The Koran?

[Guest Hawkeye]

The ultimate question facing every intelligent person who confronts the conflicting theories of random chance evolution and God’s purposeful Creation is this: How did our Universe, the Earth, and humanity itself come to exist at all? Did our Universe form, as evolutionary humanists and atheists claim, through random chance by naturalistic and mechanical forces alone that operate without any purpose or reason? Or, was our Universe and humanity the result of an intelligent design, a divine purpose, and the creative acts of a supernatural Creator as described in the Bible?

Consider the case of the human eye and ask yourself whether or not such a complex and intricate optical system could have ever developed through random-chance mutation alone. When a baby is conceived in it’s mother’s womb, the genetic DNA code governing the eye programs the baby’s body to begin growing optic nerves simultaneously from both the optic center of the brain and from the eye. A million microscopic optic nerves begin growing from the eye through the flesh toward the optical section of the baby’s brain. Simultaneously, a million optic nerves, with a protective sheath similar to a fiber-optic cable, begin growing through the flesh towards the baby’s eye. Each of these one- million optic nerves must find and match up to its precise mate to enable vision to function perfectly.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that the intricate engineering displayed in the human eye was so specialized and complex that he could not begin to imagine how the eye might have developed through the evolutionary processes of natural selection. “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

One of the greatest problems facing those who deny a Creator is to explain how natural selection or random mutation could evolve such a phenomenally complex organ as the human eye when none of the hundreds of thousands of imagined intermediate mutations could have any survival value whatever until the completed optical system was in place to allow vision to take place.

We have not even discussed the functions of the liver, heart, lungs, brain, human cell or the wonder of reproduction. All these organs and more, just by chance with no order or purpose, happened to show up in the human body and then work in harmony to sustain life. It is a considerable strain on one’s gullibility to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs could be improved by random mutations.

For me, I cannot hold the same belief as the atheist that denies the existence of God and claims that man lives in an accidental Universe without purpose, plan, or design.

[Moon The Loon]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_...ID_vatican.html

The link above is an interesting one. Only 400 years ago, Galileo was threatened with being burned at the stake for his beliefs. Nowadays, the Catholic church seems like it is embracing science so that it can control and refine its dogma without the draconian measures of yesteryear. No other world religion that I know of has done this or is even organized by a fraction of what has occurred in the Vatican.

Hawkeye's post (copied from somewhere?) highlights the inherent contradiction of faith based science. "This is what I observe today. Because I have a need for understanding, and no answer is forthcoming, I will make up an answer that explains everything. My answer is 'God'."

Notwithstanding, religion in general can be explained as quantum leap pseudo-science.

Back to Hawkeye's post: It is not only human eyes and organs: this argument would have to apply to all mammals as all mammals have similar body makeups. Evolution amongst mammalian creatures is a measured science. It is not a quantum leap to figure what applies to all other mammals must logically apply to us. Some evidence has already been found over the last 150 years. This post goes along the same lines as pseudo-science: When you can't explain or conceive of reality, make up an explanation that makes sense and can't be proved. = Hawkeye's article.

With no disrespect. This has been an interesting discussion.

[Guest Hawkeye]

At the end of the day, I am an agnostic too. An aethiest is essentially a believer as well - he just believes there's no God.

I have no proof either way, thus I am an agnostic (although an aethiest leaning agnostic).

Astronomer and Agnostic Dr. Robert Jastrow reluctantly acknowledged that the compelling new scientific evidence provides overwhelming proof that our Universe was purposely created by a Superintelligent Designer to allow humans to exist. Professor Jastrow wrote:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

A Universe that springs into existence together with time, space, energy, and mass is obviously a Universe that does not agree with the philosophy of either pantheism or atheism.

[GDR]

Hawkeye's post (copied from somewhere?) highlights the inherent contradiction of faith based science. "This is what I observe today. Because I have a need for understanding, and no answer is forthcoming, I will make up an answer that explains everything. My answer is 'God'."

Notwithstanding, religion in general can be explained as quantum leap pseudo-science.

Religion isn't science at all, pseudo or otherwise. Science attempts to provide answers in the physical realm, whereas religion hopes to provide answers in the metaphysical.

In that light I don't think that Hawkeye asks the right question either. The question isn't so much how all things came to be, but why. And for that matter what does all things consist of?

Materialists have come up with explanations of how the eye could have evolved stage by stage, and who can say whether they are right or not. However, if we assume that they are correct it still shows, in my view, irrefutable evidence of design. Does it really matter whether or not the design was complete with abiogenesis, (life from non-living matter), or whether the evolutionary process required intervention along the way to get to where we are today.

The big questions are why is there something instead of nothing. Why and for that matter what is life.

Materialists accuse Theists of creating a god of the gaps, (filling in scientific gaps by saying that God did it), but materialists like Dawkins do exactly the same thing with their science of the gaps theories. Dawkins' theory of memes in his book "The Selfish Gene" is a good example of that. Actually the Dawkins’ of this world are just substituting one religion for another, not that he would agree with that.

Science does not answer the basic question of what is consciousness and why do we have it. Why does that consciousness express itself through a wide range of emotions. Is original thought something material?

Evolution is to a degree based on survival of the fittest. If that is the case then why are we capable of altruistic thought and behaviour? Why compassion? If survival of the fittest is the criteria, then it would be in the best interests of my survival, and that of my progeny, for humans in the third world to die off, as they are using up the finite resources of this world. However, as a society we send people and money over to aid their survival. Science has no explanation for that, but my religion does.

I believe that we can acquire knowledge that is beyond what can be learned through the scientific method. Love or a sense of justice cannot be found in a test tube or seen through a microscope but it does exist.

In my view the idea that we are the result of some cosmic accident requires a much greater leap of faith than does the idea that we are designed by an external designer. If we accept the idea that we are designed creatures, then it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that the designer would have an ongoing interest in that design. If we accept the idea that there is a designer that is interested in his creation, then it follows that he would desire certain things of us and have a way of communicating those desires to us and instilling in us the ability to respond to them. I believe that Christianity represents the primary vehicle that He used to accomplish that.

[Guest Hawkeye]

Moon the Loon wrote:

Evolution amongst mammalian creatures is a measured science. It is not a quantum leap to figure what applies to all other mammals must logically apply to us.

Please explain to us how Evolution is a measured science and do use some logic.

Imagining how an incredibly complex biological system such as humanity could ever evolve by chance belongs in the realm of pure Fantasy, not Science.

Moon the Loon wrote:

Some evidence has already been found over the last 150 years.

Really? What evidence? Please read what Charles had to say about that Evidence!

In 1859, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the utter lack of fossil evidence for these missing links between one species and another provided "an unanswerable objection" to the theory of evolution.

Darwin himself was perplexed and very worried about the lack of fossil evidence. In his own words:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?…But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?

Maybe Moon the Loon's own pseudo-science (fake,bogus) can address Darwin's concerns.

The late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould was an internationally respected professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University. He was a strong and eloquent supporter of evolution. However, he honestly admitted that the illustrations of evolutionary development found in university science textbooks and television documentaries are actually fictitious inventions of creative artist that do not accurately represent scientific facts. “All paleontologist know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

To date, though, every species discovered in the fossil record appears perfectly formed. Paleontologists have never discovered a fossil showing a partially formed species or a partially formed organ. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of scientist and millions of dedicated amateurs have been searching worldwide for these missing-link fossils to support evolution, they have never found a single example.

[Seeker]

Hawkeye:

Not the watchmaker argument again! This is a favorite of Creationists and of you, apparently since you trot it out on a frequent basis. Look, it's been refuted over and over again. You know what the rebuttal is and my guess is that you are hoping that at least a few of the readers here might not have seen it. Here's a good starting point for anyone who hasn't:

Wikipedia - teleological argument

Do you notice how easy it is to find quotes from scientists saying; "we don't understand this", or "we made this mistake in our thinking", or "we had this wrong" etc, etc? It's because that's what science is, a continuous process of trail and error striving for perfection but never reaching it. Science admits it's mistakes, religion doesn't.

[Moon The Loon]

Wow. Where to start!

It is no coincidence I used the term 150 years. When Darwin's magnum opus was published in 1859, the scientific world was jolted into searching for evidence to prove him wrong. Paleontology became a household word.

Many of your statements were relevant and acceptable 150 years ago.

Measured science - from bacteria to brontosaurus - paleontologists have collected fossils, classified and published their findings in hundreds of thousands of papers. Museums all over the world hold collections of species that have evolved over time. Theories were developed and tested. Some have been discounted; some have passed the limited test of time. Paleontology is a relatively new science, but science nonetheless.

"Imagining how an incredibly complex biological system such as humanity could ever evolve by chance belongs in the realm of pure Fantasy, not Science." Sorry, but this is nothing other than your personal opinion. Imposing a dogma because one can't "imagine" an alternative is the antithesis of science.

"Really? What evidence? Please read what Charles had to say about that Evidence!" If you haven't been reading the newspapers, Charles has been dead for 125 years. If you are quoting him from one of his published works, just like every other brilliant mind that has inched science forward over the millenia, Charles made mistakes. Einstein made mistakes. Even Stephen Hawking has admitted much of his theory of black holes has been incorrect. That is what theoretical science is all about. Someone observes a phenomenon, tries to duplicate it then asks others to do the same thing. Over time, theories either come closer to being called fact or they are discredited.

"In 1859, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the utter lack of fossil evidence for these missing links between one species and another provided "an unanswerable objection" to the theory of evolution." This statement really makes me think you've been living in a bubble. Of course there was no evidence. Bones were bones and of no interest to anyone. Some attention was paid over the millenia by the wealthy in trying to preserve their earthly cadavers in preparation for the journey into the afterlife. But these were minutiae in the grand scheme of animal life on our pale blue dot. 150 years later, as stated above, the science of paleontology has grown immensely and found evidence that was not known to exist in Darwin's day.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" This statement is a real winner. Answer maybe: Because we haven't found them yet? Of all the species to have inhabited our little corner of the galaxy, humans in our present form count for an unbelievably small percentage of the total. Only humans have attempted to preserve themselves after death. And of the unbelievably small percentage we represent of total life here, another equally small percentage of the already small percentage has embalmed, mummified and/or entombed bodies for about 3,500 years. In geological terms, 3,500 years is 1.17 x 10 to minus 6 % of the time life is estimated to have existed on earth. All the rest of life has rotted into the ground. That's why we can't find remains of things! Evolution, as has been developed since Darwin died in 1882, doesn't take place overnight in mammals. It takes millions of years. The evidence you seek is being burned up as coal and other "fossil fuels".

Q. Have you ever taught a course on creation-science?

A. I couldn't. There is no such thing.

This from a deposition of Dr. Gould. I'm not sure he would appreciate being used in a backwards kind of way to support the creationism your recent post espouses!

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mcle...f_gould_dep.htm

"... they have never found a single example." Maybe. I don't know. But they continue to look, don't they?

************

Sorry if this sounds confrontational. Blurry-eyed opinion is a difficult thing to challenge. Or to respond to.

[Moon The Loon]

Religion isn't science at all, pseudo or otherwise.

Greg: I grant you that! But this is a term used in conjuction with "faith based science". Something even the Vatican loathes. So in the context of my use of the term, I think it appropriate.

It's a little sad that this 3 page thread has been interrupted by a dogmatic spat! This has been a very interesting discussion.

Maybe, in respect of those with strong beliefs, it's time for this thread to wind down.

It'll probably come back in some form though, sometime in the future.

[Kip Powick]

a very interesting read............all the result of an age old question that can not be answered, except, perhaps, by ones final demise.

"Religious Faith" is a wonderful thing, but on the flipside, those that believe in evolution and the theories that abound concerning how we got here can also be construed as a "Faith".

In the end it boils down to what you personally believe and perhaps one finds the answer when the last gasp is taken.

In my opinion, whatever makes you comfortable with this short period of time we have on this planet life is where you should be. What I find hard to tolerate are those that "push" their brand of "religion" because I firmly believe it is each to his/her own and the only thing that is annoying is that when/if I get the final answer I will be in no position to tell anyone.

[Moon The Loon]

...and the only thing that is annoying is that when/if I get the final answer I will be in no position to tell anyone.

Kip, you could always come back to haunt us!

[Seeker]

I feel like Kip's haunting me right now, and he's still with us.

[GDR]

Greg: I grant you that! But this is a term used in conjuction with "faith based science". Something even the Vatican loathes. So in the context of my use of the term, I think it appropriate.

It's a little sad that this 3 page thread has been interrupted by a dogmatic spat! This has been a very interesting discussion.

Maybe, in respect of those with strong beliefs, it's time for this thread to wind down.

It'll probably come back in some form though, sometime in the future.

Hi Moon

I apologise if you feel I've been confrontational. I don't see this as any kind of dogmatic spat but only a friendly discussion. I have strong beliefs but I realize others have strong beliefs too which is fine by me.

I think that we can draw inferences about the existence of a designer from science but those inferences aren't based on any kind of empirical evidence.

On a science forum that I go to occasionally there is a fellow who taught advanced quantum mechanics at Cambridge in the UK. He described the world we live in as a projection. I think that is fairly accurate and is fairly mainstream thought amongst those that study that kind of thing seriously. If we are a projection we have to ask what and where is the projector. At this point we don't know for sure whether science can learn about the projector or not but scientists are certainly going to try. We perceive the world and the universe in a particular way based on our 5 senses but science has found that the reality is that the world is not what we perceive it to be at all. We certainly don't perceive a rock to be made up of billions and billions and billions of dimensionless particles. To me this infers design but it certainly doesn't prove it.

I know very little biology so I am in no way qualified to argue for, or against, evolutionary theory. I do know that the vast majority of those who are qualified have considerable faith in that theory, including many Christians. However, when I consider that all life could have evolved from sludge I am very inclined to say “wow”, what an incredible intelligence it would take to make that happen, particularly considering that the sludge and everything else had to be created in the first place.

The supposed conflict between evolution and Christianity is only a problem for those that believe that the Bible has to be read literally. This is an idea that started during the enlightenment period and was primarily a political response to discredit opponents of a corrupt church. People like Augustine and more recently CS Lewis certainly didn't read the Bible that way. I believe that the Bible is inspired but I feel that to try and read it like a science text or a newspaper actually diminishes the truths that can be found in it. N.T. Wright has a book out called "The Last Word" on the authority of scripture. I highly recommend it.

Here is a quote from CS Lewis. "Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical."

Once again I believe that science whether it be physics or biology strongly infers that there is an “intelligent designer”, and I strongly believe that the historical record of mankind supports the accuracy of the Christian faith. However, in the end in it is a Kip says a “faith”.

Cheers

Greg Robinson

[Moon The Loon]

Greg: Not at all, mate! It was the other guy that got a little testy with my simple and personal opinion about which the comment was made. I didn't want to be responsible for starting a little battle over semantics.

Your thoughts and opinions are rarely if ever a source for a confrontational argument. Unless you wish to disagree vehemently with this!

[Guest Hawkeye]

“Measured science - from bacteria to brontosaurus - paleontologists have collected fossils, classified and published their findings in hundreds of thousands of papers. Museums all over the world hold collections of species that have evolved over time.”

In this quote you claim correctly that fossils have been found but not one transitional fossil to support his theory!

When I challenged you on the fact that Charles Darwin acknowledged that there was utter lack of fossil evidence for these missing links between one species and another…. You boldly state: “Of course there was no evidence. Bones were bones and of no interest to anyone.”

Again, further down in your post you say: “All the rest of life has rotted into the ground. That's why we can't find remains of things”.

In your first quote you state that fossils were collected and classified. Yet, in subsequent quotes you are essentially saying there is no evidence of fossils because it became rotten in the ground and that’s why we can’t find anything! Then what evidence do you have? Who is really the “Blurry-eyed one or at least one here who contradicts his own statement. Not sure what bubble your living in. But it appears to have busted.

“Blurry-eyed opinion is a difficult thing to challenge. Or to respond to”

If you were referring to Creation vs evolution, then that opinion (belief) happens to encompass millions of ordinary people whom I’m sure would feel offended by your “blurry-eyed” remark.

Darwin’s Tree Of Life

Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD has an undergraduate degree in geology and physics, with a minor in biology. In 1994, Wells, received a doctorate in molecular and cell biology.

“ One of the most recognizable icons is the drawing Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species to illustrate his theory that all living creatures had a common ancestor and that natural selection drove the development of the countless organisms we see in the modern world.”

We now have a century of fossil discoveries since Darwin drew his picture. Jonathan Wells says that the evolutionary tree has not held up what it represents. “Darwin’s theory is not supported by the physical evidence scientists have found in fossils. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree of Life is a dismal failure. But it is a good representation of Darwin’s theory.”

He goes on to say that Darwin believed that if a population was exposed to one set of conditions, and another part of the population experienced other conditions, then natural selection could modify the two populations in different ways. Over time, one species could produce several varieties, and if these varieties continued to diverge, they would eventually become separate species. That’s why is drawing was in the pattern of a tree.

“Darwin knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals--he calls them divisions, now they’re called phyla—appear suddenly in the fossil record. That’s not what his theory predicts.”

“His theory predicts a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences we have now. The fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite: the rapid appearance phylum-level differences in what’s called the Cambrian explosion.”

“ Fossil discoveries over the last 150 years have turned his tree upside down by showing the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive than scientist once thought. It has been called the Biological Big Bang because it gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today.”

The Cambrian was a geological period beginning more than 540 million years ago.

“Here’s what the record shows: there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian, although there’s no evidence to support Darwin’s theory of a long history of gradual divergence.”

“Then at the beginning of the Cambrian ----- Boom! ----- all of a sudden, we see representatives of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the like; echinoderms, which include modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates, which include modern vertebrates; and so forth.

“This is absolutely contrary to Darwin’s Tree of Life. These animals, which are so fundamentally different in their body plans, appear fully developed, all of a sudden, in what paleontologist have called the single most spectacular phenomenon of the fossil record.”

How suddenly did these animals come onto the scene? To illustrate this, Professor Wells said: Imagine yourself on the goal line of a football field. The line represents the first fossil, a microscopic, single-celled organism. Now start marching down the field. You pass the twenty-yard line, the forty-yard line, you pass the midfield, and you’re approaching the other goal line. All you’ve seen this entire time are the microscopic, single-celled organisms.

You come to the sixteen-yard line on the far end of the field, and now you see these sponges and maybe some jellyfish and worms. Then ----Boom! ---- In the space of a single stride, all these other forms of animals suddenly appear. As one evolutionary scientist said, “the major animal groups appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus ---- full blown and ready to go.”

Now, nobody can call that a branching tree. One paleontologist in China says it actually stands Darwin’s tree on its head, because major groups of animals ---- instead of coming last, at the top of the tree ---- come first, when animals make their first appearance. “Either way, the result is the same: the Cambrian explosion has uprooted Darwin’s tree.”Why is this drawing still featured in textbooks today? Not only is it included in the textbooks, but it’s called a fact.

I must point out that Darwin’s Tree of Life image is one of four Icons he uses to support his theory, The Miller experiment, Haeckel’s embryos and the archaeopteryx missing link being the others, all have been proven to be faked, misleading or misrepresent the facts.

Science, you might say, has discovered that our existence is infinitely improbable, and hence a Miracle.

Everyone has their own beliefs and thoughts on the origins of life. For me, it is to draw my attention to the universe. Look at the world and see that God’s fingerprints are all over it. Just my blurry-eyed opinion of course.

[Moon The Loon]

Just my blurry-eyed opinion of course.

Can't argue with that

But seriously: First, I deeply respect anyone's sincere belief in any theological, mystical, spiritual or other emotional response to a Supreme Being. And that respect includes your beliefs. Second, I am not a biologist but I have read Origin of Species. A very long time ago. Many of the quotes you have referred to are undoubtedly there. Darwin, like most of his time, was probably a deeply religious person. Maybe he wasn't. I don't know. But the bottom line of his science was the theory of evolution including natural selection and survival of the fittest. If indeed he was a religious mind, his scientific mind overrode his religious convictions to develop this (at the time) heretical theory. Regardless, he had the courage to publish then defend his findings.

The overall scope of my participation in this discussion is the zealousness and spotty references to all kinds of things including the isolation of some of the things I posted, criticism thereoff without taking into account the context of what I was trying to say. In my learning, this kind of focussed view of the current discussion has cost the lives of billions of people, depending on who held these views. Whether it is the radical Islamist, the zealous 16th century Pope, Saladin. Whoever in history.

So you can quote who you like to "prove" something that is not provable until the cows come home. If you are a true believer, you'll forgive a heathen like me for any indiscretion you feel has been sent your way.

Amen.

[groundeffect]

If one believes intristically in the Big Bang theory of creation,

Where then, did the dust which accumulated in an astronomical scale, come from?

[GDR]

If one believes intristically in the Big Bang theory of creation,

Where then, did the dust which accumulated in an astronomical scale, come from?

Well no one, least of all me, knows for sure but I see it this way.

Energy and mass are in a way different forms of the same thing except that it takes a lot of energy to make a small amount of mass and a little mass can be converted to a great deal of energy. Remember E=MC>2

If at the time of the BB there was a massive, maybe even an infinite amount of energy that rapidly expanded in the same manner that the surface of a balloon expands when you blow it up, then some of that energy would become massive and some of that would become matter. (Mass is a measure of gravitational effect and is not necessarily matter.) Actually, only 5% of the universe is visible matter.

Incidently that ballon is still expanding and they found out within the last few years that the rate is accelerating.

Man I hope nobody who really knows what they are talking about doesn't read this.

[Moon The Loon]

Hey Greg, if you think that is mind-boggling, current cosmology is discussing multiple "universes". Like bubbles in a boiling cauldron of water - each interacting and interfering with each other.

One of the basic faults, in my poor uneducated opinion, of theoretical science in regards The Big Bang Theory as we know it is its fixation with "Beginning". In my mind, like the measurement of time, there is no beginning. The term "beginning" is a man-made concept. If you can get past that infinite concept, a lot of the rest falls into place.

Look at it mathematically. Until Euclid (if I remember correctly) discovered negative numbers, the number 1 (not zero) was always the "beginning" of numbers. After all, how could there be less than 1 number of anything. "Nothing" was not a number until quite recently.

There are lots of other concepts that can be interlaced with the concept. But it's almost as hard as learning to believe the world is flat.

[GDR]

For anyone interested in this stuff there is a great book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.

I think that the most interesting study is what we are learning about time. Time is essentially how we perceive change and we all perceive it differently depending on our motion and where we are in the gravitational field. The faster you move the slower time passes and the further you are from the center of the Earth (as long as you are in our gravitational field), the faster time passes.

If we could travel at the speed of light, then time would cease or become meaningless. A photon of light can be anywhere or everywhere at any time.

It is pretty mainstream thought that time actually goes by in chunks. Instead of a constant flow it is a whole series of nows or moments. (Like watching a movie. It looks like a constant flow on the screen but when you look at the film it is really just done with one frame at a time.) From what I read most cosmologists consider time an illusion.

Between the worlds of relativity and quantum mechanics there is nothing about our existence that is in reality how we perceive it.

Boy, have we gotten off topic. Sorry Kip.

[groundeffect]

Little mass or not, where did the initial dust come from?

Ofcourse you can't answer the question...even Einstein said God doesn't play dice.

[GDR]

Actually Einstein's quotation referred to the mysterious world of Quantum Mechanics and Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle and not to the formation of the universe.

As far as the original dust is concerned, I think you are just asking the same question which is "why is there something instead of nothing", which could apply to dust, energy, life or anything else.

[groundeffect]

Nevertheless, Einstein was a reported 'theist' before he died.

You still havn't told me where the dust came from

[Moon The Loon]

Little mass or not, where did the initial dust come from?

Ofcourse you can't answer the question...even Einstein said God doesn't play dice.

Have you read Carl Sagan's novel Contact? In the movie, the director spends about 2% of the movie on the Voyage. In the book, it's about 25%.

When Elly asked her "Father" on the beach something along the lines of if he was the image of God, the response was "if that is what you'd like to call me. I've been called many similar things." When asked how she got there and what was this place, he said "I don't know: it was here when I arrived."

Beginning and end. It's a human invention. If spiritualists believe in a hereafter that is infinite, without end, they must accept that infinity, like the number line extends infinitely in the before. There was no beginning.

And that's all I have to say about that!

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks Moon.

..

....

....

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.......

Now I can find the biggest line of BS in this thread....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.....

.......

"

"And that's all I have to say about that!"

[Moon The Loon]

Now I can find the biggest line of BS in this thread....

Best Synopsis?