Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#661 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:02 PM

There is no evidence to prove there's a creator.

In fact the entire universe and everything contained therein has been shown to not need a 'creator'.


There is no evidence for or against a creator. So why is it impossible for one to exist?

Even if evidence shows that we don't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There are plenty of things in the universe that aren't "needed", yet they exist.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#662 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:03 PM

Yes, please do.


It's worth the watch. You should learn plenty. Afterwards, look up the terms and ideas put forth if you wish to know more.


  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#663 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

Way to take something way out of context. You keep ignoring the question which makes me think you have no answer and are too proud to admit it. Prove me wrong.

And this isn't like the theory of evolution, which actually does have proof. The theory of the origin of life is actually just a theory, an idea, with no concrete evidence.


I'm not taking anything out of context. If the evidence for evolution needs to be 100% for you, then your assertion requires 100% evidence in being true, for me. And since it's not 100% then there must be another equally plausible option out there instead of the one you put forth.

I think that's pretty much smack dab in the middle of your previous context.

Prove me wrong.

There is no evidence for or against a creator. So why is it impossible for one to exist?

Even if evidence shows that we don't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There are plenty of things in the universe that aren't "needed", yet they exist.


If you assert there is a creator, then the onus is on you to bring evidence to that claim.....not mine to disprove your claim. All I am responsible for is to evaluate your evidence.

No evidence or proof for claim = no need for disproof of claim, till evidence put forth.

What's in the universe was never necessary for the existence of the universe. However, for the claim that a creator, outside the universe created the universe, that creator's existence is then necessary. The evidence that a creator wasn't needed for the universe to be created has been found. I await for your evidence that a creator exists, and that this creator was absolutely necessary in order for the universe to exist, based on some observation or evidence that you can point to.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#664 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:59 PM

I'm not taking anything out of context. If the evidence for evolution needs to be 100% for you, then your assertion requires 100% evidence in being true, for me. And since it's not 100% then there must be another equally plausible option out there instead of the one you put forth.

I think that's pretty much smack dab in the middle of your previous context.

Prove me wrong.



If you assert there is a creator, then the onus is on you to bring evidence to that claim.....not mine to disprove your claim. All I am responsible for is to evaluate your evidence.

No evidence or proof for claim = no need for disproof of claim, till evidence put forth.

What's in the universe was never necessary for the existence of the universe. However, for the claim that a creator, outside the universe created the universe, that creator's existence is then necessary. The evidence that a creator wasn't needed for the universe to be created has been found. I await for your evidence that a creator exists, and that this creator was absolutely necessary in order for the universe to exist, based on some observation or evidence that you can point to.


For the first part, you're taking it too far. Just because there isn't 100% evidence for one thing, doesn't mean it applies to everything. And besides that, it is 100% evidence is it not? We all heard him say it. Not imply it, but say it. So there's your evidence. You'd be going against your own logic in the 2nd point if you disagree.

As for the 2nd part, I've already said there is no way to prove/disprove a creator. So I don't know why you would ask me for evidence while knowing that. My argument hasn't been to make you believe in a creator anyway. All I've been saying is that common ancestry without a creator isn't the only possibility.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#665 AbbyNucksFan

AbbyNucksFan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 09

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:36 PM

Bill Nye is seriously my new hero..

**WARNING LANGUAGE**
http://www.dailycurr...llenges-debate/
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to LostViking for the sig! Thanks!

#666 AbbyNucksFan

AbbyNucksFan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 09

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:40 PM

Looks like the site is down.. this is the artice... I think I got all the **** bleeped out lol



Science & Health

Bill Nye Blasts Todd Akin, Challenges ‘***** Idiot’ to Debate

August 30th, 2012




Posted ImageBill Nye may still be The Science Guy, but he's no longer Mr. Nice Guy.
During a live interview this morning with the Smithsonian Channel, the mild mannered science educator unloaded on U.S. Congressman Todd Akin, calling him "a **** idiot" for accusing Nye of personally provoking Hurricane Issac.
Last week Nye uploaded a video to Youtube urging parents not to teach their children creationism. At a town hall campaign event yesterday, Akin used the video as an example of immoral behavior driving god to punish America through extreme weather.
Although reporters reached out to Nye for a statement yesterday, his first discussion of the matter came this morning at Smithsonian's Washington D.C. headquarters.
Nye Got a Feeling...
The 56 year old star of the long-running "Bill Nye The Science Guy" was in the studio to promote his new documentary series focusing on the neuroscience of childhood development.
After briefly discussing his show, the Smithsonian anchors asked Nye about Akin's recent accusation. The normally genial Nye wasted no time venting his rage about the comments:
"Look, these people they're **** retarded. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures homosexuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"
The slightly uncomfortable anchors then tried to change the subject, but Nye persisted:
"It used to be these Republicans didn't believe in global warming or evolution. That was bad enough. Now they don't even believe in egg + sperm = baby. Where does Todd Akin think babies come from? Does he think there are separate storks for people who were raped and people who weren't? "
"Hey look over there! It's the rape stork. It drops off all its babies directly at the orphanage."
"He's a **** idiot. Just a plain **** idiot. I'm sorry - I don't say that word very often - but it happens to fit in this case. He's just a ***** idiot."

Posted Image

A Decent Proposal
As the stunned anchors hurriedly tried to wind the conversation down and cut to commercial, Nye stared directly into the camera and issued a challenge to his new-found rival:
"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your ass is gonna **** need it when I'm done whipping."
Nye apologized once more for his language before ripping off his microphone and walking off the set.
Representatives of the Smithsonian Channel say they have no comment on the incident.
Bill Nye could not be reached, but a since-deleted tweet on his Twiiter account posted shortly after the incident read:
"@ToddAkin Never enter the eye of Hurricane NYE!"
**UPDATE** : Readers have reported that The Bill Nye Meme has arrived.
  • 2
Posted Image

Credit to LostViking for the sig! Thanks!

#667 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:45 PM

I'm laughing like crazy right now.

Rape storks :lol:

Too bad it's a fake article.

Edited by VICanucksfan5551, 30 August 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#668 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:26 PM

"Hey, look over there, it's a Rape Stork!" :lol:

Posted Image
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#669 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:02 PM

There is no evidence for or against a creator. So why is it impossible for one to exist?

Even if evidence shows that we don't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There are plenty of things in the universe that aren't "needed", yet they exist.

There's no evidence against a unicorn that created everything from having a giant orgy with sea horses and donkey's, and yet it's as plausible as a god appearing out of no where, or being eternal, and creating everything.
The only difference is god's been documented for a few thousand years, and no one's made up the giant sea horse donkey unicorn orgy story yet.
But if someone did, we'd be here talking about sea horses, unicorns, and donkey's all having a giant orgy, and creating what we have here today, and no one would contest it, because some jackass wrote about it thousands of years ago.
Just because there's no proof against it (even though the bible's constantly proven wrong, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again), doesn't mean it's true
If I told you I could fly, but only when no one watches, would you believe me?

Edited by Stefan, 30 August 2012 - 06:12 PM.

  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#670 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 30 August 2012 - 07:11 PM

Iphone
  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#671 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:55 PM

There's no evidence against a unicorn that created everything from having a giant orgy with sea horses and donkey's, and yet it's as plausible as a god appearing out of no where, or being eternal, and creating everything.
The only difference is god's been documented for a few thousand years, and no one's made up the giant sea horse donkey unicorn orgy story yet.
But if someone did, we'd be here talking about sea horses, unicorns, and donkey's all having a giant orgy, and creating what we have here today, and no one would contest it, because some jackass wrote about it thousands of years ago.
Just because there's no proof against it (even though the bible's constantly proven wrong, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again), doesn't mean it's true
If I told you I could fly, but only when no one watches, would you believe me?


People began to believe in God because they had evidence at the time (or thought they did) to believe so. People claimed that God spoke to them. But if a unicorn spoke to them, then why wouldn't people believe it?

I see your point, though it doesn't disprove a creator, no matter how silly you can make it sound. My point in this thread has merely been to say that we don't have irrefutable evidence for any side. That is all.

Edited by BUREV, 30 August 2012 - 10:55 PM.

  • 1

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#672 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:17 PM

There's no evidence against a unicorn that created everything from having a giant orgy with sea horses and donkey's, and yet it's as plausible as a god appearing out of no where, or being eternal, and creating everything.
The only difference is god's been documented for a few thousand years, and no one's made up the giant sea horse donkey unicorn orgy story yet.
But if someone did, we'd be here talking about sea horses, unicorns, and donkey's all having a giant orgy, and creating what we have here today, and no one would contest it, because some jackass wrote about it thousands of years ago.
Just because there's no proof against it (even though the bible's constantly proven wrong, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again), doesn't mean it's true
If I told you I could fly, but only when no one watches, would you believe me?


Do you have a newsletter? I find your religion intriguing. I always had a hole that I now realize is the shape of a sea horse mounting a donkey while a unicorn watches. I'm already starting feel... whole-er.

Who do I make out the teething cheque to?

Edited by Satan's Evil Twin, 30 August 2012 - 11:18 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#673 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:29 PM

People began to believe in God because they had evidence at the time (or thought they did) to believe so. People claimed that God spoke to them. But if a unicorn spoke to them, then why wouldn't people believe it?

I see your point, though it doesn't disprove a creator, no matter how silly you can make it sound. My point in this thread has merely been to say that we don't have irrefutable evidence for any side. That is all.


And the point that's been tried to be made to you, is that irrefutable evidence =/= 100%

Gravity for example, is irrefutable, even though we don't have a 100% understanding of it.

The evolutionary process as a mechanism in nature is irrefutable even though we don't have every single transitionary fossil or every single species ever to live on earth for every one of their generations.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#674 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:31 PM

Do you have a newsletter? I find your religion intriguing. I always had a hole that I now realize is the shape of a sea horse mounting a donkey while a unicorn watches. I'm already starting feel... whole-er.

Who do I make out the teething cheque to?


He's wholer than thou.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#675 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:39 PM

And the point that's been tried to be made to you, is that irrefutable evidence =/= 100%

Gravity for example, is irrefutable, even though we don't have a 100% understanding of it.

The evolutionary process as a mechanism in nature is irrefutable even though we don't have every single transitionary fossil or every single species ever to live on earth for every one of their generations.


I'm not arguing against evolution, only its origin. It's yet to be proven. And science will not be able to prove if it was created or not.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#676 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:46 PM

I'm not arguing against evolution, only its origin. It's yet to be proven. And science will not be able to prove if it was created or not.


The ultimate origin of everything, including evolution and time and space was the Big Bang....and that's no longer something that cosmologists debate as real or not real.....because the evidence is irrefutable.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#677 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:53 PM

The ultimate origin of everything, including evolution and time and space was the Big Bang....and that's no longer something that cosmologists debate as real or not real.....because the evidence is irrefutable.


For one thing, the big bang could very well have been created. But that's not what I was referring to. I was meaning the start of evolution by common ancestry, multiple ancestry, etc.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#678 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:29 AM

For one thing, the big bang could very well have been created. But that's not what I was referring to. I was meaning the start of evolution by common ancestry, multiple ancestry, etc.



Here's another micro-evolutionary example of how common ancestry works with a very high degree of probability:

Case Family (including Cass/Casse)


We have had two new kits ordered in November and one in December 2011 and two in January 2012, giving us a total of 67 kits. Please keep spreading the word. We still have 11 kits with completed results that have no match to anyone. As we get new project members maybe we can find a common ancestor for some of the unmatched kits.

I have created a new Case Group #003 in Nov 2011 which has a haplogroup R1b1. There are only 2 members of this sub-group but they have a 24/25 match, which gives a 97.57% probability of a common Case male ancestor in the past 500 years.

I created a new Case Group #002 in Sept 2011 which has the haplogroup R1b1a2. As on now this group only has two members but they are a perfect 25/25 match and have their earliest known Case male ancestor traced back to PA in the early 1800s.

I have created another Case Group called the Delaware Cases (R1b1b2 haplogroup). We now have two kits with a common DE ancestor and with a perfect 25/25 match,and only one DYS variation in the 37 marker test. This means a greater than 99.96% probability of a common Case ancestor in the past 500 years.

We now have 6 kits with the Case or Cass surname (haplogroup E1b1b1) that have over a 98% probability of a common ancestor in the past 500 years. The gateway ancestor appears to be Casse.

Also, one of these new ones is a Cass surname. However, unfortunately, he didn't match any Case or Cass. His Cass was a modification of Cash in the distant past.

We have a results which matches older kits that, up until recently, had no match. These are from the haplogroup E1b1b1a, which is different from the other northeast Cases. To help differentiate the groups, I have put the haplogroup after the group name. Since these six men have the earliest Case/Cass ancestor in the northeast USA, I have named this group Case/Cass(haplo E1b1b1a). This group includes the surname Cass, a descendant of John Casse.

Kit # 104680 results came in for the Carolina group. Even though DYS 385a (a fast mutating allele)is off by one unit, this person is still a known match for my DNA because his grandfather and my grandfather were brothers. This just shows how there can be small mutations within the same family line.

Results for deep SNP-I tests reveal that 7 of the Northeast Cases are M253 subgroup of the main haplogroup I (P19). This sub group is I1a. These results are reflected in the Y-DNA results of our group webpage. I am also part of the I1a (M253) subgroup of the main I haplogroup (P19),which means the Carolina Cases that match my 25-35 markers will also be I1a.

We are now getting a better idea how closely the Northeast Cases and the Carolina Cases are related. In fact, my kit#27579 (SC) is a 36/37 match to kit#83870 (NY) which means that he and I have a 99.99% probability of a common Case ancestor in the past 24 generations and even a 97.51% probability of a common ancestor in the past 12 generations.

[cont'd]

http://www.familytre...px?section=news


Genetics....one of the best evidences for establishing common ancestry.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#679 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:31 AM

Not gunna read this thread as it's quite pointless IMO but they don't call it faith for no reason.
  • 1
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#680 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:40 AM

Here's another micro-evolutionary example of how common ancestry works with a very high degree of probability:



Genetics....one of the best evidences for establishing common ancestry.


Did this test only go 24 generations back, as said in the bolded paragraph? If so, that doesn't really prove much.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#681 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:42 AM

Did this test only go 24 generations back, as said in the bolded paragraph? If so, that doesn't really prove much.


24 generations is about 500 years for those that aren't keeping track.
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#682 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:43 AM

Did this test only go 24 generations back, as said in the bolded paragraph? If so, that doesn't really prove much.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him understand genetics. :picard:
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#683 suruthi

suruthi

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 12

Posted 31 August 2012 - 02:55 AM

hi thanks for your information
  • 0

#684 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,348 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 31 August 2012 - 04:25 AM

The ultimate origin of everything, including evolution and time and space was the Big Bang....and that's no longer something that cosmologists debate as real or not real.....because the evidence is irrefutable.


What existed before the big bang?
by Robert Lamb














Posted Image

In the theoretical multiverse, there are countless universes, with new ones bubbling constantly out from existing universes.
PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE /Creative Commons

Branes, Crunches and Other Big Ideas

Here's a thought: What if our universe is but the offspring of another, older universe? Some astrophysicists speculate that this story is written in the relic radiation left over from the big bang: the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
Astronomers first observed the CMB in 1965, and it quickly created problems for the big bang theory -- problems that were subsequently addressed (for a while) in 1981 with the inflation theory. This theory entails an extremely rapid expansion of the universe in the first few moments of its existence. It also accounts for temperature and density fluctuations in the CMB, but dictates that those fluctuations should be uniform.
That's not the case. Recent mapping efforts actually suggest that the universe is lopsided, with more fluctuations in some areas than in others. Some cosmologists see this observation as supporting evidence that our universe formed out of a parent universe.
In chaotic inflation theory, this concept goes even deeper: an endless progression of inflationary bubbles, each becoming a universe, and each of these birthing even more inflationary bubbles in an immeasurable multiverse [source: Science News].
Still other models revolve around the formation of the pre-big bang singularity itself. If you think of black holes as cosmic trash compactors, they stand as prime candidates for all that primordial compression, so our expanding universe could theoretically be the white hole output from a black hole in another universe. A white hole is a hypothetical body that acts in the opposite manner of a black hole, giving off serious energy and matter rather than sucking it in. Think of it as a cosmic exhaust valve. Some scientists propose that our universe may have been born inside a black hole, and every black hole in our own universe could each contain separate universes as well.
Other scientists place the formation of the singularity inside a cycle called the big bounce in which our expanding universe will eventually collapse back in on itself in an event called the big crunch. A singularity once more, the universe will then expand in another big bang. This process would be eternal and, as such, every big bang and big crunch the universe ever experiences would be nothing but a rebirth into another phase of existence.
The last explanation we'll discuss also supports the idea of a cyclical universe, courtesy of string theory. It surmises that new matter and energy spring into existence every trillion years when two extra-dimensional membranes, or branes, collide in a zone outside our universe.
What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality
from the how stuff works website





I really like how the french scientist in the second video talks about how we will "punch" a hole through the wall .and that science will always increase our knowledge , we might not get to know it all , but we will always continue to know more .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#685 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:01 PM

FFS, it's about time you got your head around the simplicity of what I was saying. :picard:

Seeing as we're the only highly intelligent, bi-pedal, sentient, carbon based life-forms that we currently know of that can travel to other planetary bodies, yeah we are extraordinary.

And yeah, this extraordinary universe did require an extraordinary explanation for its existence....and that's why scientists went out in search for one and has come up with one. I'd try to explain it to you, but i'm wary of doing so, because you seem to have trouble grasping the simple definition of 'extraordinary', let alone the Theory of Evolution. Attempting to describe virtual particles to you may make my head explode.

What is this evidence of yours you speak of? Let's have it then.

And no, the evidence that something natural exists is not evidence that it was caused into existence by an intelligent designer. It's only evidence that it exists. For example, a rock is not evidence of a god....it's evidence for the assertion that it is an aggregate of minerals formed through natural processes over geological periods of time. A rock does not prove God, nor does it prove that it was the creation of an intelligent designer. In that way, the universe's existence and reality isn't inherently evidence for God or for an intelligent designer. Again, rock =/= intelligent design/designer......which is equal to saying that, universe =/= intelligent design/designer. Much like we studied and discovered the natural process by which a rock is formed, so too have we begun and started answering the questions of how the universe began and was formed and evolved and what's going to happen to it as time goes on.


I am glad you regard humanity as something extraordinary because truth be told, many atheists and scientists regard intelligent life not something that is extraordinary. Many scientists use process of natural selection and evolution to the explanation of our sentient nature. You do see the difference between you and most biologists now, don't you? Heard of the theory of rare-earth and typical-earth? You sound like someone to embrace the fact that we are indeed on a rare-earth and one that is extraordinary at that.

If you can embrace the fact that our universe, our galaxy, and our planet is extraordinary, then you can follow me to my next logic trail. What makes our planet so special? What makes our galaxy so special? What makes life (extraordinary not to mention SENTIENT life) so special?

Have you considered the hundreds of conditions that need to have taken place in order for sustainable life? We're talking about perfect distance from the sun, perfect size of the sun, perfect size of our moon, perfect ocean currents, perfect water volume, perfect situation of the meteor belt, perfect tilt on the earth, perfect level of gravity to ensure escape velocity, perfect 24 hour days.. the list goes on. Have you considered all of these things?

If you have - then do you think it is even possible to have a universe/galaxy/sun/planet like ours to be random chanced in the 14 billion years this universe had to offer?

It would be like shaking up a box of computer parts and saying in 14 billion years, you would end up with a monitor just like the one you are using to read this thread. Is that more likely????? Or is it more likely that someone built your monitor?

Food for thought.

Really, that's what you think religion is? Webster disagrees.

The fact of the matter is science has disproved religion over and over and christianity has really taken a beating. The problem is you don't fight fair. Whenever a scientific theory disproves a particular part of a holy book we get a new interpretation and what was once a religious fact becomes metaphor. Evolution is a particularly sensitive subject when it comes to this and it has become one of the last bastians of chritian resistance. Many christians still outright deny evolution and even try to have creationism taught in a science class. Others accept evolution but bastardize it to suit their beliefs.

You have said yourself that you have your own version of evolution that fits within your religious beliefs but you refuse to share what that is and I think we all know why.

The truth of the matter is evolution completely disproves religion that is why so many are clinging to that 1% chance (rounded up) that it is wrong. Science has disproved religion but the religious are too stubborn/stupid/brainwashed to admit it. Evolution is the final nail in the coffin.


You are so ignorant. Ironic how I'm the creationist and normally the butt end of every joke.

Evolution completely disproves religion? Webster is your definition of what a religion is?

Religion is the man made constructs of their experience with the spiritual realm. Religion exists. What you really want to assert is whether or not evolution disproves GOD. Can you please realize the difference? Webster isn't going to get you through university so please don't view it as the trump card of all things academic.

Evolution disproves GOD? How so? Please show me your logical premises with a sound conclusion. Until you have provided with me your work, I have nothing more to say to you.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#686 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:37 PM

Dajusta really loves that irreducible complexity arguement.

Bottom line though, what's more irreducibly complex than God? It's a ridiculous arguement, thrown about by people that can't think critically about their own hypocrisy.

Fact is, we can explain many, many of the complex workings of our world, and we understand more as we study and experiment. That will never be true of God.

Basically, Dajusta, your entire arguement is faulty in a massive way and I'm shocked that you haven't been called on it sooner.

Edited by Remy, 31 August 2012 - 12:38 PM.

  • 1

#687 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:39 PM

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him understand genetics. :picard:


No where in your article was proof of common ancestry.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#688 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,671 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:59 PM

How can science disprove the fact that people go to church? That service starts at 11:00am? That senior luncheon is at 1pm to follow and prayer meetings are Wednesday at 8pm? That's religion.


That's ignorant.
  • 0
Posted Image

#689 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 01:02 PM

Oh okay, thanks. I see.

When I as a Muslim believe in Allah, I am not making any claims on His behalf. If I did, I agree, it'd be worthless and wrong. However, I believe He has made claims about Himself, and that we can find them in the Qur'an and hadith al qudsi. True, the reality of it is incomprehensable, but the meaning is not. IE: Allah is a being with hands... the meaning Okay, we believe He has hands BUT the reality? We don't know, incomprehensable, it's nothing like we know.

But the Qur'an was written by men, so couldn't they have been making claims on his behalf when they wrote it? Same with the Bible and any other Holy books? There has always been a power struggle, a battle of hearts and minds between political and spiritual leaders, even in ancient tribal times the Chief was almost always in a battle of control with the High Priest.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 31 August 2012 - 01:03 PM.

  • 0

#690 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

Dajusta really loves that irreducible complexity arguement.

Bottom line though, what's more irreducibly complex than God? It's a ridiculous arguement, thrown about by people that can't think critically about their own hypocrisy.

Fact is, we can explain many, many of the complex workings of our world, and we understand more as we study and experiment. That will never be true of God.

Basically, Dajusta, your entire arguement is faulty in a massive way and I'm shocked that you haven't been called on it sooner.


Call me out on .. what exactly?

What argument do you think I hold to? Have you been reading this thread as well as number of other threads, maybe even the old God Thread? Or did you just take one comment that I've written and assume it's my underlying argument?

I never brought to the discussion anything about irreducible complexity as to the mechanical functions of organisms. You may think that it's where my argument is going, but it seriously is not. I'l give you a hint.. we were using the word extraordinary.

Please re-read the post, and previous posts at that. And btw, you can let Sharp answer for himself.

Edited by dajusta, 31 August 2012 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.