String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles are Evidence the Universe Was Created
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
With this I 100% agree. For me it is the creator God for you it is some esoteric ideas you seem to have a very hard time even roughly defining.
Cool stuff.
from the above article
quantum computers—advanced machines that could in principle run more calculations in an instant than there are atoms in the universe.
What will mankind be capable of then?
No, it's really about how the universe operates.
Nowhere ever have we observed something coming from nothing.........just like the universe itself. It always was, it just changes form. Not an esoteric idea at all.
I think the science explanation for our existence is more profound than that of some bearded old dude snapping his fingers one day - six days, whatever - and making it all appear. The very idea is absurd...
it was probably a woman. Her name was Hillary.
who told you it is an old dude? And that he has a beard? And that he even has fingers to snap? Can't you see how limited you are in your thinking? You talk universe but can't even clearly define what you believe in other than a "universe that changes form". I leave it at that.
It is a far, far better thing, to put out on the seas of reason than hold firm anchor in a bed of religion.
conduit said:
. You seem to want to pick some dummies that dont live by their faith, maybe you can balance it out with someone who does live by his faith and is intelligent to articulate himself as well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You did not read my link. Then you talk about homosexuals. Why? I am not homosexual but my opinion is the homosexuals are not choosing, they are born to be homosexual.
Why do you day "dummies", for the link I show you?
Here is one article from the link. You think he is (dummies)?
Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia and Fellow of Biology for BioLogos. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...-primate-to-human-part-1#sthash.0Q4tjWPA.dpuf
From hominid to hominin
Having surveyed the hominid crown group (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, their last common ancestral population, and all descendant species of that population), we are now prepared to examine our own branch within it – species more closely related to us than to chimpanzees. Such species are known as hominins. Though humans are the only surviving hominin lineage, there was once a wide diversity of hominin species on the planet, some of which lived alongside early humans. One interesting fact about our own lineage is that our “branch” emerges from a rather “bushy” phylogeny. There are many hominin forms in the fossil record, and teasing out their precise relatedness to one another is a challenging exercise (for more detail, see the series by anthropologist James Kidder in “For further reading” below). Forms for which DNA sequence is available are easy to place in a phylogeny, but those known only from fossil remains are more difficult to place. Given our forgoing discussion of stem-group and crown-group species, however, we are now prepared to appreciate these fossil hominins for what they are: stem-group species on our own branch, with some species possibly ancestral to our own, or located very close to the branch points with our lineage:
- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...-primate-to-human-part-1#sthash.0Q4tjWPA.dpuf
Here is more.
Adam & Eve, Apologetics, and Christian Witness
December 14, 2015 | By Dennis Venema on Letters to the Duchess
. You seem to want to pick some dummies that dont live by their faith, maybe you can balance it out with someone who does live by his faith and is intelligent to articulate himself as well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You did not read my link. Then you talk about homosexuals. Why? I am not homosexual but my opinion is the homosexuals are not choosing, they are born to be homosexual.
Why do you day "dummies", for the link I show you?
Here is one article from the link. You think he is (dummies)?
Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia and Fellow of Biology for BioLogos. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...-primate-to-human-part-1#sthash.0Q4tjWPA.dpuf
From hominid to hominin
Having surveyed the hominid crown group (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, their last common ancestral population, and all descendant species of that population), we are now prepared to examine our own branch within it – species more closely related to us than to chimpanzees. Such species are known as hominins. Though humans are the only surviving hominin lineage, there was once a wide diversity of hominin species on the planet, some of which lived alongside early humans. One interesting fact about our own lineage is that our “branch” emerges from a rather “bushy” phylogeny. There are many hominin forms in the fossil record, and teasing out their precise relatedness to one another is a challenging exercise (for more detail, see the series by anthropologist James Kidder in “For further reading” below). Forms for which DNA sequence is available are easy to place in a phylogeny, but those known only from fossil remains are more difficult to place. Given our forgoing discussion of stem-group and crown-group species, however, we are now prepared to appreciate these fossil hominins for what they are: stem-group species on our own branch, with some species possibly ancestral to our own, or located very close to the branch points with our lineage:
- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...-primate-to-human-part-1#sthash.0Q4tjWPA.dpuf
Here is more.
Adam & Eve, Apologetics, and Christian Witness
December 14, 2015 | By Dennis Venema on Letters to the Duchess
- We’ve come a long way in this series, covering both the scientific evidence that humans descend from a population, rather than a pair, as well as the responses to these lines of evidence by two leading Christian apologists. As we have seen, however, those responses have not stood up to scrutiny. Indeed, in several cases the arguments we have examined are based on a significant misunderstanding of the relevant science.
As a Christian and a scientist, I have long been perplexed by the desire that many Christians have for apologetics arguments made by those without training or expertise in the area under discussion. Unfortunately, most Christians don’t know enough about evolutionary biology or population genetics to know if the apologetics they are reading is sound. One of the reasons for this series, as well as my previous series, Evolution Basics, is to try to help reverse that trend. Once one understands the relevant science, one is in a much better position to evaluate an apologetics argument as helpful or misguided.
- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...cs-and-christian-witness#sthash.juh71Wlj.dpuf
gotta find that dictionary. Or at least keep up with the scientific debate down here. How bout you, if they prove there is no god will you become an atheist? Or do you already know they will never prove there is no god?
What seems to be escaping you is that even if the origin of the universe, the planet Earth, and the origins of all life forms on the Earth were understood in the minutest detail to the point that man could recreate life starting with the elements of the periodic table and in a way consistent with natural law, it still wouldn't disprove that god created the Earth and everything on it in 6 days. It is impossible to disprove supernatural events if the outcome of those events is the same as would be arrived at by a different path that did not depend on the supernatural and did not violate natural law..
You will always be able to believe that the Earth was created by God in 6 days, and no one will ever be able to disprove that to you, so long as you believe in a God that can do anything including those things that violate natural law, such as for example changing the rate of radioisotope decay to make physical things on Earth appear much older than they actually are, etc. Those who insist the natural laws may not be violated, such as myself, do not accept the Biblical account. We believe the Earths is billions of years old. It is pointless to discuss this proof/disprove stuff with regard to the Biblical creation story.