Noahs Ark found. (Good Video Evidence)

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

well the catholic church says there is no science behind id, the scientists say there is no science behind id. the courts say there is no science behind id, most christians say there is no science behind id.
that only leaves a few on the fringe like you who will twist what scientists say is not true into claiming they support your side because you have a need to believe.

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." -Bertrand Russell

you are a complete liar. Which courts - a court? Referring to ID or creationism? The supreme court? which state? Besides why would I care what a judge says when I can study what science says.

Most Christians are clowns like most atheists and every other group....besides I am sure if you phrased the question did a Creator create the universe.... 99% percent would say yes.

Finally, you have the Catholic Church position all wrong...

The catholic church's top tier cardinal Schoonboom says it is an abdication of intelligence to suggest our universe does not appear finely tuned.

I have showed you this quote before read the part about the Cardinal... who is probably the next pope.



"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

[jem]

If you do not wish to be a clown.

Why don't you explain why our universe has so many constants which seem finely tuned. Show me why Tipler is wrong.

Or explain why the nobel prize winning biologist is wrong when they say there is no way this a happened by chance.

Show me with science or quotes of nobel prize winners why they are wrong.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

you are a complete liar. Which courts - a court? Referring to ID or creationism? The supreme court? which state?
]

geeze jem. educate yourself then you wouldnt look so willfully ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

 

[jem]

I spent the first minute looking at the video.. they are talking about monkeys. That is a different subject... and you know it.
I am not talking about young earth arguments and evolution of monkeys to people.

and you did not answer the question which courts?

I am talking about the design of the universe and science.

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

If you do not wish to be a clown.

Why don't you explain why our universe has so many constants which seem finely tuned. Show me why Tipler is wrong.

Or explain why the nobel prize winning biologist is wrong when they say there is no way this a happened by chance.

Show me with science or quotes of nobel prize winners why they are wrong.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I respect the fact you quoted it right.
His point is a Creator is not necessary if there are almost infinite other universes. Universes which you have to accept on faith.

You see that argument counters why our universe looks so finely tuned. Get it... finely tuned or infinite universes.

• “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

Without an epidemic of red-herrings, Hawking’s 'point' cannot be what you are trying to say it is.

He says quite clearly that a spontaneous universe will create itself because there is a law of gravity.
Not if there are almost infinite other universes or because of fine tuning or because of anything called God.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

• “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

Without an epidemic of red-herrings, Hawking’s 'point' cannot be what you are trying to say it is.

He says quite clearly that a spontaneous universe will create itself because there is a law of gravity.
Not if there are almost infinite other universes or because of fine tuning or because of anything called God.

Ok - lets agree the universe could have spontaneously created itself. (by the way I will bet the law is really the law as it relates to light not gravity... but that is just my personal theory.)

Does he mention anything about those modeling this universe?
And what happens when you changes the constants?
Does he mention other reasons the universe appears fine tuned?
What is his explanation. Does he mention that string theory allows for infinite other universes and that therefore if there are 10 to the 500 other universes you can explain the fine tunings?

 

[jem]

By the way.... I have been accurate... http://bigthink.com/ideas/25144

Question?

"In Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. But I thought that gravity was a function of mass, as per Einstein. How can you have gravity before mass and therefore how can gravity explain mass?"

Dr. Kaku: In Stephen's new book, he says that the Theory of Everything that Einstein spent 30 years of his life chasing is string theory (or its latest incarnation, M-theory).

In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time. (But Hawking goes one step farther and says that therefore here is no need of God, since God is not necessary to create the universe. I wouldn't go that far. See a previous blog entry on my attitude towards that.)

 

[William Rennick]

Surprised some many skeptics on here, questioning why and how it was possible. That's easy, the God that created everything (or more likely his Angels ) told Noah and the animals what to do. I have a better question,,, how the hell do the skeptics explain a huge ship being at that altitude, and in the exact area described in the Bible?

REPENT PIKERS, THE HOT PLACE AWAITS LEST YE CHANGE!!!


Billy Rennick Graham out

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Ok - lets agree the universe could have spontaneously created itself. (by the way I will bet the law is really the law as it relates to light not gravity... but that is just my personal theory.)

Does he mention anything about those modeling this universe?
And what happens when you changes the constants?
Does he mention other reasons the universe appears fine tuned?
What is his explanation. Does he mention that string theory allows for infinite other universes and that therefore if there are 10 to the 500 other universes you can explain the fine tunings?

Hawking indicates this Universe provides information to counter notions of fine tuning, without infinite other universes.

• “.. [the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the sun]. makes the coincidences of planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.”