Science for Religion A - proof of God Creation .

A - can not be proven so they say .
Now me I do not believe for one mint earth humans were created But to believe for seconds then maybe its so .
And Here is your - proof for creationism .
Now so many things had to be just right in the universe for live to come into being and some people who study science and have faith like using these things as proof that it was no accident .
Now to me these things could have been other ways and life will have still found a way . In other words all they really means is life evolved under this universe physics if you change the physics then life would just be slightly different .
BUT and yea its a big BUT I just found one exception to this ( alest for carbon based life like a planet such as earth has or would have .)
So here it is the finly - Proof it was no accident ( so - it accutly makes me think for seconds at a time just maybe a God did create it all .
Water the earth is over 75% water . But not just any H2O out of the 75 % water 99% is Salt water .
why is this important ?
Well fresh water fezzes at 0 C or 32 F But add Salt and the freezing temperature of water Drops . depending on how much salt is in it .
But for this post i will stick with the 99% of oceans water and out of that the 99% that has darn near the same amount of salt .
Ok so here it is the salt in our oceans drops the freezing temp of water down to 27 f or - 2.7 C
Now this means the water stays open NOT ice just little longer .
So just what would happen to earth if this was not true if salt water froze at 32 f 0 C instead of being liquid a little longer ?
Well the ice caps would have gotten larger MUCH MUCH MUCH large so large in fact the ice cover would get past a tipping point in that so much more sunlight was reflected back into space the temp would just keep drooping and drooping until the planet froze sold .
What is even neater is there is some proof of a effect similar to this that did happen and earth did freeze sold from pole to pole .
Wont go into details on it here but linky www.smithsonianmag.com...
Wile the effect was caused by other factors it does not take much of a change for this to happen so a 5 % difference in waters freezing point would mean earth would Rarely be warm enough to support life all because salt changes it by such a small amount 5 % .
ps kinda puts the warming effect in prospective as well 5 % and major earth changes accure .
anyway just 5 % difference in salt water freezing and earth would be a ice ball one small so little took me 51 years to realize thing .
So the balance is so close so slight can it be a accident or does a god have asay in this >
You decide as for me well for a second and another ill look up . . Then realize it doesn't matter if earth needed a god or not It sure does now and no gods to be found anywhere .
Someones baby died as i typed this while some drunk says god saved him .

Life would have evolved under the ice in the oceans even if the earth was a ball of ice, after all life started in the oceans, there are thermal vents where it is warm enough even at the deepest levels of the oceans for life to thrive.

Maybe there would not be intelligent life on earth if it froze over as you say but there would be life on earth in the oceans

i wont argue that as it may we freeze the deepest oceans we have but even if some small spots did have life we sure would not be here .

what i just described is a run away frezz effect just as venus has a run away green house effect .
it very mite have been the vents would be the only unfrozen spots .
and being so islated life would be very unlikly ( Europa )
a ice ball with maybe some vents down 2 miles under that ice . maybe it has life probly not .

a reply to: midnightstar

I see what you mean, the whole ocean is frozen, unlikely as it is.

NASA are currently looking into missions to Europa to drill through the ice, they know it has an ocean under the ice, this is due to tidal forces from Jupiter keeping the water warm enough not to freeze.

yea fasanating to say the least But I like Io my self salfer volcanic .
besides so many moons with oceans of ice Europa is just the most well known .
2001 2010 movies made it famis

a reply to: midnightstar

There are more fine-tuned values than just this.

The improbabilities just stretch and stretch, the more you know.

Of course the 'standard' response to this is to say that it has to be this way, or we wouldn't exist to observe it. But this is a non-answer - a 'no think' statement.

At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident.

A supernatural origin for the universe is not the un-evidenced proposition.

a reply to: midnightstar


Sorry, I fail to see how salt water oceans are proof of a god?

a reply to: chr0naut

We are also basing what we know about life on what our current understanding is of life on earth,

I am a believer that when a new disease outbreak happens, and this disease has never been seen before it may have been brought here on a meteor,

It has been seen in history where a pandemic seems to come from nowhere, no-one is resistant initially.

Yeah, it is called the clockwork theory in Philosophy.

The proof of a higher being/god creating the Universe is the fact that the Universe is so perfect and works like a clock.

It gets its name from the analogy of:

Suppose you are walking along the beach and find a starfish missing a leg, you would then think, 'Oh what a pretty thing made by nature.'

Now suppose you are walking along the same beach and find a pocket watch, you would simply assume that it was created by someone or something with a purpose.

The same applies to the universe. It seems to be so perfect that it must have been created that way.



Now the problem with this theory is that it also proves itself false. For if this is the case then in order for there to be a creator, there must have been a creator of the creator and so forth. It gets really tedious and redundant and I have a hard time remembering my freshman philosophy but . . . there you have it.

speed of light, plus the speed of sound makes thought. but how does it affect our universe. we can close our eyes and speak to the world slowly mixed with a whisper and it will listen. bend it to your will with your whisper voice.
if light is hard to see we wouldn't be able to see anything around us. if the speed of sound was hard to hear we would be hard to hear.

try what I just posted for self experience.

Now so many things had to be just right in the universe for live to come into being and some people who study science and have faith like using these things as proof that it was no accident .

People cant see proof because they are manipulated their whole live (also by religion). entropy always increases , yet silly people on a blue marble. For me enough proof.

People playing God now dont want any competitors , call people that believe in creation delusional.
Trans humanism is the end...

If you want to move beyond the uncertainties of religious/philosophical argument and to examine extraordinary/amazing/convincing evidence for Divine design, study the pioneering research at:
smphillips.mysite.com...
You will find there:
1. proof that the sacred geometries of some major religions are isomorphic despite their origins being separated by thousands of miles and years. This has no rational explanation other that they are equivalent representations of a universal blueprint governing all fundamental systems.
2. demonstrations that these sacred geometries are not only equivalent but embody the group mathematics of E8xE8, which is one of the two symmetry groups discovered by Michael Green and Gary Schwarz in 1984 to describe superstrings whose forces are free of quantum anomalies. This proof that ancient sacred geometries and discoveries in theoretical physics contain analogous, mathematical properties has no rational explanation other than that there really IS such a thing as "Divine design" that was captured in geometrical representation of God by mystics separated by thousands of years and miles.
3. precise, quantitative correlations between scientifically established facts in micro-biology, music theory and superstring theory that are so detailed and numerous that chance is absurdly too improbable to invoke as their explanation.
4. Evidence of conceptual coherence and mathematical connectivity between the sacred geometries of different religions that can be sensibly viewed only as indicating their transcendental/divine origin - there is no alternative, more plausible way to account for this absolutely amazing congruity.

Ladies and gentlemen, this research shows that we have moved from the perennial uncertainties of the debate between religion and science towards a higher synthesis in which there is no longer an epistimological gulf between them. What now emerges is a view of the very coin whose sides they form. Its design is beautiful and truly amazing to behold.

a reply to: luciferslight


WHAT? Come on use your words better. That made absolutely no sense whatsoever

a reply to: luciferslight


WHAT? Come on use your words better. That made absolutely no sense whatsoever

a reply to: midnightstar

In terms of chance, you have to take into account the number of stars in the Universe. The possible percentage of stars with planets in the range where water is in liquid form. We could be the first life in the Universe but I doubt it.

God created the laws of physics. What is amazing about nature is how consistent it is in repeating behaviors exactly in accordance to the laws of physics. I doubt very much God ever changes the way the laws of physics are carried out in nature's behaviors. I've never seen it.

I am just amazed by people's lack of faith in God's existence. Why do we need evidence for the existence of God. It seems to me faith is all you need.

a reply to: midnightstar

NOT PROOF

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: midnightstar

There are more fine-tuned values than just this.

The improbabilities just stretch and stretch, the more you know.

Of course the 'standard' response to this is to say that it has to be this way, or we wouldn't exist to observe it. But this is a non-answer - a 'no think' statement.

At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident.

A supernatural origin for the universe is not the un-evidenced proposition.

"At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident." this statement sounds like a supposition to me, keeping in mind that conviction is not certainty anymore than opinion is fact.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: midnightstar

There are more fine-tuned values than just this.

The improbabilities just stretch and stretch, the more you know.

Of course the 'standard' response to this is to say that it has to be this way, or we wouldn't exist to observe it. But this is a non-answer - a 'no think' statement.

At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident.

A supernatural origin for the universe is not the un-evidenced proposition.

"At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident." this statement sounds like a supposition to me, keeping in mind that conviction is not certainty anymore than opinion is fact.

Consider this:

In a simple system with few elements, the probability of random actions leading to a particular outcome is small:

Imagine two bricks in an enclosed space (a packing crate). Shaking the space randomises the scenario and one possible outcome is that the bricks will end up with one brick stacked upon another.

Increasing the volume of the space (say to a shipping container) decreases the probability that the bricks will end up one upon another.

Increasing the number of bricks to three also decreases the probability that all three will end up stacked upon each other.

So we can see that increasing the volume and increasing the elements vastly decreases the probability that a particular configuration (even one as simple as stacking) will be the result of randomisation.

Now expand that to apply to the size and content of the universe.

Of course, one may then suggest that there have been innumerable randomisations and that this raises the probability. Yet these randomising events take time. The physical movement of matter takes time. The birth and deaths of stars and the nucleosynthesis that occurs within them, takes time. The 'randomisation' events are far fewer when you consider that some of the most primary steps require stellar lifetimes.

The net result is that the observed universe could not have arisen by random factors in the time-frame of its existence. It is improbable to an enormous degree.

Any paradigm that depends upon actions so counter to reason, mathematics and physics is obviously false.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: midnightstar

There are more fine-tuned values than just this.

The improbabilities just stretch and stretch, the more you know.

Of course the 'standard' response to this is to say that it has to be this way, or we wouldn't exist to observe it. But this is a non-answer - a 'no think' statement.

At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident.

A supernatural origin for the universe is not the un-evidenced proposition.

"At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident." this statement sounds like a supposition to me, keeping in mind that conviction is not certainty anymore than opinion is fact.

Consider this:

In a simple system with few elements, the probability of random actions leading to a particular outcome is small:

Imagine two bricks in an enclosed space (a packing crate). Shaking the space randomises the scenario and one possible outcome is that the bricks will end up with one brick stacked upon another.

Increasing the volume of the space (say to a shipping container) decreases the probability that the bricks will end up one upon another.

Increasing the number of bricks to three also decreases the probability that all three will end up stacked upon each other.

So we can see that increasing the volume and increasing the elements vastly decreases the probability that a particular configuration (even one as simple as stacking) will be the result of randomisation.

Now expand that to apply to the size and content of the universe.

Of course, one may then suggest that there have been innumerable randomisations and that this raises the probability. Yet these randomising events take time. The physical movement of matter takes time. The birth and deaths of stars and the nucleosynthesis that occurs within them, takes time. The 'randomisation' events are far fewer when you consider that some of the most primary steps require stellar lifetimes.

The net result is that the observed universe could not have arisen by random factors in the time-frame of its existence. It is improbable to an enormous degree.

Any paradigm that depends upon actions so counter to reason, mathematics and physics is obviously false.

its fascinating that you have such great difficulty wrestling with improbable scenarios that you default to fantastically impossible solutions. solutions that cant be measured or calculated, solutions that depend on the plot holes in our investigative tools and techniques to retain just a shred of plausibility. how many improbable explanations turned out to be exactly correct? how many times has religion apologized for punishing the minds who produced those seemingly improbable but very astute explanations? how many times has religion all but plagiarized the credibility of accomplished scientists in order to promote unrelated models of morals and metaphysics as though science isnt disproving religious theory every day? your skepticism rings hollow in the ears of all of who have eyes to see. for physics and mathematics being so false, it is strange that religion keeps copying their homework. trying to wedge a dying god into any little gap you can find.