Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
lets play " whack a moehle "
Topic Started: Apr 12 2009, 09:34 PM (1,919 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
What I've discovered, even on the University campus, is that audiences much prefer tangible proof for the existence of God, to the abstract proof of the existence of God.


"What I've discovered...." Is nothing, breezy. Because the "I" in the article does not refer to you even though lack of attribution makes it look so.

But, what I've discovered is your dishonest nature.

Posting articles without giving ANY credit to the author is stealing. You don't even have the basic honesty to put quotes around what you're posting, but leave it looking like it's something you created.

And, even more surprising, even when called on the dishonest act - YOU KEEP DOING IT!

I can't imagine anything you could do on a forum like this that would be as damaging to your self-professed Christianity and the adherents as a whole than to steal other people's work, be caught at it and then continue to do so.

It ain't a pretty picture.

Edited by ngc1514, Apr 16 2009, 12:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
the breeze
No Avatar
the breeze
[ * ]


Measuring The Universe

Ours is a privileged generation because we have seen the measuring of the universe. The theological significance is that if you can measure the universe, you are measuring the creation. If you can measure the creation, you are measuring the Creator himself. Not all of his characteristics, of course, but many that are theologically significant.

What we've discovered in measuring the universe is that the third assumption of Emanuel Kant; that we have infinite time, the universe is static and that we have an infinite supply of building blocks for life isn't true.

We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).

We also discovered that we do not have an infinite supply of building blocks. In fact, we discovered that it takes exquisite design to get any building blocks at all. Molecules, without which, life is impossible.

Atoms must be able to assemble in the molecules in order to gain sufficient complexity for life chemistry to proceed. That applies to any conceivable kind of life.

The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants

Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

Electromagnetism

There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

Strong Nuclear Force

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.

Electrons

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

Gravity

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible.

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power). That number is so large that it's difficult for laymen to get a handle on it. So I compare that number with another very large number - the national debt.

The National Debt

The national debt stands at $5,000,000,000,000. One way to visualize this is to imagine we cover one square mile of land with dimes piles 17 inches high. We can pay off the entire national debt with a pile of dimes 17 inches high in one square mile.

That's truly a lot of dimes. Out national debt problem is serious. But to get 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we would have to cover the entire North American continent with dimes, but 17 inches high won't do.

We'd have to cover the entire North American continent from here all the way to the moon. That's a 250,000-mile high pile of dimes covering 10,000,000 square miles, and you'd have to do that with a billion North American continents from here all the way to the moon. That is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power).

To give you an idea, imagine that in those piles of billions of dimes, there's one dime colored red. If you were to randomly shuffle your way through those billions of dimes blindfolded, and you choose one dime, the odds that you would pick up that one red dime is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Silly, fatuous arguments from ignorance remain silly, fatuous arguments.

And yet another theft of someone else's work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Worse, he's just dumbly repasting junk. I think he's run out of ammo. If he ever had any, this thread was started to prove Creation Science, yet not a word pasted about it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Oh! So there was a reason why ol' breezy posts all this stuff he doesn't understand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Sure, he thinks he's fighting the good fight, testifying for Jesus and all that. But what kind of worship burns lies and theft at the altar?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
I can't imagine a much worse tool for testifying than stealing other people's work - work which you don't understand - posting it and then refusing to discuss what you've stole... err...posted.

He's doing the devil's work for sure!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
the breeze
No Avatar
the breeze
[ * ]
Action & Reaction - June 1999
by Do-While Jones

The Mind of One Evolutionist
We have received 20 pages of e-mail from John, a Canadian evolutionist, in response to our March essay. Clearly, we don’t have room to publish all the correspondence in the printed newsletter, but we have put it all on our web site. We invite you to read everything John said.
In John’s letters he makes it quite clear that he believes that anyone who seriously questions evolution is part of a vast fundamentalist conspiracy that is trying to force Christianity into American schools. His letters primarily deal with the hidden, sinister motives of creationists. We were unsuccessful in our attempts to suggest to him that his ability to read minds might not be flawless.

John believes that refereed scientific journals print articles based entirely upon the contents of the articles, without any consideration of the reputation of the authors and the degrees they hold, without regard to any backlash that might occur in response to the publication of an article critical of evolution. He believes that researchers publish honest reports, regardless of how that will affect their possibility of obtaining future funding. It is a wonderful, naïve world he lives in. We wonder how long it will be before he discovers that the academic world is just as strongly controlled by money and politics as the business world and government agencies are.

John doesn’t recognize the difference between fact and belief. Apparently, if he believes it, he thinks it must be a fact. He says things like, “the universe did not emerge from matter, but rather matter (as we know it) condensed out of the (highly ordered) early universe.” He apparently is incapable of seeing that he has accepted this statement without scientific proof. He thinks that since he didn’t mention God, his belief about where the universe came from isn’t a religious belief. But it is a religious belief. The natural origin of the universe is a doctrine he has accepted by faith. There is no experimental proof that matter condensed out of an earlier hypothetical universe.

We tried very hard to engage John in a scientific dialog, but he viewed any scientific discussion as a red herring. He believes that, “since their [creationists’] cause is political it is only the response to their legal arguments which is really relevant. … The scientific issues were settled over a century ago.”

John’s main problem is that he still accepts 19th century scientific explanations. He is unaware that 20th century science is causing real problems for the theory of evolution. Although he can’t tell us what the modern scientific evidence in favor of evolution is, he believes that it must exist.

We really pushed him about the scientific evidence that dead things can come to life naturally. He said, “The fact remains that living cells do consist entirely of ordinary chemicals. Pasteur disproved the spontaneous generation of existing species, but did not address the origin of life itself.”

Well, a can of chicken noodle soup contains ordinary chemicals, including a high concentration of the proteins and amino acids necessary for life, and lots of chicken DNA. John believes that Pasteur proved a can of chicken soup can’t turn into a chicken, but didn’t prove it can’t turn into an entirely new life form. John believes ordinary chemicals can (and did) turn into something living that was the origin of life itself. But he has no scientific proof. It is just his belief.

John apparently believes that if scientists believe it, it is fact. If someone is a creationist, he isn’t a scientist. This resolves any controversy. All true scientists believe in evolution, at least in John’s mind. That allows him to make these “factual” statements: “Scientists generally believe that the first cell was the product of a system of self-catalyzing chemical reactions which developed the geometrical pattern of a liposome enclosing a molecular template.” “Every living thing on this planet has a common ancestor, a species of prokaryote (living at the time, I would imagine) which was itself the product of a long process of evolution.”

He says the scientists “generally believe,” and he “imagines.” Somehow, he can’t see that these are religious statements. It is his religion, so he thinks it must be true. Since it must be true, it must be a fact. There is no scientific evidence that any “self-catalyzing chemical reactions” created the first cell and brought it to life. Not one experiment has demonstrated that this is even possible, let alone proved that it really happened.

John may write us another letter. If so, we will publish it on the web page and let him have the last word. We suspect, however, that there will be nothing new in it to respond to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Not sure what a "letter" from an "evolutionist" is supposed to prove.

"John apparently believes that if scientists believe it, it is fact."

Which differs how from believing something because it's in the bible?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yeah, but Do-While Jones said it!

Posted Image
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis