Creation is a myth, but Aliens are real; WHAT SAY YOU?

[Jíbaro]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45917000/jpg/_45917217_autopsy_bbc226.jpg (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8098245.stm)

Are Aliens a fact, but 6-day Creation a myth?

[Greyclouds]

What prompted the baby seals to make this thread? :confused:

[Thor]

Considering the vastness of the Cosmos, it is a near certainty that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe.

The six-day creation story is a nice little fable, but is no doubt a myth.

[CHUG]

Does alien life exist somewhere in the universe? Almost certainly.

Have aliens visited planet Earth? Almost certainly not.

Is the creation story fact? Possible, but I seriously doubt it.

[Greyclouds]

Does alien life exist somewhere in the universe? Almost certainly.

There is a high statistical chance, albeit, the chance of intelligence in such lifeforms approaches zero.


Have aliens visited planet Earth? Almost certainly not.

I agree.


Is the creation story fact? Possible, but I seriously doubt it.

I believe that the creation story was rendered figurative by the identification of the evaporation-condensation cycle of H2O precipitation.

The Genesis story clearly details the existence of a "firmament" that serves as the source of rainfall. Sadly, such a firmament does not exist.

[AutoRacer55]

I'll take the third poll option.

[Vaard]

There is a high statistical chance, albeit, the chance of intelligence in such lifeforms approaches zero.



actually, given the numbers of planets in the univers, the chance for intelligent life is almost a certainty......


the problem arises in that given the time line and the vadtness of space, the chance of two intelligent lifeforms developing on planets close enough to each other and in the same time frame for contact is almost nil.........

[mgifford]

Did God create the "Universe"? Yes!
Do beings live on other planets? Probably, because God is God.

I think it's hilarious that people will deny or disbelieve in God, but will always believe in aliens from different planets. Hmmm!

[CAN/UK]

Did God create the "Universe"? Yes!
Do beings live on other planets? Probably, because God is God.

I think it's hilarious that people will deny or disbelieve in God, but will always believe in aliens from different planets. Hmmm!
And does God have a large assembly plant in the universe where he creates these planets?:))
Iv'e heard that God and his side kicks often play bowls and knock out a few unwanted planets.

[slick_trip]

Did God create the "Universe"? Yes!
Do beings live on other planets? Probably, because God is God.

I think it's hilarious that people will deny or disbelieve in God, but will always believe in aliens from different planets. Hmmm!

why does that seem funny? if one were to believe life can originate here without a 'creator' and extrapolate that only to the visible universe we see, the math certainly supports that we're not the only intelligent life out there.

still starts with the belief that life can originate without a creator - which i can understand why you'd believe differently than that. extending that to believe that if it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere is hardly a stretch.

[Greyclouds]

actually, given the numbers of planets in the univers, the chance for intelligent life is almost a certainty......

Agreed, but with emphasis on the "almost" of your sentence :D.


the problem arises in that given the time line and the vadtness of space, the chance of two intelligent lifeforms developing on planets close enough to each other and in the same time frame for contact is almost nil.........

Agreed as well.

[mgifford]

why does that seem funny? if one were to believe life can originate here without a 'creator' and extrapolate that only to the visible universe we see, the math certainly supports that we're not the only intelligent life out there.

still starts with the belief that life can originate without a creator - which i can understand why you'd believe differently than that. extending that to believe that if it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere is hardly a stretch.

Why? Because it's far more a stretch to believe in what you said than what I said. LOL!

[mgifford]

And does God have a large assembly plant in the universe where he creates these planets?:))
Iv'e heard that God and his side kicks often play bowls and knock out a few unwanted planets.

NO! He said "Light Be" and it was. He doesn't work in the realm of any human and never will, but I always say "believe what you may, I don't care".

[Thor]

Did God create the "Universe"? Yes!

And your evidence to support this statement is....????

I think it's hilarious that people will deny or disbelieve in God, but will always believe in aliens from different planets. Hmmm!

There is no evidence that indicates a supreme being exists. The sheer numbers of stars and galaxies means that there is almost certainly intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

What do you think the odds are that a star will have a planet in its orbit that supports intelligent life? Let's say it's a billion to one. Well, there are billions of GALAXIES, each containing BILLIONS of STARS. The odds would dictate that there are probably 100 stars in our own galaxy that support intelligent life.

[slick_trip]

Why? Because it's far more a stretch to believe in what you said than what I said. LOL!

any interest in stating why it's a stretch - or are you likely to just make an unsupported statement then laugh as if you proved a point?

admittedly, we'll separate on our original belief - what it takes for life to originate. what you fail to show is how someone who beliefs different than you - like myself, who believes that life can originate without a creator - how it's such a stretch to see the magnitude of potential systems that could exhibit the needed environment to support life and believe that if it can happen here it can happen elsewhere.

[mgifford]

And your evidence to support this statement is....????



There is no evidence that indicates a supreme being exists. The sheer numbers of stars and galaxies means that there is almost certainly intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

What do you think the odds are that a star will have a planet in its orbit that supports intelligent life? Let's say it's a billion to one. Well, there are billions of GALAXIES, each containing BILLIONS of STARS. The odds would dictate that there are probably 100 stars in our own galaxy that support intelligent life.

My evidence is all around you and me. Where's your evidence that he didn't create the Universe?

[mgifford]

any interest in stating why it's a stretch - or are you likely to just make an unsupported statement then laugh as if you proved a point?

admittedly, we'll separate on our original belief - what it takes for life to originate. what you fail to show is how someone who beliefs different than you - like myself, who believes that life can originate without a creator - how it's such a stretch to see the magnitude of potential systems that could exhibit the needed environment to support life and believe that if it can happen here it can happen elsewhere.

I've never been one to argue evolution and I guess I won't now. I just don't!

[James Juno]

I've never been one to argue evolution and I guess I won't now. I just don't!

Thank you. Please don't. Science is best served by those who are grounded in observed reality.

[mgifford]

Thank you. Please don't. Science is best served by those who are grounded in observed reality.

Like GW? NO, thank you. I won't discuss "Global Warming" with you either. LOL!

[James Juno]

Like GW? NO, thank you. I won't discuss "Global Warming" with you either. LOL!

Your disdain for science is reassuring. Thank you. Really.

[notluzn]

Aliens are real. Bibles discription of how the Earth was made, not very accurate.

I don't believe the bible was made to be takes word for word. If we were the only being ever created, then god sure does waste pointless space. I highly doubt he did.

[Thor]

My evidence is all around you and me. Where's your evidence that he didn't create the Universe?

I think the universe was created by a one-eyed French troll. Where's your evidence that a one-eyed French troll DIDN'T create the universe?

You must understand that it is NOT my responsibility to disprove YOUR claim. If you make a claim it is YOUR responsibility to provide supporting evidence that your claim is true. If you cannot provide such evidence (as, obviously, you can't) then it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim as unfounded.

Example:

I claim that there are invisible fairies taking care of my tomato plants. You ask for proof of this claim. I say that the evidence is obvious! The tomato plants are healthy and producing yummy tomatoes. As further proof, I say "Can you prove there AREN'T invisible fairies taking care of my tomato plants?"

Does this convince you of my "invisible fairy" story?

[James Juno]

I think the universe was created by a one-eyed French troll. Where's your evidence that a one-eyed French troll DIDN'T create the universe?

You must understand that it is NOT my responsibility to disprove YOUR claim. If you make a claim it is YOUR responsibility to provide supporting evidence that your claim is true. If you cannot provide such evidence (as, obviously, you can't) then it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim as unfounded.

Example:

I claim that there are invisible fairies taking care of my tomato plants. You ask for proof of this claim. I say that the evidence is obvious! The tomato plants are healthy and producing yummy tomatoes. As further proof, I say "Can you prove there AREN'T invisible fairies taking care of my tomato plants?"

Does this convince you of my "invisible fairy" story?

Aha. That explains the dire condition of my own tomato plants. Is there a tithing or something I need to pay? ;)

[slick_trip]

I've never been one to argue evolution and I guess I won't now. I just don't!

fair enough - though i wasn't trying to argue creation/evolution. you found it funny the extrapolation from seeing life originate here allows for life to originate elsewhere, just curious as to why.

[Thor]

Aha. That explains the dire condition of my own tomato plants. Is there a tithing or something I need to pay? ;)

No. Fairies have no use for money. But they only take care of people with the "right" tomato plants. ;)

[mgifford]

fair enough - though i wasn't trying to argue creation/evolution. you found it funny the extrapolation from seeing life originate here allows for life to originate elsewhere, just curious as to why.

You really don't understand my posts. I'm not like many that want to debate evolution, because I less than care about evolution, if that makes any sense to you. It's just so uninteresting. Besides, as far as the "Big Bang" theory, it just doesn't measure up with me. How a "primordial ooze" can be the cause of all mankind, that is. That's what makes no sense in believing in it.
Now, I do believe in "A" "big bang" theory. I've participated that that type BB theory at times.

[slick_trip]

You really don't understand my posts. I'm not like many that want to debate evolution, because I less than care about evolution, if that makes any sense to you. It's just so uninteresting. Besides, as far as the "Big Bang" theory, it just doesn't measure up with me. How a "primordial ooze" can be the cause of all mankind, that is. That's what makes no sense in believing in it.
Now, I do believe in "A" "big bang" theory. I've participated that that type BB theory at times.

you said:

I think it's hilarious that people will deny or disbelieve in God, but will always believe in aliens from different planets. Hmmm!

i didn't ask to debate evolution/creationism - i asked why you find this point hilarious.

why is it odd to accept the idea of aliens but deny the idea of god?

[mgifford]

you said:



i didn't ask to debate evolution/creationism - i asked why you find this point hilarious.

why is it odd to accept the idea of aliens but deny the idea of god?

Well, if it's so far fetched to believe in God, then it should at least equally far fetched to believe in aliens from other planets. If you diligently thought of this and wanted to know the truth, you'd have to agree. Did a primordial ooze also happen to other planets? Anyway, the subject bores me, so thanks.

[Thor]

Well, if it's so far fetched to believe in God, then it should at least equally far fetched to believe in aliens from other planets. If you diligently thought of this and wanted to know the truth, you'd have to agree.

No, I don't agree. There is a very high likelihood that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe. There is a very low likelihood that a supreme being exists. They are not "equally" anything. And only one of them is "far fetched".

[slick_trip]

Well, if it's so far fetched to believe in God, then it should at least equally far fetched to believe in aliens from other planets. If you diligently thought of this and wanted to know the truth, you'd have to agree. Did a primordial ooze also happen to other planets? Anyway, the subject bores me, so thanks.

boredom usually set in when support is lacking.

pure numbers game from my perspective - a belief in life self-originating layered with the colossal number of possible environments supports my believe that we're not unique in our intelligence.

[mgifford]

boredom usually set in when support is lacking.

pure numbers game from my perspective - a belief in life self-originating layered with the colossal number of possible environments supports my believe that we're not unique in our intelligence.

When I bother to answer you and no one else it's because I thought you'd have something of importance to say and not attack me. BUUUUT! I was wrong. OK, I' entered Bible college in 1971. In the 7 years that I attended and then graduated with a BA degree, we studied evolution and especially the possibility of humans on other planets, numerous time each year, because of the "political interest" back then.

In the past almost 40 years I've read papers and books about the two subjects, so maybe I'm not what you just called me. Bye! Bye!

[Marleysdaddy]

My evidence is all around you and me.
This completely disregards the principle of parsimony
Where's your evidence that he didn't create the Universe?
Here you commit the fallacy 'burden of proof'. You make the ontological assertions that 'he' exists, and that 'he' created the universe, thus you must provide the evidence.

[slick_trip]

When I bother to answer you and no one else it's because I thought you'd have something of importance to say and not attack me. BUUUUT! I was wrong. OK, I' entered Bible college in 1971. In the 7 years that I attended and then graduated with a BA degree, we studied evolution and especially the possibility of humans on other planets, numerous time each year, because of the "political interest" back then.

In the past almost 40 years I've read papers and books about the two subjects, so maybe I'm not what you just called me. Bye! Bye!

i didn't call you anything.

you said if someone found god to be far fetched they should see intelligent alien life the same. you've given no support as to why those beliefs should be equal.

that's all that's been asked of you. each response is one like the above. you're right - you have no intent to engage.

[mgifford]

This completely disregards the principle of parsimony

Here you commit the fallacy 'burden of proof'. You make the ontological assertions that 'he' exists, and that 'he' created the universe, thus you must provide the evidence.

You know what? In the years that I was a police officer, going to court for days and many hours, I should have had you to advise me. Plus they should have taught me that when I was in the Academy and those years of "special investigations classes". Maybe when I was a Major in charge of all detectives and Narcotics agent for years, I could have invited you as a guest training speaker'. By "that" mean "burden of proof".

[Kelzan]

6 day creation is a myth. Roswell was a hoax, and there is no evidence of aliens. However, considering the vastness of the universe it is likely there is life on other planets.

[mgifford]

i didn't call you anything.

you said if someone found god to be far fetched they should see intelligent alien life the same. you've given no support as to why those beliefs should be equal.

that's all that's been asked of you. each response is one like the above. you're right - you have no intent to engage.

In so many words you said that I didn't have the support/knowledge to debate with you. Or that I didn't know what I was talking about.

[slick_trip]

In so many words you said that I didn't have the support/knowledge to debate with you. Or that I didn't know what I was talking about.

no, i said you simply weren't providing any support. funny, you'd infer i'd said such things of you and use that to chastise me when you posted this:

Well, if it's so far fetched to believe in God, then it should at least equally far fetched to believe in aliens from other planets. If you diligently thought of this and wanted to know the truth, you'd have to agree. Did a primordial ooze also happen to other planets? Anyway, the subject bores me, so thanks.

i'd have to agree? you're stating that if i don't agree with you i haven't been diligent...careful with those stones...

you've yet to explain why it's far fetched to believe in aliens while denying god - only saying such belief represents a less than diligent approach.

that's all that's asked for and implied - your reasoning.

[slick_trip]

Giff Posted:
Well, if it's so far fetched to believe in God, then it should at least equally far fetched to believe in aliens from other planets. If you diligently thought of this and wanted to know the truth, you'd have to agree. Did a primordial ooze also happen to other planets? Anyway, the subject bores me, so thanks.

In the many posts I've done here, this has to be the most friendly one ever. I simply said "diligently question what I said", very friendly!

never said it wasn't friendly - said it implied my reasoning wasn't diligent. and certainly did not mean i should be diligent in questioning what you said. yet again - you give no support, you simply state your position. why is it so far fetched to see the absolute magnitude of stars and possible planets and accept our situation isn't unique?

Today's our Anniversary. We're going out to celebrate later. I might liken my belief that God exists this way. I can't tell you much about any other man, or his wife, the way they are or any other god, but I can tell you the way my wife is. I can tell you the belief I have in her is because I've known her for years. I've also known God for years. I don't need to carry proof in my wallet that God nor my wife love me, or that either exist". That's enough for me.

well....that's good. not sure how that relates to this topic.

[mgifford]

never said it wasn't friendly - said it implied my reasoning wasn't diligent. and certainly did not mean i should be diligent in questioning what you said. yet again - you give no support, you simply state your position. why is it so far fetched to see the absolute magnitude of stars and possible planets and accept our situation isn't unique?



well....that's good. not sure how that relates to this topic.

It relates because I said that I know that God exists as I know my wife exists. I'll leave it at that with you

[GregDM]

This completely disregards the principle of parsimony

Occam's razor, baby!! Parsimony is the perfect term for that discussion.

[AeroEngineer]

Aliens in the sense that there are little green men abducting people/cows and flying around in our atmosphere is most certainly not real.

[ThrowCop]

6-Day Creation is a myth.

Alien visitors to Earth is also a myth.

Alien life is a near statistical certainty.

[Fitz]

This completely disregards the principle of parsimony

Here you commit the fallacy 'burden of proof'. You make the ontological assertions that 'he' exists, and that 'he' created the universe, thus you must provide the evidence.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2nrpilf.jpg

[James Juno]

^ That comic might be too big and I'm not sure if it contains a filter bypass but on the whole it's pretty accurate. :razz:

It also now resides on my office bulletin board.

[StoneScratcher]

I've never seen an alien seal, and the only seals that concern me are the ones in the Book of Revelation. Other than that, I hope to be beamed up to Heaven, from this alien planet, when I die.

[davetexas]

This completely disregards the principle of parsimony

Here you commit the fallacy 'burden of proof'. You make the ontological assertions that 'he' exists, and that 'he' created the universe, thus you must provide the evidence.


Or,could it be denial?

Romans 1;
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[ExDem]

Considering the vastness of the Cosmos, it is a near certainty that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe.

The six-day creation story is a nice little fable, but is no doubt a myth.

Keep telling yourself that.

[ExDem]

This completely disregards the principle of parsimony

Here you commit the fallacy 'burden of proof'. You make the ontological assertions that 'he' exists, and that 'he' created the universe, thus you must provide the evidence.


When you stand before him are you going to try and use the parsimony argument?:))

[Thor]

Or,could it be denial?

Romans 1;
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Denial? If someone refuses to believe something because there is no evidence to support it, how is that "denial"?

And scripture proves absolutely nothing.

[Thor]

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't have to "tell myself" anything. There is no evidence to indicate that the six day creation story is true. Therefore, I see no reason to accept it as fact.

[Thor]

When you stand before him are you going to try and use the parsimony argument?:))

I don't think he has to worry about "standing before" an imaginary deity.

[biggles53]

When you stand before him are you going to try and use the parsimony argument?:))


When you stand before Zeus, you gonna use the "sorry, I chose the wrong god" argument....?

[Marleysdaddy]

When you stand before him are you going to try and use the parsimony argument?:))

1) I'd be rather concerned if the almighty creator of all existence had a gender.

2) If there is a god, it wants us to use our brains.

[ExDem]

1) I'd be rather concerned if the almighty creator of all existence had a gender.

2) If there is a god, it wants us to use our brains.

You like to play obtuse, don't you?

[ExDem]

I don't think he has to worry about "standing before" an imaginary deity.


You will get to see...as we all will. Either you are right, or you are wrong. It will really suck to be you though if you are wrong.

[Marleysdaddy]

You will get to see...as we all will. Either you are right, or you are wrong. It will really suck to be you though if you are wrong.

No more or less than it will suck to be you if there is one god but that god is Shiva.

[Marleysdaddy]

You like to play obtuse, don't you?

I'm not playing anything.
If there is a god, I don't think that supernatural entity is constrained by gender.
If there is a god, and that god is theistic, I think that supernatural entity wants humans to use the tools rational thought we can access because of our brains.

[RickRhetoric]

Religion and science are harmonious and do not conflict each other. Consider that when the earth was created in "six days," six days was probably six billion years in today's time.

Creation, evolution, etc., is the way God himself created the universe. Why think otherwise? Because the Bible says so? As everyone must agree, the Bible is subject to an infinite amount of translations and interpretations -- and even censorship. When the Bible was being compiled, the chief editors left out a lot of books they didn't like.

The Bible should not be criticized, because overall it does serve as a guide to proper living, however it's just not possible to take It literally.

[Greyclouds]

You know what? In the years that I was a police officer, going to court for days and many hours, I should have had you to advise me. Plus they should have taught me that when I was in the Academy and those years of "special investigations classes". Maybe when I was a Major in charge of all detectives and Narcotics agent for years, I could have invited you as a guest training speaker'. By "that" mean "burden of proof".

Um... you realize that you just proved his point, yes?

In our legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. This is self-evident through our concept of "innocent before being proven guilty."

[Marleysdaddy]

Additionally, the inductive reasoning used by police officers to solve a crime is the same sort of thing as the inductive reasoning used by scientists to construct a scientific theory.

[Thor]

You will get to see...as we all will. Either you are right, or you are wrong. It will really suck to be you though if you are wrong.

I have no concerns about that. If I am right and there is no god, there will be no "judgement". If I am wrong, I find it impossible to believe that a supposedly "loving" deity will send you to eternal torment for the simple act of not believing. I would think this deity is more concerned with how you treated others and lived your life than whether or not you "believed".

[Greyclouds]

Religion and science are harmonious and do not conflict each other. Consider that when the earth was created in "six days," six days was probably six billion years in today's time.

I wouldn't say "harmonious," because that implies that both work in tandem to reveal the truth about physical existence...

I would say, "mutually exclusive," because both enterprises seek to reveal different aspects of reality. Religion seeks to standardize spiritual inquiries of human beings. Science seeks to elucidate physical mechanisms of physical processes. One does not need or accept the cooperation of the other.

As for the "six days" conundrum, I wonder why the Biblical author included 6 days. Also, why did the Biblical author fail to mention the most abundant life form on the planet: bacteria! There are so many omissions and questionable values for data in the Genesis story to lead me to question its literal nature. In such a case, one can STILL believe that it is a figurative recounting of the spiritual struggle between man and God.


Creation, evolution, etc., is the way God himself created the universe. Why think otherwise? Because the Bible says so? As everyone must agree, the Bible is subject to an infinite amount of translations and interpretations -- and even censorship. When the Bible was being compiled, the chief editors left out a lot of books they didn't like.

I agree with this in spirit. Basically, science and religion are not adversaries unless one is disguised as the other. Keep them separate and learn from both.


The Bible should not be criticized, because overall it does serve as a guide to proper living, however it's just not possible to take It literally.

Agreed in part. There are some parts of the Bible that you CAN criticize without degrading someone's faith. For instance the records of genocide, violence and intolerance found within its pages.

[Marleysdaddy]

I have no concerns about that. If I am right and there is no god, there will be no "judgement" [sic]. If I am wrong, I find it impossible to believe that a supposedly "loving" deity will send you to eternal torment for the simple act of not believing. I would think this deity is more concerned with how you treated others and lived your life than whether or not you "believed".

:clap:

I think that if there is a "heaven", there will be some atheists there.

[Thor]

:clap:

I think that if there is a "heaven", there will be some atheists there.

Absolutely! It boggles my mind when people tell me that if Hitler asked forgiveness and accepted Jesus just before he died, that he would have been welcomed into heaven. How can your beliefs carry more weight than your actions?

[mgifford]

Um... you realize that you just proved his point, yes?

In our legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. This is self-evident through our concept of "innocent before being proven guilty."

Ever heard of "sarcasm"?

[5thIDSoldier]

Im still waiting for intelligent life to appear on this planet.

But yes, creation is a fact and ailiens are wishfull thinking on the part of the over stimulated imaginations of trekkies.

[Samm]

Does alien life exist somewhere in the universe? Almost certainly.

Have aliens visited planet Earth? Almost certainly not.

Is the creation story fact? Possible, but I seriously doubt it.

Of course aliens have visited Earth. Man is nothing more than a breeding experiment by aliens... mixing their DNA with primates producing us. The evidence is right there in the Bible where it says: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Clearly God is much like Q in the Star Trek next generation series; a singular sounding name for an omnipotent group of beings.

But... their experiment soon got out of hand. When their creation began enthusiastically killing each other, they abandoned Earth leaving us dominion over the lessor living organisms, but they come back every now and then to monitor our "progress" in the hope that eventually, evolution will eliminate our inherently hostile character.

So there ya go... not only do intelligent aliens exist, they have visited Earth and the Creation is their doing.






;)

[Marleysdaddy]

Ever heard of "sarcasm"?

Which portion of your post was sarcastic?

[mgifford]

Of course aliens have visited Earth. Man is nothing more than a breeding experiment by aliens... mixing their DNA with primates producing us. The evidence is right there in the Bible where it says: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Clearly God is much like Q in the Star Trek next generation series; a singular sounding name for an omnipotent group of beings.

But... their experiment soon got out of hand. When their creation began enthusiastically killing each other, they abandoned Earth leaving us dominion over the lessor living organisms, but they come back every now and then to monitor our "progress" in the hope that eventually, evolution will eliminate our inherently hostile character.

So there ya go... not only do intelligent aliens exist, they have visited Earth and the Creation is their doing.






;)

Some believe that Genesis 6:3-4 is what you're speaking of here.

Genesis 6:3-8
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
[5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [7] And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

[neoINDIE]

What prompted the baby seals to make this thread? :confused:

When does he ever do a poll without baby seals? :))

[neoINDIE]

Absolutely! It boggles my mind when people tell me that if Hitler asked forgiveness and accepted Jesus just before he died, that he would have been welcomed into heaven. How can your beliefs carry more weight than your actions?

I'm going to pray to every god I can think of before I die, just to cover my bases.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'm going to pray to every god I can think of before I die, just to cover my bases.

The strange thing is that some people think that if you did that, and sincerely meant it, that suddenly anything you did before that would be disregarded...

[Samm]

Some believe that Genesis 6:3-4 is what you're speaking of here.

Genesis 6:3-8
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
[5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [7] And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

See there ya go... who says the Bible does not support the Creation... by Aliens. ;)

[mgifford]

See there ya go... who says the Bible does not support the Creation... by Aliens. ;)

That's where some believe that Angels did come to earth and mix with earthly women.

[Greyclouds]

When does he ever do a poll without baby seals? :))

I know, I was just confused as to its timing. :lol:

Is there a baby seal preaching the merits of ID, and contrasting it to the proposition that there is life outside our planet?

[Greyclouds]

Of course aliens have visited Earth. Man is nothing more than a breeding experiment by aliens... mixing their DNA with primates producing us. The evidence is right there in the Bible where it says: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Clearly God is much like Q in the Star Trek next generation series; a singular sounding name for an omnipotent group of beings.

So the Alien DNA consists of the 1.28 x 10^8 dispersed nucleotides in our genome that are different between from that of a Chimp's genome?

It COULD work, but here's the big, big, big, big catch that completely undoes your speculation:

The protein coding genes in the Human genome are 99.9% similar in amino acid sequence to those found in the Chimp genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060309190112.htm

So, the Aliens mated with Chimps and gave non-coding DNA to them to make humans? Sorry, but that is such a stretch as to be an almost certain impossibility.


But... their experiment soon got out of hand. When their creation began enthusiastically killing each other, they abandoned Earth leaving us dominion over the lessor living organisms, but they come back every now and then to monitor our "progress" in the hope that eventually, evolution will eliminate our inherently hostile character.

I realize that your post is sarcastic, but here's another flaw:

Chimpanzees display the same tendencies towards violence that we do. They also kill opposing tribes of other Chimpanzees.


So there ya go... not only do intelligent aliens exist, they have visited Earth and the Creation is their doing.






;)

Sorry, but evidence to such effect is still required!

[Greyclouds]

Some believe that Genesis 6:3-4 is what you're speaking of here.

Genesis 6:3-8
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
[5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [7] And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Two contradictions that I find with that passage and actual historical fact:

1. There is no evidence of giant human beings.
2. There is no evidence of an extensive genetic bottleneck of ALL Eukaryotic species 6000 years ago (as would be caused by the Noah's ark scenario).

[mgifford]

Two contradictions that I find with that passage and actual historical fact:

1. There is no evidence of giant human beings.
2. There is no evidence of an extensive genetic bottleneck of ALL Eukaryotic species 6000 years ago (as would be caused by the Noah's ark scenario).

Yeah, that's what some say.

[Greyclouds]

Yeah, that's what some say.

It is. Do you believe the passage, or were you simply supporting another post with actual biblical text?

[mgifford]

It is. Do you believe the passage, or were you simply supporting another post with actual biblical text?

I try not to argue religion too much.

[Thor]

Two contradictions that I find with that passage and actual historical fact:

1. There is no evidence of giant human beings.


What? You've never heard of the Cardiff Giant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant

;)

[mgifford]

Which is the problem with theists.

My friend, I've been saved a long time. I preached on street corners, in nursing homes and over the radio years ago. However, I have never been one to argue with atheists at all. I feel like atheists have made their decision, found their way and I'm not their maker. IOW, if an atheist hears the Gospel here just one time, he has been given all that God asked we Christians to give him. So I simply don't argue or go further than that.

[Marleysdaddy]

My friend, I've been saved a long time. I preached on street corners, in nursing homes and over the radio years ago.However, I have never been one to argue with atheists at all. I feel like atheists have made their decision, found their way and I'm not their maker. IOW, if an atheist hears the Gospel here just one time, he has been given all that God asked we Christians to give him. So I simply don't argue or go further than that.

I'm not an atheist, so you can argue with me ;)

There is no evidence that suggests the existence of a creator deity.

[mgifford]

I'm not an atheist, so you can argue with me ;)

There is no evidence that suggests the existence of a creator deity.

I already said a few ago that I don't argue religion at all. It's bothered me in the past when I made a post and almost every poster on that forum would jump square on my back, looking to be the one to make me look stupid, instead of someone agreeing with me. BUUUT, not anymore, I just don't give a "RIP".

[mgifford]

There is no need to argue anything. All you have to do is apply the same logic and reasoning that we do in every other aspect of our lives to religion and the case is closed. The universe does not operate on faith.

Thank God you educated me! To argue means to deabte!

[Marleysdaddy]

I already said a few ago that I don't argue religion at all. It's bothered me in the past when I made a post and almost every poster on that forum would jump square on my back, looking to be the one to make me look stupid, instead of someone agreeing with me. BUUUT, not anymore, I just don't give a "RIP".

Then I'm a bit confused as to why you even entered this thread...

[mgifford]

Then I'm a bit confused as to why you even entered this thread...

Oh, I'll enter a thread but if I'm one against 10 or 12, I don't stay. I know there are many here that believe the way I do, judging from the polls.

[mgifford]

Don't argue. Don't debate. Don't discuss. Just think. It really is that simple.

I did that in college 40 years ago, ha?

[Marleysdaddy]

Oh, I'll enter a thread but if I'm one against 10 or 12, I don't stay. I know there are many here that believe the way I do, judging from the polls.

Are you saying that whether or not you "give a RIP" depends on how many people are defending your side of the argument? Interesting...

[mgifford]

Are you saying that whether or not you "give a RIP" depends on how many people are defending your side of the argument? Interesting...

NO, I just don't like to be piled onto. When I am I cease to post, that's all.

[Samm]

That's where some believe that Angels did come to earth and mix with earthly women.

Earthly women or earthy women (good looking apes)? ;)

[mgifford]

Did they teach you to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence just because a lot of other people do and it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

As for 10 on 1, you have god on your side, how could you ever be outnumbered?

No, they taught me to "study to show myself approved".
You wouldn't like my answer to the second question, so I'll refrain.

[mgifford]

earthly women or earthy women (good looking apes)? ;)

lol!

[Samm]

So the Alien DNA consists of the 1.28 x 10^8 dispersed nucleotides in our genome that are different between from that of a Chimp's genome?

It COULD work, but here's the big, big, big, big catch that completely undoes your speculation:

The protein coding genes in the Human genome are 99.9% similar in amino acid sequence to those found in the Chimp genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060309190112.htm

So, the Aliens mated with Chimps and gave non-coding DNA to them to make humans? Sorry, but that is such a stretch as to be an almost certain impossibility.

I didn't say "mated" I said "breeding experiments." When animal breeders create hybrids they do not mate with their subjects. (at least I hope they don't :think:) Changes to just one chromosome can have profound effects on a living organism... perhaps all it took was 0.1% of the Alien DNA to change the ape into a human.

I realize that your post is sarcastic, but here's another flaw:

Chimpanzees display the same tendencies towards violence that we do. They also kill opposing tribes of other Chimpanzees.

That's where the Aliens made their mistake... they should have used a more passive primate.

Sorry, but evidence to such effect is still required!

See the first sentence in the second part of your post quoted above. :razz:

[StoneScratcher]

That's where some believe that Angels did come to earth and mix with earthly women.

As for the giants, the translation from the word Nephilim is actually, "to fall from Heaven", and various meanings that signify, symbolically, a coming down from a higher place. Now this is no giant, when you read the proper translation.

I can give cites, if need be.

This may be why you say some believe that Angels came to earth to mix with earthly women. The image of one coming down, a being coming down.

Nephilim was translated incorrectly.

[StoneScratcher]

[QUOTE]I didn't say "mated" I said "breeding experiments." When animal breeders create hybrids they do not mate with their subjects. (at least I hope they don't :think:) Changes to just one chromosome can have profound effects on a living organism... perhaps all it took was 0.1% of the Alien DNA to change the ape into a human.

If you were a super intelligent alien, and wanted some animal on earth to do your bidding, wouldn't you take the most intelligent being on earth (a human) and tweek his mind to make him less free-thinking, stronger, and more trainable?

Why upgrade an ape, when you can downgrade a human's mind to conform?

Sorry for this interruption...

[StoneScratcher]

There is no need to argue anything. All you have to do is apply the same logic and reasoning that we do in every other aspect of our lives to religion and the case is closed. The universe does not operate on faith.

The universe does not operate on faith? Then what's hanging the moon up in your sky? You must have faith that it won't plop onto your teabiscuit which is sitting on your tray, resting on your lap, as you sit on your chair, as the earth below you spins and hangs too, in the Milky Way, which spirals round, untethered, all this, and we, not knowing how just one thing hangs, wake up and have faith, too, the sun will hang a new day.

[Samm]

If you were a super intelligent alien, and wanted some animal on earth to do your bidding, wouldn't you take the most intelligent being on earth (a human) and tweek his mind to make him less free-thinking, stronger, and more trainable?

Why upgrade an ape, when you can downgrade a human's mind to conform?

Sorry for this interruption...

Whether or not their motives were to create a being that would do their bidding is highly speculative and beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps they were simply zoologists who came here to use Earth as a laboratory. Perhaps they had witnessed the previous mass extinctions and wanted to create a more intelligent being to "have dominion over" and care for the lessor animals and protect them. (Sounds a lot like the Garden of Eden :think:)

But what you suggest is what they did... they used the most intelligent animal on Earth that was physically similar and genetically compatible with their own bodies... the Chimpanzee.

[Samm]

The universe does not operate on faith? Then what's hanging the moon up in your sky? You must have faith that it won't plop onto your teabiscuit which is sitting on your tray, resting on your lap, as you sit on your chair, as the earth below you spins and hangs too, in the Milky Way, which spirals round, untethered, all this, and we, not knowing how just one thing hangs, wake up and have faith, too, the sun will hang a new day.

None of that requires faith if you understand physics.

[StoneScratcher]

Whether or not their motives were to create a being that would do their bidding is highly speculative and beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps they were simply zoologists who came here to use Earth as a laboratory. Perhaps they had witnessed the previous mass extinctions and wanted to create a more intelligent being to "have dominion over" and care for the lessor animals and protect them. (Sounds a lot like the Garden of Eden :think:)

But what you suggest is what they did... they used the most intelligent animal on Earth that was physically similar and genetically compatible with their own bodies... the Chimpanzee.

Well, I see what you mean, but also, if they came here to create protectors of lesser animals, then these protectors were doing the alien's bidding (protecting). ;) (I had to say it, come on...) lol!

Yes it does sound like the Garden of Eden. Interesting.

But could it be that the chimpanzee is a remnant of what we were, and we're looking at our future. In other words, we were far superior in intellect prior to today, and we are heading toward a future looking like a chimp? Cycles repeating. Of course, this would mean that someone had to come in and chop that piece of "human awareness" out of our beings. And technology is advancing us toward major manipulation.

Could technological manipulations of the human create humans that are similar to chimps. And, when it got out of hand, men/women who were not manipulated, took the DNA of the chosen animals with the purest DNA structures, and took off in a shuttle and hung out on a space station until the earth could be cleansed by the flood of human-killing virus or something similar to exterminate a bad experiment?

[StoneScratcher]

None of that requires faith if you understand physics.

Ah...but Einstein had faith. And he would imagine, and cherished it greatly....

Oh?... About physics, then why is dark matter, the majority of what space is, so unknown?

[Samm]

Well, I see what you mean, but also, if they came here to create protectors of lesser animals, then these protectors were doing the alien's bidding (protecting). ;) (I had to say it, come on...) lol!

Yes it does sound like the Garden of Eden. Interesting.

But could it be that the chimpanzee is a remnant of what we were, and we're looking at our future. In other words, we were far superior in intellect prior to today, and we are heading toward a future looking like a chimp? Cycles repeating. Of course, this would mean that someone had to come in and chop that piece of "human awareness" out of our beings. And technology is advancing us toward major manipulation.

Could technological manipulations of the human create humans that are similar to chimps. And, when it got out of hand, men/women who were not manipulated, took the DNA of the chosen animals with the purest DNA structures, and took off in a shuttle and hung out on a space station until the earth could be cleansed by the flood of human-killing virus or something similar to exterminate a bad experiment?

You are aware aren't you, that everything I have posted along this line of discussion is sarcasm?

[James Juno]

Ah...but Einstein had faith. And he would imagine, and cherished it greatly....

Oh?... About physics, then why is dark matter, the majority of what space is, so unknown?

Your knowledge of both Einstein and physics is obviously rudimentary. Some friendly advice from a physicist --- take care what you say lest you appear foolish.

[Samm]

Ah...but Einstein had faith. And he would imagine, and cherished it greatly....
Yes... Einstein had faith, but not that the moon wouldn't fall on us.... of that he knew absolutely.

Oh?... About physics, then why is dark matter, the majority of what space is, so unknown?

That's not related to orbital physics. The existence of dark matter is in fact, not accepted science... it is a developing theory of astrophysics. Like all emerging theories, less is known about it than is known. In fact it is at the stage that the more they know about it, the more they know that they don't know.

[StoneScratcher]

You are aware aren't you, that everything I have posted along this line of discussion is sarcasm?

Monkey do, monkey see? http://forums.hannity.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Samm]

Some friendly advice from a physicist --- take care what you say lest you appear foolish.

From this point on I too better heed that advice. ;)

[StoneScratcher]

Your knowledge of both Einstein and physics is obviously rudimentary. Some friendly advice from a physicist --- take care what you say lest you appear foolish.

Thanks for your friendly advice...but there is a point where no matter how far you go in physics, you always end up at the same place.

And that's always in awe.

No great mind that I have read has ever said that they were not in awe of it all, nor were they pompous to become blind to the fact that they knew they could never know how or why or even who in some cases.

If you doubt that, then I must give you some friendly advice. To say you know it all, proves only one thing--

You have lost the key to learning. To question everything, including yourself.

Now, I can give you cites for the above physics/philosophies and why they, in the greatest minds, merge. Or you may search them out yourself.

[James Juno]

...
That's not related to orbital physics. The existence of dark matter is in fact, not accepted science... it is a developing theory of astrophysics. Like all emerging theories, less is known about it than is known. In fact it is at the stage that the more they know about it, the more they know that they don't know.

Yep. In fact, some physicists consider "dark matter" at this point in time to be a convenient crutch to explain away some observed cosmological anomalies. The name is unfortunate as it implies known properties (those of "matter") that are otherwise unknown. Of course that will change someday as cosmology continues its hasty ascent towards maturity.

Another naming disaster in physics has been to refer to the hitherto undiscovered Higgs boson as the "God particle." Yikes.

[StoneScratcher]

Yes... Einstein had faith, but not that the moon wouldn't fall on us.... of that he knew absolutely.



That's not related to orbital physics. The existence of dark matter is in fact, not accepted science... it is a developing theory of astrophysics. Like all emerging theories, less is known about it than is known. In fact it is at the stage that the more they know about it, the more they know that they don't know.

There is a star on one of the arms of the Milky Way's galaxy which is not going the speed it should. A woman followed it for years, and no one could figure out why the speed didn't fit in. Everyone said, "It just doesn't make sense! We've checked our numbers...blah dee blah..." They never figured out they forgot to open their minds to allow something outside to come in and give them a NEW idea.

They never questioned.

The reason for the speed difference? Dark matter.

[James Juno]

Thanks for your friendly advice...but there is a point where no matter how far you go in physics, you always end up at the same place.

And that's always in awe.

No great mind that I have read has ever said that they were not in awe of it all, nor were they pompous to become blind to the fact that they knew they could never know how or why or even who in some cases.

If you doubt that, then I must give you some friendly advice. To say you know it all, proves only one thing--

You have lost the key to learning. To question everything, including yourself.

Now, I can give you cites for the above physics/philosophies and why they, in the greatest minds, merge. Or you may search them out yourself.

I never claimed to know everything. You're deflecting.

Anyway, I tried. Good luck.

[StoneScratcher]

Einstein goes on, "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.... A contemporary has said not unjustly that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

In another of his essays on religion, Einstein points to a plausible source for his specific formulations: "Those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with a truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect, and susceptible through the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one, and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements."

For Spinoza, God and nature were one (deus sive natura). True religion was based not on dogma but on a feeling for the rationality and the unity underlying all finite and temporal things, on a feeling of wonder and awe that generates the idea of God, but a God which lacks any anthropomorphic conception. As Spinoza wrote in Proposition 15 in Ethics, he opposed assigning to God "body and soul and being subject to passions." Hence, "God is incorporeal"--as had been said by others, from Maimonides on, to whom God was knowable indirectly through His creation, through nature. In other pages of Ethics, Einstein could read Spinoza's opposition to the idea of cosmic purpose, and that he favored the primacy of the law of cause and effect--an all-pervasive determinism that governs nature and life--rather than "playing at dice," in Einstein's famous remark. And as if he were merely paraphrasing Spinoza, Einstein wrote in 1929 that the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."





Einstein's Third Paradise.(Albert Einstein)
Publication: Daedalus
Publication Date: 22-SEP-03
Author: Holton, Gerald

[Samm]

Thanks for your friendly advice...but there is a point where no matter how far you go in physics, you always end up at the same place.

And that's always in awe.

No great mind that I have read has ever said that they were not in awe of it all, nor were they pompous to become blind to the fact that they knew they could never know how or why or even who in some cases.

If you doubt that, then I must give you some friendly advice. To say you know it all, proves only one thing--

You have lost the key to learning. To question everything, including yourself.

Now, I can give you cites for the above physics/philosophies and why they, in the greatest minds, merge. Or you may search them out yourself.

I am in awe of a fireworks fired from a 12-inch mortar... that doesn't mean I think God made it. At one point in human history, man looked up at the stars and thought they were holes in the bowl covering their world where light shown through; today we look up at night and are equally inspired, but we know that the light is from stars, galaxies and other cosmic wonders. Being knowledgeable of physics, astrophysics and cosmology does not lessen the feelings of awe one gets when viewing the wonders of the cosmos. Knowledge simply explains the mechanisms that created what you see; it does not alter the emotional response of seeing it.

[Samm]

Another naming disaster in physics has been to refer to the hitherto undiscovered Higgs boson as the "God particle." Yikes.

As it the name "Big Bang."

[Samm]

There is a star on one of the arms of the Milky Way's galaxy which is not going the speed it should. A woman followed it for years, and no one could figure out why the speed didn't fit in. Everyone said, "It just doesn't make sense! We've checked our numbers...blah dee blah..." They never figured out they forgot to open their minds to allow something outside to come in and give them a NEW idea.

They never questioned.

The reason for the speed difference? Dark matter.

Link? Even one from a crackpot web site?

As James said, dark matter is a catch-all for explaining (speculative explanation that is) that which we don't know. Kind of like Gremlins. :whistle:

[James Juno]

As it the name "Big Bang."

Another great example.

One fringe benefit to using these mischaracterized words is to energize the imagination of those who ultimately fund the research.

But you didn't hear that from me. ;)

[James Juno]

I am in awe of a fireworks fired from a 12-inch mortar... that doesn't mean I think God made it. At one point in human history, man looked up at the stars and thought they were holes in the bowl covering their world where light shown through; today we look up at night and are equally inspired, but we know that the light is from stars, galaxies and other cosmic wonders. Being knowledgeable of physics, astrophysics and cosmology does not lessen the feelings of awe one gets when viewing the wonders of the cosmos. Knowledge simply explains the mechanisms that created what you see; it does not alter the emotional response of seeing it.

Very well said! From a deeply personal standpoint, I can't imagine any other reason for living.

[Samm]

Einstein goes on, "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.... A contemporary has said not unjustly that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

In another of his essays on religion, Einstein points to a plausible source for his specific formulations: "Those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with a truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect, and susceptible through the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one, and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements."

For Spinoza, God and nature were one (deus sive natura). True religion was based not on dogma but on a feeling for the rationality and the unity underlying all finite and temporal things, on a feeling of wonder and awe that generates the idea of God, but a God which lacks any anthropomorphic conception. As Spinoza wrote in Proposition 15 in Ethics, he opposed assigning to God "body and soul and being subject to passions." Hence, "God is incorporeal"--as had been said by others, from Maimonides on, to whom God was knowable indirectly through His creation, through nature. In other pages of Ethics, Einstein could read Spinoza's opposition to the idea of cosmic purpose, and that he favored the primacy of the law of cause and effect--an all-pervasive determinism that governs nature and life--rather than "playing at dice," in Einstein's famous remark. And as if he were merely paraphrasing Spinoza, Einstein wrote in 1929 that the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."





Einstein's Third Paradise.(Albert Einstein)
Publication: Daedalus
Publication Date: 22-SEP-03
Author: Holton, Gerald

All that demonstrates is that a belief in God and a belief in science are not necessarily exclusive. You could have quoted Darwin and demonstrated the same principle.

But really... what does that have to do with the Alien Creation? :eh:

[StoneScratcher]

As it the name "Big Bang."

Yes, but in the multiverse theory, it is said that with eleven universes, if two impact each other, that's just what you'd get. A Big Bang. Some say it is the answer to everything.

[StoneScratcher]

All that demonstrates is that a belief in God and a belief in science are not necessarily exclusive. You could have quoted Darwin and demonstrated the same principle.

But really... what does that have to do with the Alien Creation? :eh:

Any "thought" that comes to anyone's mind, including yours, which does not fit into any of the already prepared compartments in your "thinking", is in fact, alien.

Dear Professor Nirenberg:

As you are well aware, the history of science has periodically been punctuated by fierce
battles between scientists and theologians. Several modern scientists and scientific theories,
however, have been surprisingly sympathetic to religious issues. I recall that my late
teachers/colleagues/friends, Einstein, Schroedinger and Heisenberg, who were all distinguished scientists, had a passionate interest in religious questions. Theories like the Big Bang, black holes, quantum theory, relativity, and the Anthropic Principle have introduced science to a world of awe and mystery that is not far removed from the Ultimate Mystery that drives the religious impulse. These twentieth century trends seem to call for a new metaphor in
describing the relationship of science and religion.

Nowhere is the tension between science and religion more pronounced than in the origin
issues: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of homo sapiens. As a
scientist and a philosopher of science for over forty years, I have reflected on these questions
in my books FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL REALITY and THE
MIRACLE OF EXISTENCE.

These issues have now drawn me to an even more extensive exploration. I would like to
map modern scientific perspectives on these issues. To this end, I am working on an origins
anthology project with a science journalist. This project entails a compilation of views on the
three main origin issues from the most noted scientists of the present day.

You would honor me greatly by responding to the questions I have outlined below before
- Your responses will be included in the anthology I will be editing to be titled

ORIGINS: SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVES.
Sir John Eccles, the Nobel Prize winning
neurophysiologist who has been described as one of the greatest brain scientists of the
century, has kindly agreed to write the foreword to ORIGINS.

These are the questions to which I would like you to respond:

What do you think should be the relationship between religion and science?

What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on the scientific level - and if you
see the need - on a metaphysical level?

What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level - and if you see the
need - on a metaphysical level?

What is your view on the origin of home sapiens?

How should science - and the scientist - approach origin questions, specifically the origin
of the universe and the origin of life?

Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein and Planck - have considered the
concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and
on the existence of God?


I look forward to hearing from you. With many thanks.

Remainder of letter (in PDF):

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/JJ/B/B/Y/Q/_/jjbbyq.pdf.

[StoneScratcher]

Another great example.

One fringe benefit to using these mischaracterized words is to energize the imagination of those who ultimately fund the research.

But you didn't hear that from me. ;)

Yeah, well you can use passion to sell, but without passion, what's there to research if it stops at ego?

[StoneScratcher]

Link? Even one from a crackpot web site?

As James said, dark matter is a catch-all for explaining (speculative explanation that is) that which we don't know. Kind of like Gremlins. :whistle:

As for a link, okay, I'll try to find it.

As for dark matter, geeze...so you think space isn't the final frontier, or have all the cowboy scientists and cosmologists figured it all out? In my opinion, the bravest researchers are those who do speculate, the greatest minds do, don't they? They don't sacrifice questioning, and bravely do so, they imagine, speculate, and have the courage to wonder, publicly. Ego is a self-imposed straight jacket.

[Samm]

Yes, but in the multiverse theory, it is said that with eleven universes, if two impact each other, that's just what you'd get. A Big Bang. Some say it is the answer to everything.

Sorry... even if the multi-universe theory (actually any of the several multi-universe theories and none that I know of involve collisions) were true you do not get a Big Bang at the instant of singularity.

And just who are these "some" people? Science Fiction writers or philosophers? :eh:

[Samm]

Any "thought" that comes to anyone's mind, including yours, which does not fit into any of the already prepared compartments in your "thinking", is in fact, alien.

Dear Professor Nirenberg:

As you are well aware, the history of science has periodically been punctuated by fierce
battles between scientists and theologians. Several modern scientists and scientific theories,
however, have been surprisingly sympathetic to religious issues. I recall that my late
teachers/colleagues/friends, Einstein, Schroedinger and Heisenberg, who were all distinguished scientists, had a passionate interest in religious questions. Theories like the Big Bang, black holes, quantum theory, relativity, and the Anthropic Principle have introduced science to a world of awe and mystery that is not far removed from the Ultimate Mystery that drives the religious impulse. These twentieth century trends seem to call for a new metaphor in
describing the relationship of science and religion.

Nowhere is the tension between science and religion more pronounced than in the origin
issues: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of homo sapiens. As a
scientist and a philosopher of science for over forty years, I have reflected on these questions
in my books FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL REALITY and THE
MIRACLE OF EXISTENCE.

These issues have now drawn me to an even more extensive exploration. I would like to
map modern scientific perspectives on these issues. To this end, I am working on an origins
anthology project with a science journalist. This project entails a compilation of views on the
three main origin issues from the most noted scientists of the present day.

You would honor me greatly by responding to the questions I have outlined below before
- Your responses will be included in the anthology I will be editing to be titled

ORIGINS: SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVES.
Sir John Eccles, the Nobel Prize winning
neurophysiologist who has been described as one of the greatest brain scientists of the
century, has kindly agreed to write the foreword to ORIGINS.

These are the questions to which I would like you to respond:

What do you think should be the relationship between religion and science?

What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on the scientific level - and if you
see the need - on a metaphysical level?

What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level - and if you see the
need - on a metaphysical level?

What is your view on the origin of home sapiens?

How should science - and the scientist - approach origin questions, specifically the origin
of the universe and the origin of life?

Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein and Planck - have considered the
concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and
on the existence of God?


I look forward to hearing from you. With many thanks.

Remainder of letter (in PDF):

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/JJ/B/B/Y/Q/_/jjbbyq.pdf.



It's only fair to tell you that I tune out on long cut-and-paste quotes that have virtually nothing to do with the discussion. I barely made it through your previous one... other than a quick scan, this one has gone unread. :razz:

[James Juno]

Yeah, well you can use passion to sell, but without passion, what's there to research if it stops at ego?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Ego?

[Samm]

As for a link, okay, I'll try to find it.

As for dark matter, geeze...so you think space isn't the final frontier, or have all the cowboy scientists and cosmologists figured it all out? In my opinion, the bravest researchers are those who do speculate, the greatest minds do, don't they? They don't sacrifice questioning, and bravely do so, they imagine, speculate, and have the courage to wonder, publicly. Ego is a self-imposed straight jacket.

And you dare to challenge my Alien Creation Theory? :razz:



For someone who does not believe man has walked on the moon you have sure gotten way out in front of your headlights. Here is a hint... Star Trek was fiction. ;)

[James Juno]

And you dare to challenge my Alien Creation Theory? :razz:



For someone who does not believe man has walked on the moon you have sure gotten way out in front of your headlights. Here is a hint... Star Trek was fiction. ;)

The poster seems to imply that it's a virtue to believe any wild, fantasy-driven idea that "goes beyond" current scientific knowledge. As if there's enlightenment for anyone who dares to ignore the facts. And those of us who restrict our interpretations to what we see and experience are merely ego-driven "cowboys."

Yee haw. ;)

[Samm]

The poster seems to imply that it's a virtue to believe any wild, fantasy-driven idea that "goes beyond" current scientific knowledge. As if there's enlightenment for anyone who dares to ignore the facts. And those of us who restrict our interpretations to what we see and experience are merely ego-driven "cowboys."

Yee haw. ;)

Are you talking about Science Fiction or Religion? :eh:




;)

[StoneScratcher]

Sorry... even if the multi-universe theory (actually any of the several multi-universe theories and none that I know of involve collisions) were true you do not get a Big Bang at the instant of singularity.

And just who are these "some" people? Science Fiction writers or philosophers? :eh:

Okay, do you want a link for this too? I read alot, watch alot of documentaries, study ancient symbolisms, etc. However, you're going to find this funny, I hate fiction--can't stand it--however, what is found in ancient texts, or historical documents (which could be called "fiction", for example beliefs, revisionistic views, etc, I do read.)

About the multiverse theory--what it was was that there were eleven universes, it only works with eleven. When two bang together, all the matter that made up those two universes that banged each other distributed what we have today.

So? do you want the link for this?

[StoneScratcher]

It's only fair to tell you that I tune out on long cut-and-paste quotes that have virtually nothing to do with the discussion. I barely made it through your previous one... other than a quick scan, this one has gone unread. :razz:

What a shame. That's so incredibly narrow-minded of you, imo. It explains alot, because if you read with your head hung over using a magnifying glass, as I do when things are being pieced together, bit by bit, then, perhaps you'd see just how easy that letter was to read.

[StoneScratcher]

Link? Even one from a crackpot web site?

As James said, dark matter is a catch-all for explaining (speculative explanation that is) that which we don't know. Kind of like Gremlins. :whistle:

Link? From a crackpot website? Do you say a crackpot website because it was a woman who I spoke of? Or do you say a crackpot website because you think anyone who doesn't know what you know just cannot be right and is therefore a crackpot?

There are so many, as you say, "crackpot" websites, it's hard to choose which ones. And since you don't like to read anything long...

Okay, then, for anyone interested:

Cosmos incognito: Vera Rubin shines light on dark matter (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/45424)
M Bartusiak, A Yeager - 2008 - dspace.mit.edu

Seeing dark matter in the Andromeda galaxy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhT....59l...8R)
V Rubin - Physics Today, 2006 - adsabs.harvard.edu


A Puzzling Polar-Ring Galaxy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005S&T...109e..26R)
VC Rubin - Sky and Telescope, 2005 - adsabs.harvard.edu

[BOOK] 13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mMTuDUGJThUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=vera+rubin&ots=W8ISX725HY&sig=Xf5tKNiArBW7rOVTXV91DxVdYLo)
M Brooks - 2008 - books.google.com
... Vera Rubin, an astronomer at Washington, DC's Carnegie Institution, was
the one to nail it down and make people deal with it.

A Relativistic-Proton Dark Matter Would Be Evidence The Big Bang Probably Satisfied The Second Law … (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702132)- ►arxiv.org (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702132) [PDF]
J Drexler - Arxiv preprint physics/0702132, 2007 - arxiv.org
... Ever since astronomer Vera Rubin [2,3] confirmed the existence of dark matter halos
around galaxies in 1977, cosmologists and astrophysicists have been trying ...

Evolution of Cosmology (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..APR.D1015R)
CH Ross - American Physical Society, APS April Meeting, April 16-19, …, 2005 - adsabs.harvard.edu
... a big bang origin. Vera Rubin's 1980 dark matter discovery significantly
impacted contending theories.

---

Vera (Cooper) Rubin (born 23 July 1928) is an Astronomer who has done pioneering work on galaxy rotation rates. Her opus magnus was the uncovering of the discrepancy between the predicted angular motion of galaxies and the observed motion, by studying galactic rotation curves. This phenomena became known as the galaxy rotation problem.

---
Rubin (http://forums.hannity.com/topic/michael-stewart)'s main work has long been concerned with galactic rotation measurements and it has led to one of the more persistent problems of modern astronomy. She has concentrated on spiral galaxies and has measured the rotational velocities of the arms of the galaxy as their distance from the center increases. The velocities of the spiral arms are measured by determining their doppler (http://forums.hannity.com/topic/doppler) shifts. That is light emitted from a body moving away from an observer will show a red shift, and a blue shift when emitted from a body moving toward the observer. The degree of spectral shift is proportional to the velocity of the source.

The initial assumption, based upon Kepler (http://forums.hannity.com/topic/kepler-1)'s laws, was that rotational velocity would decrease with distance. Thus the theoretical expectation was that: v2 = GM/r2 where G is the gravitational constant, M the attracting mass, and r the orbital radius. It is clear from the equation that as r increases, v will decrease. Rubin, however, found that the rotational velocity of spiral galaxies either remains constant with increasing distance from the center or rises slightly. The only possible conclusion, assuming the laws of motion, was that the figure for M was too low. But as all visible matter had been taken into account in assessing the mass of the galaxy, the missing mass must be present in the form of ‘dark matter’. Rubin found similar results as she extended her survey. It seemed to her in 1983 that as much as 90% of the universe is not radiating sufficiently strongly on any wavelength (http://forums.hannity.com/topic/wavelength) detectable on Earth.

Rubin's work has presented modern astronomy with two major problems. Firstly to calculate the amount of dark matter in the universe and describe its distribution, and secondly to identify particles that make up the dark matter.

Earlier in her career, in collaboration with Kent Ford, Rubin made the extraordinary discovery that the Milky Way had a peculiar velocity of 500 kilometers (http://forums.hannity.com/topic/kilometre) per second quite independently of the expansion of the universe. When their results were published in 1975 they were met with considerable skepticism and it was assumed they had miscalculated the distances of the measured galaxies. However, later work by John Huchra and others in 1982 seems to have confirmed their measurements.

http://www.answers.com/topic/vera-rubin

[Samm]

Okay, do you want a link for this too? I read alot, watch alot of documentaries, study ancient symbolisms, etc. However, you're going to find this funny, I hate fiction--can't stand it--however, what is found in ancient texts, or historical documents (which could be called "fiction", for example beliefs, revisionistic views, etc, I do read.)

About the multiverse theory--what it was was that there were eleven universes, it only works with eleven. When two bang together, all the matter that made up those two universes that banged each other distributed what we have today.

So? do you want the link for this?

Oh don't bother... This is not a science discussion and besides, what you describe there does not come remotely close to resembling what occurred at singularity. I have read several articles about the speculation (not theory) about multi-universes and not one suggested that these universes collide and create singularities. Scientific America had a very good article on this subject a few years ago.

[Samm]

What a shame. That's so incredibly narrow-minded of you, imo. It explains alot, because if you read with your head hung over using a magnifying glass, as I do when things are being pieced together, bit by bit, then, perhaps you'd see just how easy that letter was to read.

There is no need to get nasty... I thought we were having fun here.

It has nothing to do with the difficulty of reading the letter... it has to do with that the letter had virtually nothing to do with our discussion. I'm not interested in some cut-and-paste opinion on metaphysics, even by Nobel Prize winning (whoopty do - they hand those things out like candy these days...) Sir John Eccles, that you dredged up somewhere, I want to know what you think. So please... no more long cut and pastes.

[StoneScratcher]

Oh don't bother... This is not a science discussion and besides, what you describe there does not come remotely close to resembling what occurred at singularity. I have read several articles about the speculation (not theory) about multi-universes and not one suggested that these universes collide and create singularities. Scientific America had a very good article on this subject a few years ago.

Again, just because YOU don't know something, or haven't heard of it, it's nonsense?

I'll give you the information, anyway, just because I thought this was so cool:

Parallel Universes
BBC 14 February 2002


NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big Bang.

PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.

NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.

PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.

BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the effects of the early Universe and in particular it's just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.

NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.

NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and galaxies.

BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars, we have clumps of matter.

NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?

NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.

PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they don't hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.
BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.

NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.

NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.

BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.

NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.

PAUL STEINHARDT: Then we went to see the play.

NARRATOR: This idea is so new it's only begun to be discussed, but if it's accepted it will mean Einstein's missing theory has finally been found. M Theory may really be able to explain everything in the Universe, but the victory will be bittersweet, for at the end of its long quest, science has discovered that the Universe it's thought to explain may be nothing special. It is nothing more than one of an infinite number of membranes, just one of the many universes which make up the multiverse.

MICHIO KAKU: The latest understanding of the multiverse is that there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics. Big Bangs probably take place all the time. Our Universe co-exists with other membranes, other universes which are also in the process of expansion. Our Universe could be just one bubble floating in an ocean of other bubbles.

NARRATOR: But this isn't quite the end of the story. Now that the Theory of Everything may have been found some are keen to use it. Physics is preparing for the ultimate flight of fancy: to make a universe of its very own without any mysteries or unanswered questions at all.

ALAN GUTH: I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to.

Complete transcript:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

[StoneScratcher]

There is no need to get nasty... I thought we were having fun here.

It has nothing to do with the difficulty of reading the letter... it has to do with that the letter had virtually nothing to do with our discussion. I'm not interested in some cut-and-paste opinion on metaphysics, even by Nobel Prize winning (whoopty do - they hand those things out like candy these days...) Sir John Eccles, that you dredged up somewhere, I want to know what you think. So please... no more long cut and pastes.

Oh darn, I just gave you a part of a transcript on the eleven universe M theory.

I'm not getting nasty, by the way. I just don't like being told I'm an idiot every other post.

[Samm]

Link? From a crackpot website? Do you say a crackpot website because it was a woman who I spoke of? Or do you say a crackpot website because you think anyone who doesn't know what you know just cannot be right and is therefore a crackpot?

There are so many, as you say, "crackpot" websites, it's hard to choose which ones. And since you don't like to read anything long...

Okay, then, for anyone interested:

<snip>




:)) :)) :)) Well I asked for it. :D

I Wasn't asking specifically for crackpot websites... I just wanted one link "even from a crackpot website" so I could see the story you referred to.

Obviously I am not going to spend the time to go through those... I will just say that while there are many abnormalities observed in the cosmos, conveniently "blaming" them on Dark Matter is purely speculative. In fact, it is this speculation that suggests there is some mysterious unseen "substance" (which they call Dark Matter for lack of a better name) as opposed to there being any evidence that Dark Matter is the cause of the anomalies. In other words it is one thing to say that "the presence of dark matter would explain this" and entirely another to say "the presence of dark matter causes this."

It is much like the constants that Einstein used while developing his Relativity theory because he did not know how to explain things without them. It took him years of work to simplify his equation to E=MC^2.

[Samm]

Oh darn, I just gave you a part of a transcript on the eleven universe M theory.

I'm not getting nasty, by the way. I just don't like being told I'm an idiot every other post.

Not once have I said that you are an idiot... I have not even suggested it.

[StoneScratcher]

Not once have I said that you are an idiot... I have not even suggested it.

Hey thanks. I guess sometimes the remarks...:snooty:

Anyway, it doesn't matter. <---"matter", get it...groan. :razz:

[Samm]

Again, just because YOU don't know something, or haven't heard of it, it's nonsense?

I'll give you the information, anyway, just because I thought this was so cool:

Parallel Universes
BBC 14 February 2002


NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big Bang.

PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.

NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.

PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.

BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the effects of the early Universe and in particular it's just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.

NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.

NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and galaxies.

BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars, we have clumps of matter.

NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?

NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.

PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they don't hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.
BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.

NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.

NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.

BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.

NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.

PAUL STEINHARDT: Then we went to see the play.

NARRATOR: This idea is so new it's only begun to be discussed, but if it's accepted it will mean Einstein's missing theory has finally been found. M Theory may really be able to explain everything in the Universe, but the victory will be bittersweet, for at the end of its long quest, science has discovered that the Universe it's thought to explain may be nothing special. It is nothing more than one of an infinite number of membranes, just one of the many universes which make up the multiverse.

MICHIO KAKU: The latest understanding of the multiverse is that there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics. Big Bangs probably take place all the time. Our Universe co-exists with other membranes, other universes which are also in the process of expansion. Our Universe could be just one bubble floating in an ocean of other bubbles.

NARRATOR: But this isn't quite the end of the story. Now that the Theory of Everything may have been found some are keen to use it. Physics is preparing for the ultimate flight of fancy: to make a universe of its very own without any mysteries or unanswered questions at all.

ALAN GUTH: I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to.

Complete transcript:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

You highlighted the key words there yourself:

just let our imaginations go.

I was referring to serious hypotheses. I saw this discussion of the local PBS station some time back. There is nothing really serious or scientific about that discussion; it is pure speculation between some physicists just for the fun of it with a moderator leading them by major leaps of assumption ("Now that the Theory of Everything may have been found some are keen to use it.") Not that these kind of exercises cannot lead to an honest to goodness scientific hypothesis and eventually maybe a new theory, but this ain't it.

[BillyBobUSA]

deleted

[JeffR]

I think it's odd to compare one's belief in in creationism to one's belief in alien life. I don't see how one relates to the other. I know of many people who believe in alien life that are atheist, some that are agnostic, and some that are Christian. Shoot, some people even interpret The Bible to include references to alien life.

As far as alien life, more than likely by the end of the year there will be an official declaration that they have discovered microbes on Mars.

As far as intelligent alien life buzzing around the Earth, mutilating cows, doing artwork in crop fields, and abducting humans for experiments - that's a bit different than microbes on Mars. Of course, there is far more evidence to this being real than there is that Earth was created in 6 days.

[NascarGirl2448]

Aliens exist? Come on, get real. It would not surprise me if there was indeed other intelligent life in another galaxy somewhere, but I don't think aliens exist in how we portray aliens (you know little green men running around on Mars and whatever).

As for the 6 day creation story, I don't think it was 6 24-hour days. I think there was a higher power at work in forming the universe, but I think also that the more logical conclusion is that it took millions of years to put this universe together. That whole 24-hour creation story I think is just to try and put the formation of the universe into some kind of perspective that we humans can try to understand.

[neoINDIE]

The strange thing is that some people think that if you did that, and sincerely meant it, that suddenly anything you did before that would be disregarded...

Hey - if it works, great. If not, not much lost but a few minutes.

Well worth it I say!

I might even pray to Santa. You never know...

[James Juno]

Are you talking about Science Fiction or Religion? :eh:




;)

Yes. :razz:

[Samm]

deleted

BB... you do know don't you, that if you go to Edit there is a delete button there.

[Samm]

Aliens exist? Come on, get real. It would not surprise me if there was indeed other intelligent life in another galaxy somewhere, but I don't think aliens exist in how we portray aliens (you know little green men running around on Mars and whatever).

As for the 6 day creation story, I don't think it was 6 24-hour days. I think there was a higher power at work in forming the universe, but I think also that the more logical conclusion is that it took millions of years to put this universe together. That whole 24-hour creation story I think is just to try and put the formation of the universe into some kind of perspective that we humans can try to understand.

Are you dissing my Alien Creation of Man Theory? There is just as much if not more evidence for that than there is a Divine Being Creation of Man. :snooty:

And where do you get off applying thinking and logic to the Biblical Creation? Logic has no place in the interpretation of Genesis and independent thinking is strictly prohibited. :naughty:



:razz:

;)

[BillyBobUSA]

BB... you do know don't you, that if you go to Edit there is a delete button there.

Meh, I was holding the spot for a edit later, but didnt get back in an appropriate amount of time.

Then the next post stole my fire and I havent seen anything else worth contributing at this point.

So much of this controversy is simply nonsense.

Creationism understood in its proper light simply means one subscribes to a theological position that an intelligent Being of some kind created the universe in some manner. That Being is eternal and infinite in power and close enough to omniscinece that there's no point in splitting hairs.

This was the understanding that the ancient Greek philosophers from Socrates to Aristotle had derived by pure reason independent of JudeoChristian influence, and why the early church fathers adopted so much of Greek philosophy.

This recent use of the term Creationism to mean a literal 6 day event literally word for word as described in Genesis is media driven and ignores the various other interpretations on *how* the Creator made the universe as though they never existed. The media needs to sell advertising and copies of their drivel, in this case maybe hits on their website, and so they promote the opposite extremes of every issue.

People get sucked into these false dichotomies and wonder why we cant, as a society, ever reach a consensus on anything anymore.

But something like 80% of people surveyed that think evolution has occured also believe in a Creator who created the universe in some way. These people obviously find plenty of room in their faith to let science lead the way in investigating and establishing the facts regarding this universe, and leaves to religion questions of the next.

I count myself among them.

[Samm]

Meh, I was holding the spot for a edit later, but didnt get back in an appropriate amount of time.

Then the next post stole my fire and I havent seen anything else worth contributing at this point.

So much of this controversy is simply nonsense.

Creationism understood in its proper light simply means one subscribes to a theological position that an intelligent Being of some kind created the universe in some manner. That Being is eternal and infinite in power and close enough to omniscinece that there's no point in splitting hairs.

This was the understanding that the ancient Greek philosophers from Socrates to Aristotle had derived by pure reason independent of JudeoChristian influence, and why the early church fathers adopted so much of Greek philosophy.

This recent use of the term Creationism to mean a literal 6 day event literally word for word as described in Genesis is media driven and ignores the various other interpretations on *how* the Creator made the universe as though they never existed. The media needs to sell advertising and copies of their drivel, in this case maybe hits on their website, and so they promote the opposite extremes of every issue.

People get sucked into these false dichotomies and wonder why we cant, as a society, ever reach a consensus on anything anymore.

But something like 80% of people surveyed that think evolution has occured also believe in a Creator who created the universe in some way. These people obviously find plenty of room in their faith to let science lead the way in investigating and establishing the facts regarding this universe, and leaves to religion questions of the next.

I count myself among them.

Controversy? There is no controversy. I told you... Humans were created by Aliens doing breeding experiments on Chimpanzees (or maybe their predecessors... maybe Chimps are an alien product as well... just not as much alien DNA in them) with their DNA. It's irrefutable... nobody has come up with any evidence to disprove it. :snooty:

[BillyBobUSA]

Controversy? There is no controversy. I told you... Humans were created by Aliens doing breeding experiments on Chimpanzees (or maybe their predecessors... maybe Chimps are an alien product as well... just not as much alien DNA in them) with their DNA. It's irrefutable... nobody has come up with any evidence to disprove it. :snooty:


:))

Your on a roll today, arent you?

[Claymore]

GOD created aliens.
If he didn't, why are so many of them named Jesus? (Ha-sooos):whistle:

[BillyBobUSA]

GOD created aliens.
If he didn't, why are so many of them named Jesus? (Ha-sooos):whistle:

lol

[Samm]

:))

Your on a roll today, arent you?

Just today? :eh: ... you hurt my feelings. :cry:

[Samm]

GOD created aliens.
If he didn't, why are so many of them named Jesus? (Ha-sooos):whistle:

Thus there is no conflict between the existence of God and the Alien Creation Theory. :whistle:

But perhaps God named all of the aliens God... sort of like George Foreman did with his kids. That is why the Bible says God created man in their image as opposed to in his image. It is all starting to make sense now... :think:

[Marleysdaddy]

The universe does not operate on faith? Then what's hanging the moon up in your sky? You must have faith that it won't plop onto your teabiscuit which is sitting on your tray, resting on your lap, as you sit on your chair, as the earth below you spins and hangs too, in the Milky Way, which spirals round, untethered, all this, and we, not knowing how just one thing hangs, wake up and have faith, too, the sun will hang a new day.

There is an important difference between faith and induction.

Both can serve as justifications of beliefs that humans hold, but one is based on things unseen (faith) and the other is based on confidence resulting from repeated observations (induction).

I do not have faith that the moon won't plop onto my tea biscuit - I don't believe it will, and my justifications for that belief are things like
1) I've never seen the moon plop before
2) All of the physics involved with the moon orbiting the earth suggest it won't plop
3) I have never seen a cogent scientific argument suggesting that the moon has the propensity to plop
4) I have not observed any other celestial body plop
etc.

If you would like to delve into the problem of induction, I'd be happy to travel there with you, but epistemologically speaking, induction and faith are two entirely different sorts of things.

[Marleysdaddy]

Ah...but Einstein had faith. And he would imagine, and cherished it greatly....

Oh?... About physics, then why is dark matter, the majority of what space is, so unknown?

For the same reason that 1000 years ago the structure of matter was "so unknown"

Because we need better tools.




The good news is, we are constantly improving our tools. :)

[StoneScratcher]

There is an important difference between faith and induction.

Both can serve as justifications of beliefs that humans hold, but one is based on things unseen (faith) and the other is based on confidence resulting from repeated observations (induction).

I do not have faith that the moon won't plop onto my tea biscuit - I don't believe it will, and my justifications for that belief are things like
1) I've never seen the moon plop before
2) All of the physics involved with the moon orbiting the earth suggest it won't plop
3) I have never seen a cogent scientific argument suggesting that the moon has the propensity to plop
4) I have not observed any other celestial body plop
etc.

If you would like to delve into the problem of induction, I'd be happy to travel there with you, but epistemologically speaking, induction and faith are two entirely different sorts of things.

Sure, should you start another thread? So are you saying that because no one has observed the moon plopping down upon their respective tea biscuit, they have been "induced" to believe it will not happen. That this is not faith, but induction.

But isn't there faith that the moon is "hung", even now, because what "holds" it, and all things within the universe is greatly unknown and unseen. Sure there are theories, some stronger than others, based on our little peekhole into the vastness out there. But isn't this, too, faith? Faith that it will all still be hanging there tomorrow, next year, thousands of years from now (in various positions, perhaps plowed upon each other), it, all matter, will all be hanging somewhere, somehow, by some unseen, unknown method? Why isn't this faith--->in the method of how it is all hanging in space?

[davetexas]

Maybe the question is not whether God or subsequent creation is a myth but what is the agenda behind a rebelion to what used to be a no brainer?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...


The founders believed in creationism.
We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident: The Rage for Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
from Chapter 2 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Robert Bork
1996

".........What we can now see with the advantage of hindsight is that, unconsciously, the founders of liberalism abstracted certain moral and psychological attributes from a social organization and considered these the timeless, natural qualities of the individual, who was regarded as independent of the influences of any historically developed social organization.… A free society.… would be composed, in short, of socially and morally separated individuals. Order in society would be the product of a natural equilibrium of economic and political forces.

The American Founders shared those sentiments. Jefferson said, "the Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist, had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social dispositions.…" Gordon Wood comments that "Americans, like others in those years, … posit[ed] this natural social disposition, a moral instinct, a sense of sympathy, in each human being.… It made benevolence and indeed moral society possible."
Men with such views of human nature would naturally continually emphasize liberty. Though they surely did not envision a society resembling ours, they set in motion a tendency that, carried far enough, could and often did eventually free the individual from almost all moral and legal constraints. (Again, I am speaking of areas of life where radical egalitarianism does not hold sway.)…
The consequences of liberalism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness pushed too far are now apparent. Irving Kristol writes of "the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society—a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism.… [S]ector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other." I would add only that current liberalism’s rot and decadence is merely what liberalism has been moving towards for better than two centuries.
We can now see the tendency of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and On Liberty. Each insisted on the expanding liberty of the individual and each assumed that order was not a serious problem and could be left, pretty much, to take care of itself. And, for a time, order did seem to take care of itself. But that was because the institutions—family, church, school, neighborhood, inherited morality—remained strong. The constant underestimation of their value and the continual pressure for more individual autonomy necessarily weakened the restraints on individuals. The ideal slowly became the autonomous individual who stood in an adversarial relationship to any institution or group that attempted to set limits to acceptable thought and behavior. That process continues today, and hence we have an increasingly disorderly society. The street predator of the underclass may be the natural outcome of the mistake the founders of liberalism made. They would have done better had they remembered original sin. Or had they taken Edmund Burke seriously. Mill wrote: "Liberty consists in doing what one desires." That might have been said by a man who was both a libertine and an anarchist; Mill was neither, but his rhetoric encouraged those who would be either or both. Burke had it right earlier: "The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them." "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risque congratulations, .........."

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=55

[StoneScratcher]

You highlighted the key words there yourself:

just let our imaginations go.

I was referring to serious hypotheses. I saw this discussion of the local PBS station some time back. There is nothing really serious or scientific about that discussion; it is pure speculation between some physicists just for the fun of it with a moderator leading them by major leaps of assumption ("Now that the Theory of Everything may have been found some are keen to use it.") Not that these kind of exercises cannot lead to an honest to goodness scientific hypothesis and eventually maybe a new theory, but this ain't it.

Yes, I did highlight it. Are you the highlight police? It was highlighting because there was much said (in posts prior) about the "awe" and allowing one to imagine, etc, by great minds who do not stifle themselves with image checks.

Also, about the documentary you say is "pure speculation" between "some physicists" (did you check to see who they were?), and was "just for fun"...

Have you checked how much study and research there has been and is currently being done regarding the eleven dimension multiverse?

Or do I need to provide links again?

[Greyclouds]

Maybe the question is not whether God or subsequent creation is a myth but what is the agenda behind a rebelion to what used to be a no brainer?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...


The founders believed in creationism.
We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident: The Rage for Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
from Chapter 2 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Robert Bork
1996

".........What we can now see with the advantage of hindsight is that, unconsciously, the founders of liberalism abstracted certain moral and psychological attributes from a social organization and considered these the timeless, natural qualities of the individual, who was regarded as independent of the influences of any historically developed social organization.… A free society.… would be composed, in short, of socially and morally separated individuals. Order in society would be the product of a natural equilibrium of economic and political forces.

The American Founders shared those sentiments. Jefferson said, "the Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist, had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social dispositions.…" Gordon Wood comments that "Americans, like others in those years, … posit[ed] this natural social disposition, a moral instinct, a sense of sympathy, in each human being.… It made benevolence and indeed moral society possible."
Men with such views of human nature would naturally continually emphasize liberty. Though they surely did not envision a society resembling ours, they set in motion a tendency that, carried far enough, could and often did eventually free the individual from almost all moral and legal constraints. (Again, I am speaking of areas of life where radical egalitarianism does not hold sway.)…
The consequences of liberalism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness pushed too far are now apparent. Irving Kristol writes of "the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society—a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism.… [S]ector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other." I would add only that current liberalism’s rot and decadence is merely what liberalism has been moving towards for better than two centuries.
We can now see the tendency of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and On Liberty. Each insisted on the expanding liberty of the individual and each assumed that order was not a serious problem and could be left, pretty much, to take care of itself. And, for a time, order did seem to take care of itself. But that was because the institutions—family, church, school, neighborhood, inherited morality—remained strong. The constant underestimation of their value and the continual pressure for more individual autonomy necessarily weakened the restraints on individuals. The ideal slowly became the autonomous individual who stood in an adversarial relationship to any institution or group that attempted to set limits to acceptable thought and behavior. That process continues today, and hence we have an increasingly disorderly society. The street predator of the underclass may be the natural outcome of the mistake the founders of liberalism made. They would have done better had they remembered original sin. Or had they taken Edmund Burke seriously. Mill wrote: "Liberty consists in doing what one desires." That might have been said by a man who was both a libertine and an anarchist; Mill was neither, but his rhetoric encouraged those who would be either or both. Burke had it right earlier: "The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them." "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risque congratulations, .........."

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=55


Given the context of the times, you couldn't have picked a worse anachronism!

1. The word "men" was used; women were not considered equal to men.
2. The word "men" also refers to white men with property; no others.
3. Darwin's theory was still (about) a century from publication; there was no alternative in the Anglican-Christian ethos for the origin of species.

[Greyclouds]

Sure, should you start another thread? So are you saying that because no one has observed the moon plopping down upon their respective tea biscuit, they have been "induced" to believe it will not happen. That this is not faith, but induction.

But isn't there faith that the moon is "hung", even now, because what "holds" it, and all things within the universe is greatly unknown and unseen. Sure there are theories, some stronger than others, based on our little peekhole into the vastness out there. But isn't this, too, faith? Faith that it will all still be hanging there tomorrow, next year, thousands of years from now (in various positions, perhaps plowed upon each other), it, all matter, will all be hanging somewhere, somehow, by some unseen, unknown method? Why isn't this faith--->in the method of how it is all hanging in space?

Answer to the bolded part:

This expectation is NOT faith, because it does not eschew any and all physical data in its assumption.

In other words, faith is a belief in something with ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It is a 100% spiritual/metaphysical endeavor.


Scientific theories are predicated on PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Even direct observation serves as a means by which we can collect data on a phenomenon, but it is NOT necessary to make a theory. SOME evidence is needed! Otherwise, you're simply making a spiritual assumption.


Does that clear up your question? To recap, Faith: no physical evidence; Theory: non-conflicting physical evidence.

[StoneScratcher]

Answer to the bolded part:

This expectation is NOT faith, because it does not eschew any and all physical data in its assumption.

In other words, faith is a belief in something with ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It is a 100% spiritual/metaphysical endeavor.


Scientific theories are predicated on PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Even direct observation serves as a means by which we can collect data on a phenomenon, but it is NOT necessary to make a theory. SOME evidence is needed! Otherwise, you're simply making a spiritual assumption.


Does that clear up your question? To recap, Faith: no physical evidence; Theory: non-conflicting physical evidence.

Awesome! Thanks!

But I do have a lingering question, and this is why it's in this edit:

But how does it all hang there? If dark matter is so unknown, and is there (although not one grain of it has been captured), then why isn't dark matter not based on "faith" it exists?

[Marleysdaddy]

Why isn't this faith--->in the method of how it is all hanging in space?

I use a definition of faith which restricts it to belief in a thing which is unobserved.

If you wish to broaden the definition of 'faith' to the point where it is meaningless, feel free, but I fail to see what good that might do.

[Marleysdaddy]

If dark matter is so unknown, and is there (although not one grain of it has been captured), then why isn't dark matter not based on "faith" it exists?

Because we can observe the effects of something (which we have chosen to call 'dark matter')

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter).

The fact that we can observe its effects is what makes its existence not a faith-based belief.

[Drawz]

Awesome! Thanks!

But I do have a lingering question, and this is why it's in this edit:

But how does it all hang there? If dark matter is so unknown, and is there (although not one grain of it has been captured), then why isn't dark matter not based on "faith" it exists?


The moon doesn't hang from anything. It's falling through space around the Earth just like we're falling around the sun.

[Samm]

Yes, I did highlight it. Are you the highlight police? It was highlighting because there was much said (in posts prior) about the "awe" and allowing one to imagine, etc, by great minds who do not stifle themselves with image checks.

Also, about the documentary you say is "pure speculation" between "some physicists" (did you check to see who they were?), and was "just for fun"...

Have you checked how much study and research there has been and is currently being done regarding the eleven dimension multiverse?

Or do I need to provide links again?
Jeez lady... settle down. I pointed out that you highlighted it because if you had not, I would have. :rolleyes:

Did you miss that I saw the "debate" that you quoted from and posted the link to? It was NOT a scientific discussion... it was an "outside the box" very interesting and entertaining speculative round-table discussion by a group of people who have excellent science credentials following the lead of a narrator who set the direction and "rules" of the conversation. NO science was accomplished.

Your problem is that you apparently cannot distinguish between scientists letting their imagination go wild and real science. And your very rudimentary understanding of physics and cosmology does not help...

[CrusaderFrank]

One mo' time:

read "The Day After Roswell" by Philip Corso and then we'll talk

[CrusaderFrank]

Because we can observe the effects of something (which we have chosen to call 'dark matter')

The fact that we can observe its effects is what makes its existence not a faith-based belief.

You know, Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up fully 96% of everything so we can safely saw we know a whole lot about very little.

Also, think for a minute that fully 96% of where you are right now is Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

[ogibillm]

i have far more reason to believe that in all the billions of stars out there and all the billions of planets orbiting them there is at least one other planet out there with life on it than i do to believe in a literal six day creation interpretation of the book of genesis

[davetexas]

Given the context of the times, you couldn't have picked a worse anachronism!

1. The word "men" was used; women were not considered equal to men.
2. The word "men" also refers to white men with property; no others.
3. Darwin's theory was still (about) a century from publication; there was no alternative in the Anglican-Christian ethos for the origin of species.


Didn't Darwin recant his "theory" ?

[biggles53]

Didn't Darwin recant his "theory" ?

No he didn't....unless you have evidence to the contrary...??

Edit: And even if he had, the theory continues to stand, on its own evidential merits, without Darwin's imprimatur......

[StoneScratcher]

Jeez lady... settle down. I pointed out that you highlighted it because if you had not, I would have. :rolleyes:

Did you miss that I saw the "debate" that you quoted from and posted the link to? It was NOT a scientific discussion... it was an "outside the box" very interesting and entertaining speculative round-table discussion by a group of people who have excellent science credentials following the lead of a narrator who set the direction and "rules" of the conversation. NO science was accomplished.

Your problem is that you apparently cannot distinguish between scientists letting their imagination go wild and real science. And your very rudimentary understanding of physics and cosmology does not help...

Rudimentary understanding of physics and cosmology? Um, I don't have any image I'm trying to uphold here, by the way. I cherish those who imagine, who think outside the box, who question, who refuse to compartmentalize their thinking into blocks of stone (unless it's symbolic, that is).

And I am not upset, by the way (really, so don't put that tone on my posts, it's not there, I like posting with you, (not sure how you feel, lol)). Anyway, I did say things I remember reading, or seeing (Vera Rubin, the eleven universes, etc, etc), and you mocked me or said (before SEEING the cites) they were crackpot cites (um, you did see the cites, didn't you--FAR FROM crackpot).

Read your posts to me, your replies, your snips and jabs. You'd think I'm upset because maybe I have a reason to be. But I'm not. I wish, though, you wouldn't clog yourself up with setting up an image that conforms to what everyone else thinks, and imagine, and speculate freely. That's just my opinion. And if you say, science wasn't based on "imagination", "speculation", "thinking outside the box", then, well, I'll get more links (other than the others I've provided which prove "awe" in great minds when they get to the point, in most respected "scientific based" great minds of past and present where philosophy, theology, and science blurr, into just that: outright "AWE".)

[StoneScratcher]

Because we can observe the effects of something (which we have chosen to call 'dark matter')



The fact that we can observe its effects is what makes its existence not a faith-based belief.

So, because this STUFF does something, we don't have faith it will always do the same things it always does even if we're not sure that STUFF is the thing that's doing it?

I'm not trying to be cute, I'm not really seeing the difference of Induction and faith.

Let me put it this way. If I throw a bean seed in the ground, and water it, I know it will grow. So that's induction, because it is something that is proven to do the same thing over and over again, just as long as that bean is a good bean.

But, even though I cannot understand HOW that bean manages to be dried up on a shelf for years, if thrown into dirt, WILL grow, I cannot call that "faith" in the fact it will grow? Don't I have FAITH that that bean will sprout into a green plant? Wouldn't I have faith that that bean is fashioned in a way, which I cannot grasp fully, nor replicate by creating a "mechanical or chemical bean bot"?

Is induction another way of saying, "don't think about it anymore, it's beyond our grasp"?

[StoneScratcher]

One mo' time:

read "The Day After Roswell" by Philip Corso and then we'll talk

When I said, "textmessaging is regressive" (in an earlier post), I meant that technology tries, lamely, to replicate what once was.

I'll look into that book, thanks!

[Greyclouds]

Didn't Darwin recant his "theory" ?

That is an Urban Legend.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed


I'm not sure if I understand your use of quotes around "theory." Are you attacking all scientific theories or claiming that Evolution does not meet the scientific rigor necessary to become a scientific theory?

[Greyclouds]

So, because this STUFF does something, we don't have faith it will always do the same things it always does even if we're not sure that STUFF is the thing that's doing it?

I'm not trying to be cute, I'm not really seeing the difference of Induction and faith.

Let me put it this way. If I throw a bean seed in the ground, and water it, I know it will grow. So that's induction, because it is something that is proven to do the same thing over and over again, just as long as that bean is a good bean.

But, even though I cannot understand HOW that bean manages to be dried up on a shelf for years, if thrown into dirt, WILL grow, I cannot call that "faith" in the fact it will grow? Don't I have FAITH that that bean will sprout into a green plant? Wouldn't I have faith that that bean is fashioned in a way, which I cannot grasp fully, nor replicate by creating a "mechanical or chemical bean bot"?

Is induction another way of saying, "don't think about it anymore, it's beyond our grasp"?

I think your confusion is over a popular conception of the word "faith" as opposed to its real meaning.

You're using faith in the following sense: full expectation of future events to progress according to plan. That is FINE, but you must understand that this is 100% different from religious faith!

Here's religious faith: belief in spiritual concepts without physical evidence to support such beliefs.

Here's Induction: prediction of future events based on physical evidence in the present. In this regard, YES, induction is SIMILAR (note: not 100% identical) to your popular conception of faith.



Here's where everyone is disagreeing with your use of faith: It is often used to try to tie induction to spiritual faith, whereas this is a completely illogical progression. Actual spiritual faith is completely different from having "faith" in a person or physical process. Noone has any physical, reproducible evidence that Shiva will destroy and recreate the world. The vast, vast majority of people on this planet have physical, reproducible evidence that dropping an object of smaller mass will result in that mass gravitating towards a larger body (Earth). This is in spite of our inability to currently identify the exact causes of gravitation.

Do you see the difference here?

[StoneScratcher]

I think your confusion is over a popular conception of the word "faith" as opposed to its real meaning.

You're using faith in the following sense: full expectation of future events to progress according to plan. That is FINE, but you must understand that this is 100% different from religious faith!

Here's religious faith: belief in spiritual concepts without physical evidence to support such beliefs.

Here's Induction: prediction of future events based on physical evidence in the present. In this regard, YES, induction is SIMILAR (note: not 100% identical) to your popular conception of faith.



Here's where everyone is disagreeing with your use of faith: It is often used to try to tie induction to spiritual faith, whereas this is a completely illogical progression. Actual spiritual faith is completely different from having "faith" in a person or physical process. Noone has any physical, reproducible evidence that Shiva will destroy and recreate the world. The vast, vast majority of people on this planet have physical, reproducible evidence that dropping an object of smaller mass will result in that mass gravitating towards a larger body (Earth). This is in spite of our inability to currently identify the exact causes of gravitation.

Do you see the difference here?

Thank you! I see it now! The red is what I meant, and I understand how this might cause problems. I had to keep asking (bad habit, I guess), because I didn't grasp it, now I know, and I thank you.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'm not trying to be cute, I'm not really seeing the difference of Induction and faith.


Induction - the belief is justified by reasoning based on some observed phenomenon

Faith - the belief is justified by faith alone, in the absence of any observations of phenomena

[Marleysdaddy]

All clear now?



P.S. Danke, Greyclouds...

[StoneScratcher]

Induction - the belief is justified by reasoning based on some observed phenomenon

Faith - the belief is justified by faith alone, in the absence of any observations of phenomena

Thanks! Now about that dark matter...

[Marleysdaddy]

Thanks! Now about that dark matter...

What about it?

Whatever it actually is, we can observe its effects... So our proposal of its existence is based on observed phenomena.

Note - That does require that we qualify dark matter as 'hypothetical' (since we haven't directly observed it).

Similarly, gravitons are hypothetical particles, since we can observe their effect (the gravitational force) but have not yet observed them directly.

[Samm]

Rudimentary understanding of physics and cosmology? Um, I don't have any image I'm trying to uphold here, by the way. I cherish those who imagine, who think outside the box, who question, who refuse to compartmentalize their thinking into blocks of stone (unless it's symbolic, that is).

And I am not upset, by the way (really, so don't put that tone on my posts, it's not there, I like posting with you, (not sure how you feel, lol)). Anyway, I did say things I remember reading, or seeing (Vera Rubin, the eleven universes, etc, etc), and you mocked me or said (before SEEING the cites) they were crackpot cites (um, you did see the cites, didn't you--FAR FROM crackpot).

Read your posts to me, your replies, your snips and jabs. You'd think I'm upset because maybe I have a reason to be. But I'm not. I wish, though, you wouldn't clog yourself up with setting up an image that conforms to what everyone else thinks, and imagine, and speculate freely. That's just my opinion. And if you say, science wasn't based on "imagination", "speculation", "thinking outside the box", then, well, I'll get more links (other than the others I've provided which prove "awe" in great minds when they get to the point, in most respected "scientific based" great minds of past and present where philosophy, theology, and science blurr, into just that: outright "AWE".)

I suggest that you reread my posts to you. You have a vivid imagination no doubt, because you apparently have clearly misinterpreted virtually every question and criticism I have posted as personal mockery. That is NOT the case; none (except for a jab or two) of what you imply is in my posts.

[Samm]

I think your confusion is over a popular conception of the word "faith" as opposed to its real meaning.

You're using faith in the following sense: full expectation of future events to progress according to plan. That is FINE, but you must understand that this is 100% different from religious faith!

Here's religious faith: belief in spiritual concepts without physical evidence to support such beliefs.

Here's Induction: prediction of future events based on physical evidence in the present. In this regard, YES, induction is SIMILAR (note: not 100% identical) to your popular conception of faith.



Here's where everyone is disagreeing with your use of faith: It is often used to try to tie induction to spiritual faith, whereas this is a completely illogical progression. Actual spiritual faith is completely different from having "faith" in a person or physical process. Noone has any physical, reproducible evidence that Shiva will destroy and recreate the world. The vast, vast majority of people on this planet have physical, reproducible evidence that dropping an object of smaller mass will result in that mass gravitating towards a larger body (Earth). This is in spite of our inability to currently identify the exact causes of gravitation.

Do you see the difference here?

Very good explanation... except for the highlighted sentence. When you drop a very small mass near to Earth, it appears that the small mass gravitates toward the large mass... and for all practical purposes, that is true. But physically, the bodies are attracted to each other. That is also true with the Earth and the Moon and the Planets and the Sun. The Earth and the Moon actually orbit each other and the Earth and the other Planets move the Sun. But because of the huge disparity in mass (speaking now just of the Earth and the Moon) the center of rotation is very near to the center of the Earth. The tides are the only visible effect of this co-attraction (although the rise and fall of the continents can be measured as well) here on Earth, but if we could stand off in space somewhere and had a fixed point of reference, we would also be able to see the movement of the Earth as it "dances" with the Moon.

[Greyclouds]

Very good explanation... except for the highlighted sentence. When you drop a very small mass near to Earth, it appears that the small mass gravitates toward the large mass... and for all practical purposes, that is true. But physically, the bodies are attracted to each other. That is also true with the Earth and the Moon and the Planets and the Sun. The Earth and the Moon actually orbit each other and the Earth and the other Planets move the Sun. But because of the huge disparity in mass (speaking now just of the Earth and the Moon) the center of rotation is very near to the center of the Earth. The tides are the only visible effect of this co-attraction (although the rise and fall of the continents can be measured as well) here on Earth, but if we could stand off in space somewhere and had a fixed point of reference, we would also be able to see the movement of the Earth as it "dances" with the Moon.

Very true, my mistake, and precisely why I am not a physicist :D

[Samm]

Very true, my mistake, and precisely why I am not a physicist :D

Neither am I... ;)