View Full Version : How did the universe begin?
Demosthenes
2006-05-08, 05:59 PM
I'm going to start resurrecting one old thread a week that had good, intelligent activity, and see if maybe that can spark up some good conversation again, so here it is from this week:
I want your personal theory on this. Did god create the universe? Was there something else. Has it always been here? State which side you're taking (i.e. scientific, theological etc.) and try to support it as best you can. Lets try to not turn this into a debate. If you want to comment on someone elses theory, fine, but try to keep this thread from turning into an all-out debate about religion.
So, what do you think?
KagomJack
2006-05-08, 07:01 PM
A female god was bored, decided it'd be funny to let living creatures that aren't omnipotent and omniscient suffer and go through life.
Sovereign
2006-05-08, 07:12 PM
Scientific. Something started the universe somehow, and something will somehow end it.
EDIT: Something being gravity, anti matter. Nothing religious.
!King_Amazon!
2006-05-08, 08:34 PM
Scientific-theological. Something/Someone caused the "Big Bang" and the universe evolved from there. Every planet seems to have it's own story. Ours was just one of the ones that had the right stuff to create life(carbon etc).
gruesomeBODY
2006-05-08, 10:18 PM
ill be the first to say god, but because he wanted peopel to worship him. Not because he just felt like it
!King_Amazon!
2006-05-09, 12:07 AM
Every time I try to think of a non-religious explaination for what started it, it comes down to "there had to be some sort of supreme force or being that started it", if Gravity started everything, who/what put Gravity into place? And Who/what put that person/thing into place? It's a never-ending question of creation.
JRwakebord
2006-05-09, 12:10 AM
Big bang theory, personally.
Sum Yung Guy
2006-05-09, 12:12 AM
Yea the big bang theory... where did the material come from to make a big bang? Oh it was from the previous big bang? The universe expanded then eventually retracted and formed up into a giant mass, and that exploded creating the universe.... All I want to know is where did the material that formed up to create a big bang come from?
JRwakebord
2006-05-09, 12:14 AM
Possibly a multi-trillion year cycle. Big bang, universe expands, then eventually gravity does it's thing and the universe compresses down to a singularity again, only to result in yet another big bang.
!King_Amazon!
2006-05-09, 12:54 AM
But someone or something had to put these things into existance. Where did the singularity originally come from? The big bang theory only explains what happened(huge mass "bangs" and expands into the universe), it doesn't explain how the mass got there.
Raziel
2006-05-09, 12:39 PM
Creationism. Too many facts of existence go unexplainable by conventional scientific theory, such as the argument stated by King above.
Kaneda
2006-05-09, 03:31 PM
If we go creationism you could just as easily apply the same principles. If there is a supreme being where or from what did it come from? Ect, ect.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard had something to do with it.
Medieval Bob
2006-05-09, 04:07 PM
In the Ender's Game series, it's theorized that existence always has been and always will be. Time is explained as the radius of a sphere. The center of the sphere is the beginning of time, of things, of mass, of existence. We're at a certain radius on the sphere, and, as the universe expands, the radius increases. It's a really interesting explanation (though, greatly rooted in fiction I'm sure) if anyone is interesting in reading. (The books kick ass too.)
Demosthenes
2006-05-09, 05:33 PM
In the Ender's Game series, it's theorized that existence always has been and always will be. Time is explained as the radius of a sphere. The center of the sphere is the beginning of time, of things, of mass, of existence. We're at a certain radius on the sphere, and, as the universe expands, the radius increases. It's a really interesting explanation (though, greatly rooted in fiction I'm sure) if anyone is interesting in reading. (The books kick ass too.)
I've read the entire Ender and Bean series, but I don't recall that. Mind telling me which book that's in?
Sum Yung Guy
2006-05-09, 11:50 PM
In the Ender's Game series, it's theorized that existence always has been and always will be. Time is explained as the radius of a sphere. The center of the sphere is the beginning of time, of things, of mass, of existence. We're at a certain radius on the sphere, and, as the universe expands, the radius increases. It's a really interesting explanation (though, greatly rooted in fiction I'm sure) if anyone is interesting in reading. (The books kick ass too.)
I vaguely remember that... its been a few year tho.
Medieval Bob
2006-05-10, 06:21 AM
It's in Xenocide, near the end of the book. They're trying to find a way to do the impossible, several times over, and this is one of the results of that research.
Ganga
2006-05-16, 01:45 PM
We name our god - Budda.
May I remind you all that this forum is strictly on-topic.
pr0xy
2006-05-17, 10:09 PM
I believe in both creation and evolution. There are many facts that support evolution however when the question of where it all came from comes up, there dont seem to be any answers. I personally believe the smallest life forms were created by a supreme being, and as time went on they evolved. I mean, evolution is already proven.
Draco2003
2006-05-19, 12:55 AM
I dunno....call me a nerd, but I say we are all digital people in a large video game...why else would there be so much violence and stuff?
Maybe we are all just large blocks of well written artificial intellence that have begun to notice our "reproductive errors" and decided to start fixing them. God and science are boring...and both are wrong...God is just one "player's" interpretation of who programmed us... He/she probably saw it in the sky, and it was really P.O.C....which is Programmer of Creation. In our world of things that he programmed, the clouds are how he communicates with his people...and when they asked who created them, he/she (P.O.C) replied. They saw it upside down and backwards so they read God....i dunno...my theory has more holes than swiss cheese....but it makes life more interesting than thinking some holy dude was bored and made slaves that would eventually die off and he could use their souls, after they are aged to perfection, to feed his "holy miracle machine".....
Nah, but for real...I don't care how it started, as long as it doesn't plan on going anywhere soon....while I am still alive.....O.O
Ganga
2006-05-19, 01:19 AM
Nah, but for real...I don't care how it started, as long as it doesn't plan on going anywhere soon....while I am still alive.....O.O
That's up to bush.
sciencekid
2006-05-22, 02:20 PM
I believe in both creation and evolution. There are many facts that support evolution however when the question of where it all came from comes up, there dont seem to be any answers. I personally believe the smallest life forms were created by a supreme being, and as time went on they evolved. I mean, evolution is already proven.
same here. i can't remember which one it is called whether it be "creation-evolutionist" or "evolution-creationist" but im pretty sure it's the former. to restate, i think that God(or supreme being, which ever you want to call it/him/her) started the matter and the process, and guided the evolution ever since.. see, science doesn't lie(provided we have the scientific process right), and i believe God doesn't either, even though us humans can lie.
my opinion is that evolution isnt complete without a supreme being, after all you can stick a dissasembled watch in the ground leave it there forever and no matter when you dig it up, it will still stay dissasembled until a "higher being" than that watch puts it together. also a few pieces of the evolutionary theory are comepletely off base.. i will have to look them up again to remember which ones they are....
anyway, as for the multiverse, i think a supreme being "built"(or created, take your pick of the words) the multiverse from nothing... he probably did produced matter by somehow incuring background radiaton and splitting the matter and anti-matter pairs far apart from eachother to create substance. but as for the actual bubble of space... no idea lol......
but the big bang has been proven somewhat because the galaxies are moving farther and farther apart from eachother which mean that somthing set them in motion a long time ago. and since nothing has hit the walls yet, that probably means that the multiverse is expanding as well
We are all just tiny bacteria on peanuts in this giant turd of a universe.
But really...I never really went by the whole supreme being creating everthing idea.
My Saturn
2006-06-01, 07:57 AM
Heh, well the Genisis is amusing, but I don't put any stock into it. Especially because of the fact that it reminds me of "See spot run."
I don't have much of a theory on this subject, I don't really question why we're here or how we got here, we just kind of are. Theres not much of an explanation for anything. Why do we have opposable thumbs? Well because they're usefull. Yeah, so? Doesn't mean we were supposed to have them. There's really too many possibilities for how the universe was created.
We evolved, I think most likely the universe did too.
frogla
2006-06-01, 05:09 PM
god made the world says so in this book i have
Frogla, while I appreciate any religion-bashing you can offer, this is meant to be a serious discussion.
Willkillforfood
2006-06-02, 05:32 PM
Another topic you could make from this:
Do you believe in Micro and/or Macro evolution?
frosted_snow
2006-06-08, 11:07 AM
Evolution was proven wrong when they found out the blood line of the human race whent back to two people.So the only thing that stands firm is creation in the fact that GOD did actually creat ALL.The big bang theory was also proven wrong.You see,in the big bang theory,it is said that a ball of some gravity,mass,whatever was spinning on an extreme level,then spun so fast that it exploaded thus making the universe.This was proven wrong by this fact,not all planets ar spinning in the same direction on their axis.If an object full of stuff is spinning right(for example)and it spins so fast that it throws everything out,the when everything flies out,it should all be spinning in the same direction.And the question about who created the supreme being (GOD),nobody.No one has ever proven the true Bible wrong.And in the Bible God says There is no other Gods but Him.Thus he is the Creator,not the creation.Sure there are gods but not Gods.'gods' are man made idols(Like buddah),But GOD is the only true one.No one has proven that wrong thus the reason I believe completely in creation.
Bon Clay
2006-06-10, 12:33 AM
Evolution was proven wrong when they found out the blood line of the human race whent back to two people.
Who found this out, and where is it stated? Who were these two people and in what region of the world did they live? I am not being a smart ass I seriously want to know.
Willkillforfood
2006-06-10, 07:38 AM
I was kind of wondering that myself.
frosted_snow
2006-06-10, 11:57 AM
Look up Dr. Carl Baugh.He can explain and has proven evolution and the Big Bang theory wrong.
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
Kaneda
2006-06-11, 08:40 AM
So we're all just a bunch of inbreeds then.
Saying no one has ever proven the bible wrong is just plain idiotic. No one has ever proven aliens don't exist and no one has proven that Sasquatch doesn't exist either.
Atnas
2006-06-11, 10:38 AM
Oh shit my girlfriend's my... Cousin????? Fuck! Anyways, why bother wondering about how the universe began? Stop wasting time and enjoy it while you can...
~JESUS~
2006-06-11, 05:10 PM
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Atnas
2006-06-11, 07:08 PM
Oh my! Well, since you put it that way, Jesus, please do not smite me.
~JESUS~
2006-06-11, 07:19 PM
Oh my! Well, since you put it that way, Jesus, please do not smite me.
unless you are a moneychanger...you are safe with me!:grin:
Kaneda
2006-06-11, 07:22 PM
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
You are extremely ignorant. Religion is simply another way to control the masses.
~JESUS~
2006-06-11, 07:36 PM
I believe in both creation and evolution. There are many facts that support evolution however when the question of where it all came from comes up, there dont seem to be any answers. I personally believe the smallest life forms were created by a supreme being, and as time went on they evolved. I mean, evolution is already proven.
actually..its not proven...
microevolution..YES
macroevolution...NO!!!!
adaption to environment is not evolution....
..the changing of one kind of animal turning into a completely other animal has ever been found studied or observed....
..a dog is a dog is a pitbull is a wolf..its still a KIND of animal...
without evolution hoax there is nothing but God the creator to believe in...
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
....
and what about evolution of chemicals? Or what about RNA and information?
what came first the chicken or the egg considering information inside DNA makes everthing tick....protein sequencing and amino acids? the sun and moon and earths precise relationship?
watch this little movie...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1595996413039321190&q=intelligent+design
check this free text book out...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm
~JESUS~
2006-06-11, 07:49 PM
You are extremely ignorant. Religion is simply another way to control the masses.
who is talking about religion?
The bible is the inspired word of the creator to his children......the bible is the only book that actually predicts the future and has it come to pass without fail. Its 100% accurate and according to the constitution, is a completely sound source for history.
"religion" is something totally different...
do your homework about evolution theory and how it DOES control the masses...hence your ignorant post.
Willkillforfood
2006-06-11, 08:39 PM
Just gonna provide a counter point to the planets thing ....planets can actually have their rotations reversed, sped up, or whatever by giant collisions with heavenly bodies :D.
~JESUS~
2006-06-11, 08:48 PM
Just gonna provide a counter point to the planets thing ....planets can actually have their rotations reversed, sped up, or whatever by giant collisions with heavenly bodies :D.
thats right!
Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved.
One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their 156 known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false.
According to these evolutionary theories:
Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.
Backward Orbits. All 156 moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but more than 30 have backward orbits. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.
Tipped Orbits. The orbit of each of these 156 moons should lie in the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earths moon, are in highly inclined orbits.
Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.
Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun.a Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together.b (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)
Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. Growing a planet by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling.
The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons.
a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gaseshydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the mass of the giant planets.
b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates.e (Jupiters hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)
c. Stars like our Suneven those which evolutionists say are youngdo not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter.
Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations. The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve.
Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.
Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune. Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved.
Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planets origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite. Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planets gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years. Because a planets gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moonsas evolutionists assert.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences8.html
:D
Lenny
2006-06-12, 06:52 AM
The bible is the inspired word of the creator to his children......the bible is the only book that actually predicts the future and has it come to pass without fail. Its 100% accurate and according to the constitution, is a completely sound source for history.
Sorry, I have to put on my 'ignorant' head and laugh at this last point. The Bible is a completely sound source for History?!
Granted, there's the odd Historical fact - Rameses II, for example, DID exist. As did many of these "Prophet's".
But a sound source for History?! So, THE correct history, the 100% true History, is a History editted by the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, in the 4th Century? A History that was put together using the more ambiguous stories of some men, to make one person more divine? A History put together to make the Church seem legitimate? Sure, I admire the man's thinking - the Chruch was in decline, fewer people were believing, yet he, with some clever stories, managed to make it into the biggest thing in the world, based on his ideals. All to give people faith. It is actually pretty smart.
But saying that it is, how did you put it?, "Its 100% accurate and according to the constitution, is a completely sound source for history", is stretching the truth maybe just a little.
And no, it doesn't predict the future. You cannot predict the future. What look like predictions, are actually ambiguous phrases that clever little men in dark little rooms have added mystical 'hidden meanings' to, AFTER the event, to make it seem to have been predicted.
-----
Maybe I've been reading too many conspiracy theories, or "Da Vinci Code" style books. Then again, I've never liked religion, so maybe I'm just jumping at chances?
But my main point is: The Bible cannot be called "a completely sound source for history".
~JESUS~
2006-06-12, 07:46 AM
Maybe I've been reading too many conspiracy theories, or "Da Vinci Code" style books.
Um...YES. The Da Vinci code is FICTION for a reason.:D
check out this film...and try doing some research yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1096086063135068752&q=code
Lenny
2006-06-12, 07:56 AM
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=emperor+constantine+bible&meta=
Is where I got a lot of the information for my post from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
Is what Dan Brown based a lot of his novel on. And was subsequently sued because of.
Asamin
2006-06-12, 01:56 PM
I agree with Lenny.
Atnas
2006-06-12, 02:29 PM
Don't even MENTION Dan Brown. Ughhh that stuck up peice of shit with fuckholes for eyes and penis fingers is the true embodiment of why I hate this country for it's fucked up system of free speech. In the beggining of the book, the disclaimer, or claimer on his part says that all artwork described in the book is fucking realistic to every detail. wHAT THE FUCK! Mary Magdeline was NOT in the picture of the last supper. And what the FUCK does the title mean. 'The Da Vinci Code'.... 'The of Vinci code'???? Da Vinci wasn't a last name, 'Da' means 'of'. And NO WAY IN HELL is there a proffesion called Symbology. Shit, I'd kill that puddle of moose cum in a second, even if it meant my eternal damnation. He's just some fatass who decided to wright a book, Of fiction, Claimed to be Non-fiction. He changed his veiws about it, by the way.
Dar_Win
2006-06-12, 02:31 PM
A lot of the Da Vinci Code is based on fact if that was not already said.
I'm not saying it's non fiction, but a lot of the things are real.
Lenny
2006-06-12, 02:44 PM
"Da Vinci" is what probably all historians and art historians call 'Leonado Da Vinci'. Yes, he was called Leonardo Of Vinci, but it is generally accepted that he is known as 'Da Vinci'. His full name is too long, just calling him Leornardo might work, and just calling him Vinci could get confusing.
Symbology in the way of Langdon's academic profession IS purely fictional, yet there will be people around the world who study Symbols and their meanings. So what would you call them, if not "Symbologists".
I'm not going to argue with The Last Supper. There's so many sites now around either agreeing or disagreeing with it, and the things one can do now with Photoshop, well.
Don't hate the man for writing a book. Before "The Da Vinci Code" he was practically unheard of. I hadn't heard of him, that's for sure. Then I heard about the book on the radio: "Yada yada Catholic Secret yada yada Mary Magdalene" but that didn't catch my attention. What did was "a book so badly written, that you'll love it".
If he hadn't published "The Da Vinci Code", would you still hate him? Well maybe, because there's "Angles and Demons". What about if he hadn't published either, and only had the two books on the market - "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress". He writes a particular style - the one-man-detective-mysterysolver--being-hunted-by-some-crackpot-world-group, and does it in such a way that there's been so many copies. "Rule of Four", "The Last Templar", whatever, they're all of that style. There are parallels with Franz Ferdinand and suddenyl everyone jumping on their bandwagon -- one person does something right, everyone wants a piece of the action.
Just take his "Claims" with a pinch of salt, and remember that it is a Fiction novel, appearing on the "Fiction" shelf in bookshops. Like him for his writing, not for glaring mistakes, or mad conspiracies.
Oooh, there's something -- it isn't actually HIS work. Well, the book is, but the idea's aren't. He added flesh to the skeletons of Conspiracies that have been circulating the world for over 30 years!
frosted_snow
2006-06-12, 11:48 PM
For ALL the info you whant about evolution and the big bang theory being proven wrong, Buy this guys videos or read his stuff.It (as far as I have seen) is FLAWLESS.
Posted 06-10-2006, 11:57 AM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "I was kind of wondering that myself."
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
~JESUS~
2006-06-13, 05:39 AM
We are all just tiny bacteria on peanuts in this giant turd of a universe.
But really...I never really went by the whole supreme being creating everthing idea.
Tiny bacteria? simple even?
Take a look at this picture of the eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg
An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Behe 1996a, 39) Why would such systems present difficulties for Darwinism? Because they could not possibly have been produced by the process of evolution:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)
The phrase "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is not accidental. The very same words were used by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true. As Darwin wrote, if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). To anti-evolutionists, the bacterial flagellum is now regarded as exactly such a case an "irreducibly complex system" which "cannot be produced directly by numerous successive, slight modifications." A system that could not have evolved!
It is the simpleist life yet it is very complex. A motor that if one part did not work, the whole operation falls apart!
Asamin
2006-06-13, 04:28 PM
Shur and I'm Aberham Lincon.
Great-Thanatos
2006-06-13, 07:04 PM
Quoting the bible and double posting...BAN
j/k but still stop quoting the bible it gets annoying.
frosted_snow
2006-06-13, 08:22 PM
Quoting the bible and double posting...BAN
j/k but still stop quoting the bible it gets annoying.
I think he has EVERY right to quote whatever he whants.At least the BIBLE has great morals and awsome guidelines.unlike the others who post quotes and other junky theory on evolution being real with the big bang theory.Your reply had nothing to do with this thread topic and was completely uncalled for.If you get offended at his post wich was showing his belief on the topic using the BIBLE,keep it to yourself or goto the flame threads.Either way, he has COMPLETE right as far as rules are conserned to post his thread.Not to mention nobody has proven his explanations wrong here yet.I do indeed agree with creation.NOW IF I MAY.I think EVERYONE in here ought to watch these videos at this link.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
They are free to watch!
Draco2003
2006-06-14, 12:36 AM
EDIT: Nevermind...wrong thread...
sciencekid
2006-06-15, 02:22 PM
#1 - dan brown is a liarand a thief(he stole the story from other ppl, or at least i heard that he stole the story), his book "the da vinci code" is fiction(he doesn't even state where his "facts" come from[bibliography or something])
#2 - like i said before, God could have used evolution to create the universe
#3 - speaking of stars, did you guys know that jupiter is a failed star(a celestial object that never quite able to turn into a star), or otherwise known as a brown star?(just a bit of random trivia)
Lenny
2006-06-15, 03:28 PM
#3 is an interesting fact. I'll keep that in mind. Very interesting.
#2 sounds agreeable, so no duel to the death. :p
#1, however, is not entirely true.
"The Da Vinci Code" PLOT, as far as we know, is all Dan Brown's work.
"The Da Vinvi Code" IDEAS, ie Jesus being a father, were not his:
Many books, including "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail", FACT books, have put forth the argument that Jesus fathered a child. Dan Brown was sued by the others of aforementioned book, but the courts ruled that ideas cannot be copyrighted (in this case, the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdelene), and so Brown did not 'steal' any content. Instead he used it as research for his book.
Other than that, I'll agree, "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction. :p
Atnas
2006-06-16, 10:13 AM
What pissed me off the most was that the DA Vinci Code was on the Nonfiction shelf in my local bookstore. I wouldn't mind it at all and would actually enjoy the book thoroughly if everyone in town who reads it saysOh it's the truth. Now I know what those Catholics are up to.
It's pretty annoying being catholic myself, not only hearing it from them, but being glared at whenever I'm on the street. It's no longer
*sigh* Not another teenager! I'll have to watch him to see what he does to my garden.
it's now:
It's one of those catholics
Don't get me wrong, there's always been somewhat of a looked down upon feeling towards catholics in this town, but it just increased it.
One more thing.
Masses are the opiate of the individual.
Lenny
2006-06-16, 10:36 AM
What pissed me off the most was that the DA Vinci Code was on the Nonfiction shelf in my local bookstore.
Now that is stupid. I'd honestly go up to the counter and tell the workers off for doing that.
-----
Don't let what other people are saying put you off something.
And I don't see why the book would make people hate Catholics more. It's not as if it specifically talks about Catholics all the time.
So yeah, read it. It IS a good book, even if it's only good because it's badly written. If you like it, then read Angels and Demons.
jamer123
2008-05-26, 10:07 AM
finaly a thread i can be kinda prode of
HandOfHeaven
2008-05-26, 10:13 AM
What does 'prode' mean?
jamer123
2008-05-26, 04:16 PM
the universe started when god created the hevens and the earth
Wallow
2008-05-26, 09:48 PM
God started the universe with the big bang
God started the universe with the big bang
I don't know if I had posted in here or not..
But anyways. I do believe in the big-bang theory, it makes the most sense for how the universe unfolded over time. But, go a few steps before that, where did matter and gravity originate from? Until it can be proven that we just sporatically and spontaneously came from NOTHING then I am going to believe that we were created by something, somewhere. Probably not on our plane of existance, but superior to our existance.
But to answer the question, more than likely the universe begun with the "big bang theory" playing out. The next question is How was the matter created that caused the big bang?
hotdog
2008-05-28, 02:45 PM
How was this "Supreme Being" created that caused the creation of the gravity and matter that caused the creation of the big bang?
I love the retardism of previous posts though. For some reason people are talking as if words already existed and we just fit things into them when the truth is words were created to fit to those things. For instance, evolution is a WORD created to label the changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment. We didn't already have the word evolution and decide that it would mean something. No we had something and decided that we would put a word on it.
Also comparing evolution to creationism is a little like comparing peanut butter to bread. Sure the peanut butter can go on the bread but they are certainly not the same thing. In other terms. How does "changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment." compare to "how the universe started". Evolution is more like a explanation of why our eyes go bad from staring at the sun too long. Creation is more like an explanation, albiet a very fickle and unproven one, of how the very cosmos came to be. I fail to see how they collide exactly. Thus Jesus's previous arguements are moot at best on how evolution is untrue. However his arguements that the big bang theory are untrue are moot because of another cause all together. That cause being it has been labelled. The minute you label a circumstance it means that that circumstance is true but it may or may not explain what it does.
Simply put Scientists discovered through astrology and experiments that you could create a big bang in which you are left with living and non living matter. They said "This could be how the universe started."
Now one could argue that it's not how the universe started however you cannot say it's untrue or that it isn't a possibility when you don't provide much evidence other than people saying "I believe it's true/untrue because I prayed about it." You cannot go off of 1 of 6 billion peoples beliefs and say it's absolute truth. In fact even if all 6 billion believed it that does not mean it's the absolute truth. It simply means that 6 billion people "believe" it's the truth but who says they are right? What because there are so many on them that vehemently swear to it it's the right answer? Does this mean that if I got enough people together to swear that 2+2 was 22 it would make it absolute truth? Even though the number system does not work like that? No. Please present more evidence of your claims. Of course the difference between religion and science IS evidence.
Thus while I am a religous man I still do believe that evolution is true.
starwolf
2008-06-03, 01:51 AM
yes the big bang theory sounds nuts...and just because a scientist says something does not make it true only a therory...such as global warming...completely unproven with no hard evidence
Demosthenes
2008-06-03, 07:01 AM
only a therory
I really hate people.
hotdog
2008-06-11, 06:28 PM
yes the big bang theory sounds nuts...and just because a scientist says something does not make it true only a therory...such as global warming...completely unproven with no hard evidence
I nearly shit myself reading that. You should send that to the democratic party and watch them go nuts :haha:
MidnightsChorus
2008-06-12, 05:04 PM
I agree with what you said jamer. Even if it isn't true, well, it's a good enough explanation. Throughout history many people have believed in a creator. From my understanding, it wasn't until most recently that scientists have been trying to explain things.
Willkillforfood
2008-06-12, 06:44 PM
Scientists have disputed the Church's theories on the universe since long ago. Many of them have been put to death for their cause.
Wallow
2008-06-13, 07:59 AM
That's why some are compelled to say the Catholic Church is corrupt
Willkillforfood
2008-06-13, 12:16 PM
If turning a blind eye to decades of child molestation is corrupt, then yes. Only when their very survival is in question do they do anything.
Dark-Madness
2008-06-13, 07:52 PM
For me how it all began has been the MOST difficult question I have ever tried to find an answer to. But in all my searches, the one answer that seemed to be the most soothing was that we dont or cant have an answer to it because we are too small to see it. I mean that in the literal sense as well. As in our ENTIRE universe maybe nothing more than an atom in a greater universe. Or as men in black put it, a marbel in some aliens bag.
The entire arguement is something I think we as humans cannot answer until we are able to literally bend space and time. Its something we ask ourselves daily regarding the galaxy, but something we cant even answer on our own planet (the chicken or the egg.)
So like I said, for me, the easiest answer to accept is that we are nothing more than a microscopic part of something bigger and that is why we cannot fathom it. We are too small to see the beginning or the end. Oh....theory btw.
hotdog
2008-06-13, 08:08 PM
Funny you should say that because that's how I feel. Like even if we explored the entire galaxy we would still have millions of others to explore and who knows what is beyond that.
MidnightsChorus
2008-06-13, 10:44 PM
If turning a blind eye to decades of child molestation is corrupt, then yes. Only when their very survival is in question do they do anything.
Catholic priests are not the only ones who have committed the horrible act of child molestation. They are fallible human beings, just like everyone else. They do, however, seem to be the most recognized for it. The reason, quite simply, is the fact that people have been trying to destroy the church through any means they can.
Willkillforfood
2008-06-13, 11:09 PM
Child molestation over such a massive scale and over such an extended period of time would be big news ANYWHERE. One 16-year-old boy fucks a young teacher and it's news, let alone hundreds being molested in clusters.
The reason why it's so ironic is because they're supposed to not just be normal, fallible human beings. They're supposed to be speaking on behalf of God. Which reinforces the absurdity of any one group or book being the word of 'God.' They're just normal human beings and do not have things figured out more than any of us.
!King_Amazon!
2008-06-13, 11:17 PM
And the church has been trying to silence people seeking other answers to things for the longest time. Can you blame people for not liking them?
Scientists were often RUINED or KILLED for even saying that there could be a different explaination for things. For instance, saying that Earth isn't the center of the Universe. The church wouldn't even consider that they might be wrong about something, because that indicates that the Bible is wrong about something. Instead, they put people to death for simply suggesting that there was evidence that disputed what was accepted as the truth.
The church basically doesn't care about silencing the truth, it just cares about maintaining its control over the people. If the Bible says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and science proves that that is wrong, it makes it a bit harder to believe that the Bible is the word of God. If the Bible were the word of God, you would think that it would be right about something like whether or not the Earth is the center of the Universe.
MidnightsChorus
2008-06-14, 11:12 AM
The reason why it's so ironic is because they're supposed to not just be normal, fallible human beings.
Yes, i sort of agree with you there. It is something that is more shameful for a priest to do. The other priests who hear about this happening are very hurt. It's no less than betrayel.
Scientists were often RUINED or KILLED for even saying that there could be a different explaination for things
Yes. I admit that the church did go through a period of corruption. However, this only proves that the ordained priests are not God and therefore have the ability to be led astray. There has been many cases where very sinful men have joined the priesthood for the sole purpose of destroying the church from the inside. This is when catholics have to hold onto what the church is supposed to be.
The church basically doesn't care about silencing the truth, it just cares about maintaining its control over the people.
They don't try to control people, not any more at least. I've never felt controlled. In the case of silencing truth, however, you are partially right. There are some churches where the clergy is so corrput that it will not even allow their own priests to speak what they believe to be truth. What men make the church out to be, and what Catholicism is essentially about are two completely different things.
Lenny
2008-06-14, 05:40 PM
They don't try to control people, not any more at least. I've never felt controlled. In the case of silencing truth, however, you are partially right. There are some churches where the clergy is so corrput that it will not even allow their own priests to speak what they believe to be truth. What men make the church out to be, and what Catholicism is essentially about are two completely different things.
Whilst not completely related to this, the subject about the Church silencing and controlling is similar to something I tried to start a while ago - that Technology and Science were held back for over a thousand years by the Catholic Church (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45325). I'd be interested to hear your views
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.