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.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 35
29
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
We don't even know the size of the universe...so we can't know if the energy/mass content stays the same. In fact, given that for all we know the universe is expanding, we will eventually reach a time where everything cools down to absolute zero.


The amount of mass in the Universe remains the same. Mass cannot be created unless by a process called "Pair Production" which produces both a particle and the equivalent anti-particle at the same time. Since anti-particles have negative mass, the mass of the Universe remains constant.

The energy of the Universe, however, doesn't. Energy is spent to produce work.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Though it sounds like you might be telling the universe what it "must be", via speculation. Do you have anything to show this claim would be more than an opinion? Such as someone observing and having knowledge/evidence of the universe in its entirety. You do realize the part of the universe we do have knowledge of might amount to much less than a pimple on a mountain? That might even be a huge exaggeration.


The energy of the Big Bang can arguably be calculated from the cosmic background radiation, so it is not entirely speculation. They do have some math backing up numbers like the weight of the Universe and its size. Although you are right that what we know of the Universe could be a mere pimple on a mountain, we have no evidence of it so far, present scientific evidence apparently points that to not to be the case, and speculating that "it could be otherwise" is wishful thinking, not how science is done.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not necessarily. Our universe could hypothetically be connected to another with an exchange of energy/matter happening. We don't know if that is the case or not. Look up multiverses


And God could exist, since we have apparently entered on the realm of "what could be" as evidence for arguments. If you believe in multiverses, you have absolutely no grounds to come here and complain about lack of evidence for God.

Are we discussing what you have dreamed yesterday here or what is supported by evidence?


Originally posted by MrXYZ
We do find fossils on top of mountains...but not because of a global flood. Look up how mountains are formed and you'll understand why we find fossils on mountains


Yes, that's the default answer.

- Hey, Christian, if the Flood happened, there would be fossils on top of mountains. Why is it that there aren't any?

(Newsflash: fossils found on top of mountains)

- Fossils on top of mountains are not evidence for Flood because someone somewhere came up with an alternative explanation. It is no proven or anything, but it is plausible and it is not the Flood so I will simply claim that as the correct one and say that the Flood didn't happen.
edit on 15/7/2011 by Leahn because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 





Moreso, the very fact that sedimentary evidence is often the most cited scientific argument in favor of the Great Flood shows how ridiculous your argument is.



Only on pseudo-scientific websites


Find me just one peer reviewed study proving your claims





If you expect me to believe that you can successfully model the geological consequences of such a global flood, you're just passing yourself for a greater fool than you already pose to be.


You obviously have no clue about complex modelling if you believe what you just wrote





The Bible says that everything died, so what's your point?


My point is, that if this has really happened (everything died), we wouldn't have the biodiversity we have today. Hell, we wouldn't have the evidence of evolution we have today. In short, you're wrong again





There is no reason to believe that.


Apart from facts you mean?


Do me a favor, drop a salt water fish into freshwater and vice versa...see how long they live





All plants died. The Bible says such, so again what's your point? You're attempting to argue that the Bible is wrong by telling us that it would have happened and it said that happened?


Again, all the facts demonstrably show that this isn't possible given today's biodiversity, fossil record, and DNA evidence. But who cares about facts if they go against one's belief, right?





Why? Given the fact that many places (most notably the Nile Delta) rely on local floods to restore its fertility, why would it ruin the soil?


Take salt water and drench soil in it for weeks/months. Then try to grow something on that soil...good luck





In so far, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence corroborating this claim, except your own opinion, which you are entitled to, but it is not evidence.


Actually, what I posted is based on solid facts...drop a freshwater fish in salt water and you'll understand just how wrong you are when it comes to scientific facts



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 





And God could exist, since we have apparently entered on the realm of "what could be" as evidence for arguments. If you believe in multiverses, you have absolutely no grounds to come here and complain about lack of evidence for God.


I'm not claiming multiverses exist or don't exist...just like I don't claim god exists or doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that we DON'T KNOW, which is the only honest answer. I also don't claim unicorns exist, I say we have ZERO evidence they exist...and the same goes for god.

Also, you really have to learn how mountains are formed...you still seem confused about how fossils end up on top of mountains if you claim it's because of a global flood

edit on 15-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
A global flood would leave behind VERY SPECIFIC sedimental (sic) evidence. Of course sediments are everywhere, but none support the claim of a global flood.


Actually, sedimentary evidence is consistent with a global flood.



Sure...if that person doesn't need air to survive. And either way, once in, he wouldn't get out. And to pass through the gorge, the human would have to be crushed unless he's a midget. For someone who claims to have studied the physiology of whales, you completely ignored some obvious flaws in your thinking.

You also clearly don't scuba dive. If you did, you'd realize the pressure whales have to cope with are far far far beyond anything a human can cope with. But who cares about facts, right?


Prove.

Calculate the amount of air inside a whale and compare with the amount of air a human needs. Take into consideration the frequency a whale inhales air, which would renew the supply, and demonstrate that a human could not survive. Since you're so adamant on your assertion, for the fourth time I ask for evidence.

Some data you might find interesting: "Whales can stay underwater without breathing for an hour or more because they make very efficient use of their lungs, exchanging up to 90% of their lung volume with each breath, and also store unusually high amounts of oxygen in their blood and muscles when diving."

Prove that a human would be crushed when passing the gorge.

Also, just because a human can't do it, doesn't mean that an animal cannot. You need special gear when scuba diving, but whales were created by God with the necessary adaptations that allow them to survive. Collapsing lungs cause the air inside of a whale to be compressed, increasing its internal pressure to match the ocean's and protecting its internal organs from the pressure, including the stomach.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 





Actually, sedimentary evidence is consistent with a global flood.


It really isn't


Post a peer reviewed scientific article/paper proving your claims...otherwise all you're doing is preaching.




Prove that a human would be crushed when passing the gorge.


The largest whale is the Blue Whale. There's a skeleton of one outside the aquarium in Monterey...and if you ever stood next to it, you'd realize that there's no way they could gulp up a whole human without breaking him apart, killing him in the process





Also, just because a human can't do it, doesn't mean that an animal cannot. You need special gear when scuba diving, but whales were created by God with the necessary adaptations that allow them to survive. Collapsing lungs cause the air inside of a whale to be compressed, increasing its internal pressure to match the ocean's and protecting its internal organs from the pressure, including the stomach.


Yes...and humans aren't built to breathe compressed air like that. Look up "nitrogen narcosis". Just fyi, I'm a certified diving instructor, so I can claim with 100% certitude that you don't know what you're talking about





Calculate the amount of air inside a whale and compare with the amount of air a human needs. Take into consideration the frequency a whale inhales air, which would renew the supply, and demonstrate that a human could not survive. Since you're so adamant on your assertion, for the fourth time I ask for evidence.


Again, you're completely ignoring the fact that whales are built to cope with compressed air...humans aren't.


I'll explain:

The average large whale hunts in 500-1000m below sea level. At that depth, every inch of your body (inside and outside) feels the pressure of around 1400 pounds (around 100 atmospheres) or the weight of 200,0000 pounds of water...again, that's per inch!

Now, you seem to believe the whale stores the air somewhere where a human could survive. Let's for a second ignore for the fact that no whale we know of can gulp up a whole human without crushing him, and let's assume that human is sitting inside the whale.

When that whale dives (which they do several dozen times per day), his ribcage will collapse, because it is built that way. A human's ribcage would simply break. But anyway, let's look at that magical air bubble. By the time the whale is down far enough to start hunting, the air in his lungs will be 1% of its original volume, or 100 times more dense. If you truly believe humans can breathe air 100 denser than our own, you are a horribly mistaken.

In short...it doesn't matter what whale it is, humans would either get crushed before reaching the stomach, die because of the whale's teeth, get stuck on the beleen plates, die of asphyxiation, die of pressure induced wounds (because anywhere you could sit inside a whale, water can get as well, and it wouldn't be pressurized properly), or simply die of thirst after 2 days because THERE IS NO FRESH WATER IN WHALES!!!

I can't believe I have to explain people why living in whales is a ridiculous idea...seriously, are we at a point where people completely ignore facts because they go agains their belief? Goodbye logic, hello lala land???
edit on 15-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Post a peer reviewed scientific article/paper proving your claims...otherwise all you're doing is preaching.


Preaching ? Dosn't read much like preaching X.
Jonah was in the belly of whale for three days. You say that's impossible. You base that claim on every KIND of
whale, known to science, in the present day. You 're not jumping to conclusions are you?

Perfect example of why I trust the Bible more than I trust you. (Man)
edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


It doesnt matter how our universe was formed. The expanded energy mass will equal the mass it was when formed.
The energy mass we observe to day is not as compressed as it was initially, but if you compress every energy/mass that has expanded. It will equal initial energy mass/beginning.

There is a wiki site that talks about this somewhere.

Our universe is not zero energy mass/infinite if our universe has a flat shape or any shape. The energy mass that formed the shape clearly distinguishes it self from its surrounding space/universe.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 






It might well be as you say, though how can this be genuinely known for something that is speculated to be limitless?


Our universe cant be limit less/infinite if it is changing. Our universe must be formed by something that is limitless. From something that cant be created or destroyed, like infinite energy. I cant prove it; but finite energy mass cant come from non existing energy.

Our universe is not infinite, our universe is formed by the infinite, and our universe must exist within the infinite universe. There is no other place our universe or any other universe can be/exist.

If our universe exist within the infinite universe, than that makes our existing universe a finite. And our universe will change/expand because of it. Because there is a differential between the two.

Our universe is compressed state compared to the the infinite "which is not compressed". There by it cant expand or change. The infinite is a true constant.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Now with atheism the universe becomes a "closed system " meaning there is no outside influence (God).
With believers the opposite is true. "open system"

If matter and energy can not increase or decrease and can not come from nothing ?
Where do matter and energy come from ?
If scientists are the supeme being or if science is your God ? Or if there is no God ? Then we are left with the impossibility of matter and energy according to the known laws of science. According to the laws of science
there must be a God, That's why I say

Science fails to exclude God

.And saying " I/we don't know " is a cop out.


edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Like I said before, I know that the Bible is not a science book, but after doing some further research it appears to me that science is in perfect harmony with what the Bible already knew 1,000's of years ahead of time. How can anyone possibly refute the evidence below. I realize some don't want to believe certain things in the Bible, but for the love science, give the book some credit. It clearly talks about things that no one could have possibly known unless the knowledge came from a higher source. How can atheist explain the scientific Biblical facts below?

The Bible is smarter than science.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately expresses all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).”


How could the writer have know what time, space, matter and energy was? No one had even heard of such a thing back then?

The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).


Again we have a perfect cycle of how things grow way before science even thought about it?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


This one is pretty much self explanatory. This type of information would be impossible for them to know unless it was told to them from someone or something with accurate knowledge of such a place.

Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a “way” [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a “way” of light.


Once again, such knowledge could not have just be made up by normal men.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


Simply amazing that Job was revealed this information before science.

Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit.” King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


Absolutely amazing, where is Job getting such information?

Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew – each star varies in size and intensity!


Man, this is good stuff.

The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing – electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send “lightnings” which indeed speak when they arrive.


OK, now this type of knowledge was clearly not know in those days. How in the world did Job and the others know such things? Now if you really think that these guys just made this stuff up then I would have to say you that in reality you don't care if they were right or wrong, you just refuse to accept Biblical facts proven by your own science. How logical would that be?

Now can an atheist really say that the Bible is inaccurate after seeing such facts?

Get more Bible facts here: www.eternal-productions.org...
edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 






Seeing what scripture? There are many many many scriptures from many many many religions, so if you see them they must be true too? Seeing a book does not make the contents of the book true. I saw a Harry Potter book, are you saying that Harry Potter is a true story?




You think you're being smart I guess, but you look as though you might suffer from ADS, if you ask me. Maybe you havn't read through the thread. It should be obvious what scripture smart guy. But here it is all special for you. THE BIBLE. There you go sweety.

Well I think you missed the point so let me spoon feed you the question. There are many "holy" scriptures from many religions what makes all of the others myths and what makes the bible true?

I am also still waiting for your evidence of the god you are claiming exists.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
 


Still waiting. Sorry, sometimes it's just really hard to get to ALL my fans.

As far as scripture, The Bible ? Show me a better example of Gods word. There isn't one. Nothing comes close to the Bible. Any one who seriously looks, will see.

As far as proof of God or evidence ? How much of this thread have you read ?

Also, you may need to more specific, as to what kind of evidence, you speak of ?

edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





Now with atheism the universe becomes a "closed system " meaning there is no outside influence (God).
With believers the opposite is true. "open system"


True, science can only observe a limited amount/distance of our universe. They can not see the totality of our universe. Because they are observing everything from a location within our universe.

A scientist who is observing our universe, is a person who is observing our universe from earth/satellite, that means s/he is observing out wards.

That is like trying to calculate the exact distance from 1 to zero/infinite. This is also why our universe is looked upon as being infinite, because science can't see the true edge of the energy mass that makes up our universe.

Many people who read science dont think about the observers location and in which direction s/he is observing.
Location is very important to grasp if you talk about this.

When it comes to believers its wrong scientifically to think about our system as open, because its not really a open system. Our system is made up by many systems that separates us from the infinite. Every thing within our system has to expand/change in stages before it will become infinite. That is the distance from 1 to zero. The beginning of our existence is the distance from zero to 1.





If matter and energy can not increase or decrease and can not come from nothing ?
Where do matter and energy come from ?


Matter/energy mass (a object) can decrease/disappear; but its energy can not. Matter/energy mass is made up by energy.

Energy is infinite but a energy mass is not.

There is a distance between energy and a energy mass. Energy has to changes before it can form a energy mass. The distance from zero to 1.





Science fails to exclude God


I agree. And this is why i agree.

There is only one true constant; The infinite. I cant prove it. But something that is infinite/constant can't change unless there is a will to do so.

Our universe is not a constant. Neither is the energy/mass that makes up our universe.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You are confusing "belief" with "knowledge". Religious people don't "know" stuff...they believe stuff that isn't based on logic/rationality/evidence. So of course "their system" is open, they can make up whatever the hell they want no matter how illogical. That's why we have gods with elephant heads, global floods, the earth being only 6k years old, and a ton of other nonsense that at one point couldn't be proven wrong, but now has been proven wrong.

That's why the religious world is shrinking more and more as science debunks stuff like people living in whales



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





Still waiting. Sorry, sometimes it's just really hard to get to ALL my fans. As far as scripture, The Bible ? Show me a better example of Gods word. There isn't one. Nothing comes close to the Bible.

And a man the believes in the koran will say the same exact thing and you do not aacept that as the truth so why would anyone accept you saying the bible is gods word?



Any one who seriously looks, will see. As far as proof of God or evidence ? How much of this thread have you read ? Also, you may need to more specific, as to what kind of evidence, you speak of ?

Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God". If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





Matter/energy mass (a object) can decrease/disappear; but its energy can not. Matter/energy mass is made up by energy.



I think you're confused about the definitions of matter, energy, and mass. Energy can very well disappear...ever heard of radioactive decay?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 





The amount of mass in the Universe remains the same. Mass cannot be created unless by a process called "Pair Production" which produces both a particle and the equivalent anti-particle at the same time. Since anti-particles have negative mass, the mass of the Universe remains constant.


Antiparticles do not have negative mass, but positive. In this reaction, energy is converted into matter, which is not conserved, and can be created or destroyed. Mass and energy are equivalent by e=mc2 formula, and are conserved. Mass and matter are different things.




The energy of the Universe, however, doesn't. Energy is spent to produce work.


No, energy is conserved. Total entropy increases, tough.




They do have some math backing up numbers like the weight of the Universe and its size. Although you are right that what we know of the Universe could be a mere pimple on a mountain, we have no evidence of it so far, present scientific evidence apparently points that to not to be the case, and speculating that "it could be otherwise" is wishful thinking, not how science is done.


We dont know the size and weight of the universe, and there is evidence (lack of large-scale curvature) pointing to its very large size, possibly infinite. Those size and mass numbers only talk about observable universe.
edit on 16/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 





Matter/energy mass (a object) can decrease/disappear; but its energy can not. Matter/energy mass is made up by energy.



I think you're confused about the definitions of matter, energy, and mass. Energy can very well disappear...ever heard of radioactive decay?



No it can't. Energy like radiation can change form/place by emission.
Decay is when a element (energy mass) goes from one energy state to another energy state.

Radiation is not a constant.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

And a man the believes in the koran will say the same exact thing and you do not aacept that as the truth so why would anyone accept you saying the bible is gods word?
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
 


And a man blah blah blagh blah blah blah.
You really are ridculous. A man can say that but it isn't true. Compare them yourself. And a man

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Spy
So it would take God to make it an open system.

X
Why do you spend so much time trying to convince people, who can't know anything, that what they believe is absurd.
When reality testifies that what you believe, is the absolute in absurdity.. It seems as tho everything in the end is just splitting hairs. So to invoke Pasquels wager ? You lose ! That's the amount of the way you've obviously chose to spend your life. Not much sense in that. But it's your life and as an atheist it isn't worth much anyway.
In fact, I don't believe you are an atheist. Only a Satanist could hate the idea of God as much as you. So our conversations have ended. Remember there will be no ice water.




edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
:
edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Masio



Antiparticles do not have negative mass, but positive. In this reaction, energy is converted into matter, which is not conserved, and can be created or destroyed. Mass and energy are equivalent by e=mc2 formula, and are conserved. Mass and matter are different things.


So how do matter and energy come into existence.? I know ! We just don't know.


edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



edit on 16-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
There is a lot of evidence to confirm that humans are the result of evolution. Being skeptical of it is not necessarily a bad thing. Though unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, contrary claims will remain your unfounded opinion. As with your summation of the field of paleoanthropology. All you have done here is prove that you have your own opinion. Though I agree that we didn't evolve from the apes, as does the current evolutionary model. Though it does appear we share a common ancestor.


I still disagree with the evolution idea. Check out this video and tell me what you think. As always, approach with an open mind. This video makes since to me.




edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



This video purposely misrepresents evolution to the point where it is simply a red Herring and its maker is either less than honest, or amazingly ignorant. It refutes the existence of apples because they are not watermelons. Evolution is not Abiogenesis, they are different things, clearly. It is also purposely misleading in its dismissal of the tiny bit bit of the field of evolution it does try to address (genetics).

Evolution and speciation are known and observed facts. Apples form from trees, earth revolves around the sun, life on earth evolves. These facts and the theories on Abiogenesis don't in themselves refute the existence of God. They do refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian image of God due to making the bible obsolete. This video is not a genuine attempt to counter science, it is a fundamentalist attempt to cling to the bible.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join