Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Hawking: God did not create the universe

  1. #1
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Hawking: God did not create the universe

    God did not create the universe, says Hawking

    LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

    In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

    Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

    Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.

    His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

    He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

    In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

    "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

    Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.

    He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."

    Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.

    "The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.

    (Editing by Steve Addison)


    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    This has been obvious to me for years. Just nice to see Hawking say it too. Discuss.

  2. #2
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    This has been obvious to me for years. Just nice to see Hawking say it too. Discuss.
    a brilliant man who had many gifts but still, his proof is theories and spontaneous reactions that have never happened in recorded history. Life is not created by explosions. "the Universe can and will create itself from gravity".....when has that ever happened? When has gravity created animals?

    It's like saying what came first the chicken or the egg?....answer: well gravity just made the chicken.....(how is that possible and what made gravity in the first place, if this is so?)

    I know I sound very simple and plain but that it what Hawking is essentially saying. This quote struck me: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." -didn't he say that God had nothing to do with anything? And that he goes against Issac Newton's views of God existing because of the incredible chance of the alignment of the planets and our sun,etc being less remarkable than before??

    I still find it amazing how someone so smart like hawking could just use example B as the answer when example A came first. (my thoery: Someone made gravity)...were did gravity come from?

    His theories could prove how the universe works but not how it began.

    hawking will say the Big bang...then it turns into the Big bang debate.

    This thread will always have arguments going in circles.

  3. #3
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I have the book on pre-order with Amazon. should be an interesting read!

  4. #4
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    a brilliant man who had many gifts but still, his proof is theories and spontaneous reactions that have never happened in recorded history. Life is not created by explosions. "the Universe can and will create itself from gravity".....when has that ever happened? When has gravity created animals?

    It's like saying what came first the chicken or the egg?....answer: well gravity just made the chicken.....(how is that possible and what made gravity in the first place, if this is so?)

    I know I sound very simple and plain but that it what Hawking is essentially saying. This quote struck me: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." -didn't he say that God had nothing to do with anything? And that he goes against Issac Newton's views of God existing because of the incredible chance of the alignment of the planets and our sun,etc being less remarkable than before??

    I still find it amazing how someone so smart like hawking could just use example B as the answer when example A came first. (my thoery: Someone made gravity)...were did gravity come from?

    His theories could prove how the universe works but not how it began.

    hawking will say the Big bang...then it turns into the Big bang debate.

    This thread will always have arguments going in circles.
    Paul,

    Gravity is a law and a force that happens naturally once matter with mass is created. The universe was in a compressed state and then expanded during what is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. It's a poor name since there wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion. (a change in state like solid to liquid) Once the matter contained within was released the naturally occurring force of gravity took over. The matter clumped together due to gravity in different densities. The more dense areas squeezed upon itself creating a stronger gravitational field which in turn captured more and more matter. The more dense the greater the gravity, under extreme gravity these free form atoms fused into new elements starting with the lightest of all elements, hydrogen. Two hydrogen atoms fused creating helium and so on until we had various concentrations of all the known natural elements in the universe. The universe now had all the building blocks necessary to create simple proteins that could then develop into more and more complex life due to environmental influences.

    Humans and other creatures are not created by a grand design but rather out of necessity due to the harsh environment it evolved in.

    Below is a video that shows how a scientist created amino acids, the building blocks of protein using a spark of electricity. Scientists theorize that lighting strikes created the first amino acids on Earth which over billions of years combined to form proteins which in turn evolved into more and more complex life.

    errr! I can't friggan embed the video for some reason.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]




    So as you can see that having matter and gravity is all that is needed given an enormous amount of time to create life without the need for a grand design.

  5. #5
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    The Miller–Urey experiment[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] was an [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], and tested for the occurrence of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Specifically, the experiment tested [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]'s and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]'s [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], it was conducted in 1952[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and published in 1953 by [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] at the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    In 2008,[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] a re-analysis of Miller's archived solutions from the original experiments showed that 22 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    The experiment used [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (H2O), [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (CH4), [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (NH3), and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] through the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
    At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that are used to make [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] in living cells, with [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.
    In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    As observed in all subsequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] were created in a [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
    The original experiment remains today under the care of Miller and Urey's former student Professor [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] at the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

  6. #6
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Paul,

    Gravity is a law and a force that happens naturally once matter with mass is created. The universe was in a compressed state and then expanded during what is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. It's a poor name since there wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion. (a change in state like solid to liquid) Once the matter contained within was released the naturally occurring force of gravity took over. The matter clumped together due to gravity in different densities. The more dense areas squeezed upon itself creating a stronger gravitational field which in turn captured more and more matter. The more dense the greater the gravity, under extreme gravity these free form atoms fused into new elements starting with the lightest of all elements, hydrogen. Two hydrogen atoms fused creating helium and so on until we had various concentrations of all the known natural elements in the universe. The universe now had all the building blocks necessary to create simple proteins that could then develop into more and more complex life due to environmental influences.

    Humans and other creatures are not created by a grand design but rather out of necessity due to the harsh environment it evolved in.

    Below is a video that shows how a scientist created amino acids, the building blocks of protein using a spark of electricity. Scientists theorize that lighting strikes created the first amino acids on Earth which over billions of years combined to form proteins which in turn evolved into more and more complex life.

    errr! I can't friggan embed the video for some reason.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]




    So as you can see that having matter and gravity is all that is needed given an enormous amount of time to create life without the need for a grand design.
    Sounds nice and very scientific but the fact, and this is a fact, that this a theory invented by man. A possiblity, a suggestion as to how it happened.

    As I said, you need MUCH MORE faith to beleive that a person with a brain and a heart and the millions of combinations it takes to make a human came from a spontaneous combustion from a harsh environment. Or as you said, solid to liquid.

    I know it sounds harsh, but your telling me to believe that humans came from lightning that hit amino acids.

    Besides theories, is there historical documentation of this ever happening. A person coming out of it. Of course you'll say Paul, this was billions of years ago over a period of billions of years, how am I suppose to know? How is anyone suppose to know with extreme confidence when they know it is just a guess.

    Well that is exactly the problem. We don't have evidence of life billions of years ago except theories and suggestions on the carbon dating of materials. (And carbon dating itself has been debated on the accuracy.) How can we have documentation of materials and civilizations thousands of years before christ and then all of a sudden, everything is scientific and bilions of years apart and all of the humans were apes?

    I will always be baffled on how people can just listen to scientist saying these elements combinged with lightning made life, when they honestly have no idea because the truth is that they just assume by their own experiements.

    I also heard a Dr who was scientist and spokesman on evolution saying we evolved from ice crystals.

    Then I take out the bible versus and I get attacked for being a fool who has a mis interpretated book with errors when people don't even understand the process of the writings through out time. They hear a couple of secular scholars on National Geogrpahic, History Channel and they assume these guys are right beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    I rest at that.

  7. #7
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    ^ To each his own I guess. Just as you are baffled, I am equally baffled as to how someone can look at the overwhelming evidence and still believe everything was created by an invisible being 6,000 years ago and that bad things exist because a talking snake convinced a woman made from the rib of a man to eat a forbidden fruit that was put their by an all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect being that somehow didn't know they would eat the forbidden fruit or that the other invisible evil being he created would be able to convince people to do things. I am also baffled that people can believe the story of Noah's Arc and actually consider it to be true. The story is impossible. Just flat out impossible. And obviously wrong.

    Just for your information, carbon dating is only used for artifacts less than 50,000 years old. There are several different radioactive clocks used for dating. Potassium-argon dating for example. And there are multiple dating methods used independently and verified by multiple independent organizations. If one sample produces a false positive, it can be tested by the other samples and methods.

    If you have some scientific information or study in a peer-reviewed journal that disproves or contradicts the dating methods, please supply.

  8. #8
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    ^ To each his own I guess. Just as you are baffled, I am equally baffled as to how someone can look at the overwhelming evidence and still believe everything was created by an invisible being 6,000 years ago and that bad things exist because a talking snake convinced a woman made from the rib of a man to eat a forbidden fruit that was put their by an all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect being that somehow didn't know they would eat the forbidden fruit or that the other invisible evil being he created would be able to convince people to do things. I am also baffled that people can believe the story of Noah's Arc and actually consider it to be true. The story is impossible. Just flat out impossible. And obviously wrong.

    Just for your information, carbon dating is only used for artifacts less than 50,000 years old. There are several different radioactive clocks used for dating. Potassium-argon dating for example. And there are multiple dating methods used independently and verified by multiple independent organizations. If one sample produces a false positive, it can be tested by the other samples and methods.

    If you have some scientific information or study in a peer-reviewed journal that disproves or contradicts the dating methods, please supply.
    Believing the first eleven chapters in the Bible is the hardest thing to do as a Christian, people usally won't get saved by hearing genesis but seeing other events that relate to it.

    Prophecies, experience...etc

    And by the way Noah's arc is still a mystery in the sense that people rumor to be on Mount Arat, the view goes back and forth but no one can get close enough to observe the whole mountain wherever they want to. Turkish authorities won't allow it, suspiciously. Satellite photos can show a possible difference in the pattern of the mountain, you see a down slope and all of sudden a huge object portrudes out of the mountain. No one has been allowed to view this site up close and some said they have seen it up close, but you can't trust it as 100% valid. Until we have complete access you can't deny the Ark's existance nor believe it fully to still be intact in any way.

    And there is supstantial evidence for a flood that covered the Earth, this is agreed by both secular and religious scientists. And there are literally cities under water, look at the seas East of Japan and other sites in the Ocean, if we fully explored the Ocean we would find extinct animals, cities, ships that were all lost...the fact that there evidence of civilizations that are now under water proves the Flood did cover the Earth at one point.

    So with that in mind, the Ark is not a fantasy anymore.

    And going back to the topic at hand, you guys are telling me we came from lightning that hit amino acids.....ok just stop saying I am living in a fantasy with the Bible and the stories. Because honestly when hearing the lightning amino acids thing sounds much more far fetched.

  9. #9
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,487
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Believing the first eleven chapters in the Bible is the hardest thing to do as a Christian, people usally won't get saved by hearing genesis but seeing other events that relate to it.

    Prophecies, experience...etc

    And by the way Noah's arc is still a mystery in the sense that people rumor to be on Mount Arat, the view goes back and forth but no one can get close enough to observe the whole mountain wherever they want to. Turkish authorities won't allow it, suspiciously. Satellite photos can show a possible difference in the pattern of the mountain, you see a down slope and all of sudden a huge object portrudes out of the mountain. No one has been allowed to view this site up close and some said they have seen it up close, but you can't trust it as 100% valid. Until we have complete access you can't deny the Ark's existance nor believe it fully to still be intact in any way.

    And there is supstantial evidence for a flood that covered the Earth, this is agreed by both secular and religious scientists. And there are literally cities under water, look at the seas East of Japan and other sites in the Ocean, if we fully explored the Ocean we would find extinct animals, cities, ships that were all lost...the fact that there evidence of civilizations that are now under water proves the Flood did cover the Earth at one point.

    So with that in mind, the Ark is not a fantasy anymore.

    And going back to the topic at hand, you guys are telling me we came from lightning that hit amino acids.....ok just stop saying I am living in a fantasy with the Bible and the stories. Because honestly when hearing the lightning amino acids thing sounds much more far fetched.
    Yeah but dude.



    I mean, seriously.

    And that story about the Turks disallowing anyone to scan the mountain? Who told you that? This year a Chinese (which is weird) evangelist went on an arc crusade and wasn't hindered by anyone.

    Needless to say, he found nothing.

    Just debating, never hating.

  10. #10
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Believing the first eleven chapters in the Bible is the hardest thing to do as a Christian, people usally won't get saved by hearing genesis but seeing other events that relate to it.

    Prophecies, experience...etc

    And by the way Noah's arc is still a mystery in the sense that people rumor to be on Mount Arat, the view goes back and forth but no one can get close enough to observe the whole mountain wherever they want to. Turkish authorities won't allow it, suspiciously. Satellite photos can show a possible difference in the pattern of the mountain, you see a down slope and all of sudden a huge object portrudes out of the mountain. No one has been allowed to view this site up close and some said they have seen it up close, but you can't trust it as 100% valid. Until we have complete access you can't deny the Ark's existance nor believe it fully to still be intact in any way.

    And there is supstantial evidence for a flood that covered the Earth, this is agreed by both secular and religious scientists. And there are literally cities under water, look at the seas East of Japan and other sites in the Ocean, if we fully explored the Ocean we would find extinct animals, cities, ships that were all lost...the fact that there evidence of civilizations that are now under water proves the Flood did cover the Earth at one point.

    So with that in mind, the Ark is not a fantasy anymore.

    And going back to the topic at hand, you guys are telling me we came from lightning that hit amino acids.....ok just stop saying I am living in a fantasy with the Bible and the stories. Because honestly when hearing the lightning amino acids thing sounds much more far fetched.
    We have created the building blocks of life (i.e. amino acids) by sending electonic impulses through the basic elements that existed on earth 4 billion years ago. So, it's not far fetched. It actually happened.

    Conversely, it is genetically impossible for two individuals of a genetically complex species to maintain a viable population through sexual reproduction. It is impossible and has never happened. So Noah's Arc is impossible. This also makes Adam and Eve impossible.

    So one thing happened (amino acids created) and another thing never happened (two individuals create a population). Seems pretty simple to me. Just because you don't want it to be true and know nothing about science, doesn't make it false.

    Not only is it genetically and mathematically impossible but it is physically impossible. There is no way 150 million individuals fit on the boat. When you say he had two bears on the arc, that means he had two black bears, two brown bears, two polar bears, two grizzlie bears, two gobi bears, two panda bears, etc, etc, etc.

    Since you claim Noah's Arc is true and evolution does not exist and everything was created at once by god, this is the only way there could be so many species of bears.

    Also, how do you explain Koala Bears? They only exist in Australia. They didn't swim all the way to the arc. How do koala bears exist if the great flood happened and nothing evolves or changes and has stayed the same since god created it?

    Also, how come there isn't a single dinosaur mentioned in the bible? Not one? Dinosaurs were everywhere, and according to you, walking around with humans. There should be dinosaurs all throughout the bible. Not one is mentioned. Only the animals that existed at that time are mentioned. How come?
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Sep 06, 2010 at 11:09.

  11. #11
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    We have created the building blocks of life (i.e. amino acids) by sending electonic impulses through the basic elements that existed on earth 4 billion years ago. So, it's not far fetched. It actually happened.

    Conversely, it is genetically impossible for two individuals of a genetically complex species to maintain a viable population through sexual reproduction. It is impossible and has never happened. So Noah's Arc is impossible. This also makes Adam and Eve impossible.

    So one thing happened (amino acids created) and another thing never happened (two individuals create a population). Seems pretty simple to me. Just because you don't want it to be true and know nothing about science, doesn't make it false.

    Not only is it genetically and mathematically impossible but it is physically impossible. There is no way 150 million individuals fit on the boat. When you say he had two bears on the arc, that means he had two black bears, two brown bears, two polar bears, two grizzlie bears, two gobi bears, two panda bears, etc, etc, etc.

    Since you claim Noah's Arc is true and evolution does not exist and everything was created at once by god, this is the only way there could be so many species of bears.

    Also, how do you explain Koala Bears? They only exist in Australia. They didn't swim all the way to the arc. How do koala bears exist if the great flood happened and nothing evolves or changes and has stayed the same since god created it?

    Also, how come there isn't a single dinosaur mentioned in the bible? Not one? Dinosaurs were everywhere, and according to you, walking around with humans. There should be dinosaurs all throughout the bible. Not one is mentioned. Only the animals that existed at that time are mentioned. How come?
    Your belief has many question marks and that is when you will truly understand what I am saying. Seriously think about your belief, not mine for a second. Lightning hitting amino acid=apes=humans....seriously? Or the other good one I heard...ice crystals=humans....the theories out there give your theory little weight even if scientist had successful experiments which u claim. The end result...humans... is not true since it has never happened, especially in an experiment.

    This is why I said this will go back and forth. I take the Bible as my source of origin, adding in other sources that correspond with it, there is historical and scientific(archeology) information that can stir up an argument about this topic going back and forth.
    You see it takes less faith to believe something that was written thousands of years ago..closer to the actual event that we are arguing about... than some experiment that happened recently.

    LJ lightning hitting amino acids did not grow into a human being or an ape or anything that proves we came from them. Again, you need more belief to believe in that than the Bible.

    So a man and women could not start a race of people? That is essentially how we populate. From man and women. Please bro, you think because of scientific experiments that you got it all figured out when you really sound crazier than me.

    I'm kind of tired of this, since you think my theory is crazy and I think yours is, basically going nowhere. I just wanted you to really observe what you and others have been telling me and look at it plainly from another point of view.

  12. #12
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Your belief has many question marks and that is when you will truly understand what I am saying. Seriously think about your belief, not mine for a second. Lightning hitting amino acid=apes=humans....seriously? Or the other good one I heard...ice crystals=humans....the theories out there give your theory little weight even if scientist had successful experiments which u claim. The end result...humans... is not true since it has never happened, especially in an experiment.

    This is why I said this will go back and forth. I take the Bible as my source of origin, adding in other sources that correspond with it, there is historical and scientific(archeology) information that can stir up an argument about this topic going back and forth.
    You see it takes less faith to believe something that was written thousands of years ago..closer to the actual event that we are arguing about... than some experiment that happened recently.

    LJ lightning hitting amino acids did not grow into a human being or an ape or anything that proves we came from them. Again, you need more belief to believe in that than the Bible.

    So a man and women could not start a race of people? That is essentially how we populate. From man and women. Please bro, you think because of scientific experiments that you got it all figured out when you really sound crazier than me.

    I'm kind of tired of this, since you think my theory is crazy and I think yours is, basically going nowhere. I just wanted you to really observe what you and others have been telling me and look at it plainly from another point of view.
    There is a difference between looking at something with another point of view and basing assumptions on scientific facts with ignorance. I have looked at the bible with another point of view. An objective one.

    One man and one woman can not start a human race. It is impossible. Just as it is impossible for two bears to create a population of bears. Genetic defects and sterility occur every time in genetically complex organisms. Sorry bro, it is a fact. Noah's Arc and Adam and Eve are impossible. Just flat out impossible and never happened.

    You see, the difference between your theory and mine, one is possible and has occurred in reality, the other is impossible and has never occurred in reality, only a story.

    I am able to answer every question you have, where as you can't answer a single question I asked about your theory (i.e. dinosaurs, koala bears, etc.). Why?

  13. #13
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    There is a difference between looking at something with another point of view and basing assumptions on scientific facts with ignorance. I have looked at the bible with another point of view. An objective one.

    One man and one woman can not start a human race. It is impossible. Just as it is impossible for two bears to create a population of bears. Genetic defects and sterility occur every time in genetically complex organisms. Sorry bro, it is a fact. Noah's Arc and Adam and Eve are impossible. Just flat out impossible and never happened.

    You see, the difference between your theory and mine, one is possible and has occurred in reality, the other is impossible and has never occurred in reality, only a story.

    I am able to answer every question you have, where as you can't answer a single question I asked about your theory (i.e. dinosaurs, koala bears, etc.). Why?
    One thing I have learned is not to go off topic...we discussed the topic...and it ends with you thinking mine is not reality and with me thinking your view is just crazier.

    We start talking about dinosaurs, which I have already discussed before on this site, or kola bears, or woodpeckers, or whatever, it leads to more and more off topic discussions which can be a waste of time.

  14. #14
    Superstar johnstarky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    643
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355

    This thread will always have arguments going in circles.
    And you're just going to continue going around in circles no matter how many scientific text books you study and no matter how many rational arguments for the existence of God you come up with.I speak from experience.Even those who are experts at defending their Christian faith have a difficult time convincing the skeptic that there is more to this universe than matter and energy.

    Secularism is becoming very popular in this modern era.Many people are no longer following the God that their parents brought them up to believe in.It seems pretty exasperating to the Christian believer, but with contemporary thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett aggrandizing their secular beliefs and gaining large cult followings as a result it's very difficult for the average University student to keep believing in the things that he was taught as a child.

    If you're going to continue debating disputable topics such as this one I advise you to do it for recreational purposes only.If you feel that God is calling you to defend the faith then let no man stand in your way.I will just be watching from afar where this discussion goes.

  15. #15
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Your belief has many question marks and that is when you will truly understand what I am saying. Seriously think about your belief, not mine for a second. Lightning hitting amino acid=apes=humans....seriously? Or the other good one I heard...ice crystals=humans....the theories out there give your theory little weight even if scientist had successful experiments which u claim. The end result...humans... is not true since it has never happened, especially in an experiment.

    This is why I said this will go back and forth. I take the Bible as my source of origin, adding in other sources that correspond with it, there is historical and scientific(archeology) information that can stir up an argument about this topic going back and forth.
    You see it takes less faith to believe something that was written thousands of years ago..closer to the actual event that we are arguing about... than some experiment that happened recently.

    LJ lightning hitting amino acids did not grow into a human being or an ape or anything that proves we came from them. Again, you need more belief to believe in that than the Bible.

    So a man and women could not start a race of people? That is essentially how we populate. From man and women. Please bro, you think because of scientific experiments that you got it all figured out when you really sound crazier than me.

    I'm kind of tired of this, since you think my theory is crazy and I think yours is, basically going nowhere. I just wanted you to really observe what you and others have been telling me and look at it plainly from another point of view.
    See Paul, this is the problem...you summed up my video and links in such a way as to make them seem far fetched and equally as implausible as the story of creation. It is a dodge and tactic used to mask the fact that your belief is the only belief stated in this thread that is not only hard to believe but requires magic never observed by living human beings. The video and the experiment actually did happen. The scientist created a closed system that contained water, and other INORGANIC chemicals that were in abundance during early years of Earth. These chemicals such as ammonia and sulfur were changed into ORGANIC compounds called amino acids in the experiment using an electric discharge similar to that of lighting in the atmosphere. While this does not prove that life on Earth started this way it does prove that the jump from inorganic to organic is indeed possible and able to be tested, verified and recreated by us mere mortals.

    If you take the sum of all our scientific knowledge and piece it together you can see a clear picture of a universe that was created and evolved without the need of a higher intelligence. That is not to say god does not exist but was not absolutely needed as you would have us believe. Our understanding will continue to evolve unlike that of religion. That is the big difference between science and religion. In science we seek out facts and truths through data and evidence, recognizing we don't know everything but strive to know more. In religion they rather you not ask why but rather believe on faith alone. Questioning the dogma in religion is heresy questioning the dogma in science is well...the scientific process!

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 16:16
  2. NBA Hometown Heroes
    By JayJ44 in forum NBA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr 30, 2009, 16:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •