|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 28, 2008 13:39:21 GMT
1,000,000 were busy.....
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Feb 28, 2008 21:55:47 GMT
Catholic Myself. Don't go to church regularly at all it must be said but i do believe in God and that he is looking over me and, (i know its a cliche), protecting me.
Oh and of course the big bang theory is the biggest load of rubbish ever!
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 28, 2008 21:57:48 GMT
Catholic Myself. Don't go to church regularly at all it must be said but i do believe in God and that he is looking over me and, (i know its a cliche), protecting me. Oh and of course the big bang theory is the biggest load of rubbish ever! Care to substantiate? Or are you going to make outlandish claims with nothing behind them.
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Feb 28, 2008 21:58:29 GMT
I beg your pardon?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 28, 2008 22:09:25 GMT
Care to let us know why the big bang theory is 'a load of rubbish?'
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Feb 28, 2008 22:12:46 GMT
ahh...well the whole theory is dependent on the classic that is randomness!
Basically it leaves as many questions as it gives answers.
How are we meant to believe these things "just happened" by random whereas the explanation that God created the Universe makes much more sense to me as it actually has an explanation behind it to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 28, 2008 22:19:18 GMT
ahh...well the whole theory is dependent on the classic that is randomness! Basically it leaves as many questions as it gives answers. How are we meant to believe these things "just happened" by random whereas the explanation that God created the Universe makes much more sense to me as it actually has an explanation behind it to back it up. The Big Bang theory states that an indefinately dense amount of matter with no volume began rapidly expanding, it is still happening today. No holes in there and it is an accepted theory, in science a theory is as near as makes no difference fact. What we can't explain YET is where the matter came from. As for God providing an explanation, i could explain to you that the world is on the back of a Turtle. I'm sure you wouldn't believe me. If i wrote a book on it there would be just as much evidece to back it up as God creating the universe yet i'm sure you still wouldn't believe me.
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Feb 28, 2008 22:20:49 GMT
So you believe that science will eventually be able to explain how the big bang theory occured??
Let's not forget the nucleus in an atom is what they believe it is like. They don't have concrete proof on that either.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 28, 2008 22:27:43 GMT
We can't see the nucleus of an Atom but that is no reason to suppose we don't know what it is like. We use reverse logic to understand that. Observe the conclusion (eg' a chemical reaction) then figure out how the atoms structure makes that happen. Usually you will find there is only one way it will work and then you have your answer. No leaps of faith involved. Yes science probably will solve the mystery, Christians will remain indifferent to it, just as some have remained so to the BBT or Evolution.
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Feb 28, 2008 22:30:21 GMT
Well anyway this has been grand and all discussing this but i must be off! ciao
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 28, 2008 22:35:13 GMT
Bye, but anyway, for the next time you come online, i completely forgot that we CAN see atoms. We have the Electron Scanning Microscope which can see atomic structure.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 29, 2008 11:43:23 GMT
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."
In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.......
Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"..........
So....we have to consider.....
[glow=red,2,300]Does God Exist?[/glow]
Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:
Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation. Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise? The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist? People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
Ben....over to you..................
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 29, 2008 12:06:59 GMT
State your source please because i have a funny feeling that is from a creationist website.
Anyway, regarding the very common argument that the universe is so complicated and it's laws work so well. It is wrong to suppose that the universe was created this way in order to support life, it is the fact that the universe is the way it is that allows life to be supported.
As for the origins of life, abiogenesis.
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis). Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
Personally i have no problem with the deistic and Einsteinian view that some higher power did start it off. Albert Einstein believed that something did start us off, set up the laws of Physics and then left.
Morality, develops with society. Did the earliest man have the same morals as us? No. Does someone from deepest, darkest Amazon have the same morals as us? No. Society dictates morallity, as humans have developed thier ability to learn and reason our cultures has developed as has our sense of morality. This proves that morality is born of nurture, not nature.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 29, 2008 12:19:32 GMT
It was a philosophy website Ben.......we are never going to agree mate......
I have an advantage....or could it be a dis-advantage over you in that I am 33 years older than you.....and my time on this planet is considerably shorter.....perhaps that sways me a little....
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Feb 29, 2008 15:31:09 GMT
It does tend to concentrate minds a little!
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 12, 2008 14:30:41 GMT
Found this and thought it was quite interesting.
Heaven is a very appealing place.
Scripture suggests that heaven is full of wonder, that we might be reunited with dead loved ones, and enjoy eternity in paradise.
Do we know this for a fact, or, is it more likely that some alien race may've orchestrated the idea of heaven to make people think a certain way?
For example, the flavor of certain animals which we eat can be affected by their conditions prior to slaughter. Kobe beef in Japan get massages, are given beer, and generally live in the lap of luxury prior. They're probably generally thinking the equivalent of happy thoughts prior to their deaths, their meat is probably not tainted with adrenaline.
Could some extraterrestrial race have inculcated in our culture the idea that Heaven is a wonderful place, making many of us feel elation and euphoria when we think about it, so as to make part of our brain or our "soul" be a certain way which they find particularly tasty, making for a more favorable harvest?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 12, 2008 15:06:36 GMT
Wow....that is off the wall....
|
|
|
Post by stealth1039 on Mar 12, 2008 19:10:53 GMT
There sure are some (how can we put this kindly?) "out of the box" thinkers out there.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 13, 2008 11:23:24 GMT
Here's some words from my own mouth... or keyboard.
Geffray Chaucer, The Miller's Tale and Religion.
May i qoute John the Carpenter, passing comment on 'Clever' Nicholas the educated clerk.
"Ye, blessed be alwey a lewed man That noght but oonly his bileve kan!"
Now bearing in mind Chaucer began writing these stories in the 1380's, English as we recongise it today was only just emerging yet it is still far removed from what we speak. So here's a translation to make it more accesible.
"Yes, blessed be always an unlearned man Who knows nothing but his own belief!"
Now, my point is a very simple one, and also a concerning one. This was a common attitude in fourteenth century England and, of course, most of the Christian world. How sad is it that some people still hold this attitude today? It's the year 2008 and some people still remain as ignorant as a 14th century drunken oaf.
Obviously this is directed at nobody on here as i believe you are all willing to question any faith you have. However there are many in this world who are blind believers.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 13, 2008 12:03:01 GMT
Surely your belief is your own private kingdom?
|
|
|
Post by arover on Mar 13, 2008 12:20:58 GMT
Did anybody know this?
I didn't.
Mithra of Persia
--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts. --He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. --He had 12 companions or disciples. --Mithra’s followers were promised immortality. --He performed miracles. --As the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. --He was buried in atomb and after three days rose again. --His resurrection was celebrated every year. --He was called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion. --He was considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” [Word] “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.” --His sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. --Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter. --His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithra said, “He who shall nto eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.” --“His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.”
Furthermore, the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, and the Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced . . . . . . Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier Pagan mystery religions.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 13, 2008 12:54:08 GMT
Yeah i knew that, also look up the Egyptian God Horus, i think there are a few similarities between him and Christ.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 13, 2008 12:55:15 GMT
Surely your belief is your own private kingdom? Not my point, i'm not intruding on anyone's belief.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Mar 13, 2008 13:07:08 GMT
Yeah i knew that, also look up the Egyptian God Horus, i think there are a few similarities between him and Christ. Since my illness I have been reading,drawing and studying Ancient Egypt....good point here Ben...but there is a problem... The name "Horus" is a general catchall for multiple deities, the most famous of whom is Harseisis (Heru-sa-Aset) or Horus-son-of-Isis (sometimes called Horus the Younger) who was conceived after the death of his father, Osiris, and who later avenged him. In all the Horus deities the traits of kingship, sky and solar symbology, and victory reoccur. As the prototype of the earthly king, there were as many Horus gods as there were rulers of Egypt, if not more......
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 17, 2008 11:42:24 GMT
This may ruffle a few feathers.
Professor for the public understanding of Science at Oxford university Richard Dawkins, a prominent Atheist, described the God of the Old Testament as: "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Any thoughts? (remember they weren't my words)
|
|
|
Post by arover on Mar 17, 2008 13:12:10 GMT
This may ruffle a few feathers. Professor for the public understanding of Science at Oxford university Richard Dawkins, a prominent Atheist, described the God of the Old Testament as: "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Any thoughts? (remember they weren't my words) Sounds like he thinks that he's good at what he does.
|
|
|
Post by likeasharkinafunnyhat on Mar 17, 2008 13:22:18 GMT
Kind of contradicts himself there a bit. He's an atheist, yet he admits there is a god! Just not a very nice one.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 17, 2008 13:51:43 GMT
I took it out of context Smokey, i believe he said that hypothetically. As in "if there is a God, he is..." Or merely in order to conceptualise the brutality of the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Mar 17, 2008 15:58:51 GMT
Sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 17, 2008 17:38:38 GMT
Luke you're less of a Catholic than me
|
|