Miller-Urey experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment So is this interesting to anybody else? While it doesn't prove origin of life on earth, that project and the ones being done today suggest it is/was possible

With the unimaginable expanse of space, number of stars planets and moons, how can anybody not wonder what else is out there? Or here for that matter.

Nature abhors a void.

There is speculation that we will find thousands of new species when they get down to the bottom of the deep sea trenches that they are fixed to do soon with that new titanium enforced sub we have been reading about.

One of the basic precepts of biology is that life does not arise from non-life. To believe in anything other than creation by a supreme being, you must essentially believe that a rock turned into a human, through a number of complex processes.

if you say so loosegoose it must be true. thank you for explaining it

Here is what nasa has to say about it. Tell me again about the rocks.

FWIW just because I dont know and you dont know, and no one else knows either, is not proof that life originated from a creator, an invisible entity that has always existed, with magic powers.

Science is math and math is science. Many leading mathematicians claim there's zero to the enth degree chance life arose by happenstance.

Which ones?

Not to be a burr under the saddle...but, in genesis how did God make life? Wasn't his raw materials non-living?

13.8 billion years ago BANG instant universe, 4.5 billion years ago, Earth forms, it is basically molten with no atmosphere. 3.5 billion years ago, Earth cools and almost instantaneously we find life in single cell organisms. It will take 3 billion years for single cell organisms to become multi celled.

Life seems to have formed almost as soon as conditions allowed though complex life took along time to come about. Scientist estimate there are 40 Billion Earth like planets in the Milky way Galaxy and there are at least 100 Billion Galaxies each containing likely billions of Earth like planets.

Knowing life formed quickly in conditions that have been repeated on Billions of other planets it seems to me that there is very likely other life out there. Knowing Earth is a young planet it is possible that other life has Billions of years head start on life on Earth.

If the "big bang" was real do you think it was the beginning of time? Is it possible that black holes just keep gaining mass. Combining together over billions of years until another big bang occurs? Why can there only have been one big bang? Perhaps space and time are infinite. No beginning or end?

Check out John Lennox for one. He's debated all the big names on your side of the aisle.

Because there is no evidence for it.

Thanks Posco. Im no mathematician so it all comes down to who you think is most likely correct i suppose.

there is absolute proof our galaxy is expanding outward from the center

I would say the "Bang" is the beginning of time as we are able to perceive it. I have best heard it described like this, you are standing at the north pole and want to continue further north, where do you go? You obviously cant go anywhere and be further north than you already are. It is the same with the Bang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKnpPCQyUec

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? What is on the other side of the expansion? It can’t be nothing since nothing would still be something. It can’t be all black or dark since dark is still something. One conclusion may be that space is infinity but that is also mind boggling that it never ends. Maybe this is where a God comes into the overall picture.

Matter does not arise from nothing. Where did the rock come from? The Creator- Jesus Christ.

If what you are saying is true I dont have to point out the obvious implications do I?

Link in the original post doesn't work!

By faith I believe God is eternal without beginning or end. Always was and always will be.
Genesis1:1 “in the beginning God created the heaven and earth”
John1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”

BIGBOB- Try this link- Urey experiment

Hard to get ones head around, isn't it! The Bible in many places says God stretched/stretches out the heavens. Science agrees the heavens are indeed expanding. The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth from nothing. The BB theory is remarkably close to that.

The Bible isn't at odds with science, science is catching up.

I'm surprised to hear that Jesus Christ was the creator. Thought it was his dad.

John 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Big Bang created space, matter, and time in our universe.

There are millions of other earth-like worlds in our galaxy. Assuming a lot of them have life, there should be many where life is more advanced than we are, technologically. Which brings up the question:

WHERE IS EVERYBODY?

Why isn't the earth being visited by extraterrestrials? There should be hundreds of advanced civilizations visiting earth.

It seems that either something is wrong with one of our assumptions, or there is a big piece missing from the picture.

Jim

You are assuming a linear projection of technology that would make it possible for highly evolved beings to travel long distances through space. In the 3.5 billion years of life on Earth we have one species that can just barely project itself into space. Our space going capabilities to my knowledge have not advanced all that much since 1970, we may have seen what an organic being is capable of already.

you're assuming they'd WANT to visit us.

my personal theory is that the earth became the insane asylum of the universe after The Fall. (everybody shipped their nut cases here.)

only explanation that makes sense, based on empirical evidence.

As I said before as well, almost as soon as conditions allowed life sprang up on Earth but it took another 3.5 Billion years for multi celled complex life to evolve, it could be there is alot of life out there but not much complex life, at least within our current observational abilities.

Yes, but there are earth like worlds out there that are billions of years older than the earth, where life is probably billions of years older--giving rise to multicellular life and intelligent life earlier than our planet.

WHERE ARE THEY?

Jim

Something happened at Roswell. Other very possible maybes that we have been visited. We humans still like to kill each other, steal from each other, use each other for personal gain. IF there are intelligent creatures capable of interstellar travel maybe they figure we are best left to our own devices. Maybe a planet of interstellar travelers that are planetary predators just havnt found us yet. Maybe interstellar travel is impossible.

Maybe we are alone. That seems unlikely to me.

You don't have to assume a strictly linear projection of technological advance; so long as there is any advance in technology, they would likely develop the means to traverse interstellar space not too long after reaching our own stage of development.

SO WHERE ARE THEY?

Jim

The closest Earth like planet is 4.2 light years away. Nothing biological that we can even imagine can survive a 4.2 light year journey through space, that is assuming the closest Earth like planet has life. The distances are massive and we only have 1 habitable planet in our solar system, if a intelligent being was out colonizing and exploring they would likely start in areas with multiple planets that could contain life close together. It seems to me we have hit a technological wall on space exploration, the Saturn V was supposed to be Mars capable and that was in the 70s, we may be coming up against the limits of space exploration.

EDIT- Using the fastest rocket we have now it would take 50,000 years to get to the closest Earth like Planet.

I always wondered the same thing. Since we never found the missing link to our intelligent life, maybe something occurred by pure accident here on earth that never occurred on other planets to create intelligent life. Life might exist on other planets through evolution but never had that one freak occurrence to create intelligent life. Or maybe this is once again where a God comes in.

We can envision ways to travel the distance to other star systems, even if we accept light speed as the cosmic speed limit. If mankind really put its collective talents and resources together, we probably have the capability to develop a multi-generational starship.

We certainly could send robot probes to the nearer stars. But unlike the ancient Egyptians, we aren't good at projects that take multiple generations to complete.

A civilization that is a billion years older...should have plenty of time to send at least a probe.

SO WHERE ARE THEY?

Jim

I am starting to feel like I am being interrogated lol.

I have no idea where life could be out in space or why we have not seen evidence of it, it is fun to theorize but that is all we can do. Maybe by the time we have the capability to travel over long distances in space we will have run out of the resources to do it, maybe that is a common theme.

There is very little collective desire to spend the money and resources it would take to do extensive space exploration, maybe that is also a common theme.

what makes you so sure they havnt been here?

where does the billion years older come from?

that's a MIGHTY big leap, James!

what evidence do you base that assumption on???

Look at how long it has taken the lifeforms on Earth to reach the stage which humans occupy currently. Now think about if we were to encounter a planet crippler the likes of which wiped out nearly every life form when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Do you think that that we would survive that, given that we are essentially naked apes?
The other planets in the universe surely suffer similar setbacks over time. These setbacks thwart the progress of developing space travel throughout the universe.
To be successful in space travel, it would be necessary to discover a way to manipulate time space. Time space is bent by anything which has mass. If enough mass can be created, time space can theoretically be folded in half. This will result in instantaneous space travel. You would then need to figure out how to do this without destroying a galaxy or two in the process.
THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE.

Our sun is a second- or third-generation star, measured from the Big Bang. There are stars, some with planets, that are billions of years older than our own.

Jim

One explanation for their absence may be the distance factor, plus light speed being the absolute speed limit, meaning they haven't had time to get here yet.

The earth has only been leaking human TV transmissions into space for 70 or so years. Maybe there's a civilization 100 lightyears away that hasn't intercepted our signals yet.

52Carl, I think the term you mean to use is "space-time," not "time space."

Jim

Maybe they just don't think we are worth the bother. I mean we might be the retards of the universe.

This is all making sense now

We do realize that we're using our finite minds to try and explain infinitude, right?

It's not hard to prove we are finite thinkers and do'ers.
Name the stars. All of them. Or even 100 of them. 50?
Your witness your honor.
Humans are wonderfully crafted but we are not as capable as our Renaissance - Enlightened - Humanistic - Liberalism philosophers would have us believe. Modern Humanism states that given enough time and resources, man will produce utopia and nirvana and the sinless being, with his own genius.

Good folks routinely ask followers of Christians to prove this, that, and the other, about their faith, but then I'm curious why we labor so hard to defend and debate? I'm not sure why we try so hard to do that. The two big evangelical revival times in our nation's history are long gone anyway since the 1850's, having been birthed in our country's Northeast region (NY especially), and most of those who were "persuaded" to repent and declare didn't bear much fruit anyway, so there's not much need to hammer away. Some preachers just haven't gotten that memo is all, and it's been 150 years.

And then there's those who judge God based on the acts of sinful people (us)? Interesting. This pastor did this, so God is dead. That person did that and they say they're a Christian. This is proof of no God? You've bought in to man being much better than we really are in the sin department. I can say with certainty that I will not meet a sinless person until I die and we're resurrected in Heaven, so I don't look for sinless folks here on earth. They ain't here. I admit, it's unfortunate that people in any faith are unfaithful to what they profess in, but then that's not new theology either. Been around as long as folks have been around.

And besides, why do we have so many denominations in our nation anyway? More than any other country by far. That's an easy one to answer. It's our national heritage! Americanism complete with words and concepts like freedom, Rambo, and John Wayne. I love those old westerns! If I don't like you or the decision you make at church... I'll start my own! It's the American dream! Ours is a country founded on individualism, freedom, and fairness. We are the envy of the world in all these matters and we have untold wealth to show for it. Blessings beyond measure.

But how's it going for most folks? Everything super good? All the time? Everything humming right along. No illness, abuse, death, suicide, depression, marital discourse, anxiety, addictions, strife, or anything you know of? Nobody cheat you lately? Nobody steal from you lately? Nobody try to pull a fast one on you lately? Heck, we just had a conference here at seminary on the fact that Texas has 300,000 humans right now being trafficked for labor and sex. But who cares if it's not my sister or daughter. Just exactly how is our nation's individualism on steroids and historic wealth working for y'all and all y'all's friends and families? If just fine, count your blessings.

Please just realize that some of us, maybe not most in America, believe in God who we don't know exhaustively, but we do know sufficiently. Our finite minds cannot fathom infinitude, so we don't try. We marvel in the humble mystery of our faith. Solid on what we can know, and blessed and appreciative of what we can't know, but is still available to us.
We are a culture that doesn't do enough taking kids trapping, kissing our spouse when we are wrong and saying we're sorry, but that all makes sense because we are a society that idolizes the wrong things and the wrong manners. But that's all OK, if most say it's all OK. Because lies told often enough become truth in a society with few moral footings. Happened to the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Romans, the Greeks, all the great nations in history. It may happen here in America too someday.

At the end of the day, people make choices based on two pretty simple reasons: A. To obtain pleasure. B. To avoid pain
Crazy as it may sound, when open minds and hearts seek solid answers, and a caring person takes a few minutes to share the love of Christ, and the beauty of the One who created us, it's not a hard choice... they often choose the Christian path. Why? Because humans have a track record of short stints of pleasure mixed in with a mountain of crummy stuff, and sometimes, sometimes, it makes you sincerely reflect on the big picture stuff. Hard pride has no use for this superstition, but that's not new idealism either. Been around since the woman not yet called Eve, "saw," "took" and deemed "good" in her sight, not the One who created her.

I see God as a beautiful Creator of the world that I'm so blessed to have a wife, 5 grown children and 11 grandkids in. A world where I can see diversity and wonder every day I trap, hunt, and fish. God doesn't "owe" me one thing. Not anything more than He has already given me. So, my finite doesn't demand of the infinite because that would be backwards. And come to think of it, unlike American cult religions, Islam, and Pantheists, my God of the Bible doesn't make me serve him, or my wive(s), or anyone else. That's unique.

Nothing else but a higher Being could have orchestrated what did happen to get us here and what is still happening all around us.
I believe people don't choose what they don't know. And many people don't know Jesus, so they don't chose him. That's fair.
But I am confident when I suggest anyone NOT get their answers to the biggest questions in this life based on fallen men and fallen ideas.


Blessings,
Mark

Stirring the pot with a religious sermon.

That was a secular discussion.

Jim

So was mine.

The problem with science is there is to much theory. An unproven assumption; conjecture: abstract thought; speculation: So while you think about that , I have to go now._____________________ Beam me up scotty.

I believe quantum physics put the old Newtonian physics to bed as far as the speed of light is concerned. Stir a flower, trouble a star.

What we dont know is certainly more than what we do, but that lack of knowledge is not proof that magic is real. It doesn't exclude magic either. I guess its just like the guy sitting ontop a lookout with his atlatl, hoping tomorrow he can find the meat his family needs. He looks up into a night sky full of stars and wants answers. his mind starts examining possibilities. We do build on our knowledge slowly and steadily.

LOL

LOL

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a27115756/dna-ancestral-heritage/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dna-west-africans-study-says/4747187002/

we are still making discoveries about our ancient ancestors.

Good point danny. I might humble offer that because of our cultural background, and the word "magic" having a certain meaning (it's always the definition of a word in a language and the cultural implications of that meaning that start and typically propel a discussion), when you use that term, it may not come across the same as you understand it to the person receiving your thought. Example: "magic" is wonderful to a 3 year old. A paycheck that is "magically" bigger than a 50 year old expected is he/she decides is A. Gift. B. Mistake C. Miracle? It's all in how you define the words that solidify what you are discussing, true? So if you use magic to describe another's belief is that the word you would use to describe your belief? Probably not is my guess as the words we use to sting others is not usually the words we use to prop up our own tightly held truths. But our goal isn't to change another's words. Honest. People use the words they like to use. We all do. I do.

But none of us really knows enough about anything to hold to perfected, 100% I got this slam dunk truth of much of anything. Pride may say I got this slam dunk and others don't have a clue, but that just makes me a holder of pride, not truth. Cause what my truth is may not be valid, at any level, down the street or a quantum leap away, and honestly none of us do much more than hammer away at the blessing of life, try to earn our way above broke (thus the retirement thread) and make life easier in some ways for our loved ones.

Rationalized, philosophy on a Saturday morning y'all.
Catching coyotes is easier than this stuff!!!
But the answers to some questions are much more important than others.

Sting others? Since when is a belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic? What better word is there?

Find where I said evolution, big bang, ancient humans, or anything else is indisputable. What I have said is this is the evidence that these ideas are real. What I said was lack of indisputable truth, does not lead me to believe in magic.

Hocus pocus and bang! Here we are. Magical... :
The use of 'magic' can be used in mocking ways. Even works with science.

I read all this got to me to wondering what them aliens on them other planets might have for a coon market??? LMAO! Wondering if they have advanced to the point of having polar fleece? or still wearing fur??
God only knows as my mother used to say.
They still dying and waxing? or using some space age dip?
We may never know lmao!

Mac

Any chance that the reason no DNA has been found for the creature we call a swamp ape or bigfoot or yeti is because its an extraterrestrial creature? Not primitive at all? No remains ever found because they visit, take samples, observe, and leave?

Your right about us likely never knowing Mark, but our great great grandkids might

danny, I might use the word miracle.
I respect your use of the term "evidence" from finite minds on a finite number of subjects. I have a graduate level degree in Biology, hard earned back in the 70's and 80's from universities... 100 years after Charles Darwin, changed the theological landscape for our country, and I remember then asking my professors about how to explain the fact that during our invertebrate research thesis projects we couldn't make the connection of trans-species mutability. Fancy words for; one species changes into another. Darwin never explained that in his theory and it's incomplete without it. You can't have a homo- anything turn into a homo-sapien unless you have one species change into another for reproductive mutability (you can mate and it works out). Same reason a zebra doesn't mate with a frog and make a zerog. My profs just told me to make it work in my project, literally by making up my own theory. Ahhhhh. I hold truth! Sweet! Got a passing grade and a Masters degree outta the deal, so they were right. Make it up and make it work. Got it.

Now, that kind of junk is evidence. Same dudes, just 40 years later. Same thinking. But when I can't prove at a research level, with brilliant minds around the world seeking to find the same answers, using the finest gear tuition funds can purchase, the answer to why one invertebrate is so much more diverse in a span of three generations? That flies in the face of Dr. Darwin and his hocus pocus (that's what we called it) who professed evolution of the strongest and fittest, and our microscopes were discovering things that looked like a creator was at work. Well, it was fun. And I didn't believe in God at the time. That didn't come until much later. I just saw how "evidence" in research was done. Pretty shady and money drives too much to too many conclusions. Now the new game is climate change. Same crowd. Different tactics.

And do not tell some that climate change is not real and that we're all headed for doom cause danny sir, they will tell you that you are believing in magic and they hold the new truth. Yours is outdated.

There is a game changer and it's not actually in any of this discussion.
It's the God-man who waited until all knew he was dead-dead-dead.
And then He rose again.
That's evidence enough for some. Not for all.

Why do you call this belief superstition, and christianity divinely inspired truth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din%C3%A9_Bahane%CA%BC

Simple answer.
3 words that have never been done before or since.

He is Risen.

Now, if they prove that untrue someday, the Christian faith is null and void.

For some of us, an ordered, beautiful, complex creation, controlled by laws....makes much more sense than an accident, that resulted in life forming in some primordial soup, resulting the majesty that we call the planet earth.

With exceedingly complex life on it.

Nothing man can create is close to the complexity of a human.

So evolution supposes the ACCIDENTALLY evolved human can't itself make something nearly as complex as itself.

That points to a Creator to me.

Mark you have chosen to believe the resurrection story. Simple as that. No evidence except some stuff written 200 years after it supposedly happened. Yes I know that isnt what is commonly taught but I am certain you are aware that no original texts have been found. There are other accounts that have been found as well but the Catholics did not include these writings in their "bible". A lot of ancient texts are held at the vatican whose contents are not allowed to be public.

Organized christianity has a looooong history of opposing scientific examination and discovery's.

here is an example

http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/f...catholic-church-prohibited-copernicanism

Darwin was unable to explain everything, his understanding and theory only laid the foundation on which more evidence has been built. Connections have been made in trans species mutability, we have gathered more fossil evidence and we have the ability to analyze DNA which has led to major strides in understanding evolution.

I have never seen a dead man rise and have seen no evidence it is possible. If you choose to believe that it is based on faith not evidence.

We're told here that "Organized christianity has a looooong history of opposing scientific examination and discovery's" per my trapping colleague in the heartland of America.

danny, in the spirit of healthy conversation brother, you're not accurate.

Here is a good link for an organization, The Creation Research Institute, that is now more respected than ever in the field of evolutionary discovery. Been at it for 50 years and they now have a respected seat at all major conferences, complete with presentations. Their more recent research on carbon dating methodology has many in the field assessing and asking major valid questions about carbon dating time tables.

Their magazine link;
https://www.icr.org/aaf

And sorry DonnerS,
There has never been a trans-mutable discovery between two distinct species. Close cousins becoming one, yes. Two distinct. Never.

And to be transparent at my end, I'm not trying to talk anyone into anything. Why would I?
An analogy might be;
When someone calls us murderers for trapping.
I guess I wonder... Why do we trap? To murder animals?
If someone says I'm a murderer of innocent animals, I politely say, "You got the wrong guy." But I don't try to talk them into trapping. They may think I'm trying to do that...."Don't think I'm going to trap, because I would never kill a poor innocent animal like you do," they say.
But I'm just trying to tell 'em I'm not a murderer.
Not convert 'em.

So your saying that the church didnt burn early scientists or put them under house arrest or ridicule the earth is round and revolves around the sun? What about burning early dr's for wanting to dissect corpses?

You keep insinuating i think evolution is fact. I have said all along i dont know. There is evidence that supports that theory and none that gives credence to an invisible deity that created and controls the galaxy.


i say we don't know. I would like to know but seriously doubt it will be answered in my lifetime.

Lack of proof that the big bang happened or that life began as single cells and evolved is NOT proof that a creator exists and the bible is the creators truth.

throughout our history religion has been used to control people and unify them. It is the exact reason constantine put together the first organized christian church. To unify all the tribes in his empire. Its why so much paganism exist in christianity. It served to help him unify his empire under one religion and his rule. its why all the important doctrines were voted on. Even whether or not jesus was divine. many many early followers did not think he was.

I do not think you are correct but I am weary of saying that because of the specific wording you are using.

A few years back it was "Dinosaurs could of never evolved into birds because they couldn't have feathers" Then fossils of feathered dinosaurs are examined or discovered.

Another, "Humans could not have come from Chimps because there is no missing link" then fossil and DNA discoveries show a common ancestor and many "missing links" as well as DNA from now extinct archaic Humanoids.

To my observation the evidence keeps pushing one way and it is not towards men rising from the dead or parting seas with staffs.

Danny Catholics burned Christians for sharing the Bible. Scientists weren't the only ones burned.
Do you think the science of climate change is not being used to control people. As well as evolution, big bang, etc. Believe in science, not in God.
Donnersurvivor I guess witnesses seeing the resurrected Jesus ain't good enough for you. I know scientists are as pure as the fresh driven snow. There is no possible way that data would/could be manipulated to prove a point a person wants to make, or to receive funding for a particular project, etc. We all know scientists walk on water.

i never saw anyone walk on water. Never saw starving people get manna from heaven. Never heard any fell for starving jews during the holocaust.

Catholics were burning protestants because they were losing some of their control and a lot of their money. It was more about showing relics capable of miracles as being hoax's rather than bible interpretation. The whole statue crying blood and skulls with eyes that moved etc was a BIG money maker. When the pope said no more church owned brothels they needed new sources of revenue. the protestants were costing them a fortune in lost revenue.

Some individual scientist have undoubtedly fudged some things throughout history or even went so far as to fake data. Scientist are human and prone to mistakes, that is one reason it is good that multiple people in the same field replicate and review findings and that nobody is above reproach in science.

I dont believe the witnesses that say they have seen Sasquatch, I dont believe the witnesses that say they have seen the lochness monster, I dont believe witnesses who said they have seen angels or demons and I dont believe the witnesses who seen a dead guy rise out of a grave move a giant stone and then went to visit his friends.

One time I seen a fox, I barely caught a glimpse of him cresting a hill, I ran up to get a better look and that fox had turned into a squirrel and had left squirrel tracks right were I had seen the fox, but I was 100% sure I seen a fox...

You guys touting science are mostly counting on theories not proven science. The real gap is the link of one cell turning into a different cell. And when it happens it would be instantly not over millions of years because a cell cant be part one thing and part another thing. The millions of years is just something that's gives the illusion that the impossible is possible if given enough time.

The other gap is an inorganic thing taking on life. Again the millions of years thing. In those millions of years is it slowly transitioning from a rock to a living thing, like part inorganic to part alive?

You think early Catholics were burning scientists for another reason? The early Catholic church was manipulative and evil. That early "church" is not representative of the true Gospel, neither then or now.

Mike

Have you seen evolution, a big bang, etc.? You seem to have no problem believing those things that are unseen.

Look at an eye. Absolutely no way an eye arises through random selection. EVERY intermediate step is COMPLETELY USELESS. Yet we are supposed to believe that millions of organisms perpetuated thousands of *useless* intermediate, *nonfunctional* organs over millions of years until voila! a fully functioning eye pops up, and then... eyes get instantly spread across hundreds of species. Yeah right!!

The only evolution is devolution - narrowing, aka lessening, of genetic information. The evidence has clearly shown that genetic information is *never* expanding, only contracting. Like all Lefties, Darwin got it backwards.

The last two sentences there have more science, proof and facts behind them than all the evolution theory put together.

James' question is one I have asked myself for a while.

WHERE ARE THEY?

And I'm not even looking for a saucer to set down on the White House lawn and see Klaatu emerge. We've been using radio for about 125 years now. So for 125 years we've had signals emanating from Earth at the speed of light... So anybody listening within approximately 60 light years has had time to hear and respond and we should've heard their reply by now. So far... Zip.

Or if one wants to argue that we are late bloomers and other intelligences have had possibly a billion years head start... We should be picking up signals from "civilizations" a billion or so light years away by now. So far... Zip.

Radio is about the cheapest, most effective way (admittedly, that we are aware of) to contact anyone who might be listening. To me it would be the first step to at least get a bearing on which way to head if you were making preparations to strike out and explore. So far... Zip.

So, the distances are so vast that we haven't had time to receive a signal... Or we aren't hearing what they're sending... Or "they" have decided we aren't worth talking to...

Or Occam was right, simplest answer is usually the correct one... there is no one out there... We're it.

Mike

OK, I'll admit it. My name is Mark and I'm a Trekkie. Grew up on it. Couldn't get enough of it. Want more of it.
But even if the Klingon space craft has been in the shop for quite a while after mowing a field in Iowa spelling out "ET WAS HERE" or "AND YOU'RE LITTLE DOG TOO," and D'Jaba hasn't been able to make it back for those who await his return in his saucer....

Who made the Alien?

We can see evolution, check out wall lizards. We can also see it in the fossil record and with DNA. We cannot see the big bang only the evidence that it happened. Imagine walking up to the scene of a car crash, broken vehicles, glass all over the road, because you did not see the actual crash would you doubt what happened?

The evolution of the eye makes sense. Intermediates would be highly useful. https://evolution-institute.org/eye-origins-how-evolution-could-produce-a-sophisticated-eye/

Imagine you read the eyewitness account of 500 people seeing a car crash, because you didn't see it would you doubt it didn't happen?

it seems odd there are no original written accounts .

it also seems odd that only paul ever made that claim. a man that never even knew jesus.

Hahaha,

When a non-believer posts on a Biblical topic they are asked if you don't believe in it why are you interested in it. Is there a parallel here?

Haha, who says believers don't believe in science. I see science as revelation. A glimpse, how be it very small, into the power of God Almighty.

Fair enough. If you read that 11 eyewitnesses saw a car crash, just because you didn't see it does that mean it didn't happen?

I used to be a kid and was taken to church and sunday school. had a thorough indoctrination. Then I began looking around and seeing the world with my own eyes

My primary doubts about evolution come from looking at humans... All other animals are suitably adapted to their environment. Humans are not. The fastest human is among the slowest of animals. We don't have fur to protect us from temperature extremes. We don't have a mouth full of sharp teeth. We don't have long sharp claws to fight with. We can't climb trees very well. Our sense of smell is pretty much worthless. Our vision is fairly decent but nowhere near the best. And we are not instinctively afraid of fire.

Yet somehow I am expected to believe that over successive generations spanning millions of years our cognitive ability alone improved enough to allow us to survive everything nature threw at us.

Our big brains provided enough of an advantage for us to shed fur, teeth, claws, speed, strength, and olfactory senses... Really?

Amongst animals we are the most ill-suited to our respective environments. And yet somehow we are at the top of the food chain... All by accident.

What are the odds for that kind of luck?

Mike

Im not sure what you mean by car crashes analogy ,but I would be skeptical if 200 years after a buggy crash, a crash there were no newspaper accounts of, suddenly appeared in print and was marketed as accurate information.

A faith based on miracles or "magic" is a shallow one.

One of the repeated lessons of the bible is exactly that.


Right after the ten plagues God performed in Egypt, they were worshipping the golden calf.

The religious powers that be in Christ's time hired the two guards for Christ's tomb. They reported what they saw, Christ's ressurection, and it was rejected.

I doubt a miracle could convince you.

Your existence is a miracle. You dont don't believe.

The Theory of Evolution is as accepted in science as the Theory of Gravity.

DNA science has only confirmed it.

Jim

Even if the exodus story is based on a real event I seriously doubt the biblical version is accurate. Hard to imagine that parting the red sea, magically making the bottom solid, filling back in and halting all pursuit, would create non-believers who felt a need to worship a calf made of gold. i also never have figured out how a bunch of runaway slaves had enough gold to make a calf.

Be fruitful and multiply. Subdue and have dominion. Check

Didn't say how big it was. The point was the lesson learned from it for your sake.



Gravity Is not the same.

Create life.

Just create something as complex as a human. And that will last 70 years.

So many parts of the body are incredibly complex and well engineered.

Mankind can't recreate something that supposedly happened on accident.

Life is an undeniable miracle.

I have been following this thread closely as I really enjoy discussions such as this. Mark June I see you are well-written as always. It does wound me some to see your distaste for those philosophers! I do think philosophical ethics offer a chance to examine how we interact with the world. I don't recommend taking them all literally and I suspect you would agree! But a temporary consideration of how a different lens might shape a view of the world can be interesting. Humanity and human behavior was sub-par prior to enlightenment, and arguably remains so.

I have been wanting to point something out for a few pages now....I see multiple people using the word theory.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has accumulated a large amount of supporting evidence AND undergone a tremendous amount of scrutiny and attempts to disprove the hypothesis. This theory is an assemblage of facts that are predominantly accepted as being the probable explanation. A theory is called a theory because it has survived extensive efforts to prove the idea false and, until proven otherwise, remains seen as the probable truth for now. It is not static. It can change. The step beyond a theory is a law (I think?)

When something is irrefutably proven as unwavering fact, it becomes a law. My biology is a little rusty, but I believe this to be fairly close. Go easy on me please.

So to say something is just a theory is a misuse of words. For a theory is actually a set of facts that, for the time being, seem to interrelate to prove a point. Which is kind of a big deal...

As long as I'm posting, just a reminder that recorded history accounts for a miniscule percentage of human existence. Rocks are not carbon and there is a lot that may never be known.

They swiped it on the way out the door... Payment for 400 years of labor.

Exodus 3:22 "But every woman shall BORROW of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians."

Mike

The more I studied religion, the more I came to believe in the science of evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Then....., the more I studied science and its inability to either create life from nothing or explain how the Big Bang could create something out of nothing, the more I came to believe in a Creator. True, science pretty much proves there was a Big Bang but it does not prove what caused it, how it was triggered, or how something (the entire fricking universe) came from nothing.

Neither theory can be proven, but I earnestly believe something can not be made from nothing without divine intervention. Life, in its variety of forms, requires intelligent design. The code in DNA was "written" so it could be passed from generation to generation. With genetic modifications, man is rewriting this code, but we have not been able to write a code from scratch, ergo a Creator.

I also believe there may be other life in our universe. Just because the bible and other religions don't specifically say there are other life forms out there, does not mean that they are not.

This is what I believe, prove me wrong.

BTW, I won't argue with you or tell you you are wrong. It is my belief and you are free to choose your own.

Some have faith in science, my faith is in the Creator.

danny, I can help your timeline quite a bit because I'm not sure where you get the number 200 you keep using? I just finished quite an extensive historical theology (I love history) project last semester and at my disposal (about 100 yards from our apartment here at seminary) is a top ten library in the world as far as theological works. 380,000 man written books... all about one book. Pretty wild when you step back and look at it all.

But the Christian writings did not start 200 years after the Christ's ascension in front of multiple witness in Anno Domini 33. The period of the Apostles and their writings is from 33AD- 100AD. The period of the early fathers is designated from 100AD-150AD. The apologists were from 150AD-300AD. And the Hebrew Scriptures upon which the New Testament is built is one long thread with the narrative consistent throughout, and the Pentateuch of the OT was written centuries earlier by Moses. No main line theologians dispute any of these time lines, but modern day, liberalists may (but they're outside the fold).
Early believers of "The Way" had first hand accounts from the Apostles, all but one of whom died for their steadfast accounts, and in the first fifty years post ascension there is the collection of Paul's letters to many churches, a letter from Peter, and three gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark and the physician Luke. A few years later John wrote what is now the last book. Early churches read these letters if they had them, but eye witness accounts is how Christianity started as they poured over the Hebrew writings that foretold all that was happening. By the year 100AD, (the end of the Apostle era, all the writings that are in our current bibles had been written. Not many had them, because this was foot, horse, or boat days.

And then early church fathers would emerge. Polycarp (69-155) and Papias (60-135) were discipled by the Apostle John. Justin Martyr (100-165), Irenaeus (140-202) and on and on. Most would be martyred. But eye witness accounts handed down and written about could not be stopped by Nero, who condemned many when he blamed Christians for Rome's fire in 64AD.

Isn't it amazing that 11 Apostles, themselves 17-23 years old, all but one who would die for his faith, spread news of a man who chose them as commoners, in a day when the elites were first chosen, to teach them, and send them out. And they changed the world forever.

Try that with 10 of your closest friends and see how many will die for a story.

Now we bask in the light of great philosophers like the German Georg Hegel (1770-1831) who argued that the human race, given enough time and resources, could accomplish perfection. Auguste Comte used these arguments to apply it to sociology in the late 1700's, who argued man had emerged from the religious age into the philosophical age and would go on to the sociological age of perfection.
Hegel influenced Karl Marx (nice dude), and Adolf Hitler, among others. And guess what they teach noodle heads in universities today? Hegelism and Comteism. Non-stop. They serve it up as liberated thinking. Where did "liberals" come from? These dudes and others.

Anyway, 200 years is plain incorrect.

Blessings,
Mark

MNCedar,
I think people do good things for good reasons that end up bad sometimes and your point about philosophers is fair. More than fair. Very fair. Thanks for the reminder.

Good people, doing the best they can to come up with answers for the problems and solutions of the day "they" live in, and their intentions and labor are done for good reasons. Time gives a perspective on how it all turned out. Good or not so.

But, I would say, some of these men and their ideas did not do use well at all. They empowered the evil minds amongst us to rationalize their way to power, and human suffering.

Question for you Mark.

I know there is no way to definitively answer this and would be pure conjecture, but I'll ask anyway...

Do you believe (or is there any evidence) that Paul physically wrote the letters himself? The reason I ask is that many of his letters were written while he was imprisoned. I can't imagine Roman guards being too accommodating in the pen/paper department.

Now I'm not implying the letters aren't his... Just wondering if it's possible that he dictated the letters from his cell to a visitor.

Way off topic, but just something I was curious about.

Mike

Mark,

You raise equally fair and intelligent points regarding the philosophers you mentioned. Excellent points. I always enjoy your writing.

Thanks to you as well.

Getting back to the original question James asked “where are they?” Is the speed of light the fastest possible that interspace travel can exist thus making it impossible for other advanced civilizations to get here yet? Or are we the only ones by some great design? If other intelligent life exists on other planets, did Jesus also die on the cross on those planets for those beings to “be saved.” If not, then why not?

AMEN!

https://www.christianitytoday.com/c...ript-earliest-not-first-century-fcm.html

if there really are original manuscripts where are they? If the Vatican had them they would not keep that a secret. What you are studying today is at least 200 years newer than the events they claim to describe

It's not like the Gospels record eye-witness accounts. At best, those men who wrote the Gospels talked to the great-great-grandchildren of the actual witnesses (alleged) to the resurrection.

Jim

Good question and trust me when I say there has been untold theological scrutiny on all this. Possibly unlike anything ever, because if Paul can be discredited, the Bible may begin to unravel, true? Early 1st century first hand accounts from other Apostles giving accounts, give credit to Paul as author (not a scribe). These men were spot accurate. If you read any of Paul's letters, you see scores of people he is with, come to see him, and on and on, so there are many first hand accounts of what Paul is doing. And these accounts would of course get passed around. Do you think if there was "bad" news... fraudulent, fake, not true.... it mighta got around? Bad news travels faster than good news true? There was no bad news about Paul. Now, whether you believed his teachings is one thing, but his authenticity is not questioned until 1600 years later. Early church fathers, investigated all this also within 100 years of Paul's life.

It's interesting that not until the 18th century, is Paul's authenticity questioned. What happened in the 1700's and 1800's in the European and Western world at that time? Ahhhh. The rise of the enlightened man. The literal beginnings of the saying, "know it alls." There were university trained scholars now who could claim enough educational prowess to "know it all" or at least all there was to know in a rational term.

The single largest "clue" that Paul wrote is probably his consistent personal verbal writing style in the Koine Greek language of that day. I'm studying Greek right now and John is the easiest because he wrote kinda plain and straight forward. Not a lot of flare. Luke is neck deep verbal formation and that makes sense... the guy was a physician and wrote a certain way. Paul was a very learned man. He wrote a certain way. We all do. So the religious of that day would compare his style of writing to others they knew to be authentic, as a verification process. Didn't want heresy in the homes of the early believers!

Paul was a religious leader also, meaning his Hebrew training would have meant he would have had Hebrew scripture memorized. He also had Roman citizenry due to birthright so he could come and go in the world's largest empire as he wished. He would have been fluent in Latin, Hebrew, and Koine Greek, the latter being the language of the commerce of that day.

Polycarp, and many early church fathers lived during that time and others lived 1 or 2 generations out from the Apostle Paul, and they weeded with great care through the heretical imposters and their writings of the 1st century.

Oh and as far as the guards, even some of the best of the best, the Imperial guards converted when Paul got done with them.

Hope this helps.

Fossils only proved things once living are dead. No proof of a change of one species to another.

Life is undeniable proof of a life giver.

Man can't create life.

Proving life, let alone complex, intelligent life, couldn't happen by happenstance.

Other worlds may have their own Jesus. The Bible doesn't say it covers other worlds than the earth. Why would God create an intelligent species and deny them a chance to be saved?

Suppose God made intelligent life on another world. Those sapient beings would be bound to disappoint God there too, and in His rage and disappointment, He might have drowned or found other ways to nearly exterminate them.

Then, when the survivors of the Great Disaster still disappoint the God who made them (i.e., they "sinned"), He might have divided Himself into three parts, and sent one of his parts, the Son, to the world to be born a sentient being, and to suffer and die on something like a cross. God's plan being that the Son's torture and death would save everyone who believed in the Son's resurrection. What they needed to be saved from being, once again, God's wrath and disappointment.

So yeah, it's entirely possible aliens have their own religion and Jesus stories.

Jim

Fossil study is only one branch of science that confirms evolution theory. DNA makes the case a cinch.


Jim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%e2%80%93Urey_experiment

this was what i posted about originally amspoker. its not life but the precursor is there. it certainly does not point away from abiogenesis

He didn't.

Danny Clifton -

I am still praying for you. I continue to admire your hunger for the truth.

thankyou treedablackdog. I enjoy conversation like this where folks dont get mean to each other

yep

James, not sure where you're pulling this internet information from, but the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were obtained within 60-65 years of the ascension. John's a few years after that. Paul and Peter are martyred together in the 60AD's so they're still alive about 30 years after the resurrection. So it's pretty tightly wound.

As an analogy, my grandpa could tell me what he saw as a young man in 1928 (he was 18) when I was 25 in 1982. 54 years later. My grandpa told me plenty of stories from 50 years earlier. His mind was sharp. And Paul had the Holy Spirit working on his team. Not sure about gramps.
Plus, remember, the crowd in that day was not friendly to early believers and many (Jews and Gentiles alike) wanted no part of them. But still the story remained. That may speak loudly.

I love the story of Lee Strobl, Yale trained attorney, Chicago Tribune investigative reporter, who in the late 1970's went on a big time worldwide mission to disprove all of this magic talk. And his newspaper underwrote it. All a hoax, he as an atheist said. His wife had recently converted and he was _____ that she had fallen for a stupid cult.

When Mr. Strobl finished his investigation, he found the evidence was overwhelmingly concrete, and he converted, went to seminary and today pastors in Texas.
The movie about Lee Strobl is called "The Case for Christ." It's a good one.

danny is fun people. Truly. We'd drink a brewski together and have grand ol time figuring all this worldly stuff out. Besides, are any trappers not cool people?

..... and danny always takes a shot at the net! Love it!

Now James, as a typical attorney, highly trained in the arts, many times he just keeps skating, keeps skating, keeps skating. No shot.
Then as you take a shot at his goalie...

He moves the goal on ya.

Its all mathematics-specifically set theory.

It seems with religion as with other unknowns, a question leads to another question. If aliens have their own religion and God, do those beings have a separate type of heaven or do they go to the same heaven as earth people. If the formal, would there be competing Gods? If the latter, I would assume once again God would had to go through the same thing on their planet as he did here on earth to die for their sins.

Dirt holes or flat sets. Or are we talking poop sets?

Zoom in to the mandelbrot set.It's infinite.

DNA implies design for me. A blueprint.

Why can't man create life?










I think I follow you. I just look at earth, and all the places that life shouldn't exist. Places as harsh and as forbidding for life as in space, and think there is a better explanation.

What I think alot of people do not understand is that I would love to be wrong. I have no personal investment in believing the prevailing science, I would love to live in a world were magic still exist, were someone is looking out for us, the evidence just doesn't point that way for me.

I have no personal investment in evolution or thinking there probably is not a God. If someone could show me otherwise I would grasp onto that with both hands and hold on ti'l the end.

I do not have a desire to turn anyone away from religion, I think religion is a great thing that can be used to unify people and instill a basic moral compass. I do think religion should adapt to modern times because saying things like "evolution is not real" is no longer a winning argument.

Well said, Donnersurvivor.

DNA may be a design, but that doesn't mean there is a designer. Certainly not an omnipotent creator, given the various mistakes (so-called "junk DNA") and vestigial organs and structures in the code.

Why can't man create life? Maybe we can, and just haven't found the right conditions yet. Or maybe we can never replicate those conditions; which wouldn't make it either more or less likely that a god created life.

It's illogical to say that because we can't do or explain something, God must be responsible.

Jim

Donnersurvivor, since I'm up in the middle of the night sipping hot tea, battling this crummy sore throat, I'll give you the 5 key contemporary arguments (apologetics) for the existence of God. Not a Christian God, mind you. These are philosophical apologetics, not theist arguments. Helps take the pressure off you thinking I'm trying to talk anybody into anything. If you are sincere in the ask, then I'll help you sincerely in the answer. Perfectly in line with the summa arguments of the early modern era, where great topics were debated. There have been countless others before us ponding; why? what? when? That sort of big picture stuff.

Please know that these are the arguments of great thinkers, many of whom were atheists. Some where not.

There are 7, but really 5 are used most often.
1. Cosmological: Why does anything exist at all?
"The universe is an extraordinary effect that necessitates an adequate cause, the first and ultimate cause being an intellectual Creator." Plato - Laws X 400'sBC
Similar verbiage and reasoning by his student Aristotle (300'sBC). PrimeMover, Metaphysics VIII.
a. Every effect has a cause, there cannot be infinite regress
b. Every effect depends on a cause for its existence
c. The universe or nature cannot originate itself, therefore there must be a First Cause, and that cause must be God
Kalam - philosopher in the 11th century
a. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence
b. The universe began to exist
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
d. A cause of this magnitude and scope would require a Creator

2. Teleological Argument: What explains the Universe's Amazing Design?
As an example, only in an ordered world would water flow downhill. In a haphazard arrangement, water would flow uphill also.
Whereas the Cosmological argument focuses on existence itself, the teleological focuses on the astonishing complexity of this universe and the organic life. Untold intricate order, both micro and macroscopically order implies a Designer. Natural Theology atheists admit this may be the strongest argument against their view. The apparent purpose, ordering, and design in the Universe necessities an intelligent Creator.

Note there are good recent books on this;
Stephen Meyer, : Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013)
Michael Ruse, : Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA" (2008
Dembski, : The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probablities (2006)

3. Anthropological Argument: What makes Us Personal?
The human being is an intelligent, volitional, and emotional being with innate capacities for relationship, language, creativity, ruling, and a sense of eternity. While Neuroscience explains some things about how a brain functions, it explains almost nothing about why a human brain has self-consciousness. Just as water does not flow uphill, the extraordinary characteristics of only humans possessing attributes unseen in other life, reflect a Designer, a superior personal Creator.

4. Moral Argument: Why Do We Have a Sense of Right and Wrong?
Why are there moral feelings? Why do I not feel satisfied when justice is not met? Or a sense of guilt when my wrongs are exposed?
Human conscience, the sense of right and wrong, testifies of a moral Creator.
Immanuel Kant, the devote Prussian (1700's) atheist philosopher upon whose "Kantianism", most modern philosophers have built their work, said that this argument most commanded his respect and that he could not answer it. He said however dark and calloused any person may be, they still always possess morality of right and wrong, of what is life giving, and what is positive. Neitzsche, the high priest of atheism in the 20th century dismissed morality as religious glorification, but Kant never could grasp that as valid. Religion had no say, Kant reasoned, in vast numbers of people and yet they still knew right from wrong - reflecting a Moral Creator.

5. Ontological Argument: What Best Explains Our Highest Ideal?
Anselm, the 12th century theist theologian asked why is the concept of a Being who is greatest of all even conceived by the majority? Human beings have a concept, regardless of culture, that a Being who is perfect - holy - loving and just, is universal therefore that Being must exist, or else that Being would not be perfect. That the real Being is more perfect than an imaginary Being. Anslem asked, "Why does this concept even exist?" Answer, "Because it necessarily does."
This is a priori argument (priority). An argument that argues top to bottom - unlike those that are posteriori, from the bottom up.
Many great philosophers argue that perfection doesn't necessitate existence of a Being however. Descartes, Hegel, Kant, and recently Alvin Plantinga have drawn close to this argument to say it isn't easily dismissed. Plantinga explains why is it that a supermodel's "impressive assets" in our world, may well be 50 pounds overweight in another world, or that she may even be deemed ugly elsewhere. Why is she not here? Perhaps a Designer designed her to be impressive here, he reasons.
A good book; Alvin Plantinga: The Ontological Argument, from St. Anslem to Contemporary Philosophers (1965).

2 other Apologetics are;

6. Universal Religious Experience
The vast majority of humanity has been and is today religious, claiming experience with the supernatural. Still, only 22% are atheists after 300 years of atheistic and communistic rule. 78% are theists. And many are hard pressed to report accurately since Marxists rule in many countries worldwide since 1900. In 1900 only 00.2% of the world was atheistic.
Many argue that the religious experience of mankind should not be easily ignored as to being caused by a Designer.

7. Pascal argued in the 1600's in his "pensees" that given the known options, "Either God is or he is not." Those are the two choices. He assessed that reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us from the known truth. At the end of a long discussion a coin may well be tossed and when it comes down heads or tails, we choose. How will one wager? Reason, he argued cannot be proven right or wrong, but you must wager "Is he or not?" All must wager and all do wager. Which is chosen? Yes? No? Pascal philosophized that let's see that when the choice is made what is gain and what is lost? Which offer gives you the least return on your choice is how he framed it.
You have two things to lose: the true and the good, and these to win; reason and your will, your knowledge and happiness. Your nature has two things to avoid; error and wretchedness.
He argued that if you call heads, and there is a God, you win everything. If you call heads and lose, you lose nothing. The rational mind would choose the bet that offers the greatest return and choose heads.
Hey - these guys in the Enlightened Era of the 1600's were deep dudes. Not why a theist chooses I'd say, but this philosopher got one thing correct; if there is a Creator and a Divine plan, there could be eternal consequences.


Anyway, these are the summations of apologetics as they stand with us post-moderns today. There is of course boatloads more on each argument.

In the spirit of TMan expertise and our brotherly love of trapping and all things good and blessed....
Hope these are helpful.

Blessings brother,
I remember now,
I do not care much for sore throats.

Mark

If time is infinite there is no beginning. I wonder if it just goes in a big circle. Like many indians believe.

A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting gravitational acceleration so strong that nothing—no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from it. The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon.

Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed, it can continue to grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. By absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes, supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses may form. There is consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies.

What IF eventually everything is "swallowed". Over many billions of years. All that energy erupts and once again there is a "big bang".

Blackholes have gone from a purely mathmatical prediction to 11 of them known to exist so far. The galaxy is expanding away from its center, the supermassive blackhole. The math suggests though that many stars exist that will eventually collapse upon theirself. Will everything get absorbed and black holes all merge? Is there a point of critical mass like with a nuclear explosion?

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Stephen Hawking

But Hawking doesn't explain where gravity came from.

Jim

The vestigial organ list is shrinking, and someday will be explained as the things we didn't know what they did.

The appendix is now understood to play a part in the immune system. The "tail bone" has a purpose based on the fact that the coccyx has attachments to various muscles, tendons and ligaments.




It is just as illogical to think that something that happened without guidance, by chance, and is impossible to duplicate, is a rational explanation for the world around us.

We can't even bring to existence the simplest living organism.

Life only comes from life, that is the clear observable proof for all of recorded history.

That points to a life-giver.

I note those like Dr. Carroll who debate Dr. Hawking;
In The Grand Design, Hawking grants a near omnicompetence to the natural sciences and writes: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
But there would be no gravity, indeed there would be nothing at all, were it not created. Still, no explanation of cosmological or biological change, no matter how radically random or contingent such an explanation claims to be, challenges the metaphysical account of creation, that is, of the dependence of the existence of all things upon a Creator as cause. When some thinkers deny creation on the basis of theories in the natural sciences, they misunderstand creation or the natural sciences, or both.

William E. Carroll, Research Fellow in Theology and Science, University of Oxford.

James, we got here somehow unless we're gnostics and all this is a mirage = When I look at bobcat scat, it's really a shadow of the real cat turds in another far away world kind of stuff.
But many reputable physicists and cosmologists challenge Hawking in his in explanations on how are we still being maintained as a created? By chance or by Design and a Designer? In other words, who's hand is on the wheel right now?

Hawking is not strong in this area.

If there is a creator that creator is one cruel twisted up creature, or that creator has no more interest in its creation. Nothing else is possible.

Mark June, your post wasn't addressed at me, but I can't resist taking the bait on your seven arguments for a creator being, ie, God.

1. Cosmological: Why does anything exist at all?

Response: If everything must have a cause, then what was the cause of God?

2. Teleological Argument: What explains the Universe's Amazing Design?

Response: What explains God's amazing design? No; I mean the design of God himself.

Also, a universe without the right operating controls, or rules, like gravity and the gravitational constant, thermodynamics, the value of pi, and so on, would not be a universe that survived.

3. Anthropological Argument: What makes Us Personal?

The fact that humans are self-aware does not mean that God did it. I am saying that it does not mean there is a supernatural, as opposed to natural explanation.

4. Moral Argument: Why Do We Have a Sense of Right and Wrong?

We are taught right and wrong from an early age. All human societies have rules of conduct that separate good behavior from bad. Establishing rules of good versus bad enables us to live together collectively.

There is no such thing as universal morality, anyway. In some cultures, conduct is good that would be bad here, and vice versa. Some people have defective sense of right and wrong. And what about the sociopath?

If a creator instilled a universal moral code in all human beings, then why aren't we all equally good?

5. Ontological Argument: What Best Explains Our Highest Ideal?
...Human beings have a concept, regardless of culture, that a Being who is perfect - holy - loving and just, is universal therefore that Being must exist, or else that Being would not be perfect. That the real Being is more perfect than an imaginary Being.

A priori arguments are logically invalid. It is not true that belief in a perfect Being (God) is universal. There are many major religions, like Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, which either postulate no god or limited, flawed, petty gods.

6. Universal Religious Experience

It's not true that belief in God is universal, or anywhere near to universal. The fact that a majority of people belief in the supernatural (if true) does not make those supernatural beliefs true. Majorities can be wrong, or deluded.

7. Pascal argued in the 1600's in his "pensees" that given the known options, "Either God is or he is not."

Ah, Pascal's wager. Another exercise in illogic. The consequences of a wager don't make the stakes more or less true, when their existence is in issue.

Pascal also ignores this obvious question: wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to tell the difference between a genuine Christian, one who truly believes in the Resurrection, from a Pascal Christian, one who is only there before the heavenly throne because he fears the outcome of a wager?


Jim

How so?

If you mean the evil of mankind, God isn't micromanaging humans. We have freedom to make our choices. Collectively, and as individuals.

God allowed mankind to eat from the tree He told them not to. Man is still trying to define good and evil apart from His instructions. If you boiled it down to simply love your neighbor as yourself, that would make for a much better world. I could point to you the benefits of family, and other things but I think you get my point.

The world as a whole is the product of man defining right and wrong for himself


If you are referring to eternal h3llfire torture for the wicked, not all Christians interpret the bible that way.

If God is competing for souls for heaven, it would appear He is losing. The bible speaks of more than one ressurection. Ezekiel 37 speaks of a physical resurrection of the people of Israel, and how their hope is/was lost. I understand that points to time after Christ's return, and His kingdom is established on Earth. All who ever lived and never even heard of Christ, will be given their first opportunity for eternal life.

This life is a vapor. The sufferings of this life are nothing compared to what lays ahead.

I don't think we will ever find life in the other planets. I don't believe everything out in space was made to simply be stared at from earth. I think we will take life there. Mankind's original destiny was to rule WITH God on earth. We decided to listen to the snake, even unto this day. By after we have had our fill of doing things our way, God will step in before we destroy ourselves, and the planet with us.

That may sound like fanciful fairy tales to you Danny, and that is fine. I am really not trying to persuade you. I guess I don't want you having the wrong perspective towards God, based on misinformation.

great post

James,

See you moved the goal. I just overviewed great thinkers through the millennia who have debated these topics. I didn't inject God. Some of them do and some do not.
You leave bolded responses in question form but I don't hold the truth? Mine was an overview of where the world is as far as major apologetic themes.

I'm a simple guy. A place faith in "I got nothing." I'm smart enough to know only one thing for certain certain. Well, two... no three.... well four things.

1. I love my family (I don't understand why a world has people who do not love theirs)
2. I can catch animals in traps.
3. Catching coyotes is harder than catching muskrats most days
4. I place trust and faith in what I cant know with certainty but I can know sufficiently

Bout all I got.
Going to church today James?
Doors are open to all us sinners.
That's a blessing
Cause if I was God, in my mortal thinking, I'd only allow certain people in.
Good ones. Ones I like.
That's why I'm not God.
He is.
Blessings from Texas!!

Mark

so then a kid dying of a horrible cancer, that kids parents too, all deserve that? jews in the holocaust deserved their fate? little kids starving to death in somalia are really evil little rascals and starving is to good for them? I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.

You claim a creator created a world where everyone must worship that creator, or the creator is going to torture them, knowing that when he created them as a flawed being that they wouldn't meet his standard, so he became a man and let other men torture him, so now he can forgive the men their flaws, even though the flaws were created by the creator.

I get it now. What a wonderful loving god

danny, you did not have a good preacher/pastor/teacher growing up brother.

You are sadly not alone.

The Gospel was given to humankind for the saving of souls, but it would seem, not all souls. That's a mystery. And some have used it for their gain. What a shocker.
But it doesn't make the Gospel false. Just means humans sin and our minds can't grasp what we aren't able to grasp.

Evil exists in natural form (earthquakes, storms) and moral form (sin). No doubt about that. Everyday. Everywhere.
Why does God allow evil it when it's probably the single biggest reason folks turn away from God?
That's a fair question but this thread is already pretty long and the evil among discussion would be even longer my friend if we wade into that pool.
I PM'ed you in sincerity and I'll take the time to answer your Q on evil if you are sincere in wanting me to take the time to give you a biblical Christian explanation. There is one.

MJ

I was taught all the stuff your saying Mark but I don't believe it. I believe all religion is created by humans to alleviate fear and explain and answer those questions that ancient hunter pondered while waiting and hoping for something he could feed his family to come along.

Re-read my post. You are impressing your understanding of God, and trying to make sense of the world.

God is going mostly hands off. The bible is a long story of mankind rejecting God. He is letting us have things our way. Christ was subjected to the beating and death so that child with cancer will live again. Regardless of whatever his belief in Christ is.

There is a price for sin.

If wrong my brother, I have spilled blood, taken LIFE from him.

If you don't believe in God because Satan causes suffering to an innocent child you are fallen prey to Satan's tricks.

Satan is the ruler of this world, still limited my God. God is looking for any who will seek him out.

It seems your mind is made up, so I will let it go.

which part of that is not mainstream christian doctrine?

Evil is not easily answered but there is biblical truth to what it is, why we have it, and how it all works out in the end.

I've sat with two families in the same week, different days, who's sons had committed suicide. Dillon was 17. Seth was 18. When you're sitting alongside a mom and dad, and their son is no longer here, and tears flow over what you can't figure out... the fact that it just doesn't make sense, it's real. Doesn't really get any "realer" than that.

Logically, none of us would create this kind of world, right? Therefore, because this isn't how we would put things together, that's how we come to the conclusion there can't be a God, right? Satan smiles. He has dominion at present here on earth, and he likes that thinking. Perhaps he even authored it a bit. Who knows?
Why doesn't a perfect, all powerful God intervene? I would.
Why doesn't a perfect, all powerful God kill Satan? I would.
Why doesn't everyone get to heaven? Everybody. I would

Diests believe God is all-powerful but not entirely good.
Islam comes close to saying God is the author of evil for some.
Irenaeus, an early church father, believed that a certain amount of evil was created for human growth and maturity. Makes one stronger.

Most of us as Western Christians are Augustinian in our theodicy (theodicy = explanation of evil in light of a morally perfect, all-powerful Creator) in that God created finite image bearers being good, and that we are allowed free will to choose. God knew some would chose Him and some would not, thus the possibility of sin (evil), and Genesis 3:15 outlines the consequence for Adam's action in the garden "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (serpent) and her seed."

That's a very short version of a Christian theology answer danny.

what I don't quite understand is the animosity I seem to "pick up" from some of the non-believers.

If you're so convinced of your choice, WHY do you care what others believe???

White Marlin - Do not forget what Jesus Christ did for us. Remember it is foolishness to those that do not believe.

Danny Clifton - I too am grateful for this conversation and thank you again for asking your questions. We all have faith in something. I place mine in Jesus Christ because I have found none better. For you see, in doing that, I am ok with not knowing everything. I do not walk in fear.

When I waded into the creationism Q on this thread, the Christian biblical explanation was discounted immediately as "stirring the pot." But not that long ago, Christians had a respected place at the table of theological thinkers. Now, not as much.

But trappers have also been under fire for about the same amount of time as Christians.... about the last hundred years or so.

Andrew Linzey, theologian, and founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in 1951
Ronnie Lee started The Animal Liberation Front same year 1951

Modern minds with enlightened "I know better than you what truth is" thinking.
They're everywhere.

So they bash trapping.
They discount Divinity.
They are now in power at many levels and we buy in.... or don't.
Personally, I ain't buying what they're selling.

Some on this forum may not know the great minds behind evolutionary theory and communism and redistribution and animal rights and climate change and....
are all Post-Modern atheists who know best.
They're powerful.

We had a retired Colonel John Albers, Marine, speak to us in chapel last November, a man who's flown 54 different aircraft, (Veteran's day chapel). He was compelling about the need to minister to our military and veterans as a group.

https://voice.dts.edu/chapel/serving-all-people-groups/

His was an impactful message to us, especially since Donna and I have a home in San Antonio, military town USA.
He said he is confident that our society will at some point round up Christians as they do all marginalized people. They do it in other countries and he's candid that they may do that here.

You might enjoy his candor.

I'm still following along, its hard to know where to get back into a conversation after it has progressed so much in ones absence.



I dont sense much animosity, I can only speak for myself when I say I certainly do not intend any but I do not feel the others do either. I think you may "feel" animosity because your personal beliefs are tied to your sense of who you are and the value you have, basically when your ideas or belief are under attack you feel attacked because you are tied to those beliefs or ideas. I do not remember anyone attacking anyone of faith personally, only questioning their ideas, there is a big difference.

I'll have to check that out Mark after I get home from church and checking a few beaver traps. Every Sunday morning I have the pleasure/adventure of introducing the Gospel to 3 to 5 year olds. A blessing when they listen, a hair puller when they don't. I pray they listen this morning.

The entirety of the universe as we know it is but a tiny part of a particle within an atom of hair on the leg of a bug.

And all it will take is one shot of DDT and---poof----it s gone. No matter what you believe in or don't believe in Jesus Christ has had a bigger influence on civilization that anyone figure in history. Do I believe every story in the bible--NO--but it is a inspirational book to read. If mankind would live by the Ten Commandments just maybe maybe we could have a better world.

I care because creationists get all wadded up whenever other possibilities are examined/researched. Trying to prevent school kids from even hearing about any other possibility. If a person is so certain of a creator, why then are they so afraid of evidence that suggests another possibility. Creationists point to our lack of knowledge as proof magic is real. You would think they would be supporting research into how life began so their faith would be validated.

I'm a little late to this thread.

I am a Christian who believes in Divine creation, and a universe that is probably 13 billion years old, and a earth that is probably 4-5 billion years old.
I see no conflict between science and belief in Divine creation. The only people who see a conflict between the two either have an agenda or just haven't objectively looked at the subject.

I think it is a little humorous how people people who don't believe in Divine creation will say things like Christians are "afraid of evidence" or say "our lack of knowledge as proof magic is real". I don't hold either of those views, and I don't know many believers who do.

The Miller-Urey experiment doesn't cause me the least bit of consternation, in fact I find this type of research fascinating. I could easily take the view that the experiment shows that God knew what he was doing by creating a system that allows for the sustained production of the compounds necessary to nurture and sustain life forms.

Science has not explained how life spontaneously (or even gradually) came into existence. I don't begrudge science looking for the source of life. In the last 40 years or so I have noticed the scientific community has become less sure of many assumptions regarding the origin of life. I think it is interesting that science acknowledges that the more they learn, the more complex the issue seems to be. Instead of honing in on the answer, the question just keeps getting bigger.

Christianity is working alongside researchers but Darwinism is being debunked more and more as the decades go by.
Here's some of why that is. Dr. G. is one super laid back guy, but brilliant. From SD. They grow them good up there!
I already linked Institute for Creation Research (ICR- in biz 50 years) earlier in this thread. Their magazine is free and it's high level research that is being developed as we speak.
There latest project is carbon dating. Seems that early research was sketchy also, and needs to be rethought.
But wait, we already have plagues in the Grand Canyon telling us exactly when rocks were made?????

Go figure.

3 answers to the origins of life

https://voice.dts.edu/chapel/great-answers-to-three-key-questions-about-origins/

Randy Guliuzza
Dr. Randy Guliuzza has represented the Institute for Creation Research in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, the Doctor of Medicine from the from the University of Minnesota, and a Master of Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as a lieutenant colonel from the Air Force, where he served as 28th Bomb Wing Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of Made in His Image: Examining the Complexities of the Human Body, Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design, and Twenty Evolutionary Blunders: Dangers and Difficulties of Darwinian Thinking.

https://www.icr.org/who-we-are/

Whats that? some kind of jehova Mag?lol.

I believe magic is real. Something just exploded from nothing into everything LOL

just consider the mass of ONE planet (Jupiter) in ONE solar system, in ONE arm of ONE spiral galaxy, in our Universe...

go ahead...imagine compressing Jupiter's mass into one infinitesimal point. Can it be done?

maybe...if you can conceive of "Magic".

I'll do you one better, wm...how much does PITTSBURGH weigh? I mean every road, every building, every bridge, every mailbox, every manhole cover, every handrail, every Primanti Bros. sandwich, The Cathedral of Learning, every bus stop sign...ALL of it.

now compress JUST THAT into a single point, smaller than an atom...

Many PMs on this topic.

Some are answered in this long thread, and others I may need a bit of time to get to.

Studying Greek tonight

You don't want to meet any of the issues you raised head-on, as I have done. Instead, you try to distance yourself by saying you were only overviewing the arguments made by great thinkers.

I am not the one playing fast and loose. I am not the one who's moved the goal post.

If you don't want to meet my replies head-on, I understand. I applied logic, and theology is ill-suited to logic.

Jim

I could believe in the big bang theory, but then I wonder who pulled the trigger?

Lee Berger, American paleoanthropologist says this is your cousin Boco



Homo naledi, Berger's find from South Africa that made him rich and famous.

Supposedly Berger found this and 14 other hominids in a buried cavern that was widely published in scientific journals. Berger's book "Almost Human" (love that title), and numerous speaking engagements made Berger wealthy. But world famous hominid paleoanthropologist Tim White from UC-Berkeley and others have revealed they are rejecting Berger's paper because even their grad students can tell that the skull is made up of illegitimate fragments = from different animals, just like previous Berger work was discovered to be (bogus). In fact, they claim, he alone without and of his field assistants (highly suspect), made the discovery, and quite possibly even had the research written, they submit, before the specimen was found (Hey! Hillary does that stuff too!). Pieces of the skull, having never been previously dating tested vary from 33,000 to 849,000 years they claim. It's a fraud.

Bottom line, money rules these dudes. It ruled Darwin and it's still going on.
It's hocus- pocus (I called it out in a lab in Ann Arbor in 1981-82) but was told to shut up and submit.

There's been a plan to induce and create social utopia
And there's been an international plan to eliminate God
since the late 1880's from a bunch of messed up minds.
All those dudes from 1800-1950's are dead but unfortunately they left us a bunch of junk in their wake.
Any one notice today's culture doesn't much question science anymore?
Climate change - climate change - climate change!

It's too bad.
Answers are a really good thing.
Greed, and making a name, and power over others is not.
But it's been around a long, long time.

That's where we differ James. I don't see your logic. I'm sorry. I see rebuke and there's a difference. You would know that as an attorney (retired).
I've written much here in this thread and you write one sentence and call yours logic and mine is blatantly dismissed as illogical. That's a legal tactic James but I smile as I read it because the legal profession is a great calling in itself, we need 'em for sure (my dad is retired also) but they wrap you in bible wrap and tell you it's not tight.

I hold most to the Anthropological, Teleological, and Cosmetological apologetics. They are built on sure ground and while not provable (because none of this is with finite resources) as a whole, one or several, is credible. I listed great minds who don't believe in Divinity as the examples who think so as I'm just a guy with a machete trying to hack his way through life.

But that's not where I place my faith.

"Christianity is working alongside researchers but Darwinism is being debunked more and more as the decades go by." Mark June

That statement is false on both fronts. Christianity is working with no researchers.

It's true to say that some Christians are financially supporting some "scientists" who purport to do legitimate research. Do you recall when tobacco companies used the same strategy to argue cigarets are safe?

Darwinism is being debunked? That's completely false. Darwinism is being confirmed every day by DNA and medical research. Darwinism has withstood 150 years of every sort of science- and faith-based attack that could be imagined in that time.

Darwinism is confirmed by numerous branches of science: DNA, morphology, carbon-dating, radioactive dating, biology--now there's a science that's founded entirely on Darwin's theory!

You must be intelligent enough to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. Give me an honest answer to one question, please:

Let's say you need heart surgery, and you have two surgeons to pick from. In every respect their qualifications and experience appear to be equal. There's only one difference: One surgeon believes in Darwinist evolution, and the other does not.

Which heart surgeon would you choose?

Jim

P.S. - Taking bets on whether he'll give me a straight answer.

that may be the dumbest question ever asked here.

It should be easy to answer then. Care to take a crack at it?

Jim

the cheaper surgeon gets the job.

white marlin, like they say on family feud, "good answer". Made me grin anyway

I'll give you my opinion which would equate to my answer here in a sec and I hope you can see via an email formatting that my intentions aren't to discredit Darwin. I never knew the guy. But James, you can't talk me out of my graduate level work alongside Dr. Eugene Studier (bat guy), Dr. Pace (invertebrates) and many others. Some of the work was amazing and some had social implications as the basis. Honest. And what place does social engineering have in a biology lab? That was my question. I almost didn't graduate because of my "rogue" attitude. But, it was my trapping background. I knew the outdoors. These bookworms didn't and yet they made claims as if they did. Now that's a simplification, but it soured me early on. I mean our department in Ann Arbor, with a large contingency of Asian scholars were in the thick and thin of climatology with global cooling as the mantra. You remember right? I wasn't in those departments but I drank brews with some who were and they were too often starting with the supposition and concluding based on that? Backwards! But they were confident no one would call them out because they worked in a tight group who protected their own. Anyone see any of that going on anywhere else where money, prestige and name, and power, and super clubs are the norm?

But there are also MANY good researchers. Many! I knew some good ones. Really good ones. How often are they told to go along or go away = money talks with research grants and it you want to research you need money, right? I did research with others for 5 years so I know the pressure of $$$$.

I feel I'm slipping into a legalize coma and you've got me in a canoe and you have the paddle and ask me, "Where would you like to go?" James, but that's OK. I like AK.

A. You're inaccurate about how you're reading my Man posts. You also are starting with a supposition. I would never take the time to write all this if I was going to be the Christian voice in the apologetic. I'd just say, "I believe" and I do. But I've given much in data and you don't read it for face value. I'd dismiss you from the jury for prejudice.


As an example, I just have you a clip of researchers and links to those who are working on research. I didn't say they work in the same office.
I can safely bet you don't read the spirit of my writings. Did you look at the links? Read my submissions? Because you claim Christianity is working with no researchers. When Dr. G presents at an academy of Science symposia, I call that "working with." Many researchers don't like each other so they don't have to be buds. Much competition for fame and fortune in any human endeavor. That's not unique.

Your last question to me is easy. I spent 29 years in the major Pharma industry alongside medical professionals and personnel of all stripes.
I'd pick the doc NOT WITH THE BIGGEST NAME but with the highest survival rates and lowest complication rates.
I wouldn't look at his or her Darwinism or faith educations.
But I would ask to pray with him or her, before they cut me stem to stearn.

That's another honest answer for my legal friend.

Blessings,
Mark

All this sparring, and all this strife.

Trying to figure out the the answers to life.

Truth is, you guys can't even figure out your wife!...Lol

Your answer evades my question by ignoring one of the conditions: I said, " In every respect their qualifications and experience appear to be equal." So their survival and complications rates are the same too.

Looks like I'd have won my bet, if I'd gotten any takers. lol

It's been fun, and I appreciate the civility. But I have a project due for my own MFA tomorrow. So it's back to work for me.

Jim

Now those 10 last words are infinitely accurate.

I'm just sick and holed up and James likes to spar. We like each other. We're trappers. All trappers are buds!

You win. I lose.

Good luck on your project James.

once again, James ignores my answer. (you said not ONE iota regarding fees!)

in any event: make your point, Counsellor...we're all awaiting your earthly "wisdom".

I shoulda been allowed to "phone a friend!!!!"

So that berger guy is a crook,so you equate that to all paleoanthropologists?
Then according to you I can equate you with Jim Jones.
Sorry,I aint drinkin the kool aide,lol.

Bad analogy.

When a major anthropological discovery previously listed as a missing link in the grand evolutionary graph is called out = that's news worthy.
These things make policy Boco. Yours. Mine. My kiddos and grandkiddos.


Cults of the 19th-21st centuries aren't news worthy.
Just guys making Gods of themselves for more sex or more recognition or both.
They these things don't end up making policy for all.
They're just a cult.

Civics 103 & 104

Winner winner chicken dinner.

White Marlin is wise beyond his years.

May his tribe increase.

Piltdown man was also a hoax but was proven as such and had no effect on the study of hominid evolution at all.As a matter of fact it was easily seen from the fossil records that kept turning up that it did not follow the progression of hominid evolution.
But ole jim was responsible for what?900 or so dead brainwashed followers?Yea maybe not a very good analogy.
Fake religion is much more dangerous than fake science.

You are correct.

Darn tootin.

Sorry to hear about your flatulence.

May it fill the air with the sweet aroma from your childhood

"After 50 years of ministry, ICR remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation."

I'm sure there is no bias in their research. Or could there be?

Could not resist dropping back in to respond to White Marlin.

I thought you were joking.

I actually had open-heart surgery six years ago, and it did not even once occur to me to ask what the surgeon's fee was going to be.

Jim

Highly probable Gray Dog.
That way when you get two biased sides at the table, you have a greater chance of coming to a less-biased centric conclusion.
When only one side gets a say, it may be more biased one way, wouldn't you agree?
That's why climate research, the new frontier, is scary to me. One side doesn't want the other side at the table and shouts them down. Who's media spokesperson is a Scandinavian high school girl. ???? I don't know if this is bad or that's bad with regard to climate change (I believe God smiles at man as we play God) but it'll be years before progress is made in this field because the shouting from one side is too intense and no one opposed risks a pay check and career to shout back. Conservative views rarely shout. Liberated minds typically do. We know that.

Case in point; "Why do politicians do what politics requires them to do?"
I submit that the one who controls the seats at the table, controls the dialog, the pursestrings, and the direction of the project overall.
Or why else spend so much money to keep your seat at the table?

Today's research teams are now more diverse than they were even 20 years ago with philosophers, sociologists, theologists, biologists, and a whole host of voices weighing in.
Would you agree that's a good thing?
Kinda like TMan

No such thing as junk DNA.

OK, some more down to earth thinking. As far as doctors for open heart surgery. All things being equal, the one that can get me on the table the fastest. Now if the lawyer wants to say they can both do it in a hour I would agree with White Marlin. I would give them and hour to bid on the project. As far as to believe or not to believe, I'm just glad we live in a country that we can have this conversation. When our natural lives are over we will know the answer. That is why "thou I walk through the valley of death I fear no evil"

Well mortals didn't invent language.
I don't care if 100 Einsteins sat around a camp fire, back in the day, all throwing imperfective, and aorist, and pluperfect tenses at each other....
... they couldn't come up with this Koine Greek, (ancient Greek).

So far, I've refrained from posting links. But here, Mark, is one for you:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Jim

All I can say is --- that's greek to me.

My GOD James, buy the time I read all that I will know if there is life after death.

Mr. June

1.) Yes as long as they are both honest brokers.

2.) So they can stay in office and enrich themselves and their families. I'm a little jaded.

3.) I'm not so jaded that I believe that there are not those who only seek the truth.

4.) You forgot psychologists. I imagine psychology is helpful when presenting information to a target audience to lead them to the desired conclusion.

I also like questions. It's a great way to control the conversation.

Thanks James. I'm somewhat familiar with that link.
I see they do list how Darwinism effected Marx, Hitler, and others.
With a link also, no less.
Interesting.

Please know, I don't discount science. I'm a scientist by formal education.
I just rest in the complexity of it all and the fact that man is not in control of the really big stuff.
Sun coming up.
Our next breath.
Ebb and flow of ordered life.
That kind of stuff.
We can't make a car last 50 years so I'm glad we don't have a "Bureau for the Sun comes up Tomorrow" or we'd be toast. No frozen.

I sincerely hope man finds revenant answers to many heart breaking and perplexing things our world... until the coming of the 2nd Adam.
Then it gets really real.

Good catch. Psychologists are at most tables.
Thank you.

But did you ask about his beliefs?

Only his belief as to whether he could fix the arteries in my heart.

Jim

proof positive that third party payers INCREASE the cost of healthcare (and education, for that matter).

[why WOULD you care what the fee is...if someone ELSE is paying it???]

in any event...what's the point of your question?

I just wanted to read the authors biography. Seems Mark Isaak, according to google, has none or it's not listed.Strange....