Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just curious - do you think computers are conscious? If so, what if the computer is in sleep mode - is their memory erased? What do you believe about the soul?Apparently you haven’t studied the evolution of space and time.That's ridiculous. The nature of existence is to continue to exist. That's it. If more intelligence facilitates that, then more intelligence will probably develop. But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.It means that very nature of existence is to create intelligence. It is unavoidable. It is not an accident.I didn't know that and I'm not sure what it means.Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?
the nature of existence is to evolve. It started with cosmic evolution then stellar evolution then chemical evolution then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.
So the pinnacle of existence is literally intelligence. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has produced and is literally the culmination of everything before it. It’s really no different than building a house.
I can’t wait to see what the next evolutionary leap will bring..... then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.
physiology and its spiritual content are inseparably linked - no being from any time has been without consciousness - except maybe for bing.
the next progression as monumental as our becoming sapien could well be the spiritual content evolving without the need for a physiological presence.
Just seeing you saying "evolution" disqualifies you as a reasonable individual...
if you are asking their origination you then conclude they exist so your insistence becomes their functionality which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed - I really do not need to repeat this again.
oh, really, not a christian what's with 4th century bible talk then ...
You keep making your own conclusions and you insist imaging I'm accepting them.
Asking questions is not making conclusions. You can check it using a dictionary.
And yes, you are correct, you don't need to repeat your imaginations, once is enough and are not credible.
your responses are empty rhetoric ...
you requested my proof of the metaphysical -
.- which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed
the physical presence of physiology is proof of the metaphysical and the mechanisms for change from parent to sibling the basis for evolution and the beginning of life.
oh, of course all occurring in the past 6000 years ...
You have not obtained life yet, so you can't confirm anyone of the words you just said right above.One evidence of God's existence is the Bible itself - its accuracy.
The origin of life required all the necessary molecules to be in the same place at the same time - this is impossible by chance.
Just seeing you saying "evolution" disqualifies you as a reasonable individual...
if you are asking their origination you then conclude they exist so your insistence becomes their functionality which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed - I really do not need to repeat this again.
oh, really, not a christian what's with 4th century bible talk then ...
You keep making your own conclusions and you insist imaging I'm accepting them.
Asking questions is not making conclusions. You can check it using a dictionary.
And yes, you are correct, you don't need to repeat your imaginations, once is enough and are not credible.
your responses are empty rhetoric ...
you requested my proof of the metaphysical -
.- which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed
the physical presence of physiology is proof of the metaphysical and the mechanisms for change from parent to sibling the basis for evolution and the beginning of life.
oh, of course all occurring in the past 6000 years ...
Read my lips: There was, there is, there won't be any evolution.
That theory is a fraud.
You can find the data for Miller-Urey. It's available on the web.I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.
What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?
You couldn't tell me what gases Urey and Miller used. That tells me that you didn't understand their experiment nor understand what Wells said about volcanic gases and Miller-Urey experiment.
The evidence for God is Miller-Urey could not happen. It was a straw man experiment that was concocted to show amino acids can be made. However, it could not be made with volcanic gases in the early atmosphere. We know amino acids already exist everywhere except in water. It's just that they do not form proteins. Thus, you fail once more.
I do find it remarkable that your standards of proof for your gods hinges on one science experiment. That's pretty typical though. Absent any positive proof for your gods, you retreat to denigrating science to make you feel better.
I love science, I only note some scientists ignore the facts that are reported in accurate observations like those of Miller-Urey.
Hinging on one science experiment? - that's just me for a couple or few days. My mom always said I had a one track mind. In this case the chemical reaction product proportions produced in Miller's experiment.
Our literature barely mentions this - and when it does, it is abridged/abbreviated - it would fit in one post easily - obviously the data I am researching cannot fit in one post - though an outline of the chemical product proportions of all the amino acids produced by Miller (one line for each) might fit in one post. We'll see if I get to finish my research on this.
If you want a good summary of some of the branches of science and scientific evidence we publish on the origin of life - see our two brochures on this, to wit:
Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
One more thing - the book I linked to details a number of different synthesis experiments (not just Millers) - which you would have realized if you read the context of the excerpts I posted.
So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?
To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.
To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?
The Bible interprets itself? I will admit to that seeming to reaffirm “the Bibles are true because the Bibles say they are true”.That's a lot of apologetics in a hoped-for attempt to explain biblical inaccuracies and contradictions. Your claim that Moses wrote a portion of the Bible means what? "Quoting" bible verses in the hope that proves the bible is true is only convincing to those who share your fundamentalist views.I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.Yo
I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.
Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.
The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.
It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.
You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.
To simplify for you:
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.
I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).
True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).
So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen
[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]
These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!
The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:
H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:
2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.
Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.
How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.
I think you are inadvertently revealing you are not a Bible student. You see, Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm. The latter has 2 math equations applying to God's concept of time compared with us earthlings - to wit:
Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,+
Just as a watch during the night.
Now the first equation is obvious - 1,000 years in our concept of time is like 24 hours in God's concept of time - see 2 Peter 3:8.
We can be thankful that God used this merciful definition of "day" when pronouncing the death sentence on Adam and Eve. Adam lived 930 years - just short of a 1,000 year day. Jehovah could rightly fully have executed them in the same 24 hour day - He did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.
Surely Eve knew it was possible she would die within 24 hours - no wonder Eve gave credit to Jehovah in Genesis 4:1 for allowing her to have children! We wouldn't be here if mercy had not been shown to them!
But the second equation depends on how long the watch would be during the night. Two obvious examples (there are others):
A. A 4 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 4 hours, so 24 hours would be like 6,000 years.
B. A 3 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 3 hours, so 24 hours would be like 8,000 years.
We (Jehovah's Witnesses) used to believe the creative days were all of the same length and were 7,000 years long each - now we have humbly admitted we do not know either. We let scientists determine that - or, at least, try to.
Two key ways to determine the timing (usually ignored by today's scientists) are:
1. The rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 from earth's primordial waters by the geologic carbon cycle such that over 64 million petagrams of carbon (C in CO2) are in earth's crustal carbonates were deposited over time.
2. The amount of time it takes for significant atmospheric change such that enough Oxygen was present for plants to use in their night-time reaction/transpiritation; and then how long for atmospheric composition of free Oxygen to be produced by plants so that animals could then be created and survive by breathing.
The former likely took billions of years but the latter likely took only thousands of years. The rate of atmospheric change due to human activity leading to global warming shows it would take a long time - but not millions of years for plants to accomplish!
On the lighter side - us animals tend to be more animate than plants - we move faster than plants!
On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.
Unless we are cheaters! Or, er, Cheetahs!
On the other hand, you inadvertently fall victim to a common fallacy of those who selectively edit their "quotes" to reverse engineer their Bibles. Genesis says days. The unknown author of Psalms used a different timeframe. Do you understand that silly "Bible Equations" simply confounds what is in Genesis and serves only to reinforce the evidence that the BIbles are a collection of often disjointed tales and fables written at different times by authors largely unknow.
BTW, nothing about the Bibles supports the Bibles being true.
The Bible interprets itself. Psalms 90:4 simply gives two math equations which you choose to ignore - that is up to you. Creationists ignore Psalms 90:4 in their interpretation of the days in the Genesis creation account - we don't and we are not creationists. We also do not ignore the scientific evidence involved - whether reported on by creationists or evolutionists or ignored by both.
Do either evolutionists or creationists consider the details of the geologic carbon cycle as it relates to the atmosphere at the origin of life or the time scales involved in the rate the geologic carbon cycle proceeds?
Is there some reason you think superior extraterrestrial life in another heaven/universe would experience the same property of time flow as in our universe? Some scientists believe there are other universes which have different properties than ours. To my knowledge there is no scientific proof one way or the other on this - but Psalms 90:4 certainly gives a hint about time.
There are zero contradictions in the Bible - feel free to start a thread on that - I won't derail this thread with that tangent. I should just mention that interpretations of the Bible do contradict - and so do interpretations of scientists. So how do you determine the truth?
For me, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says it all: "Prove all things" - KJV.
Btw - that applies to Covid as well. How do you prove you cannot spread that virus if you aren't tested for it? How can you prove you did not contract it after being tested? How do you prove the test was accurate?
For me. better safe than sorry:
Proverbs 22:3
The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself,
But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences.*
Why do you think I am spending so much time on the internet?
You can't catch viruses on the internet!
Very good point.However in order to be born dna had to be written as codes do not write themselves. Thus god is a scientific requirementThe short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.
Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.
Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.
True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.
The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.
I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.
Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+
Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.
The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.
Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!
“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”
That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.
The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.
Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.
Nobody can tell us:
What was here before the BB?
Where did the energy for BB come from?
What initiated the BB?
The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.
I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?
To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.
Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?
What was here before theBBGods?
Where did the energy forBBThe Gods come from?
What initiated theBBGods?
You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.
So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?
To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.
To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?
If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.
And your reference to support this?
"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...
In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"
Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?
Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:
Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?
So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?
Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black holeBlack holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.
Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.
True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.
The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.
I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.
Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+
Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.
The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.
Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!
“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”
That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.
The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.
Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.
Nobody can tell us:
What was here before the BB?
Where did the energy for BB come from?
What initiated the BB?
The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.
I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?
To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.
Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?
What was here before theBBGods?
Where did the energy forBBThe Gods come from?
What initiated theBBGods?
You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.
So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?
To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.
To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?
If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.
And your reference to support this?
"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...
In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"
Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?
Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:
Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?
So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?
Nice quote, thanks.But rest assured that "magic" had nothing to do with it.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
Arthur C. Clarke
Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black holeBlack holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.
Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.
True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.
The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.
I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.
Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+
Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.
The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.
Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!
“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”
That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.
The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.
Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.
Nobody can tell us:
What was here before the BB?
Where did the energy for BB come from?
What initiated the BB?
The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.
I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?
To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.
Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?
What was here before theBBGods?
Where did the energy forBBThe Gods come from?
What initiated theBBGods?
You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.
So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?
To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.
To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?
If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.
And your reference to support this?
"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...
In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"
Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?
Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:
Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?
So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?
You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.
The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.
For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.
Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).
However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.
For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!
Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.
The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:
Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.
Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.
And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]
I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.
Sin was created by Adam and we became flesh and blood creatures.
Sin was created by Adam and we became flesh and blood creatures.
Sin was committed by Adam.
I just debunked your space and time definition. It's not just the light cone.
And God creating light first and space and time from the void is backed up by science while you just have a scrunched up face.
I wasn't aware I was obligated to make an argumentfaithFaith is belief, believing, blind trustNo. No faith in the supernatural is a conclusion.No faith is faith tooI think it’s difficult to have faith in superstition and supernaturalism.So, let me get this straight, an atheist first needs to ask a god they don't believe existsWith atheists, I've found that they have to repent their atheism first. I think it's hard for them to have faith in God because their atheism gets in the way.
to be forgiven for an offense they are not aware of, otherwise,....
Without faith, an open mind and a sincere heartThus, even if they pray, God does not come. They're not being open minded and sincere in their prayer.
God ignores you and doesn't want to be bothered
First of all, what is more important...
Having faith or Who you have faith in
Anyone who professes there is no God and for whatever reason
find themselves reaching out to this God they've heard about but don't believe in...
You best believe that is God's doing
Faith comes by hearing
and hearing by the Word of God
Romans 10:17
Secondly
Babies are not fed solid foods their bodies can't digest yet
Their nutrients first come from milk until they are capable of handling solid foods
Who can recognize sin unless they realize what God considers sin
Who can ask for forgiveness unless they acknowledge sin according to God as sin
I think its hard for people to have faith in the God and Father of Jesus
because of those who do
Conclusions are based on convictions
How can you have beliefs
without having faith in what you believe
You don't believe there is a God,
then you have faith there isn't
You have faith in what you believe
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So, you don't draw your own conclusions, you accept someone else'sThere’s no requirement for faith in the methods of science.
The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material.
You can not accept a Creator leaning on your own intellect
but you will accept the human race evolved from apes
The earth isn't flat, so what is your point
The earth was at one time determined to be flat
Science evolves and changes, God does not
He is the same yesterday, today and for infinity
You saying as much doesn't make it soAnd when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.
What qualifies you to discern spiritual matters
"Science evolves and changes, God does not
He is the same yesterday, today and for infinity"
"...because I say so"
You haven't made an argument.
BTW, gods change all the time. Mankind has invented hundreds of them.
However, if you look the light coming to you from the past, then you must understand the past light is not traveling from you but is ARRIVING to you.
