| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2006 12:23:14 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed, was based on
three observations: the redshift of distant starlight, the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the
universe. All three have been poorly understood.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a
Doppler effect, that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth,
stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space
itself supposedly expands-so the total potential energy of stars,
galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss
of energy elsewhere. Thus, the big bang violates the law of
conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific
laws.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there
was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us,
they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are
accelerating from us.
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with
other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such
different velocities and remain connected for long. For example, many
quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster
with galaxies having low redshifts. Sometimes, quasars seem to be
connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Many quasar redshifts are so
great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after
the big bang-a contradiction of the theory.
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features
inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects
moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous
values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced
values. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature.
Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It
appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is
2.73 K-nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big
bang theory predicted this radiation.
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy
clusters, and superclusters-as far as the most powerful telescopes
can see. Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from
evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly
distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after
tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would
not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does
not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was
adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in
certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of boron and
beryllium in "older" stars contradicts the big bang theory.
A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and
helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big
bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars
should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been
found.
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive
galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. A big
bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies.
Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies
with the spacings among them that are actually observed. Also, a large
volume of the universe should not be-but evidently is-moving
sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should
have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big
bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite
electrical charge. (For example, the negatively charged electron's
antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts
of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
24 Oct 2006 06:20:32 AM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1161624192.191515.285460
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed, was based on
three observations: the redshift of distant starlight, the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the
universe. All three have been poorly understood.
And this has exactly what relevance to the question of whether or not
humans and chimps share a common genetic ancestor.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a
Doppler effect, that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth,
stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space
itself supposedly expands-so the total potential energy of stars,
galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss
of energy elsewhere. Thus, the big bang violates the law of
conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific
laws.
A scientific law is not an enacted proclamation. It is a a persistent
observation (often, but not necessarily of a mathematical nature) about
some phenomenon in the physical universe. Since the universe IS
expanding and since this expansion is increasing, in defiance of some
people's interpretations of the law of conservation of energy, it is
obvious that these interpretations are WRONG and do not reflect an actual
law of nature.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there
was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us,
they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are
accelerating from us.
True, but irrelevant, since the galaxies do seem to recede from us at
rates that increase with their distance from us.
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with
other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such
different velocities and remain connected for long. For example, many
quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster
with galaxies having low redshifts. Sometimes, quasars seem to be
connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Many quasar redshifts are so
great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after
the big bang-a contradiction of the theory.
So, maybe we need to understand whether or not something OTHER than
recession velocities is contributing to the redshifts of these objects.
It does not alter tho fact that the redshifts of GALAXIES, filled with
very ordinary stars ARE correlated with their distance from us (by a
variety of measures).
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features
inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects
moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous
values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced
values. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
Indeed. This is why astronomers have jobs.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature.
Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It
appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is
2.73 K-nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big
bang theory predicted this radiation.
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy
clusters, and superclusters-as far as the most powerful telescopes
can see. Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from
evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly
distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after
tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would
not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does
not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was
adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in
certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of boron and
beryllium in "older" stars contradicts the big bang theory.
No it doesn't. Aside from the fact that the lack of helium in B type
stars is strictly a figment of your imagination. There is a LOT of
literature about helium in these stars.
A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and
helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big
bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars
should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been
found.
Only at the outset. Once a star starts burning hydrogen, a certain
amount of higher elements will arise. Once such a star goes supernova
(as some inevitably would), all sorts of heavier elements are spread
about.
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive
galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. A big
bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies.
Bzzzt! Error! What is your authority for this assertion? I mean other
than the fact that YOU say it, speaking ex cathedra from your rectum...
Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies
with the spacings among them that are actually observed. Also, a large
volume of the universe should not be-but evidently is-moving
sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.
More assertions without a shred of evidence...
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should
have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big
bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite
electrical charge. (For example, the negatively charged electron's
antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts
of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.
http://www.creationscience.com/
Yes, a very UN-reliable source of good scientific information.
Now, the question is, are you a party to these lies (beginning with the
lie that anything you say about the standard cosmological model, AKA the
Big Bang has ANYTHING to do with the question of whether or not chimps
and chumps share a common genetic ancestor), or are you just another dupe
of the professionals who make up these lies?
And why are you telling them in a newsgroup about the Bible?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
01 Dec 2007 03:56:57 PM |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief. Nothing observable, testable, verifiable. So
the fact that it has flaws is hardly surprising.
was based on
three observations: the redshift of distant starlight, the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the
universe. All three have been poorly understood.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a
Doppler effect, that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth,
stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space
itself supposedly expands-so the total potential energy of stars,
galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss
of energy elsewhere. Thus, the big bang violates the law of
conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific
laws.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there
was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us,
they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are
accelerating from us.
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with
other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such
different velocities and remain connected for long. For example, many
quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster
with galaxies having low redshifts. Sometimes, quasars seem to be
connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Many quasar redshifts are so
great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after
the big bang-a contradiction of the theory.
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features
inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects
moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous
values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced
values. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature.
Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic
microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It
appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is
2.73 K-nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big
bang theory predicted this radiation.
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy
clusters, and superclusters-as far as the most powerful telescopes
can see. Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from
evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly
distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after
tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would
not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does
not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was
adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in
certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of boron and
beryllium in "older" stars contradicts the big bang theory.
A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and
helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big
bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars
should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been
found.
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive
galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. A big
bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies.
Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies
with the spacings among them that are actually observed. Also, a large
volume of the universe should not be-but evidently is-moving
sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should
have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big
bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite
electrical charge. (For example, the negatively charged electron's
antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts
of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
02 Dec 2007 02:44:03 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3m3l31d9ih52til3ep1ik68jjjfmjjnuc@4ax.com...
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief.
Really. Have you ever studied science in your life? Do you know how it
works?
You seem to think that everything that opposes your beliefs is a religion.
Nothing observable, testable, verifiable.
Obviously you know nothing about science and astronomy.
Your opinion is noted however.
So
the fact that it has flaws is hardly surprising.
You won't find anything perfect in this world.
Science is evolving and developing at least.
Belief systems don't.
--
Andrew W.
"You must unlearn what you have learned" ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
02 Dec 2007 06:07:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3m3l31d9ih52til3ep1ik68jjjfmjjnuc@4ax.com...
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief.
Really. Have you ever studied science in your life? Do you know how it
works?
You seem to think that everything that opposes your beliefs is a religion.
Not at all. Science is supposed to be anything observable,
testable, verifiable.
Have you ever observed anything lifeless that exploded and
created life? Can you test that? Can you verify that? No. That's
not science.
They make bland observations on a window of maybe 100 years that
things are moving in a certain direction and then *guess* what
must have happened for billions of years based on that infinitely
small 100 year window. Not to mention that it must have started
at some point from a lifeless explosion, where nothing existed
before that. They've never observed anything like that. It's not
testable. It's not verifiable. That's not science, that's belief:
a religion.
But even so, their religious guesses are being disproved by
actual science that debunks those guesses.
Nothing observable, testable, verifiable.
Obviously you know nothing about science and astronomy.
Your opinion is noted however.
So
the fact that it has flaws is hardly surprising.
You won't find anything perfect in this world.
Science is evolving and developing at least.
Belief systems don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
02 Dec 2007 02:33:43 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn75l3t81nv7f8mi0v3s1eud3j8vahskr0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3m3l31d9ih52til3ep1ik68jjjfmjjnuc@4ax.com...
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief.
Really. Have you ever studied science in your life? Do you know how it
works?
You seem to think that everything that opposes your beliefs is a religion.
Not at all. Science is supposed to be anything observable,
testable, verifiable.
Have you ever observed anything lifeless that exploded and
created life? Can you test that? Can you verify that? No. That's
not science.
They make bland observations on a window of maybe 100 years that
things are moving in a certain direction and then *guess* what
must have happened for billions of years based on that infinitely
small 100 year window. Not to mention that it must have started
at some point from a lifeless explosion, where nothing existed
before that. They've never observed anything like that. It's not
testable. It's not verifiable. That's not science, that's belief:
a religion.
Beliefs and ideas are all we humans really have. We cannot know anything for
sure because the truth of creation is beyond our understanding.
Science, in the case of creation is about coming up with a likely
explanation. Rarely is it about rigid beliefs. It is evolving all the time.
Creationism is about rigid simplistic beliefs.
"God created the universe". You can't get more simplistic than that. It
doesn't explain anything.
And only clueless individuals say that it was "random chance", not true
scientists.
The universe was formed by interacting energetic forces, controlled by
consciousness (pure thought, or God if you like), not random chance.
Science is now starting to discover consciousness and how it works.
Check out the latest studies.
But even so, their religious guesses are being disproved by
actual science that debunks those guesses.
--
Andrew W.
"You must unlearn what you have learned" ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
02 Dec 2007 10:56:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:33:43 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn75l3t81nv7f8mi0v3s1eud3j8vahskr0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3m3l31d9ih52til3ep1ik68jjjfmjjnuc@4ax.com...
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief.
Really. Have you ever studied science in your life? Do you know how it
works?
You seem to think that everything that opposes your beliefs is a religion.
Not at all. Science is supposed to be anything observable,
testable, verifiable.
Have you ever observed anything lifeless that exploded and
created life? Can you test that? Can you verify that? No. That's
not science.
They make bland observations on a window of maybe 100 years that
things are moving in a certain direction and then *guess* what
must have happened for billions of years based on that infinitely
small 100 year window. Not to mention that it must have started
at some point from a lifeless explosion, where nothing existed
before that. They've never observed anything like that. It's not
testable. It's not verifiable. That's not science, that's belief:
a religion.
Beliefs and ideas are all we humans really have.
We're talking about what is normally science, and what clearly is
not. You want to claim science is *only* that which is
observable, testable and verifiable. Evolution and the big bang
are none of these things.
We cannot know anything for
sure because the truth of creation is beyond our understanding.
Glad you admit it where creation is concerned. So you can now
realize that evolution is not science, but rather a religion.
Because as you admit, it's nothing you can verify, observe, or
test. That's my point. But you want to pass off these guesses as
science. They're not. They're beliefs, a.k.a., religion.
Science, in the case of creation is about coming up with a likely
explanation.
God is the most likely explanation. But you choose to reject it.
Reject it all you want, doesn't make it false. And doesn't make
the beliefs you replace it with any more valid.
Rarely is it about rigid beliefs. It is evolving all the time.
It wouldn't need to "evolve" if they got it right.
Creationism is about rigid simplistic beliefs.
If something is true, it's rigid. We claim ice melts when you
apply heat to it. How rigid and simplistic our thinking is on the
heating of ice! We should change it, according to your logic! No,
if something's true, it doesn't change. i.e., it becomes rigid.
It's that simple. Except in the case where you don't like the
truth. Then you label it 'rigid' as if suddenly it's a bad thing.
Double standards only serve to show how little credibility these
religious 'scientists' have.
"God created the universe". You can't get more simplistic than that.
Sure you can. You could say "A big explosion of lifeless matter
created the universe and is directed by some magical
consciousness, none of which we can verify, observe, or test".
It
doesn't explain anything.
More than "A big explosion of lifeless matter created the
universe" does.
And only clueless individuals say that it was "random chance", not true
scientists.
You're right. God directed every bit of it, and there's nothing
random about it.
Or you can choose to believe, for example, animals grew wings
because they happened to die too often to falling out of trees,
for example (and it's such a great-sounding story, which is your
biggest proof: how good the story sounds, calling it speciation
to sound fancy), without offering proof on how a species that
never had feathers or wings would suddenly magically gain DNA
information out of thin air and morph wings over thousands of
generations before they all die out from falling out of trees,
while conveniently leaving NO fossils of intermediate forms where
they had partial wings along the way in your self-admitted,
thousands of generations amount of time it takes to go through
this unobservable, untestable, unverifiable morphings.
No, evolution is a religion born of the need to reject what the
evidence clearly points to that you don't want to accept: God.
Because your theory not only explains nothing, it's not
observable, testable, or verifiable.
The universe was formed by interacting energetic forces, controlled by
consciousness (pure thought, or God if you like), not random chance.
It was? And you know this how? That's right: you believe this is
how it was formed. A religion.
And "controlled by consciousness"?!! Is this the latest strand of
the religion of evolution? That these magical morphing of
pond-scum into eventually every life form we know of today was
done by some "consciousness"? Wow.. that religion is getting more
and more bizarre.
Science is now starting to discover consciousness and how it works.
Check out the latest studies.
Thinking you know how it works is a far cry from thinking you
know how it came into existence and what it actually is. Check
out the latest studies.
But even so, their religious guesses are being disproved by
actual science that debunks those guesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
03 Dec 2007 01:38:21 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n17l35abont1l90gncie9tu30b4n4p98b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:33:43 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn75l3t81nv7f8mi0v3s1eud3j8vahskr0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3m3l31d9ih52til3ep1ik68jjjfmjjnuc@4ax.com...
On 23 Oct 2006 10:23:14 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,
The big bang was never a scientific theory - it was always a
religious belief.
Really. Have you ever studied science in your life? Do you know how it
works?
You seem to think that everything that opposes your beliefs is a
religion.
Not at all. Science is supposed to be anything observable,
testable, verifiable.
Have you ever observed anything lifeless that exploded and
created life? Can you test that? Can you verify that? No. That's
not science.
They make bland observations on a window of maybe 100 years that
things are moving in a certain direction and then *guess* what
must have happened for billions of years based on that infinitely
small 100 year window. Not to mention that it must have started
at some point from a lifeless explosion, where nothing existed
before that. They've never observed anything like that. It's not
testable. It's not verifiable. That's not science, that's belief:
a religion.
Beliefs and ideas are all we humans really have.
We're talking about what is normally science, and what clearly is
not. You want to claim science is *only* that which is
observable, testable and verifiable. Evolution and the big bang
are none of these things.
The creation process by a big invisible, angry God person is not observable
either.
We cannot know anything for
sure because the truth of creation is beyond our understanding.
Glad you admit it where creation is concerned. So you can now
realize that evolution is not science, but rather a religion.
You can call it whatever turns you on.
It is a theory.
A religion has a church, a book of moral laws, regular gatherings, and a
judgemental overlord.
Because as you admit, it's nothing you can verify, observe, or
test. That's my point.
Same goes for creationism.
But you want to pass off these guesses as
science. They're not. They're beliefs, a.k.a., religion.
And your's isn't a religion?
Science, in the case of creation is about coming up with a likely
explanation.
God is the most likely explanation.
Until we find a better one that is, which science is now in the process of
doing.
"God" is just a personification of a very complex and intelligent process
driven by divine consciousness.
But you choose to reject it.
When a man grows up he leaves behind his children's stories and finds what
is more appropriate for adults.
Reject it all you want, doesn't make it false. And doesn't make
the beliefs you replace it with any more valid.
There are better alternatives to the two mainstream arguments as I have
alluded to, but you are unable pull your head out of your sectarian story
book long enough to look at them.
Rarely is it about rigid beliefs. It is evolving all the time.
It wouldn't need to "evolve" if they got it right.
We are humans. We are not perfect. We are made to search for the truth and
learn things along the way.
Creationism is about rigid simplistic beliefs.
If something is true, it's rigid. We claim ice melts when you
apply heat to it. How rigid and simplistic our thinking is on the
heating of ice! We should change it, according to your logic! No,
if something's true, it doesn't change. i.e., it becomes rigid.
It's that simple. Except in the case where you don't like the
truth. Then you label it 'rigid' as if suddenly it's a bad thing.
Double standards only serve to show how little credibility these
religious 'scientists' have.
I seem to remember that Christianity used to say that the earth was the
centre of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.
Also that heaven and God lived in the clouds.
Creation gets some of it right, but its not perfect or detailed. It has a
lot of half truths and over-simplifications.
Evolution gets some of it right too. They both contain truths. Animals
*have* evolved. That is undeniable.
Planets and stars are constantly evolving too.
"God created the universe". You can't get more simplistic than that.
Sure you can. You could say "A big explosion of lifeless matter
created the universe and is directed by some magical
consciousness, none of which we can verify, observe, or test".
Ah, have a look at the latest studies on energy and consciousness.
It
doesn't explain anything.
More than "A big explosion of lifeless matter created the
universe" does.
I can see that you have never even watched one science documentary.
And only clueless individuals say that it was "random chance", not true
scientists.
You're right. God directed every bit of it, and there's nothing
random about it.
God, meaning consciousness.
Or you can choose to believe, for example, animals grew wings
because they happened to die too often to falling out of trees,
for example (and it's such a great-sounding story, which is your
biggest proof: how good the story sounds, calling it speciation
to sound fancy), without offering proof on how a species that
never had feathers or wings would suddenly magically gain DNA
information out of thin air and morph wings over thousands of
generations before they all die out from falling out of trees,
while conveniently leaving NO fossils of intermediate forms where
they had partial wings along the way in your self-admitted,
thousands of generations amount of time it takes to go through
this unobservable, untestable, unverifiable morphings.
It's not so silly. Its rather more complicated than that. Nature is ever
adaptable.
There is evidence that wings developed from smaller and simpler appendages.
Everything has to develop naturally. Its silly to say that an invisible
magician came along one day and decided to conjure everything up from one
moment to the next. This is the sort of thing children believe.
Why do you believe in a God who makes things in an unnatural fashion?
No, evolution is a religion born of the need to reject what the
evidence clearly points to that you don't want to accept: God.
Because your theory not only explains nothing, it's not
observable, testable, or verifiable.
I think you believe what you believe so strongly because of fear. You live
in fear of your life if you don't fall into line and believe what your
religion says.
The universe was formed by interacting energetic forces, controlled by
consciousness (pure thought, or God if you like), not random chance.
It was? And you know this how? That's right: you believe this is
how it was formed. A religion.
Study and research. You should try it.
And "controlled by consciousness"?!! Is this the latest strand of
the religion of evolution? That these magical morphing of
pond-scum into eventually every life form we know of today was
done by some "consciousness"? Wow.. that religion is getting more
and more bizarre.
The science of consciousness is unfamiliar to you and sounds silly only
because of the fear based religious teachings that have been drilled into
your head from a young age. The Christian religion purposely isolates its
followers from all the diverse teachings that God's world has to offer. It
demonises everything outside of its fraternity.
Science is now starting to discover consciousness and how it works.
Check out the latest studies.
Thinking you know how it works is a far cry from thinking you
know how it came into existence and what it actually is. Check
out the latest studies.
You need to get out more.
--
Andrew W.
"You must unlearn what you have learned" ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
