[Nedusa]

Actually there is more evidence of extra terrestrial life than there is of God, although to be honest any form of alien life could be perceived as a God.

If you do a bit of research you will find hundreds of thousands of cases of reported sightings of unidentified craft, taken together with credible witness reports from Military personnel and as a large proportion of these sightings are captured on photographs, film and video together with radar sightings and anomalous physical data, this constitutes way more evidence than simply

I believe therefore it's real...????

Maybe we were actually created by an advanced Alien life form millions of years ago.

Simple fact is we haven't got a bloody clue who we are or where we came from and what our purpose is.....




.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Actually there is more evidence of extra terrestrial life than there is of God, although to be honest any form of alien life could be perceived as a God.

If you do a bit of research you will find hundreds of thousands of cases of reported sightings of unidentified craft, taken together with credible witness reports from Military personnel and as a large proportion of these sightings are captured on photographs, film and video together with radar sightings and anomalous physical data, this constitutes way more evidence than simply

I believe therefore it's real...????

Maybe we were actually created by an advanced Alien life form millions of years ago.

Simple fact is we haven't got a bloody clue who we are or where we came from and what our purpose is.....




.

Yep, that's exactly it. Maybe there is a "God" who created us? Or Gods ie Aliens, no one knows, no one will ever know imo I certainly don't put my belief in some book written such a longtime ago by people..other human beings just like me and you, not a hope in hell (pardon the pun)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Actually there is more evidence of extra terrestrial life than there is of God, although to be honest any form of alien life could be perceived as a God.

If you do a bit of research you will find hundreds of thousands of cases of reported sightings of unidentified craft, taken together with credible witness reports from Military personnel and as a large proportion of these sightings are captured on photographs, film and video together with radar sightings and anomalous physical data, this constitutes way more evidence than simply

I believe therefore it's real...????

Maybe we were actually created by an advanced Alien life form millions of years ago.

Simple fact is we haven't got a bloody clue who we are or where we came from and what our purpose is.....




.

That is not true

we have a very good idea how the universe was created and how with time, gravity and chemistry suns and planets are formed and cool and die and are reformed. This comet may explain why we have water on earth and that would be a huge breakthrough

we know how life started and evolved on earth

but to look for purpose is just leading down a blind alleyway we are the result of time and chance

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

That is not true

we have a very good idea how the universe was created and how with time, gravity and chemistry suns and planets are formed and cool and die and are reformed. This comet may explain why we have water on earth and that would be a huge breakthrough

we know how

but to look for purpose is just leading down a blind alleyway we are the result of time and chance

Well it is really, we might know how life started and evolved on earth but where did the stuff that made that possible come from etc etc etc you could go back and back and back and probably never get to the end

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well it is really, we might know how life started and evolved on earth but where did the stuff that made that possible come from etc etc etc you could go back and back and back and probably never get to the end

Well we have gotten 13 billion years back now to the big bang when all the elements for life and the known universe was created.

and if you want to know how you can get a universe from nothing then i recommend this amazing book by Lawrence M. Krauss

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Not.../dp/1471112683

This book explains why not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing. !

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Well we have gotten 13 billion years back now to the big bang when all the elements for life and the known universe was created.

and if you want to know how you can get a universe from nothing then i recommend this amazing book by Lawrence M. Krauss

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Not.../dp/1471112683

This book explains why not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing. !

I think my brain might explode if I tried reading that LT

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Well we have gotten 13 billion years back now to the big bang when all the elements for life and the known universe was created.

and if you want to know how you can get a universe from nothing then i recommend this amazing book by Lawrence M. Krauss

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Not.../dp/1471112683

This book explains why not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing. !

It's just a book though,as is The Bible,I suppose it depends on which one we read and believe.That something can arise from nothing seems as airy fairy as you say The Bible is.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Well we have gotten 13 billion years back now to the big bang when all the elements for life and the known universe was created.

and if you want to know how you can get a universe from nothing then i recommend this amazing book by Lawrence M. Krauss

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Not.../dp/1471112683

This book explains why not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing. !

With respect though that is only a book written by a man using his knowledge of science and a rather large dollop of imagination, it is just his little theory.

Not proof of anything.

Until mankind can explore the Cosmos and has developed far stronger theories of the universe, only then will we really be able to start really piecing the jigsaw together.

And I suspect that may be in more than a few centuries time.



.

[kirklancaster]

Leather Trumpet's Post:

"That is not true....

we have a very good idea how the universe was created and how with time, gravity and chemistry suns and planets are formed and cool and die and are reformed. This comet may explain why we have water on earth and that would be a huge breakthrough

we know how life started and evolved on earth

but to look for purpose is just leading down a blind alleyway we are the result of time and chance"

We know how life started and evolved on earth"?

Who knows? Please substantiate such a ludicrous statement. Once again, you are passing off theory as fact.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"Well it is really, we might know how life started and evolved on earth but where did the stuff that made that possible come from etc etc etc you could go back and back and back and probably never get to the end"

This response, is actually brilliant. It is the 64,000 dollar question avoided by all physicists who propose or follow the 'Big Bang Theory'. Krauss himself goes to great pains not to address this in his B.S. book, and when he is finally (in the last 20 odd pages) forced to address it, he takes tortuous, illogical, convoluted paths, to not answer it.

[Cherie]

Totally offtopic but I do like how KL underlines words for maximum impact

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Actually there is more evidence of extra terrestrial life than there is of God, although to be honest any form of alien life could be perceived as a God.

If you do a bit of research you will find hundreds of thousands of cases of reported sightings of unidentified craft, taken together with credible witness reports from Military personnel and as a large proportion of these sightings are captured on photographs, film and video together with radar sightings and anomalous physical data, this constitutes way more evidence than simply

I believe therefore it's real...????

Maybe we were actually created by an advanced Alien life form millions of years ago.



Simple fact is we haven't got a bloody clue who we are or where we came from and what our purpose is.....




.

I think your maybe is a possible maybe, then we have the question of where did they come from and so it goes on and on and on, we are only a tiny spec of the total truth.

[Northern Monkey]

Devout religious physicists or biologists perplex me slightly.It makes me wonder.They can be writing a paper on the origins of the universe and the big bang theory and the origins of life,But secretly not believe a word of what they're writing and think the Earth is only 6000 years old and we came from Adam and Eve.It's as if they believe that their lifes work is a lie.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Devout religious physicists or biologists perplex me slightly.It makes me wonder.They can be writing a paper on the origins of the universe and the big bang theory and the origins of life,But secretly not believe a word of what they're writing and think the Earth is only 6000 years old and we came from Adam and Eve.It's as if they believe that their lifes work is a lie.

Many modern Rabbis don't uphold the contention that the world is 6000 years old, and personally I think you'd have to be blinkered at best to believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I'm sure religious physicists wouldn't uphold that suggestion either. Who's to say that if the world was created by the Big Bang that it wasn't caused by God? Aren't they looking for the "God Particle" at Cern? Although obviously I'm not suggesting that the discovery of that [Higgs boson] particle is evidence that God exists.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Livia

Many modern Rabbis don't uphold the contention that the world is 6000 years old, and personally I think you'd have to be blinkered at best to believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I'm sure religious physicists wouldn't uphold that suggestion either. Who's to say that if the world was created by the Big Bang that it wasn't caused by God? Aren't they looking for the "God Particle" at Cern? Although obviously I'm not suggesting that the discovery of that [Higgs boson] particle is evidence that God exists.

Yeah,The 6000 year old Earth theory is extreme and i doubt many if any scientists believe it.But,Many Christians for example believe in Adam and Eve and the world and life being created in seven days amongst many other things that gradually get disproven.I'm not saying categorically that a God did'nt create whatever caused the big bang,because,obviously,I don't know.I'm not a believer in the religious texts(although i find them fascinating) because i find that people tend to pick and choose which parts to believe and which parts to use as moral code and which parts to ignore.As more is discovered in science,More of these texts are cast aside as being false due to lack of understanding at the time the texts were written.It seems to me that religion and science are struggling more and more to work hand in hand the more that is disproven.I think eventually so much of the Torah,Bible and Quran will be at odds with science that it would be impossible to truly be devout to a religion and also work in the scientific fields.

[Kizzy]

I'm saying nowt....

I'm of the feeling that there has been a visitation, and that it was that that was recorded at the time and we have in a chinese whispers way totally misinterpreted what was written, and worse manipulated it for money, power and control of the masses.

[Niamh.]

In response to your reply to my post Kirk, for me the fact that there's a lot of evidence to suggest how we started and how life was actually created on Earth, dispels the notion of the "gods" presented to us through the religions, clearly we weren't made in anyone's image and space is so vast I doubt we were purposefully made either. Is there some higher power some where that created it all? I have no idea and I doubt I ever will

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

In response to your reply to my post Kirk, for me the fact that there's a lot of evidence to suggest how we started and how life was actually created on Earth, dispels the notion of the "gods" presented to us through the religions, clearly we weren't made in anyone's image and space is so vast I doubt we were purposefully made either. Is there some higher power some where that created it all? I have no idea and I doubt I ever will

No, Niamh, I wasn't even considering 'God' when I said your post was brilliant.

I was referring - on a purely physics level - that you had mentioned the one insurmountable obstacle that Krauss and others encounter and cannot surmount: "Nothing' comes out of 'Nothing'.

The very idea of 'A Universe From Nothing' breaches the 'First Law of Thermodynamics'- that universally long held tenet that; "nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing" --

-- and flies in the face of another principle of physics - 'The Conservation of Matter' - which states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In the words of revered evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow: "Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever”

So if - according to the physicist's 'Bible' - 'Nothing' can ever be suddenly created from 'Nothing', and if both 'Matter' and 'Energy' cannot be created, then Krauss's preposterous and B.S. proposition is a non-starter, and no matter how he tries to 'disguise' thefact that his proposition is B.S. (more later in another post) then we are left with the fact that 'Something' came out of 'Something'.

This has nothing to do with God, it is physics, and you echoed as much when you wrote: .

"Well it is really, we might know how life started and evolved on earth but where did the stuff that made that possible come from etc etc etc you could go back and back and back and probably never get to the end...".

Exactly! 'Something' was there in the first place, or in other words; there was 'something' which already was in existence which was not dependent on 'something else' for it's existence.

In physics, you simply cannot create 'Anything' out of 'Nothing'.

And to us believers - using the bastardised principles of Occam's Razor - that only leaves God.

[Kazanne]

This thread will have no conclusion,but Kirk what a GREAT thread,the differing opinions are an interesting read,all I will say scientists are just 'men' prone to exaggeration,Chinese whispers ,mistakes and a few porkies so to me they are no more credible than the person/persons who wrote the Bible.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

This thread will have no conclusion,but Kirk what a GREAT thread,the differing opinions are an interesting read,all I will say scientists are just 'men' prone to exaggeration,Chinese whispers ,mistakes and a few porkies so to me they are no more credible than the person/persons who wrote the Bible.

Well we can talk to scientists today, look at their work and critique them. We can build on what they say and no scientist ever says that their word is final


Pray tell me who are the men who wrote the bible and why does the bible end thus?:

Nothing May Be Added
…19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.



(and Peer Review is what stops "exaggeration,Chinese whispers ,mistakes and a few porkies " - for an explanation of what that is look here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review.html)

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Well we can talk to scientists today, look at their work and critique them. We can build on what they say and no scientist ever says that their word is final


Pray tell me who are the men who wrote the bible and why does the bible end thus?:

Nothing May Be Added
…19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

In 2,000 to 3,500 years time, future LT's may be similarly dismissing the written words of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins as primitive 'fable' tellers.

As for your intimation that the Bible is irrelevant because we can't talk to or question its authors, when was the last time you talked to or questioned Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, or Robert Oppenheimer?

Finally, and as I have previously informed you in a previous thread, the Judeo Christian Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, so - again - to intimate that the entire book is flawed or irrelevant because of one minuscule portion is typically inane, and akin to throwing away a ton of apples because one is bruised.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

In 2,000 to 3,500 years time, future LT's may be similarly dismissing the written words of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins as primitive 'fable' tellers.

As for your intimation that the Bible is irrelevant because we can't talk to or question its authors, when was the last time you talked to or questioned Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, or Robert Oppenheimer?

Finally, and as I have previously informed you in a previous thread, the Judeo Christian Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, so - again - to intimate that the entire book is flawed or irrelevant because of one minuscule portion is typically inane, and akin to throwing away a ton of apples because one is bruised.

I was replying to Kaz's statement regarding scientists today against what she said about the men who wrote the bible.

so it was not really addressed to you or the 3 topics you replied about which are not related.

However I have a question for you

Can you say why the lady in question said she saw jesus and explain why you think that and how that would come about?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I was replying to Kaz's statement regarding scientists today against what she said about the men who wrote the bible.

so it was not really addressed to you or the 3 topics you replied about which are not related.

However I have a question for you

Can you say why the lady in question said she saw jesus and explain why you think that and how that would come about?

Wow! Your last question is back on topic -- I do hope it's not an attempt to deflect from the subject which you started and on which you ridiculed others for their responses, because you have no answers now when challenged to substantiate your secular physics-based claims?

Anyway, I will answer you but I have pressing work and a deadline, and I have already spent hours on this. I will address your points which I have emboldened though, and say that; I know your point was "not really addressed" to me, but I am interjecting - contributing - as you often do.

Further; the "3 topics in question" are definitely "related" by virtue of being on this thread on this forum. That being so, any relevant response is valid.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Our universe may well indeed well be part of a multivers and if the multiverse theory is right, it would have been born among an infinite number of older sibling universes.

We have currently zero information of what came before the Big Bang. While we can say we know nothing and see nothing pre-Big Bang, we cannot say there was nothing from nothing line.

We are always learning and moving forward, that is the beauty of science.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Our universe may well indeed well be part of a multivers and if the multiverse theory is right, it would have been born among an infinite number of older sibling universes.

We have currently zero information of what came before the Big Bang. While we can say we know nothing and see nothing pre-Big Bang, we cannot say there was nothing from nothing line.

We are always learning and moving forward, that is the beauty of science.

The 'Multiverse' is just another theory. The Big Bang is just a theory, but this theory is physically impossible given all known laws of physics, and is currently - as with all scientific theories which you consistently hail as 'Gospel' - being discredited by other eminent physicists as baloney.

What's more; cast your mind back to a previous thread in which I asked you a question on Physics - your favourite subject:

"If the universe is expanding (Big Bang et al) and as light 'diffracts' - spreads out as it travels - independently of this expansion, and if some of these 'dead stars' which are the source of this light are trillions of light years from our vantage point on Earth, then why do we still see the travelling light from these distant dead stars as starlight? Why hasn't it acted in accordance with the 'Laws of Physics' and spread out and dimmed as a massively wide glow of light? Why hasn't it changed colour even as it has 'cooled'? "


And remember that - here again - you did not answer me except with the usual non-relevant ridicule.

Well, I knew the answer and it is highly pertinent here.

Starlight does not diffuse and does not spread out and dim, because the latest thinking among physicists is that the universe is not expanding - which makes further nonsense of your prized 'Big Bang Theory'.

According to the Big Bang theory, distant objects appear fainter but bigger in an expanding Universe, because the surface brightness decreases with the distance, and the light is stretched and further dimmed as the Universe expanded.

Therefore, in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should be hundreds of times dimmer than nearby galaxies, but observations in new studies have been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which contest that the universe is expanding.

Scientists carefully compared the size and magnitude of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies, and chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the 'Big Bang theory', they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

Finally, given that you are such a 'science and physics' groupie, how can you state:

"We cannot say there was nothing from nothing line."

By the First Law Of Thermodynamics and other tenets and principles of physics, "Out of Nothing, comes Nothing".

Now your view thoroughly deserves a few;

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The 'Multiverse' is just another theory. The Big Bang is just a theory, but this theory is physically impossible given all known laws of physics, and is currently - as with all scientific theories which you consistently hail as 'Gospel' - being discredited by other eminent physicists as baloney.

What's more; cast your mind back to a previous thread in which I asked you a question on Physics - your favourite subject:

"If the universe is expanding (Big Bang et al) and as light 'diffracts' - spreads out as it travels - independently of this expansion, and if some of these 'dead stars' which are the source of this light are trillions of light years from our vantage point on Earth, then why do we still see the travelling light from these distant dead stars as starlight? Why hasn't it acted in accordance with the 'Laws of Physics' and spread out and dimmed as a massively wide glow of light? Why hasn't it changed colour even as it has 'cooled'? "


And remember that - here again - you did not answer me except with the usual non-relevant ridicule.

Well, I knew the answer and it is highly pertinent here.

Starlight does not diffuse and does spread out and dim, because the latest thinking among physicists is that the universe is not expanding - which makes further nonsense of your prized 'Big Bang Theory'.

According to the Big Bang theory, distant objects appear fainter but bigger in an expanding Universe, because the surface brightness decreases with the distance, and the light is stretched and further dimmed as the Universe expanded.

Therefore, in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should be hundreds of times dimmer than nearby galaxies, but observations in new studies have been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which contest that the universe is expanding.

Scientists carefully compared the size and magnitude of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies, and chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the 'Big Bang theory', they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

Finally, given that you are such a 'science and physics' groupie, how can you state:

"We cannot say there was nothing from nothing line."

By the First Law Of Thermodynamics and other tenets and principles of physics, "Out of Nothing, comes Nothing".

Now your view thoroughly deserves a few;

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/sc...ing-01940.html


basic copypasta from the above article

and preaching from Eric Learner the guy who makes his living saying the big bang did not happen....


Jesus H on a bike



What next "Why I think 9/11 was an inside job"?