It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Research reveals God may have spoken things into existence

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I think this should be the right section. Take a look. Im not sure what you can consider of what he did.

Link - www.worldnetdaily.com...

A science student in Kentucky says when the Bible records God spoke, and things were created, that's just what happened, and he can support that with scientific experiments.

"If God spoke everything into existence as the Genesis record proposes, then we should be able to scientifically prove that the construction of everything in the universe begins with a) the Holy Spirit (magnetic field); b) Light (an electric field); and c) that Light can be created by a sonic influence or sound," Samuel J. Hunt writes on his website.

"There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order, the most important being that of sonoluminescence," he wrote.

That, he described to WND, is the circumstance in which sending a sonic signal into bubbles in a fluid causes the bubbles to collapse and they release photons, or create light.

That aligns with one of the earlier descriptions of the creation by God, when, in Genesis 1:1-3, the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the deep, which generally is considered water, and said "Let there be light," he explained.




God was sending a sonic influence into the waters, and basically creating light, Hunt said. He's documented his theory, and the experiments he believes back it up, in his "Episteme Scientia, the Law of All That Is."

Researchers at institutions no less than UCLA and the University of Chicago have verified the production of light from bubbles when sound is passed through a liquid, called sonoluminescence.

Hunt said he was spurred on in his work because the advanced physics and other courses he was taking were advancing propositions that sometimes didn't match up.
....continued in link.

[moderaor edit... please quote only a few paragraphs]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Byrd]




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
First off, what are your thoughts on this? I mean you gave us a small intro, the link, and a huge segment of the actual article, but never your opinion. To have this be discussed, we at least need your opinion of the story. It's only right...

Also, can we cut the size of the post down, and maybe put it into the "[ex][/ex]" tags?

TheBorg

P.S. To do the ex tags, just replace the inside ][ with ][.

[Edited for spelling. I can't believe, after all of this time, that I STILL cannot spell!!! SHEESH!!]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by TheBorg]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   
god hasn't got vocal chords.

i'm almost sure of it.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
wow, thats a lot of info to take in. Sounds pretty good, I must remember to make some time to read this in full.

I also would like to know what your thoughts on this are?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
How does god make sounds to speak things into existence when it requires physical matter to support sound waves in the first place?

The only way science can explain God is if science supports some sort of flaw that everyone overlooks, I am afraid.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
One problem; can sound waves create something as advanced as a cell simply with this method?

creationists admit that microevolution occurs, but they say that doesn't mean macroevolution occurs. So the same could be said of this theory.

it may work to create light, but how about form, function, matter, something as large and complex as a cell?

And he's using magnetic fields and electric fields in place of spirit and divine light; seems like all he's proving is that you can use new words for the same thing. And since when does holy spirit=magnetic field? Maybe God is sound waves then.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   
So we have some student who has written an 84 page book that you need to buy to understand his thesis. Cool. Pseudoscience at its best.

Why doesn't he publish it where science usually is?

But Ben also points out a major issue. Speaking requires vocal cords that cause vibrations of matter. If no matter existed, he couldn't speak.

Instead of developing far-fetched pseudoscientific theories like this, he should spend time trying to reconcile the other major conflicts between genesis and the real-world evidence (order of animal appearance).

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Thanks, that was a hilarious read!



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Very good Hop-Grasser...hehe. I once spoke to a guy in a rehab where I was counseling and asked him about his belief in God, as he was just about to leave. He said that everyone has tried to expalin God to him, but he just couldn't understand how God and science could exist together. I told him," science is the discovery of how God does things, as for evolution, that just states that He created everything with the ability to grow". Right there...HE GOT IT!! It's so simple. The things that people think disprove Him due the opposite. He did, after all, create man with the ability to learn about Him and how He does things. Instead of seeing Him behind science and the ability of things to evolve, they see right through Him.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   


I had to stop reading after they called the Holy Spirit a magnetic field...it's an insult to my degrees...the sad part is there's a lot of people in that region that would love it.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
ehhh...highly doubtful.......


first you have to prove that "god" exists.....then you have to prove with science that creating is possible via sound.





this should be moved to the religion thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
How does god make sounds to speak things into existence when it requires physical matter to support sound waves in the first place?

The only way science can explain God is if science supports some sort of flaw that everyone overlooks, I am afraid.


Only if physical matter is actually physical


What if "matter is energy merely condensed to slower vibration" - Bill Hicks

IMO everything is energy, everything is in flux or oscillation, and there is really no such thing as "solid". We merely percieve solid due to our relative size compared to the atom. If we were the size of an atom and could percieve it, do u think it would be a solid little sphere??



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Here's something you guys might find interesting, I know I do:


Message in the Sky (abstract)

Authors: S. Hsu, A. Zee
Comments: 3 pages, revtex; to appear in Mod.Phys.Lett.A
Subj-class: Popular Physics
Journal-ref: Mod.Phys.Lett. A21 (2006) 1495-1500
We argue that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a stupendous opportunity for the Creator of universe our (assuming one exists) to have sent a message to its occupants, using known physics. Our work does not support the Intelligent Design movement in any way whatsoever, but asks, and attempts to answer, the entirely scientific question of what the medium and message might be IF there was actually a message. The medium for the message is unique. We elaborate on this observation, noting that it requires only careful adjustment of the fundamental Lagrangian, but no direct intervention in the subsequent evolution of the universe.


(emphasis- Rren) This came to my attention because of the part I highlighted, but I'm afraid I don't know much else about it. Still on topic, no?

Regards and hey Melatonin,
-Rob



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   


What if "matter is energy merely condensed to slower vibration" - Bill Hicks


I thought this was already proven with Einstein's famous formula E=MC2.

Matter and energy are virtually interchangeable. You cannot have one without the other.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



What if "matter is energy merely condensed to slower vibration" - Bill Hicks


I thought this was already proven with Einstein's famous formula E=MC2.

Matter and energy are virtually interchangeable. You cannot have one without the other.


Not to split hairs but I believe you can have energy without matter, but not vice-versa. They are interchangeable via E=MC2 which is how/why we have nuclear weapons and how we know that we can't take a craft (ie, matter) past c [speed of light].

IOW you'd need an infinite mass to produce enough energy to maintain/surpass c and since there's no such thing there's no faster than c travel (in the point a to point b sense of travel.)

Is that two off topic posts now? [rhetorical]Am I a jerk or what?[/rhetorical]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Penance for off topic shenanigans:

All 'ex' quotes from link found in the OP: www.worldnetdaily.com...


"There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order, the most important being that of sonoluminescence,"


It would be nice to have a ref. here. Which interpretation/model of Genesis exactly? I'm assuming he's a literalist (eg, young-earther) mostly because he thinks/assumes God "speaks," like men do. Either way that's a pretty big statement right off-the-bat with no citation or argumentation...


That, he described to WND, is the circumstance in which sending a sonic signal into bubbles in a fluid causes the bubbles to collapse and they release photons, or create light.


This doesn't make sense to me. Is he making photons [light] or "releasing" them/it? Pretty big distinction, no?


God was sending a sonic influence into the waters, and basically creating light, Hunt said.


Confused again. Is he saying that light was created from the inside [Earth] out? The light on Earth comes from the water and not Sol? I'm guessing I've misunderstood something because that's just silly.


He's documented his theory, and the experiments he believes back it up, in his "Episteme Scientia, the Law of All That Is."


Haven't read his 'paper' and can't find much free info about it outside of a few blogs (which I did not read.) But did find an interesting abstract running the title through Google Scholar though:

The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science. K. R. Popper
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, No. 10 (Aug., 1952), pp. 124-156


Not directly related to the OP but relevant to the debate over the demarcation line between science and philosophy/theology.




His abstract states, "An examination of the sequential mathematical and experimental dual proof of the Genesis record of origins underlying the institution of all that is in the universe – from waves to matter to the mind."


Waves, matter, mind - Is that in sequential order? Matter preceding mind is the theistic antithesis, no? Materialism/Atheism


It's all rather interesting but, obviously, I'm not really getting it, I guess. :shrug:



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus


I had to stop reading after they called the Holy Spirit a magnetic field...it's an insult to my degrees...the sad part is there's a lot of people in that region that would love it.


Just curious - what exactly is spirit made of then?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleHalv6
"If God spoke everything into existence as the Genesis record proposes, then we should be able to scientifically prove that the construction of everything in the universe begins with a) the Holy Spirit (magnetic field); b) Light (an electric field); and c) that Light can be created by a sonic influence or sound," Samuel J. Hunt writes on his website.


Well, here's the problem.

One, light didn't exist when the universe began. In fact, it didn't even exist until several hundred million years after the Universe began expanding. In the beginning, there was a release of energy so massive it continued to expand exponentially while creating matter and antimatter in the process. The two cancel each other out whenever they collide, in a rather spectacular energy-releasing explosion, which in turn contributed to the continuing expansion and creation of matter and antimatter from energy. Lucky for us, there was a slight imbalance, and more matter than antimatter was created. Eventually, as expansion allowed the leftover matter within to coalesce, what was left were subatomic particles, not yet formed into atoms, and a crapload of electrons with no real purpose, just sorta filling space in giant clouds.

In order to produce light, an electron has to shift from an outer shell to an inner shell, releasing energy as visible light in the process. Electrons didn't bond to the first hydrogen and helium atmons (the very first elements ever) until several hundred million years into the process. The "noise" of this happening was discovered some time back. The noise itself isn't the creation of the universe, as some think, but rather the noise of all the light suddenly released when electrons first bonded to atoms and shrunk their shells inward to produce the first light.

So that kinda blows this theory away right there, even without the second problem which is:

Two, even if you could prove that the universe began as the result of light being manipulated through a magnetic field, giving them clever names like "God" and "Holy Spirit" makes the hypothesis that "God created the universe" no more scientific than if you instead used the words "Wheezey the Cat" and "Meowing". Why yes, if I prove that theory right, then I have definitively proven that Wheezey the Cat created the Universe by meowing. Replace the words again and you have Tim Allen creating the Universe through Tooltime. Etc...etc...etc...

Both pose a rather insurmountable problem for those who'd support this theory.

That said, I believe in God. I do not, however, feel that religion has any place in science, any more than science has any place in religion. And attempts by one to pass itself off as the other is folly at best, and divisive at worst.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   


Not to split hairs but I believe you can have energy without matter, but not vice-versa.


I stand corrected.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Yes sound does "create" but so does the unspoken words.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join