A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
- Bertrand Russell
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Disproving atheists in 82 seconds
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
- Bertrand Russell
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Quite frankly the myth is that science has come to a conclusion on the existence of God.
science does not think much about god at all. there has to be some kind of evidence for a god before science would be interested.
For three hundred years now, the Christian astronomer has known that his Diety didn't make the stars in those tremendous six days; but the Christian astronomer doesn't enlarge upon that detail. Neither does the priest.
Samuel Clemens- Letters from the Earth
If you wish to remain atheists don't read this.
For those who don't mind Science and Creator. I am in the middle of this article and its is the best I have ever read on explaining the science.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
here is a an excerpt...
"Mass of the Universe
Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.
If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing.
What does this tell me about the Creator? That God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building one hundred billion stars and carefully shaped and crafted those hundred billion trillion stars for the entire age of the universe, so that for this brief moment in time, we could have a nice place to live.
...
We live in a Special Solar System, Too
We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. Itâs not that easy to get the right galaxy.
Life can only happen on late born stars. If itâs a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you donât yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. Thereâs a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.
If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. Itâs not that easy.
Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; theyâre gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes."
For those who don't mind Science and Creator. I am in the middle of this article and its is the best I have ever read on explaining the science.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
here is a an excerpt...
"Mass of the Universe
Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.
If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing.
What does this tell me about the Creator? That God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building one hundred billion stars and carefully shaped and crafted those hundred billion trillion stars for the entire age of the universe, so that for this brief moment in time, we could have a nice place to live.
...
We live in a Special Solar System, Too
We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. Itâs not that easy to get the right galaxy.
Life can only happen on late born stars. If itâs a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you donât yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. Thereâs a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.
If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. Itâs not that easy.
Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; theyâre gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes."
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
and more...
Births & Deaths of Multiple Stars Required to have Metals in Earthâs Crust
When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry.
But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We donât want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, weâre in serious trouble because itâs only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet.
We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isnât a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth.
What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. Itâs only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy.
Mormon Astronomy â Accurate or not?
Thatâs why Iâm not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. Thatâs probably also why Iâve never met a Mormon astronomer.
The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we donât want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there arenât enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.
Thereâs one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and thatâs Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. Itâs like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.
Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasnât yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. Itâs an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.
We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry.
and more...
Births & Deaths of Multiple Stars Required to have Metals in Earthâs Crust
When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry.
But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We donât want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, weâre in serious trouble because itâs only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet.
We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isnât a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth.
What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. Itâs only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy.
Mormon Astronomy â Accurate or not?
Thatâs why Iâm not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. Thatâs probably also why Iâve never met a Mormon astronomer.
The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we donât want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there arenât enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.
Thereâs one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and thatâs Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. Itâs like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.
Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasnât yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. Itâs an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.
We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry.
To Assume it Happened By Chance = âThe Gamblerâs Fallacyâ
Youâre assuming the benefit of an infinite sample size, when you can only provide evidence for one. Let me give you an example. If I were to flip a coin 10,000 times and it were to come up heads 10,000 times in a row, you could conclude that the coin has been fixed with a purpose to come up heads. Thatâs the rational bet.
But the irrational better would say that conceivably, two to the 10,000 coins could exist out there. And if those two to the 10,000 coins are like my coin, but all getting different results than I see here, then this coin could be fair.
Itâs the gamblers fallacy because you have no proof of the existence of those other coins or that they take on similar characteristics of the coin that youâre flipping, and you have no evidence that those coins are producing different results.
The equations of General Relativity guarantee that we will never discover another universe. God may have created two, but weâll never know about it because the equations of General Relativity tell us that the Space-Time manifold of universe A will never overlap the space-time manifold of universe B.
Other Universes? No Way to Know
That means we will be forever ignorant about the possibility of other universes, because the sample size will always be one. Therefore, the appeal to infinite chances rather than to the God of the Bible is the gamblerâs fallacy.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
Youâre assuming the benefit of an infinite sample size, when you can only provide evidence for one. Let me give you an example. If I were to flip a coin 10,000 times and it were to come up heads 10,000 times in a row, you could conclude that the coin has been fixed with a purpose to come up heads. Thatâs the rational bet.
But the irrational better would say that conceivably, two to the 10,000 coins could exist out there. And if those two to the 10,000 coins are like my coin, but all getting different results than I see here, then this coin could be fair.
Itâs the gamblers fallacy because you have no proof of the existence of those other coins or that they take on similar characteristics of the coin that youâre flipping, and you have no evidence that those coins are producing different results.
The equations of General Relativity guarantee that we will never discover another universe. God may have created two, but weâll never know about it because the equations of General Relativity tell us that the Space-Time manifold of universe A will never overlap the space-time manifold of universe B.
Other Universes? No Way to Know
That means we will be forever ignorant about the possibility of other universes, because the sample size will always be one. Therefore, the appeal to infinite chances rather than to the God of the Bible is the gamblerâs fallacy.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/
Do you differ with the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research?
Hugh: Yes, I differ with them about the age of the universe. I would agree with them on the recency of the creation of man. Though, we both hold that we are all descendent from Adam and Eve and that God created Adam and Eve only thousands of years ago.
Where we disagree is on the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, but Iâd like to point out that it really doesnât matter. I believe that the universe is 17,000,000,000 years old [that was the best figure available in 1994; today we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old â Ed ] and they believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. We only differ by a factor of 1,000,000. Thatâs only six zeros.
I say this because Iâve brought another book here with me, written by an agnostic, Hubert Yockey, who founded the field of information theories that apply to molecular biology. He and others, including atheists, point out that in order for life to arise by natural processes, you would need an Earth in excess of 10 to the one hundred billionth power, years old. Thatâs a hundred billion zeros after the one. It would fill 25,000 Bibles with zeros to write that number out long hand.
The fact that I differ with the Institute of Creation Research by only six zeros has no bearing on the creation evolution debate. Nor does it have any bearing on salvation. When God created is doctrinally insignificant.
I say that because in my opinion, there has been far too much emotion invested in what I consider to be a trivial issue in terms of creation evolution and basic viable doctrine. If we can get away from the emotion, I think we can resolve it.
Do you differ with the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research?
Hugh: Yes, I differ with them about the age of the universe. I would agree with them on the recency of the creation of man. Though, we both hold that we are all descendent from Adam and Eve and that God created Adam and Eve only thousands of years ago.
Where we disagree is on the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, but Iâd like to point out that it really doesnât matter. I believe that the universe is 17,000,000,000 years old [that was the best figure available in 1994; today we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old â Ed ] and they believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. We only differ by a factor of 1,000,000. Thatâs only six zeros.
I say this because Iâve brought another book here with me, written by an agnostic, Hubert Yockey, who founded the field of information theories that apply to molecular biology. He and others, including atheists, point out that in order for life to arise by natural processes, you would need an Earth in excess of 10 to the one hundred billionth power, years old. Thatâs a hundred billion zeros after the one. It would fill 25,000 Bibles with zeros to write that number out long hand.
The fact that I differ with the Institute of Creation Research by only six zeros has no bearing on the creation evolution debate. Nor does it have any bearing on salvation. When God created is doctrinally insignificant.
I say that because in my opinion, there has been far too much emotion invested in what I consider to be a trivial issue in terms of creation evolution and basic viable doctrine. If we can get away from the emotion, I think we can resolve it.