters are found on the Earth is extremely impressive, indicating
an extreme deviation from random chance. The probability values below
are ones obtained from that observed in the universe as a whole.
Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support
galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and
ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star
formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy
elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times)
and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally
unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to
form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to
form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted;
life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life
chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life
chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky
planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density
would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the
stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for
formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be
too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of
life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life
chemistry
parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system
would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy
elements for life chemistry
parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result
parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn
up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of
life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be
insufficient for photosynthesis
parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would
exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy
element concentrations would be poisonous to life
parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain
life
if bluer: same result
H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life
chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and
methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life
distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too
extreme for life
orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to
sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result
rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for
life
rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too slow for the development of advanced life
planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately
protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
(9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential
elements
mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for
life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be
too luminous for subsequent life
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life;
insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation
would be too intense for life
oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily,
destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be
recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide
would be released from carbonate buildup
volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would
be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be
insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be
damaged
rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for
sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for
sustained land life
oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be
insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle;
increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for
advanced land life
frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for
advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for
advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be
limited
if nutrient richer: same result
gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational
period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic
instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the
continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic
field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent
asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and
comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too
infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life;
insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV
radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be
too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for
most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too
low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most
life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure;
crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive
species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to
produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing
skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would
disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with
insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food
production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity,
and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino
acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid
residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway
freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway
greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic
field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing
it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans
would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water
cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
longevity requirements (estimate .00001)
Total Probability = 1:1099
Click here to see these parameters in table format.
Updated List of parameters
Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To
Believe, Pasadena, CA.
By putting together probabilities for each of these design features
occurring by chance, we can calculate the probability of the existence
of a planet like Earth. This probability is 1 chance in 1099. Since
there are estimated to be a maximum of 1023 planets in the universe
(10 planets/star, see note below), by chance there shouldn't be any
planets capable of supporting life in the universe (only one chance in
1076). Design or random chance?
Don't we ALL believe in miracles?
Note: This is most likely a huge over estimate. In a recent survey of
globular cluster 47 Tucanae, scientists found zero extrasolar planets
out of 37,000 stars searched (Astronomers Ponder Lack of Planets in
Globular Cluster from the Hubble Space Telescope).
Related Resources
Moons Like Earth's Moon are Rare in the Universe
God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of
Argument?
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter D.
Ward and Donald Brownlee
A recent (2000) secular book that recognizes the improbable design of
the earth. Paleontologist Peter D. Ward and astrobiologist Donald
Brownlee examine the unusual characteristics of our galaxy, solar
system, star, and Earth and conclude that ET may have no home to go
to. Surprisingly, the authors conclude that the amazing "coincidences"
are the result of good luck and chance.
The Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross
A classic book for modern Christian apologetics and science, recently
updated (June, 2001) with fully one third of the book updated. Dr.
Ross presents the latest scientific evidence for intelligent design of
our world and an easy to understand introduction to modern cosmology.
This is a great book to give agnostics, who have an interest in
cosmology and astronomy.
References
Peterson, Ivars. 1993. Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System, W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Taylor, G. Jeffrey. July, 1994. "The scientific legacy of Apollo"
Scientific American 271 (1): 40-47.
Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted (from SpaceDaily.com)
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Maher, K.A. and D.J. Stevenson. 1988. Impact frustrations of the
origin of life. Nature 331: 612-614.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B. Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the
formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle. Nature 192:
440.
Cowen, R. 1992. Were spiral galaxies once more common? Science News
142: 390.
Dressler, et al. 1994. New images of the distant rich cluster, CL
0939+4713 with WFPC2. Astrophysical Journal Letters 435: L23-L26.
Davies, R.E. and R. H. Koch. 1991. All the observed universe has
contributed to life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, series B 334: 391-403.
Ross, H. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress, Colorado Springs,
CO, chapters 14 and 15
Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena,
CA.
Schlovskii, I.S. and C. Sagan. 1966. Intelligent life in the universe.
Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-350.
Kuhn, W.R., J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall. 1989. The effect on the
Earth's surface temperature from variations in rotation rate,
continent formation, solar luminosity, and carbon dioxide. Journal of
Geophysical Research 94: 11, 136.
Abell, G. 1964. Exploration of the Universe. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, New York, pp. 244-247.
Brandt, J.C. and P.W. Hodge. 1964. Solar System Astrophysics.
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 244-247.
Hart, M.H. 1979. Habitable zones about main sequence stars. Icarus 37:
351-357.
Jenkins, G.S., H.G. Marshall, and W.R. Kuhn. 1993. Precambrian
climate: the effects of land area and Earth's rotation rate. Journal
of Geophysical Research, Series D 98: 8785-8791.
Zahnle, K.J. and J.C.G. Walker. 1987. A constant daylength during the
precambrian era? Precambrian Research 37: 95-105.
Monastersky, R. 1993. Speedy spin kept early Earth from freezing.
Science News 143: 373.
Campbell, I.H. and S.R. Taylor. 1983. No water, no granite - no
oceans, no continents. Geophysical Research Letters. 10: 1061-1064.
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Ward. W.R. 1982. Comments on the long-term stability of the Earth's
obliquity. Icarus 50: 444-448.
Murray, C.D. 1993. Seasoned travelers. Nature 361: 586-587.
Laskar, J. and P. Robutel. 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets.
Nature 361: 608-612.
Laskar, J., F. Joutel, and P. Robutel. 1993. Stabilization of the
Earth's obliquity by the Moon. Nature 361: 615-617.
The editors. July 1993. Our friend Jove. Discover, p. 15.
George Wetherill, "How Special Is Jupiter?" Nature 373 (1995), p. 470.
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. H. Kastner, "Inhibition of
Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Around Young Stars,"
Nature373 (1995), p. 494-496.
Ray Jayawardhana, "No Alien Jupiters," Science 265 (1994), P. 1527.
Laskar, J. 1994. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 287: 112.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B.Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the
formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, "Stability of
Matter in Magnetic Fields," Physical Review Letters, 75 (1995), pp.
985-989.
Rob Rye, Phillip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland, "Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide Concentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago," Nature 378
(1995), pp. 603-605.
Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, "Glacial Cycles and orbital
inclination," Nature, 377 (1995), pp. 107-108.
T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, "Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space,"
Nature, 384 (1996), pp. 334-335.
Peter D. Moore, "Fire Damage Soils Our Forest," Nature 384 (1996), pp.
312-313.
Christine Mlot, "Tallying Nitrogen's Increasing Impact," Science News,
151 (1997), p. 100.
Paul G. , "Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and its Influence on the
Biological Sequestration of C02 in the Ocean," Nature, 387 (1997), pp.
272-274.
Peter Olson, "Probing Earth's Dynamo," Nature, 389 (1997), p. 337.
Weiji Kuang and Jeremy Bloxham, "An Earth-Like Numerical Dynamo
Model," Nature, 389 (1997), pp. 371-374.
Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, "Seismological Evidence for
Differential Rotation of the Earth's Inner Core," Nature, 382 (1997),
pp. 221-224.
Wei-jia Su, Adam M. Dziewonski, and Raymond Jeanloz, "Planet Within a
Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth," Science, 274 (1996),
pp. 1883-1887
Bear
Oh, do you mean like you dodging every question, what does that speak?
Bear
Bear
Hey, thanks a million, or as the anti-creationists would say, billions
and billions, for all the great information, I found it very
interesting and provocative. There is a lot there to try and absorb.
It is my belief that many are so anti-creation by an intelligent being
(God) because they do not wish to be accountable to anyone for their
actions. I do not believe in speed limits in certain places, however,
I am still accountable and must suffer the consequences, regardless of
my disbelief.
Bear
Ken
a load of pseudo-scientific crap.
This from the IDIOT who recently uncovered an astondishing new theory
on how the Sum is actually powered by Nitrogen exploding into Helium,
thus overturning years of thermonuclear research and many well
established laws of physics
For your entertainment in Dimwit Dumbfuck's own words:
From: DaveinIllinois @webtv.net (one of dave's many names)
Subject: Re: Evolution in Action
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.dating.uk.south-east
Date: 2004-08-17 05:45:01 PST
ha ha....but : What made the sun give off just the right amount of
light
and heat for earth to survive being 93 million miles away exploding
600,000,000 tons of nitrogen into helium ' per second ' , no less ??
Cory Albrecht
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:09:41 +0000, Cory Albrecht<coryal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bear wrote, on 11/21/2009 11:07 PM:
>>> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
>>> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
>>> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
>>> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
>>> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
>>> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
>>> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
>>> universe evolve as we know it today.
>>
>> Problem is, Bear, one of those "views" has a heck of a lot more
>> supporting information and data and plain old *evidence* behind it than
>> the other does.
>>
>>> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>>> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>>
>> Science doesn't restrain any views - it simply demands that they be
>> supported with evidence and be potentially falsifiable via testing - the
>> Big Bang Theory is exactly that and Intelligent Design isn't even in the
>> ballpark.
>
> The theory accurately takes us back to the fractions of a second pre explosion.
Yes, BBT does that. And...?
>
> And evolution is the intelligent design in operation.
Unsupported assertion.
Pastor Dave
> On Nov 21, 5:07�pm, Bear wrote:
>
>> The article below is from NASA and it brings
> some questions to mind.
>
> Im glad you indicated the Big Bang was a Theory,
> because it is and a pretty silly one ... all in an effort
> to give The Personal Designer/Creator (God) his due
> honor and glory.
I disagree. It was designed to take that glory away,
since it says that it happened all by itself and didn't
need God.
> To assert a big explosion produced the incredible
> razor edge precise Fine Tuning required of our
> Cosmos/Solar System/Earth for life enablement,
> requires an crazy amount of blind faith.
Agreed. :)
> Instead, Im going with a personal God who crafted
> this Cosmos and who is available for everyone to get
> to know on an intimate basis. It sounds like you do.
I know that I do, anyway. :)
And of course, we all know the story about Isaac Newton
and what he told the man who believed in the Big Bang
and that, as the Big Bang proponents state (and then
deny believing when cornered), which is that it did
happen by some cosmic accident, naturally, by itself. :)
And isn't it interesting that these people try as hard as
they can to take glory away from God and yet, when
cornered, they always immediately back off of that claim
and pretend that's not what they're trying to do? Why
would they do that all of the sudden (and they always do)?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:20:59 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
><ilbe...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 5:07�pm, Bear wrote:
>>
>>> The article below is from NASA and it brings
>> some questions to mind.
>>
>> Im glad you indicated the Big Bang was a Theory,
>> because it is and a pretty silly one ... all in an effort
>> to give The Personal Designer/Creator (God) his due
>> honor and glory.
>
>I disagree. It was designed to take that glory away,
>since it says that it happened all by itself and didn't
>need God.
You have two problems that you repeatedly overlook: There is no evidence
for God and the theory does not need any gods. Your claims about glory
are for yourself, they aren't about God. Your ego is bruised.
>> To assert a big explosion produced the incredible
>> razor edge precise Fine Tuning required of our
>> Cosmos/Solar System/Earth for life enablement,
>> requires an crazy amount of blind faith.
>
>Agreed. :)
Though no evidence supports your claims.
>> Instead, Im going with a personal God who crafted
>> this Cosmos and who is available for everyone to get
>> to know on an intimate basis. It sounds like you do.
>
>I know that I do, anyway. :)
>
>And of course, we all know the story about Isaac Newton
>and what he told the man who believed in the Big Bang
>and that, as the Big Bang proponents state (and then
>deny believing when cornered), which is that it did
>happen by some cosmic accident, naturally, by itself. :)
Of course, people who aren't making up stories know that Newton could
never have heard of the Big Bang.
>And isn't it interesting that these people try as hard as
>they can to take glory away from God and yet, when
>cornered, they always immediately back off of that claim
>and pretend that's not what they're trying to do? Why
>would they do that all of the sudden (and they always do)?
I'm sorry you feel hurt that people don't accept your claims about your
God just because you say so. Sadly, you have failed to provide any
evidence to support your claims and are unlikely to persuade anyone that
your claims have anything at all to do with reality.
Cory Albrecht
I'm curious, Bear - why no comment on this part of what VoiceOfReason said?
Cory Albrecht
> It is my belief that many are so anti-creation by an intelligent being
> (God) because they do not wish to be accountable to anyone for their
> actions. I do not believe in speed limits in certain places, however,
> I am still accountable and must suffer the consequences, regardless of
> my disbelief.
That old lie, Bear? You know, it's really blatant lie to say that
atheists are atheists just so they can be immoral.
So, basically, you only do good in this life because you're afraid of
the punishment of Hellfire, eh?
And this makes you better than the atheist who does good things because
he'd like others to do good things in return, how?
I find it really scary when people like you all but admit that the only
thing that prevents them from being thieves, rapists and murderers is a
belief in Hell. It says an awful lot about their true self, and none of
it very complimentary.
Bear
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:41:39 -0500, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
Wow, talk about chutzpah and hypocrisy, in a thread of 1300 lines, not
once did Free Lunch provide any "evidence" for his dogmatic
assertions, not once. Now he wants others to provide "evidence to
support" their claims. How many times have we seen that from those
who believe in biological evolution? Do not ask me to prove my
assertions, they are facts, however, you must prove yours because they
are lies. Is that denotative of liberal logic?
Bear
Bear
wrote:
>
>
>"To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching. "
>
>I am sure some of our physics orientated colleagues will elucidate you
>on the your questions - bearing in mind this has all been gone through
>before. However you above statement requires a direct answer.
>
If it has been gone through before and my questions were answered, why
not just paste in the quote or at least provide a link? Unless that
is, like some others, you would expect me to go through evolution 101
and get at least a B in order to find my answers there.
>1) Observations and hypotheses have certain rationales that must be
>fulfilled before they can be classed as science. They are very
>specific and well known. I am sure you can look them up. The issue is
>that some of those viewpoints are not science, fail the tenets of
>science on every level and have frequently been proven to be either
>misrepresented or fraudulent.
I have no argument with that.
> (You are suggesting we should teach
>known and proven untruths as science???)
>
Now where did I say or even suggest that? Where did you get that
idea?
>2) You have fallen into the trap of believing a controversy exists
>when it clearly doesn't. The only controversy is dishonest people
>trying to pass off superstition and myth as science - teach it as
>religious studies or philosophy by all means, but don't pretend it
>falls under the tenets of what we use to describe the universe.
Did you not read what I wrote? Let me quote,
"It is my opinion that they are both a religion and neither should be
taught in class as a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the
schools, things that can be proven by observation, testing and
duplication in the lab."
Clarification, "..teach our kids science in the science class..."
Can you explain how that translates into trying to "pass off
superstition and myth as science"? If it can be proven, teach it, if
it cannot be proven, do not teach it. What is so difficult about
that? Just to clarify, I see presenting "information" on different
views, theories, hypothesis, as being informing, not teaching. When a
subject is presented as fact, then in my mind that is teaching.
Furthermore, if one is teaching something as fact when it cannot be
proven, I believe that is indoctrination.
>There
>are good reasons we do not teach spontaneous generation and phlogiston
>and alchemy in science classes. They have been proven to be false - as
>has intelligent design - yet you are suggesting we should teach it???
I think, hope, that I made my thoughts clear with the above comments.
As for as intelligent design having been proven to be false, perhaps
you could provide the evidence that would support that statement? Can
you name one item, especially one that is used by Homo sapiens, that
is not of "intelligent design"?
>If you mean we should teach our young people facts and not proven
>fairy tales - well I guess that is indoctrination. The same sort of
>indoctrination that teaches us that the sun is not the god Ra flying
>his chariot across the sky.
???? I'm sorry, that does not make any sense to me whatsoever, so I do
not know how to respond.
Perhaps you could answer a question for me. I have no problem
whatsoever with people believing in evolution and not believing in
creation by an intelligent designer, I do not agree with their beliefs
but I believe we all have the right to our beliefs. I do not think
they are stupid, uninformed, uneducated, bigots and/or liars because
of their beliefs. OTOH, most everyone that hold to the anti-creation
belief, seem at some point in a discussion end up making at least one,
if not all, of those accusations against me. Do you have a logical
plausible explanation why so many feel the necessity to resort to such
tactics?
BTW, feel free to answer those questions on my original post, others
have not volunteered.
Bear
AusShane
evidence that is being put before you?
ID is a bankrupt concept it not even a theory, its so simple to refute
that its hardly worth wasting the keystrokes.
ID has
No established theory other than an infantile argument from
incredulity. (I dont believe life is just happening)
No hypothesis - I think life was designed because???
No proposed mechanisms to explore nor ANY published experiments.
Nor any in the pipeline.
No peer reviewed research - none
No means to falsify the concept.
Therefore no null hypothesis
The only tool it has is to try and attack and discredit the
established science -
Therefore yes ID is indoctrination of the most insidious kind.
All of the above fail are reasons why it has failed to meet even the
basic tenets of true science. If you had bothered to go and look as I
suggested you would know this.
Plus there are documents ON RECORD where Behe admits most of the above
points. (The Kitzmiller case)
This has been pointed out again and again and again - dont raise your
eyebrows innocently and ask - but where is your eveidence?
To any rational person that would be enough proof to understand - I
suspect you are far more cynical and devious than the language of your
posts suggest. If you do not wish to understand or acknowledge where
information is beng honestly imparted then you have no business
attempting debate.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
I directed you to a couple of sites that you chose not to learn from.
Once again, I would like to remind you that you could learn to
understand evolution at <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> and learn why
ID Creationists are wrong at <http://www.talkorigins.org/>. No one
stopped you from learning.
Bear
wrote:
>Are you so misinformed or just blatantly ignoring the reams of
>evidence that is being put before you?
>
Very convincing response, snip my comments and questions entirely,
make all kinds of indignant accusations without any proof whatsoever,
which is understandable as they are false, try to change the topic to
ID because you cannot answer the questions, only make accusations and
of course as is typical of the evolutionists when they are asked
questions, they must turn to personal attacks just as you so
obligingly demonstrated.
The evolutionists always have answers but they have been presented
before, go to a evolutionary web site and read the whole thing to get
your answers. For people who think they are so well informed and
intelligent, they sure demonstrate a complete lack of capability for
answering questions. No wonder they get so hostile when we ignorant's
ask them questions they cannot answer, they respond with braggadocios
indignation.
Bad, bad, you creationists stop asking them questions that make them
look as foolish as their belief that, there was nothing, then it
exploded, and billions and billions of years and, drum roll, the
universe as we know it. From goo to you by way of the zoo, yes
indeed.
Bear
Pastor Dave
>Are you so misinformed or just blatantly ignoring the reams of
>evidence that is being put before you?
>
>ID is a bankrupt concept it not even a theory, its so simple to refute
>that its hardly worth wasting the keystrokes.
Says the man who parrots others and has no clue
what he's talking about.
Folks, it is always telling when the response it to
snip it all and just make a dozen claims. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
Bear
wrote:
What you choose to ignore, is that I read some of the evidence
presented on those sites, I still had questions. I guess that means
that I was not receptive to their indoctrination tactics as you wish.
Perhaps you can explain exactly where I am supposed to find an answer
on the sites you recommended, of questions that were directed to you.
Are they going to know how you would answer? Are you incapable of
answering questions for yourself?
I quoted a comment by Dr. Austin Clark and asked you if you thought he
had lied in his comment. Now just how is Berkeley going to answer
that, Free Lunch? Better yet, why do you refuse to answer, do you not
have an opinion about his comments?
Perhaps I am not that bright but neither am I so dumb that I would go
to their site and tell them that you had directed me there to get my
answer. If that does not seem idiotic to you, then it is my opinion
that you suffer from more than just dishonesty.
>No one
>stopped you from learning.
That is one hundred percent correct, and I have learned, you as well
as other evolutionist cannot answer questions. The only response you
can come up with when asked is to go ballistic and launch into a
personal attack and intimidation mode. You want proof, look at the
questions that I have asked in these groups and count how many answers
there has been? Then note how many personal attacks there were. Which
did you find more of?
Bear
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:33:11 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
...
>>I directed you to a couple of sites that you chose not to learn from.
>>Once again, I would like to remind you that you could learn to
>>understand evolution at <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> and learn why
>>ID Creationists are wrong at <http://www.talkorigins.org/>.
>
>What you choose to ignore, is that I read some of the evidence
>presented on those sites, I still had questions. I guess that means
>that I was not receptive to their indoctrination tactics as you wish.
Clearly you are not willing to learn about science if you call it
'indoctrination'. Why should I take you seriously at all when you refuse
to learn?
>Perhaps you can explain exactly where I am supposed to find an answer
>on the sites you recommended, of questions that were directed to you.
>Are they going to know how you would answer? Are you incapable of
>answering questions for yourself?
I am, but you have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding
answers about science.
>I quoted a comment by Dr. Austin Clark and asked you if you thought he
>had lied in his comment. Now just how is Berkeley going to answer
>that, Free Lunch? Better yet, why do you refuse to answer, do you not
>have an opinion about his comments?
I answered the discussion for a while, but it became clear that you were
not interested in learning, but in trying to "score points for Jesus"
with your dishonesty. If that was not your intent, you need to review
your approach. Right now, you appear to me to be another ignorant
creationist who worships that ignorance.
>Perhaps I am not that bright but neither am I so dumb that I would go
>to their site and tell them that you had directed me there to get my
>answer. If that does not seem idiotic to you, then it is my opinion
>that you suffer from more than just dishonesty.
I was not the only one who had answered your questions. I did it in
depth for a while. You responded deceptively.
>>No one
>>stopped you from learning.
>
>That is one hundred percent correct, and I have learned, you as well
>as other evolutionist cannot answer questions. The only response you
>can come up with when asked is to go ballistic and launch into a
>personal attack and intimidation mode. You want proof, look at the
>questions that I have asked in these groups and count how many answers
>there has been? Then note how many personal attacks there were. Which
>did you find more of?
I answer questions until it becomes clear to me that I am just dealing
with a dishonest creationist who is not remotely interested in science,
learning, or reality. When it comes to that point, I see no more reason
to treat them and the lies they spew with any respect.
Bear
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:59:29 -0600, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:33:11 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>>>I directed you to a couple of sites that you chose not to learn from.
>>>Once again, I would like to remind you that you could learn to
>>>understand evolution at <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> and learn why
>>>ID Creationists are wrong at <http://www.talkorigins.org/>.
>>
>>What you choose to ignore, is that I read some of the evidence
>>presented on those sites, I still had questions. I guess that means
>>that I was not receptive to their indoctrination tactics as you wish.
>
>Clearly you are not willing to learn about science if you call it
>'indoctrination'. Why should I take you seriously at all when you refuse
>to learn?
>
>>Perhaps you can explain exactly where I am supposed to find an answer
>>on the sites you recommended, of questions that were directed to you.
>>Are they going to know how you would answer? Are you incapable of
>>answering questions for yourself?
>
>I am, but you have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding
>answers about science.
>
Good grief, well, as badly as I hate to do it, I must admit and
confess to making a huge mistake. I took your word when you said that
you were a "honest human being" and I also gave you credit for being
at least of average intelligence, unfortunately, I was not smart
enough to realize the enormous errors of those assumptions, shame on
me.
It is evident that one could receive straighter answers and ones that
made more sense from a posthole. It is my belief that you are one of
the best weapons in the arsenal of the creationists, may your voice
continue to be heard and impress.
In my opinion, ignorance, delusion, pride, brainwashing, even hatred,
can be excused, or at least ignored, however, none of those justify
someone blatantly lying as you do. Sure, I can show proof of you
lying, but you are not even honest enough to acknowledge it when it is
in black and white.
Bear
AusShane
what he's talking about.
Bearing in mind that you have no idea of my background, education, or
experience your above comment becomes a simple insult (duly noted)
Perhaps you could elucidate me as to which of my comments were false?
I.E.
No hypothesis - I think life was designed because???
Please feel free to quote the hypothesis - details and references
would be helpful.
No established theory other than an infantile argument from
incredulity. (I don't believe life is just happening)
Please define the exact theory of intelligent design stating the
established concepts and observed facts upon which the theory is
based.
No proposed mechanisms to explore nor ANY published experiments
Please give us an example of the mechanism of intelligent design -
and any credible published peer reviewed literature.
No means to falsify the concept.
Therefore no null hypothesis
Please define how ID can be falsified and a null hypothesis created.
I can supply links to the transcripts of the Dover trial in which Behe
clearly states the bankruptcy of his ideas and how the political
motivation behind them is revealed.
Folks, it is always telling when the response it to
snip it all and just make a dozen claims. <chuckle>
Thats because I was answering a specific question based upon the
experience and knowledge I have. With reference to the 'different
views' which you are trying to make valid to be taught in schools -
Creationism, ID and Dembskis 'Information Theories" are all part of
the same spectrum - an attempt to pass off magical thinking as science
thereby trying to make it acceptable to a community who quite rightly
demand that church and state be separate.
ID is one of the prime examples why those 'different views' are no
more valid than teaching that the sun is actually Ra riding his
chariot across the sky. An analogy you also pretended to
misunderstand. I think I have your measure now.
We all await your response - please tell us how magical thinking is a
valid subject for schools in the 21st century.
Ike E 11/16/09
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:39:28 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:u5sgg5hbu9cmosfoe...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
>>> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
>>> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
>>> noted as a belief.
>>>
>>> How did the universe start and evolve?
>>>
>>> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>>> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>>>
>>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>>> the BB and what was it called?
>>
>>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>>BECAME void and without form."
>>
>
Notice how Barely Conscious can't even BEGIN to address any biblical
concepts which prove him wrong.
Ike
Oh, and as far a "qualifications" are concerned, mine blow away anything
you've done with your pathetic little existence.
In fact, what HAVE you ever done, you pathetic little flea?
Pastor Dave
<qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>> Says the man who parrots others and has no clue
>> what he's talking about.
>
> Bearing in mind that you have no idea of my background,
> education, or experience your above comment becomes
> a simple insult (duly noted)
I know that you know nothing about the subject
and just parrot others, which you proved by
parroting others.
> Perhaps you could elucidate me as to which
> of my comments were false?
All of them. But there it is, folks! Prove we're wrong!
Prove that negative! <chuckle>
How about you prove just one example of what you believe,
since you make the positive claim, that it is true?
And no, that does not include you believing that all life
evolved from a single celled organism and then showing
me an example like flowers from flowers, etc..
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
If you don't want to reap the fruits of sin,
stay out of the devil's orchard.
Ike E 11/16/09
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3hkig5d157mnfkal5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:39:28 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:u5sgg5hbu9cmosfoe...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
>>> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
>>> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
>>> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
>>> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
>>> noted as a belief.
>>>
>>> How did the universe start and evolve?
>>>
>>> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>>> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>>>
>>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>>> the BB and what was it called?
>
>>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>>BECAME void and without form."
>
> increasing
> rate. This means there is insufficient mass (gravity) to reverse the
> expansion.
> If the mass is not there, it was not there "before".
Nope.
The scientists are making a false assumption.
If you have a camera with an adjustable rate of speed, and a projector that
plays back at one speed, you can 1) match the frame rate and take normal
movies in time, or 2) you can increase the frame rate and show slow motion
pictures, or 3) you can slow down the frame rate and show time-lapsed
pictures.
However, in the entire process, one thing is constant--time.
Now what happens if time itself slows down where an object you're
photographic (or, in this case, spectrally analyzing)?
It will LOOK like the galaxies are speeding up, and you'll get the SAME red
shift as if the object were speeding up.
So the scientists' mistake was thinking that time is a constant throughout
the universe when it's not--time is losing "energy" just like everything
else.
> Hence, no big crunch.
> Welcome the science of physics, herman.
Welcome to Bible prophecy, moron...
Ps 102:25-26
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are
the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of
them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou *change them, and
they shall be changed...
[properly, "renew"]
Jesus says repeatedly that He is the "Beginning and Ending." And that's at
the SAME TIME.
So how does one be the "Beginning and Ending" at the same time?
They arrive and depart from the same point, i.e. the universe breaths in and
out; but, being a singularity, it's the same story each cycle within the
singularity. It's only OUTSIDE the singularity that the story changes.
Hence, the universe is NOT "infinite" the way people typically think of
infinity--as we are discovering, the universe has a boundary (which, by the
way, is cracking under the strain of expansion). Rather, it is infinite in
that it never ceases to exist--it simply explodes outwards until it can't
anymore, then collapses back upon itself, like an infinite yo-yo with
infinite energy.
Here's a hint for you, oh, clueless one: Bible first, science second--the
science will eventually catch up with the Word of Truth.
Ike
Ike E 11/16/09
Your doctrines "prove" so.
Ike
AusShane
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:50:09 -0800 (PST), AusShane
So instead of answering even one of my points you resort to a blanket
dismissal?
Very mature - in other words you cant actually answer any of the
questions can you??
Really you cant can you?
Actually give a rational answer, your response is the sort the sort
of response a 10 year old would give while giggling behind his hand
tee hee .
You did not answer any of my points
You have not addressed a single issue - not one
And you have not given a reason as to why you think I do not know
anything about the subject? Apart from accusing me of not using my own
words, which I assure you they were. Quoting facts tends to sound like
other people quoting the same facts.
And then you challenge me to provide examples of the multitudes of
evidence that has already been put before all of you before?? And
using the old and tired dogs from dogs flowers from flowers
discredited approach. pfft Perhaps you really are 10 years old.
But here's a hint - have a look at the evolution of the whale and the
hippopotamus - learn a little about genetics - oh but you wont will
you - too threatening perhaps.
Again I challenge you to show how ID or creationism fits the tenets of
science.
Explain why you think magic should be taught in schools
AusShane
wrote:
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3hkig5d157mnfkal5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:39:28 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>
> >>"Bear" <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote in message
So you don't actually know anything about cosmology do you??? Because
we have already pointed out the problems with the big crunch
hypothesis -
AusShane
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:13:12 -0800 (PST), AusShane <quar...@live.com>
1) If you are so keen to have those questions answered why not get a
few books out of the library or better still take a few courses in
physics and astronomy. Many of the concepts do not lend themselves
well to qualitative explanations and need an understanding of
mathematics before they become clear. Plus it would take much more
space and time to explain the details in this forum. This is why you
are having trouble getting answers - surely if you want to learn
something - go learn it.
2) Can you give me one example where intelligent design has
successfully accounted for ANYTHING?? Its a simple non sequiter and
was conclusively trounced during the dover trial. Human social norms
and mores do not translate into the world of nature- humans design
objects - hint the natural world is not the same, ever seen a watch
giving birth or reproducing by binary fission??? Plus human design has
a purpose - please feel free to elucidate what purpose you can infer
from the 'design' of the universe. Even the IDers are running away
from it and its been conclusively proven that it is the old
creationism under another name ie MAGIC not science. There is no proof
for any aspect of intelligent design.
3) Science doesn't use a belief system it relies on evidence -
evolution has 150 years of supporting evidence facts observations and
predictions that support it. If we found a rabbit in the pre cambrian
it would all go out of the window - regardless of how much 'belief' we
have in the theory. The evidence would nullify it.
Trying to equate science with a religion is meaningless.
That's why you get the accusations - you have no proof no evidence no
predictions no observations - we are used to just about every tactic
creationists throw at us including the wide eyed lets look at both
sides of the issue trying to treat the two issues as if they are
equivalent - they are not.
Ike E 11/23/9
"AusShane" <qua...@live.com> wrote in message
news:478526ca-64cc-4ba2...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> So you don't actually know anything about cosmology do you???
Sure I do. Study it all the time. Got A's in college on it. One of my
favorite subjects. In my book, NASA is the only thing this country has done
right in the last hundred years. (Not that it hasn't had its fair share of
problems.)
> Because
> we have already pointed out the problems with the big crunch
> hypothesis -
The scientists are wrong--they just haven't figured it out yet.
There is ANOTHER way to get the same red shift from a spectrograph WITHOUT
the galaxies accelerating. Time slows down when it runs out of energy, too,
since all time is based on motion.
It looks exactly the same.
But, of course, you ignored that part and went into your shuck and jive.
Don't worry.
They'll figure it out in due course of time.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, now is the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
quotes below.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Can you give me one example where intelligent design has
> successfully accounted for ANYTHING??
Sure.
"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
Now how did that happen?
Easy: Jesus went back and created Adam, which led to David, which led to
Jesus, who went back and created Adam, which led to...
This is a singularity.
There are MANY of them in Jesus' sayings...
...and He said these things 700 years before ANYONE ELSE DID.
The first book other than the New Testament to mention "time travel"
(although it's not really "time travel"--it's "time existing and
re-entering," as WE are the ones "time traveling") was a rewrite of a Hindu
book (because of the New Testament, which is another example of other
religions "syncretizing" Christianity) in c. 700 AD. The next one after that
was a Japanese book in 900 AD. It wasn't until H.G. Wells "The Time Machine"
that there was any serious discussion of time travel.
And yet JESUS was saying these things 2,000 YEARS AGO, in statements like
"Before Abraham was, I Am."
So much for the series of "fortunate accidents" that absolute evolution
teaches...
...there was "intelligent design" behind the process all along.
(And that's why the MAJORITY of Christians don't have a problem with
evolution, except where some numbskull says it denies the truth of the
Bible--The Word was WAY ahead of you all along.)
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
First "day:" God establishes the rules of physics which would govern the
creation, all summed up in the proto-atom, which explodes with unimaginable
light and heat, filling the new universe to its expanding edges. The light
begins to congeal into galaxies, and the darkness begins to reveal itself as
matter and antimatter annihilate each other, leaving only the extra matter
particles in their wake.
Second "day:" The planets begin to congeal, taking on both form and
atmospheres (bearing in mind that Genesis is an earth-centric book, but what
was happening here was happening elsewhere in the universe, as known today
by anyone with a better-than-third-grade education).
Third "day:" The earth (as well as every other planet in the universe),
begins to take on its surface conditions. Here, the first evolutionary
trunk--the plant kingdom--began to take place.
Fourth "day:" As the light fades from the universe in general, the OTHER
celestial bodies (which were going through the same processes as our solar
system) begin to reveal themselves. HERE is where CONVENTIONAL days and
nights begin (as opposed to the macro "days and nights" that started from
the Big Bang).
Fifth "day:" The other evolutionary trunk, the animal kingdom, begins. (This
"day" continues up through the dinosaurs, as what the prophet describes next
are the more refined animals we have today).
Sixth "day:" God brings forth the refined animals, and the top of the
evolutionary chain, the beast man, the natural man (a.k.a. the "Gentiles"),
generic and plural, men and women, complete the natural process.
And this "day" is STILL in process, and Revelation declares that God did
create, and is creating, and will continue to create anything that will be
created until He is finished creating (i.e. the end of the universe).
Seventh "day:" His rest, yet to come, and anyone who opposes His will will
not enter into that rest, but will be locked into the singularity that is
the universe.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the science we're
discovering now matches the outline given by the prophet (from an
earth-centric viewpoint) regarding the evolutionary natural creation
process, flat-earther, and only an idiot would miss the parallelism between
the Bible and the science.
But, of course, you think YOU are a child of the second process when you're
not; you're a child of the first process, which is why you don't understand
anything about the Bible, which started with a "two-tree" story and ends
with a "two-tree" story. In fact, one of the reasons you can't understand
the END of the Bible is that you don't understand the BEGINNING of it.
It's only when CHILDREN such as you keep trying to hold onto your childish
notions that the problem arises.
[snip]
Ike
Ralph
> On Nov 22, 7:20 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> CCPed
> a load of pseudo-scientific crap.
>
> This from the IDIOT who recently uncovered an astondishing new theory
> on how the Sum is actually powered by Nitrogen exploding into Helium,
> thus overturning years of thermonuclear research and many well
> established laws of physics
>
> For your entertainment in Dimwit Dumbfuck's own words:
>
> From: DaveinIllinois @webtv.net (one of dave's many names)
> Subject: Re: Evolution in Action
> View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
> Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.dating.uk.south-east
> Date: 2004-08-17 05:45:01 PST
> ha ha....but : What made the sun give off just the right amount of
> light
> and heat for earth to survive being 93 million miles away exploding
> 600,000,000 tons of nitrogen into helium ' per second ' , no less ??
This is one of the reasons I don't take Dave seriously. He's too stupid
to live.
Ralph
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:31:32 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>> Bear wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
>>> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
>>> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
>> Wrong. It's ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public schools because
>> it's a religious belief. The fact that it's demonstrably false is
>> just a minor detail by comparison.
>>
> I only have a couple of comments and/or questions.
>
> Can you provide any evidence stating that it is illegal to teach
> creation in public schools? I know that it is illegal in science
> classes but not in religious studies, and as I stated, neither do I
> think it should be.
It can be taught, along with the origin stories of the many varied
religious groups. You're right for a change, not in a science class.
> I did express a desire to see some evidence substantiating comments,
> unless it was clarified as being a belief. If it makes you feel
> superior to others by ridiculing, mocking and making assertions that
> you know nothing about and cannot prove, then do so until your heart
> is content. It is very easy for your type to make accusations and
> ridicule; it seems to prove much more difficult for you to answer
> questions in a productive manner.
>
> Bear
Every court decision in the last 40 years is the evidence.
You must have ignored what he said below:
* Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) Supreme Court decision
>> * McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
>> * Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Supreme Court decision
>> * Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)
>>
>> Such is the dishonesty of creationism.
>>> OTOH, there
>>> seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
>>> scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
>>> creation, why is it being taught in our schools?
>> Theories are not taught as fact. They are taught as theories.
>> Something tells me you didn't do well in school.
>>
>>> It is my opinion
>>> that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
>>> a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
>>> can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
>> Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.
>>
>>> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
>>> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
>>> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
>>> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
>>> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
>>> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
>>> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
>>> universe evolve as we know it today.
>>>
>>> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>>> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
Ralph
I told you that it might or might not have been a legitimate quote but
since it is a minimum of fifty years old it is probably outdated.
> Perhaps I am not that bright but neither am I so dumb that I would go
> to their site and tell them that you had directed me there to get my
> answer. If that does not seem idiotic to you, then it is my opinion
> that you suffer from more than just dishonesty.
>
>
>> No one
>> stopped you from learning.
>
> That is one hundred percent correct, and I have learned, you as well
> as other evolutionist cannot answer questions. The only response you
> can come up with when asked is to go ballistic and launch into a
> personal attack and intimidation mode. You want proof, look at the
> questions that I have asked in these groups and count how many answers
> there has been? Then note how many personal attacks there were. Which
> did you find more of?
>
> Bear
It is because you make such stupid posts that it is almost not worth the
effort to respond.
Ralph
Bullshit!
Ralph
>
> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
> noted as a belief.
>
> How did the universe start and evolve?
>
> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>
> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
> the BB and what was it called?
There was nothing before the big bang.
> 2 Has science applied a label to the pre-BB event?
Nope.
> 3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
> it existed?
It consisted of all that is in the universe. By mathematical computations.
> 4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
Pressure.
> 5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
No one knows.
> "This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from whence all life
> arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate
> particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe."
>
> That is very interesting.
How would you know?
> 6 What was the "ultimate particle accelerator".
The big bang.
>
> 7 What did it consist of?
Energy initially.
>
> 8 Where did it come from?
Who knows.
> 9 How did it come into existence?
Like your god, it always existed.
> 10 How do scientists know that Elementary particles were created and
> destroyed at that time?
I assume you are referring to matter and anti-matter. If so, it shown in
the mathematics and in particle accelerators. It is really fascinating
to see how this happens, why don't you get a good book on cosmology, get
your nose out of the authorized KJV and learn something so that folks
won't laugh at your ignorance.
> 11 Where did the space come from that all these events took place
> in?
Space was created as the universe expanded. The expansion is into
something which existed, the expansion creates the space as it goes.
> 12 How did the BB create time?
I can't specifically say how it was created, Einstein's equations show
that time had a definite beginning.
> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
> annihilated each other and created light."
> Seems like a rather dogmatic statement to me
As stupid as you are scientifically, the statement 'Mary had a little
lamb' would give you problems.
> 13 How is it known that matter existed before the BB or, was it
> supposedly created by the BB?
Matter didn't exist before the big bang and it wasn't supposedly
created by the BB, it was created by the BB.
> 14 How do they know that matter and antimatter met?
Again mathematics and particle accelerators.
> 15 What caused them to meet?
Mutual attraction.
> 16 Is there an explanation somewhere that describes how their
> destruction "created light"?
Yes sir there is, it is called general relativity and I have a textbook
by Hartle entitled 'Gravity'. This book can be purchased at any science
section of a major bookstore. Have you ever been in one of those?
> 17 How long did the "light last" and how is that known?
The light lasted as long as there were matter and anti-matter particles.
That is known by the general relativity and particle accelerators.
> 18 Assuming the light at some point vanished, how was the sun
> formed?
Whew! It was eventually formed by the remaining particles of matter
although there were many processes before that.
> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
> "Somehow, it seems�"?
It seems that is what the article said, although I don't know which
article you read. Uhh.."Bear", it might also help to read many articles
on the subject you are researching. Quite frankly you don't really know
enough to form a question at this stage of your education.
> 19 So do I understand correctly that it is not a known fact, only an
> assumption?
Since matter survived it is not an assumption but a fact. You do see
matter don't you?
> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
> is that incorrect?
Yes Ted, that is incorrect. Get a very simple book on cosmology learn
something, other than the bible, for a change. Matter and energy are the
same thing, just in different forms.
> 21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
> they created?
They are called thew laws of nature so that fundamentalists like you can
halfway understand them. They were created at the time of the big bang.
> 22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
> know there was any in the first place?
Matter and anti-matter particles appear and disappear today. A simple
book on cosmology might be your best friend in this instance.
> 23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
> matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
> amount of light"?
No Ted, the light(energy) which was cerated by the destruction of
anti-matter has long since gone in its visible form
> 24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
> suggested earlier, what was there left to evolve over the billions of
> years?
You aren't reading your own questions, are you Ted? The answer is above
and when you think you have found it, let me know.
> 25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
Energy.
> 26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
> matter, is that incorrect?
Yes.
> 27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
> from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
Which assumption Ted? Let me stop you right here. Based on your
questions so far, I think your assumptions, whatever they might be, are
wrong. I base this on your track record so far.
> "Today, WMAP measures that there is more than a billion times more
> light than matter."
> 28 How can they possibly measure how many more times of light there
> is than matter?
They can and you will have to ask them how they do it. I'm sure there
are many thousands of things they can do that you can't understand.
> 29 Earlier, they said that matter and antimatter annihilated each
> other, now they are saying there is "more than a billion times more
> light than matter", what am I missing?
You are still ignoring the answer to the question above.
> I have been told by some that believe in evolution, I'm sorry, the BB,
> "all evolution" can be tested, observed and/or duplicated, is this a
> mistake and if not, how is it explained?
It is basally a problem with your conflation of all types of evolution.
In your missionary zeal to discredit all of science you and your other
fundie friends make many serious errors, not only in your facts but also
in your assumptions.
> When I read the above article from NASA, it appears to me there are
> some glaring inconsistencies, assumptions and huge amounts of
> speculation that have never been observed, cannot be tested, nor can
> it be duplicated in a lab.
That's right Ted, the BB will never be created. Again, in your zeal to
discredit science you create your own strawman.
> The believers in the BB and evolution seem to have to start their
> theories at some point "after" the, "in the beginning" point.
Of course you idiot, where do you think it would start?
> That
> does not answer questions of what happened prior to the BB.
Nope, sure doesn't.
> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me?
Nope.
> It is
> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
No, that isn't what was said. What was said is that you can't teach
religion in a science classroom. See Ted, you are flailing around
attempting to cerate a strawman again.
> OTOH, there
> seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
> scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
> creation, why is it being taught in our schools?
There are definitely unknowns in the BB theory. The first thing you
need to do, if you are going to be honest and forthright(which I know is
impossible for a creationist), is to quit packaging the BB and
evolutionary biology in the same package. So far, all the court cases
have involved biology, not cosmology.
> It is my opinion
> that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
> a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
> can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
As anyone with just a modicum of scientific knowledge can tell, your
opinion is just that...your opinion and we all know how many people have
opinions.
> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom.
We keep trying Ted, but you keep insisting.
> When kids ask
> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
> scientifically.
Sorry Ted, there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that says that
the big bang occurred and the result is what we see today. As a better
approach, why don't you say to your kids, god created the universe by
causing the big bang to happen.
> One view is that everything was created by an
> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
> universe evolve as we know it today.
Because Ted, there are thousands more ideas of creation than that. You
have a myopic view of the number of creation stories which could exist.
Almost every religion has a creation story and if you want to discuss
these religious views you can visit the churches.
> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>
> Bear
Religious views aren't taught in the science classrooms. Look Ted, you
can create all of the ignorant views you wish at home, with your fundie
friends and in the churches. That covers the majority of the time of a
child. If you can't indoctrinate them enough by then to keep them in the
fold, than it is time to fold the fold(pun intended).
Ralph
Sure they will Ike, sure they will. Now run along your nurse is calling you.
Ralph
Damn Ted, I can't believe I agree with you, but on Ike I do.
Pastor Dave
<qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>On Nov 23, 9:18�pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:50:09 -0800 (PST), AusShane
>> <quar...@live.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> >> Says the man who parrots others and has no clue
>> >> what he's talking about.
>>
>> > Bearing in mind that you have no idea of my background,
>> > education, or experience your above comment becomes
>> > a simple insult (duly noted)
>>
>> I know that you know nothing about the subject
>> and just parrot others, which you proved by
>> parroting others.
>>
>> > Perhaps you could elucidate me as to which
>> > of my comments were false?
>>
>> All of them. �But there it is, folks! �Prove we're wrong!
>> Prove that negative! <chuckle>
>>
>> How about you prove just one example of what you believe,
>> since you make the positive claim, that it is true?
>>
>> And no, that does not include you believing that all life
>> evolved from a single celled organism and then showing
>> me an example like flowers from flowers, etc..
>
> So instead of answering even one of my points
> you resort to a blanket dismissal?
Points? You mean your claims that creationism
ain't so. Where is your proof of your claim that
what you believe has occurred? You claim it's
"science", so show us just one example of what
you believe happening in what is required for
something to be science, which is either:
1) Direct observation.
2) Repeatable testing with repeatable results.
And to qualify, it must be what you claim happened
and not a bait and switch, in which you claim that
we all came from a single celled organism and then
show us example of flowers from flowers, et al.
> Actually give a rational answer
Rational? To what? All you said is, "Nuh uh!".
> your response is the sort the sort of response
> a 10 year old would give
You mean like you saying, "Nuh Uh! Is not so!"
and then demanding that everyone else prove
a negative? Please! <chuckle>
You're a typical evolutionist. Lots of claims
and no facts.
You claim that creationism is not "science".
That means I don't have to prove a thing.
You took the burden off me and besides
this, I didn't make any claims, you did.
You claim that evolution as you believe in it
is science and that places the burden of proof
on you to prove that it happened.
Now if you truly did believe what you claimed
and it truly was science, then you would have
provided an example and silenced us all and
would have been done with it.
But in reality, you are just another know nothing,
who parrots what others say and who knows
nothing at all and that is why you have not been
able to and are not able to have a discussion
about the issue all on your own, without citing
web sites and verifying that you know what
you're talking about. Nor can you stay there
with a person who does.
Now put up, or shut up. Show us one example
of what you believe. Then there will be nor more
argument. But instead, all we see, is one moron
after another, like you, making the claim and then
as soon as challenged, trying to turn the tables.
Again, if creationism is not science as you claim,
then creationists have zero burden to demonstrate
their claim scientifically.
You however, since you claim that your belief is
indeed science and is proved, have the absolute
burden to prove that to be so.
So you set yourself up, son. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Personally I cannot understand it, yet I continually
encounter this phenomenon not only in others but
in myself. How is it that people can read the Bible
for years, go to a Bible school, attend a Bible church,
listen to the best Bible expositors, attend a weekly
Bible study and then behave as if they hadn't learned
anything at all? Yet it happens." - Ray C. Steadman
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote, on 09-11-22 10:06 AM:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:09:41 +0000, Cory Albrecht<coryal...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bear wrote, on 11/21/2009 11:07 PM:
>>>> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
>>>> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
>>>> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
>>>> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
>>>> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
>>>> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
>>>> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
>>>> universe evolve as we know it today.
>>>
>>> Problem is, Bear, one of those "views" has a heck of a lot more
>>> supporting information and data and plain old *evidence* behind it than
>>> the other does.
>>>
>>>> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>>>> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>>>
>>> Science doesn't restrain any views - it simply demands that they be
>>> supported with evidence and be potentially falsifiable via testing - the
>>> Big Bang Theory is exactly that and Intelligent Design isn't even in the
>>> ballpark.
>> The theory accurately takes us back to the fractions of a second pre explosion.
>Yes, BBT does that. And...?
That's what I said.
>> And evolution is the intelligent design in operation.
>Unsupported assertion.
It always is when it stops you in your tracks. My statement takes us from the
first cell to the highest form of life that man can evolve into. There is no
known limit. Until God says "enough is enough".
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>>>> the BB and what was it called?
>>>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>>>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>>>BECAME void and without form."
>>
>> Wrong bubba. The universe has been determined to be expanding at an
>> increasing
>> rate. This means there is insufficient mass (gravity) to reverse the
>> expansion.
>> If the mass is not there, it was not there "before".
>
>Nope.
>The scientists are making a false assumption.
Haahaahaahaa.
>If you have a camera with an adjustable rate of speed, and a projector that
>plays back at one speed, you can 1) match the frame rate and take normal
>movies in time, or 2) you can increase the frame rate and show slow motion
>pictures, or 3) you can slow down the frame rate and show time-lapsed
>pictures.
>However, in the entire process, one thing is constant--time.
>Now what happens if time itself slows down where an object you're
>photographic (or, in this case, spectrally analyzing)?
>It will LOOK like the galaxies are speeding up, and you'll get the SAME red
>shift as if the object were speeding up.
>So the scientists' mistake was thinking that time is a constant throughout
>the universe when it's not--time is losing "energy" just like everything
>else.
No thanks, herman. They already took that into consideration when they said the
expansion of the universe is speeding up.
>> Hence, no big crunch.
>> Welcome the science of physics, herman.
>Welcome to Bible prophecy, moron...
The bible is not a scientific accounting of the universe, herman.
>Jesus says repeatedly that He is the "Beginning and Ending." And that's at
>the SAME TIME.
>So how does one be the "Beginning and Ending" at the same time?
Divinity.
>They arrive and depart from the same point, i.e. the universe breaths in and
>out; but, being a singularity, it's the same story each cycle within the
>singularity. It's only OUTSIDE the singularity that the story changes.
<sigh>
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AusShane" <qua...@live.com> wrote in message
>news:478526ca-64cc-4ba2...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> So you don't actually know anything about cosmology do you???
>
>Sure I do. Study it all the time. Got A's in college on it. One of my
>favorite subjects. In my book, NASA is the only thing this country has done
>right in the last hundred years. (Not that it hasn't had its fair share of
>problems.)
>
>> Because
>> we have already pointed out the problems with the big crunch
>> hypothesis -
>
>The scientists are wrong--they just haven't figured it out yet.
Haahaahaahaahaa. There you go - herman, the world famous scientist.
duke
Herman can sure take your breath away if you listen to him, can't he.
AusShane
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:08:13 -0800 (PST), AusShane
So
No answer regarding how you think ID fits the tenets of science?
No answer defending the teaching of magic in schools.
Just more sarcasm and arrogance.
There have been numerous accounts in this group demonstrating the
proofs of modern science from all its disciplines - look at the
previous posts on this thread they include hundreds of facts relating
to cosmology astronomy chemistry biology physics - yet you claim there
are no facts????
So really you are not here to debate when you have not offered one
single answer just slide past them.
How intelligent design fits into the tenets of science should be easy
to answer. That is the original question - trying to avoid doing so by
asking a completely different question isn't debate.
So still no answers for me???
AusShane
AusShane
As and example of please refute any of the scientific facts in Ralphs
recent post.
"> But in reality, you are just another know nothing,
> who parrots what others say and who knows
> nothing at all and that is why you have not been
> able to and are not able to have a discussion
> about the issue all on your own, without citing
> web sites and verifying that you know what
> you're talking about. Nor can you stay there
> with a person who does."
Really? But then you would argue I was parroting others as you
previously accused - the ability to understand information and
paraphrase it for small formats is actually a skill.
I already offered links to the transcripts of the dover trial did I
not?
Perhaps you would like a link to Ken Millers homepage in which he
demolishes the stupidity that is ID and irreducible complexity.
Or links to Joe Throntons work on glucocorticoid receptors which does
the same. These are factual works understand - facts where you say we
have none.
I also cited the evolutionary trees of the whale and hippopotamus as
good examples of speciation from common ancestors yet you say I have
not offered an example - another lie.
I have answered your challenge you have yet to actually quote a single
fact in reply - duly noted
AusShane
Perhaps I have not been clear. This is not about what I believe nor
what I need to prove or otherwise.
The original question was regarding scientific models.
The question was
Please explain how ID fulfils the basic tenets of science.
and therefore
Please explain how you can justify magical thinking as a valid science
subject??
Its a simple question.
The rational answer would be "ID fulfills the basic tenets of science
because....."
Your answer was
Prove creationism's wrong son - don't give us no crap about flowers
producing flowers moron no facts etc
Sorry how does that answer the original question?
If you cannot actually answer the question please say so - no shame in
that.
Changing the topic to beliefs about creationism and challenging me to
provide proof of evolution as a response to the two direct questions
above is not a rational answer.
I have stuck to the two topics above how is that turning the tables ?
Ike E 11/23/9
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7oydnRa-NJRMJpfW...@giganews.com...
Oh, well what was I thinking?
I mean, with such a well-developed counter-thesis as yours, I MUST be
wrong...
...not.
Ike
Ken
> Sorry Ted, there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that says that
> the big bang occurred and the result is what we see today. As a better
> approach, why don't you say to your kids, god created the universe by
> causing the big bang to happen.
Why does he even bothers to ask questions when he's firmly cemented
the "goditit" answer into his thick skull?
Ike E 11/23/9
> Bear wrote:
>>
>> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
>> For those well-informed Big Bang theorists, please feel free to jump
>> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
>> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
>> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
>> noted as a belief. How did the universe start and evolve?
>>
>> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
>> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>>
>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>> the BB and what was it called?
>
>
> There was nothing before the big bang.
And your authority on this subject is...?
>> 2 Has science applied a label to the pre-BB event?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>> 3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
>> it existed?
>
>
> It consisted of all that is in the universe. By mathematical computations.
And who created the math?
>> 4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
>
>
> Pressure.
Which came from where?
>> 5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
>
> No one knows.
I do: The folding of the universe back upon itself, making the ending and
the beginning the same event, which makes Jesus' "I Am the Beginning and
Ending" statement possible.
>> "This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from whence all life
>> arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate
>> particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe."
>>
>> That is very interesting.
>
>
> How would you know?
How would you?
>> 6 What was the "ultimate particle accelerator".
>
>
> The big bang.
Great. Now where did the material for the big bang come from?
>> 7 What did it consist of?
>
>
> Energy initially.
Where did the energy come from?
>> 8 Where did it come from?
>
>
> Who knows.
I do:
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for
thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created.
>> 9 How did it come into existence?
>
>
> Like your god, it always existed.
Yes...in a singularity.
>> 10 How do scientists know that Elementary particles were created and
>> destroyed at that time?
>
>
> I assume you are referring to matter and anti-matter. If so, it shown in
> the mathematics and in particle accelerators. It is really fascinating
> to see how this happens, why don't you get a good book on cosmology, get
> your nose out of the authorized KJV and learn something so that folks
> won't laugh at your ignorance.
Now where did the particles come from?
>> 11 Where did the space come from that all these events took place
>> in?
>
>
> Space was created as the universe expanded. The expansion is into
> something which existed, the expansion creates the space as it goes.
Which means its a singularity.
Now, what is OUTSIDE of that space?
>> 12 How did the BB create time?
>
>
> I can't specifically say how it was created, Einstein's equations show
> that time had a definite beginning.
Not as definite as he thought.
Beginning and Ending = time in a line.
First and Last = time in cycles.
Alpha and Omega = random access to time.
>> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
>> annihilated each other and created light."
>
>
>> Seems like a rather dogmatic statement to me
>
>
> As stupid as you are scientifically, the statement 'Mary had a little
> lamb' would give you problems.
As if you're any smarter.
>> 13 How is it known that matter existed before the BB or, was it
>> supposedly created by the BB?
>
>
> Matter didn't exist before the big bang and it wasn't supposedly
> created by the BB, it was created by the BB.
Nope.
The matter for the big bang was in the proto atom.
Now where did the proto atom come from?
Answer: The collapse of the universe.
>> 14 How do they know that matter and antimatter met?
>
>
> Again mathematics and particle accelerators.
Now where did the math and the particles come from?
>> 15 What caused them to meet?
>
>
> Mutual attraction.
Who designed this mutual attraction?
>> 16 Is there an explanation somewhere that describes how their
>> destruction "created light"?
>
>
> Yes sir there is, it is called general relativity and I have a textbook
> by Hartle entitled 'Gravity'. This book can be purchased at any science
> section of a major bookstore. Have you ever been in one of those?
Sure have.
Now who created the laws of general relativity?
>> 17 How long did the "light last" and how is that known?
>
>
> The light lasted as long as there were matter and anti-matter particles.
Same thing the Genesis account says.
> That is known by the general relativity and particle accelerators.
And math and the particles were created by...?
>> 18 Assuming the light at some point vanished, how was the sun
>> formed?
>
>
> Whew! It was eventually formed by the remaining particles of matter
> although there were many processes before that.
And after.
Now who designed the processes?
>> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
>> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
>> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>
>> "Somehow, it seems�"?
>
> It seems that is what the article said, although I don't know which
> article you read. Uhh.."Bear", it might also help to read many articles
> on the subject you are researching. Quite frankly you don't really know
> enough to form a question at this stage of your education.
You don't seem to know much more than he does.
>> 19 So do I understand correctly that it is not a known fact, only an
>> assumption?
>
>
> Since matter survived it is not an assumption but a fact. You do see
> matter don't you?
Yes, but do you see all that matters?
>> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
>> is that incorrect?
>
>
> Yes Ted, that is incorrect. Get a very simple book on cosmology learn
> something, other than the bible, for a change. Matter and energy are the
> same thing, just in different forms.
Same thing with time.
>> 21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
>> they created?
>
>
> They are called thew laws of nature so that fundamentalists like you can
> halfway understand them. They were created at the time of the big bang.
Great. Now who created the big bang?
Oh, that's right: Single-minded goofballs like you think it was all just a
series of "fortunate accidents."
>> 22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
>> know there was any in the first place?
>
>
> Matter and anti-matter particles appear and disappear today. A simple book
> on cosmology might be your best friend in this instance.
Ah, no, from what I've seen, antimatter was annihilated by matter until all
that was left was the extra matter particle.
We have to create it in a lab (which means it could be created elsewhere in
the universe by some natural process, but we haven't found it yet).
>> 23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
>> matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
>> amount of light"?
>
>
> No Ted, the light(energy) which was cerated by the destruction of
> anti-matter has long since gone in its visible form
Just like Genesis says.
>> 24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
>> suggested earlier, what was there left to evolve over the billions of
>> years?
>
>
> You aren't reading your own questions, are you Ted? The answer is above
> and when you think you have found it, let me know.
And when you figure out who designed the whole affair, you let me know.
>> 25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
>
>
> Energy.
Actually, that's the release of energy.
>> 26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
>> matter, is that incorrect?
>
>
> Yes.
Well, no, there could have been an antimatter universe if the numbers had
been different, but God knew what He wanted, so the numbers are what the
numbers are.
>> 27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
>> from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
>
>
> Which assumption Ted? Let me stop you right here. Based on your
> questions so far, I think your assumptions, whatever they might be, are
> wrong. I base this on your track record so far.
So are yours: That's the problem with absolute science versus absolute
literalism--NEITHER side knows what they're talking about.
>> "Today, WMAP measures that there is more than a billion times more
>> light than matter."
>
>> 28 How can they possibly measure how many more times of light there
>> is than matter?
>
>
> They can and you will have to ask them how they do it. I'm sure there
> are many thousands of things they can do that you can't understand.
And God has done thousands of things YOU don't understand, which enabled
Jesus to say "before Abraham was, I Am," a statement that blows the doors
off of your "absolute" science.
>> 29 Earlier, they said that matter and antimatter annihilated each
>> other, now they are saying there is "more than a billion times more
>> light than matter", what am I missing?
>
>
> You are still ignoring the answer to the question above.
>
>> I have been told by some that believe in evolution, I'm sorry, the BB,
>> "all evolution" can be tested, observed and/or duplicated, is this a
>> mistake and if not, how is it explained?
>
>
> It is basally a problem with your conflation of all types of evolution.
> In your missionary zeal to discredit all of science you and your other
> fundie friends make many serious errors, not only in your facts but also
> in your assumptions.
>
>
>> When I read the above article from NASA, it appears to me there are
>> some glaring inconsistencies, assumptions and huge amounts of
>> speculation that have never been observed, cannot be tested, nor can
>> it be duplicated in a lab.
>
>
> That's right Ted, the BB will never be created.
Yes, it will: At the end of the singularity, which BEGINS the singularity,
which leads to the end of the singularity, which leads to the beginning of
the singularity, which lead to...
> Again, in your zeal to
> discredit science you create your own strawman.
As do you in your zeal to discredit the Word.
>> The believers in the BB and evolution seem to have to start their
>> theories at some point "after" the, "in the beginning" point.
>
> Of course you idiot, where do you think it would start?
At the end.
>> That
>> does not answer questions of what happened prior to the BB.
>
>
> Nope, sure doesn't.
So then neither one of you knows what he is talking about, and Ike wins.
>> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me?
>
>
> Nope.
Yep.
>> It is
>> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
>> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that.
>
>
> No, that isn't what was said. What was said is that you can't teach
> religion in a science classroom. See Ted, you are flailing around
> attempting to cerate a strawman again.
Only to counter the one YOU created.
>> OTOH, there
>> seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
>> scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
>> creation, why is it being taught in our schools?
>
>
> There are definitely unknowns in the BB theory. The first thing you
> need to do, if you are going to be honest and forthright(which I know is
> impossible for a creationist), is to quit packaging the BB and
> evolutionary biology in the same package. So far, all the court cases
> have involved biology, not cosmology.
As if the courts of men knew what God knows.
>> It is my opinion
>> that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
>> a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
>> can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
LOL
There's more science in the Bible than in your science.
> As anyone with just a modicum of scientific knowledge can tell, your
> opinion is just that...your opinion and we all know how many people have
> opinions.
Then how could John have dealt with QUANTUM SINGULARITIES about 18 centuries
before the scientists even dreamed up such a thing.
"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
That's a singularity.
>> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom.
>
>
> We keep trying Ted, but you keep insisting.
>
>
>> When kids ask
>> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
>> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
>> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
>> scientifically.
>
>
>
> Sorry Ted, there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that says that
> the big bang occurred and the result is what we see today.
But WHERE did the BIG BANG COME FROM?
(This is the point where your science fails and the Word takes over.)
> As a better
> approach, why don't you say to your kids, god created the universe by
> causing the big bang to happen.
That's precisely what I say.
>> One view is that everything was created by an
>> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
>> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
>> universe evolve as we know it today.
>
>
> Because Ted, there are thousands more ideas of creation than that.
Yes, but only one of them is right--the Word's.
Then again, idiots like bear don't help the situation any...
> You
> have a myopic view of the number of creation stories which could exist.
You have a myopic view of your science.
> Almost every religion has a creation story and if you want to discuss
> these religious views you can visit the churches.
Yes, but NONE of them are as bombastic and accurate as the Word's (read
right).
>> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
>> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>>
>> Bear
>
>
> Religious views aren't taught in the science classrooms. Look Ted, you
> can create all of the ignorant views you wish at home, with your fundie
> friends and in the churches. That covers the majority of the time of a
> child. If you can't indoctrinate them enough by then to keep them in the
> fold, than it is time to fold the fold(pun intended).
And if your science can explain everything like the Bible can, why are we
using YOUR books instead of the Bible?
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Damn Ted, I can't believe I agree with you, but on Ike I do.
LOL
I can't believe this happened AGAIN--the only thing the two liars can agree
on IS TO LIE!
<chuckle>
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:35:09 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>>>>> the BB and what was it called?
>
>>>>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>>>>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>>>>BECAME void and without form."
>>>
>>> Wrong bubba. The universe has been determined to be expanding at an
>>> increasing
>>> rate. This means there is insufficient mass (gravity) to reverse the
>>> expansion.
>>> If the mass is not there, it was not there "before".
>>
>>Nope.
>>The scientists are making a false assumption.
>
> Haahaahaahaa.
Suit yourself: Jesus said the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the
Last, and the Alpha and Omega are the same thing, which points to
singularity.
Jesus said "I Am the root AND offspring of David," which points to
singularity.
Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I Am," which also points to singularity.
You want to wallow in your ignorance, go right ahead: There's no point
trying to wash a pig--everyone gets dirty, and the pig loves the attention.
The scientists will catch on in due course of time...if they have time.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:05:11 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AusShane" <qua...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:478526ca-64cc-4ba2...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> So you don't actually know anything about cosmology do you???
>>
>>Sure I do. Study it all the time. Got A's in college on it. One of my
>>favorite subjects. In my book, NASA is the only thing this country has
>>done
>>right in the last hundred years. (Not that it hasn't had its fair share of
>>problems.)
>>
>>> Because
>>> we have already pointed out the problems with the big crunch
>>> hypothesis -
>>
>>The scientists are wrong--they just haven't figured it out yet.
>
> Haahaahaahaahaa. There you go - herman, the world famous scientist.
Not me. Jesus.
"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
Jesus referred to singularity about 18 or 19 centuries before any scientists
conceived of such a thing.
That means either John was getting his information from Jesus, and Jesus was
precisely who and what He said He was; or John was a infamous genius on the
magnitude of Einstein about 18 centuries before Einstein existed.
<chuckle>
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
There goes the duck again, blaspheming God as usual.
But what else is new?
Ike
Pastor Dave
<qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>On Nov 24, 5:23�am, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:08:13 -0800 (PST),
>> AusShane <quar...@live.com> spake thusly:
>>
> Perhaps I have not been clear. This is not about
> what I believe nor what I need to prove or otherwise.
>
> The original question was regarding scientific models.
>
> The question was
>
> Please explain how ID fulfils the basic tenets of science.
The original question was about the Big Bang.
Note the subject line.
Now the fact is, that you don't just ask questions.
You ridicule. And you also claim that evolution
is true, but won't support it.
The fact is, when you say that ID is not science,
then you remove all burden of proof from anyone
having to prove anything.
The fact is, ID is brought up to avoid having to
prove evolution. It is an attempt at deflection.
The fact is, you claim that evolution, as you
believe it happens, is science and is proved
and that means that you need to prove that
to be the case.
> Please explain how you can justify magical thinking
> as a valid science subject??
You mean like nothing exploded and here we are?
Let's see...
1) The universe came from nothing and here we are,
but had no cause.
2) The universe came from nothing and here we are
and has a cause.
Hmmm.... which one sounds more like "science"?
Gee, I wonder. :)
Or how about the "magical thinking" that there was rock
and some rain and then we followed and it happened
all by itself, through random, mindless processes?
Na, no magic in that one, right, even though you can
never produce one single direct observation of it, right?
So you keep criticizing me, saying that my belief is
a fairy tale, because I cannot show you God, while
you demand that everyone believe that yours is
"science", while you can't provide the proof.
Hmmm... Doesn't that make your god the ape skull
you hold up, since you claim that's where you came
from and can't prove it, which makes it religion?
Yea, you go ahead and keep telling yourself that I believe
in magic and what you believe is "science".
Yea, sure, okay, right! <chuckle> :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
- Thomas Jefferson
Ralph
Projecting again, Ike?
Ralph
No doubt about it Ike, you're wrong.
duke
Jesus has already come the 2nd time. Once when God became man and the 2nd time
at his resurrection.
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:qn0mg5pdbk245hpp3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:05:11 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AusShane" <qua...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>news:478526ca-64cc-4ba2...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> So you don't actually know anything about cosmology do you???
>>>
>>>Sure I do. Study it all the time. Got A's in college on it. One of my
>>>favorite subjects. In my book, NASA is the only thing this country has
>>>done
>>>right in the last hundred years. (Not that it hasn't had its fair share of
>>>problems.)
>>>
>>>> Because
>>>> we have already pointed out the problems with the big crunch
>>>> hypothesis -
>>>
>>>The scientists are wrong--they just haven't figured it out yet.
>>
>> Haahaahaahaahaa. There you go - herman, the world famous scientist.
>Not me. Jesus.
>"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
Who comes from Jessie.
>Jesus referred to singularity about 18 or 19 centuries before any scientists
>conceived of such a thing.
There was no singularity, which is something that forms in outer space. In the
creation of the universe, there was no outer space.
chuckle
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ug0mg559fll3dcjcp...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:35:09 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
>>>>>> the BB and what was it called?
>>
>>>>>The universe. This same universe we live in collapses regularly, as the
>>>>>universe is a singularity, as taught in the Bible, i.e. "and the earth
>>>>>BECAME void and without form."
>>>>
>>>> Wrong bubba. The universe has been determined to be expanding at an
>>>> increasing
>>>> rate. This means there is insufficient mass (gravity) to reverse the
>>>> expansion.
>>>> If the mass is not there, it was not there "before".
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>The scientists are making a false assumption.
>>
>> Haahaahaahaa.
>Suit yourself: Jesus said the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the
>Last, and the Alpha and Omega are the same thing, which points to
>singularity.
Nope, he said "he was".
>Jesus said "I Am the root AND offspring of David," which points to
>singularity.
Who came from Jessie.
>Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I Am," which also points to singularity.
No, it points to the divine nature of Jesus before God became man.
>You want to wallow in your ignorance, go right ahead: There's no point
>trying to wash a pig--everyone gets dirty, and the pig loves the attention.
I'll stick with the scientists and scripture researchers long before I believe
you.
AusShane
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:52:14 -0800 (PST), AusShane
There were multiple questions - I was commenting on a specific one
which you well know and have avoided like the plague.
So I take it there are no answers from the genesis crowd on this?
>
Ike E 11/23/9
Not at all.
A few weeks ago, Doug and Bear, who have been at each others throats
(because of their mutual ignorance), could only agree on one thing--to lie
together about what I said when I told them the truth.
Now you two have done the same thing: Instead of PROVING me wrong (which
neither one of you could do), you agreed to LIE together, which is the only
thing you can AGREE on.
I find it that amusing that the only thing liars can agree upon--despite
being totally at odds with one another--is to lie when I tell them the
truth, and neither party wants to deal with it, because it would end the
argument (which neither of them was equipped to argue in the first place).
<chuckle>
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
Such crushing rhetoric.
Now how about PROVING it.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Jesus has already come the 2nd time. Once when God became man and the 2nd
> time
> at his resurrection.
Bullshit.
Acts 1:6-11
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord,
wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power; but ye shall receive
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses
unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth.
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up;
and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold,
two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee,
why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from
you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven.
Now you're starting to sound like a half-assed Preterist.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
>>"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
>
> Who comes from Jessie.
Once again, duke shows his ass.
Jesus both led to and came from David, i.e Jesus formed Adam of the dust of
the ground, which led to David, which led to Jesus, who went back and formed
Adam of the dust of the ground, which led to... ad infinitum.
That's a "singlarity," moron.
>>Jesus referred to singularity about 18 or 19 centuries before any
>>scientists
>>conceived of such a thing.
>
> There was no singularity...
You're a moron.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
>>Suit yourself: Jesus said the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the
>>Last, and the Alpha and Omega are the same thing, which points to
>>singularity.
>
> Nope, he said "he was".
Once again, duke shows his ass...
Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the
last.
"AM," not "was," moron.
[snip the rest of duke's ignorant dawdle]
Ike
Ralph
Proving you wrong??? What the hell did you say that would require an an
action?
Ralph
Since you made the assertion why don't you 'prove' it.
Ralph
> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5qjog59b9hfn19cst...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:16:10 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> "I Am the root AND offspring of David."
>> Who comes from Jessie.
>
> Once again, duke shows his ass.
>
> Jesus both led to and came from David, i.e Jesus formed Adam of the dust of
> the ground, which led to David, which led to Jesus, who went back and formed
> Adam of the dust of the ground, which led to... ad infinitum.
>
> That's a "singlarity," moron.
Source?
>>> Jesus referred to singularity about 18 or 19 centuries before any
>>> scientists
>>> conceived of such a thing.
>> There was no singularity...
>
> You're a moron.
>
> Ike
>
>
I always thought he was until I ran into you.
Ike E 11/23/9
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, I already did.
How can one be both the beginning and ending, the first and last, and the
alpha and omega at the same time?
They originate and terminate in the same place.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
> Ike E 11/23/9 wrote:
[snip]
>> Jesus both led to and came from David, i.e Jesus formed Adam of the dust
>> of the ground, which led to David, which led to Jesus, who went back and
>> formed Adam of the dust of the ground, which led to... ad infinitum.
>>
>> That's a "singularity," moron.
>
> Source?
Jesus Christ.
[snip]
Ike
Ralph
You have ignored the element of time.
Ralph
For an apocalyptic Jewish preacher Jesus sure didn't know he was all of
these things:-)).
osugeography
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:20:59 -0800 (PST), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
> <ilbeba...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> > On Nov 21, 5:07�pm, Bear wrote:
>
> >> The article below is from NASA and it brings
> > some questions to mind.
>
> > because it is and a pretty silly one ... all in an effort
> > to give The Personal Designer/Creator (God) his due
> > honor and glory.
>
> I disagree. �It was designed to take that glory away,
> since it says that it happened all by itself and didn't
> need God.
>
> > To assert a big explosion produced the incredible
> > razor edge precise Fine Tuning required of our
> > Cosmos/Solar System/Earth for life enablement,
> > requires an crazy amount of blind faith.
>
> Agreed. :)
>
> > Instead, �Im going with a personal God who crafted
> > this Cosmos and who is available for everyone to get
> > to know on an intimate basis. �It sounds like you do.
>
> I know that I do, anyway. :)
>
> And of course, we all know the story about Isaac Newton
> and what he told the man who believed in the Big Bang
> and that, as the Big Bang proponents state (and then
> deny believing when cornered), which is that it did
> happen by some cosmic accident, naturally, by itself. :)
Dave wrote:
"And of course, we all know the story about Isaac Newton
and what he told the man who believed in the Big Bang
and that, as the Big Bang proponents state (and then
deny believing when cornered), which is that it did
happen by some cosmic accident, naturally, by itself. :) "
No, I don't know the story, Dave, so please tell me: What did Newton
tell the man? Who was the man? Roughly what year did this conversation
take place? Any other relevant details, such as who these believer-
recanter proponents were?
Thanks you,
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
>
> And isn't it interesting that these people try as hard as
> they can to take glory away from God and yet, when
> cornered, they always immediately back off of that claim
> and pretend that's not what they're trying to do? �Why
> would they do that all of the sudden (and they always do)?
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> And He did it in six days and said He did it
> in six days (Exodus 20:11). �Jesus believed
> that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
> and in other places. �The original Hebrew
> word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
> anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
> a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
> etc.). �Are we to believe that this is somehow
> the one exception?
Ike E 11/23/9
> Ike E 11/23/9 wrote:
[snip]
>> How can one be both the beginning and ending, the first and last, and the
>> alpha and omega at the same time?
>>
>> They originate and terminate in the same place.
>>
>> Ike
>
> You have ignored the element of time.
That's "elements," plural, oh, clueless one, not "element."
Beginning and Ending = Time in a line.
First and Last = Time in ordinal cycles.
Alpha and Omega = Random access to time.
But Jesus says that He is ALL these things AT THE SAME TIME. The only way
THAT can happen is IF THEY EMANATE AND RETURN TO THE SAME POINT, i.e. the
end becomes the beginning and the beginning leads to the end, the first and
the last are one and the same, and all Alpha and Omega is unified.
It's the same type of singularity created when Jesus says "I Am the root AND
offspring of David."
Let me know when you have a clue.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
> Ike E 11/23/9 wrote:
>> "Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:P-ydnd04NZ_gqZDW...@giganews.com...
>>> Ike E 11/23/9 wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Jesus both led to and came from David, i.e Jesus formed Adam of the
>>>> dust of the ground, which led to David, which led to Jesus, who went
>>>> back and formed Adam of the dust of the ground, which led to... ad
>>>> infinitum.
>>>>
>>>> That's a "singularity," moron.
>>> Source?
>>
>> Jesus Christ.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ike
[snip]
> For an apocalyptic Jewish preacher Jesus sure didn't know he was all of
> these things:-)).
Yes, He did:
"Before Abraham was, I Am."
"If David calleth him Lord, how is He his Son?"
"God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."
"Go and tell that fox, I cast out demons, and the rest of today and tomorrow
I do cures, and the third day I will be perfected; but today I walk, and
tomorrow I walk, and the next day I walk, for it cannot be that a prophet
should perish out of Israel."
"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
Jesus VERY MUCH knew that He was "all of these things."
Ike
Ralph
I do have a clue Ike, I not only have a clue I have the answer. Jesus,
if he existed at all, was a raving mad man similar to John. He was
certainly not a deity.
Ralph
You are making an assumption that is false, therefore your entire
premise is incorrect. The gospel writers wrote fiction.
Darwin Dead
> The article below is from NASA and it brings some questions to mind.
> in and answer my questions, and/or address any point that I may
> present. I would appreciate if any one cares to comment, if they
> would provide verifiable evidence for those comments, if they were not
> noted as a belief.
>
> How did the universe start and evolve?
>
> "WMAP found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe
> began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature."
>
> 1 Ok, if the universe began at that point, what was there before
> the BB and what was it called?
>
>
> 3 What did the "enormous density" consist of and how do they know
> it existed?
>
> 4 What caused the "unimaginably enormous temperature"?
>
> 5 What was it that caused the "density" to explode?
>
> "This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from whence all life
> arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate
> particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe."
>
> That is very interesting.
>
> 6 What was the "ultimate particle accelerator".
>
> 7 What did it consist of?
>
> 8 Where did it come from?
>
> 9 How did it come into existence?
>
> 10 How do scientists know that Elementary particles were created and
> destroyed at that time?
>
> 11 Where did the space come from that all these events took place
> in?
>
> 12 How did the BB create time?
>
> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
> annihilated each other and created light."
>
> Seems like a rather dogmatic statement to me
>
> 13 How is it known that matter existed before the BB or, was it
> supposedly created by the BB?
>
> 14 How do they know that matter and antimatter met?
>
> 15 What caused them to meet?
>
> 16 Is there an explanation somewhere that describes how their
> destruction "created light"?
>
> 17 How long did the "light last" and how is that known?
>
> 18 Assuming the light at some point vanished, how was the sun
> formed?
>
> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>
> "Somehow, it seems…"?
>
> 19 So do I understand correctly that it is not a known fact, only an
> assumption?
>
> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
> is that incorrect?
>
> 21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
> they created?
>
> 22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
> know there was any in the first place?
>
> 23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
> matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
> amount of light"?
>
> 24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
> suggested earlier, what was there left to evolve over the billions of
> years?
>
> 25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
>
> 26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
> matter, is that incorrect?
>
> 27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
> from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
>
> "Today, WMAP measures that there is more than a billion times more
> light than matter."
>
> 28 How can they possibly measure how many more times of light there
> is than matter?
>
> 29 Earlier, they said that matter and antimatter annihilated each
> other, now they are saying there is "more than a billion times more
> light than matter", what am I missing?
>
> I have been told by some that believe in evolution, I'm sorry, the BB,
> "all evolution" can be tested, observed and/or duplicated, is this a
> mistake and if not, how is it explained?
>
> When I read the above article from NASA, it appears to me there are
> some glaring inconsistencies, assumptions and huge amounts of
> speculation that have never been observed, cannot be tested, nor can
> it be duplicated in a lab.
>
> The believers in the BB and evolution seem to have to start their
> theories at some point "after" the, "in the beginning" point. That
> does not answer questions of what happened prior to the BB.
>
> Does this seem like a double standard to anyone other than me? It is
> stated that creation should not be taught in schools because it cannot
> be scientifically proven as fact, and I agree with that. OTOH, there
> seem to be many holes in the BB and evolution models that cannot be
> scientifically proven as fact, so using the same criteria as for
> creation, why is it being taught in our schools? It is my opinion
> that they are both a religion and neither should be taught in class as
> a scientific fact, teach our kids science in the schools, things that
> can be proven by observation, testing and duplication in the lab.
>
> Keep religion of all persuasions out of the classroom. When kids ask
> how did the world begin, what is wrong with them being told the truth,
> something like, there are a couple of different views of the
> beginnings for the world, neither of which can be proven
> scientifically. One view is that everything was created by an
> intelligent designer in six days, the other view is, there was a
> massive explosion in the beginning and over billions of years the
> universe evolve as we know it today.
>
> To my way of thinking, anytime there is an attempt at restraining
> different views, the purpose is indoctrination and not teaching.
>
> Bear
Unless I missed it in this great presentation they state that the big
bang began with hydrogen and helium. Can someone explain how we got
our other 105 elements?
Also why is it that out of the 11 trillion stars we each can own not a
singular one has ever been observed foring?
Darwin Dead
Ike E 11/23/9
Thanks for proving you're clueless.
Ike