Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[bunk]

With UFOs/aliens I think there's an assumption that whatever is at work is still bound by the laws of physics, only beyond current human understanding. With ghosts and spirits you have something that is not meant to be relatable to anything in the real world.

 

[childeroland]

Whether the probability of simple molecules performing the necessary abiogenetic functions is nearly zero, as I think Dawkins says, it they would only need to do so a small amount of time in order for life to form, and how much time (for lack of a better word) did they have to do so. Perhaps eons and eons to find the needed materials, eons and eons for those materials to form in the first (?) place.

 

[Thundercrack85]

With UFOs/aliens I think there's an assumption that whatever is at work is still bound by the laws of physics, only beyond current human understanding. With ghosts and spirits you have something that is not meant to be relatable to anything in the real world.

I never understood why the former is considered so strange. Right now, we're trying to go to Mars. In a century, we'll be going to Alpha Centauri.

Having studied a number of documented UFO cases, I'd say the extraterrestrial hypothesis isn't as farfetched as is popularly believed. And I don't mean Roswell either.

 

[Marvolo]

I never understood why the former is considered so strange. Right now, we're trying to go to Mars. In a century, we'll be going to Alpha Centauri.

Having studied a number of documented UFO cases, I'd say the extraterrestrial hypothesis isn't as farfetched as is popularly believed. And I don't mean Roswell either.

Well, for some aliens are a serious theological problem. They aren't mentioned in the Bible, and according to the Bible mankind are in God's image. Christians want to know who's image these aliens are created in. I've heard that brought up. I've heard the question of whether Jesus had to sacrifice himself for the aliens like he did for mankind so that they could be saved like us. I've heard people ask why God wouldn't have told us in the Bible. We got off on this subject in one of my classes one day, and discussed all these questions.

My argument was that they either exist or they do not. The Bible or any spiritual or mythological book or texts are irrelevant in this. Once again people ignore plausible possibilities because it doesn't fit into their antiquated way of thinking.

 

[Sentinel X]

Well, I assume you meant UFO's, as in the vehicles. Alien abduction, gets more into wild claims. There are a number of plausible theories about interstellar travel (just look up the Alcubierre drive).

Aliens by definition are not supernatural. If we assume they are simply intelligent beings who evolved on a habitable planet like we did.

People can turn it into a religion though. Raelism is a good example. Since they make claims of being telepathically communicated to by an alien. But I consider that to be separate from UFO's.

Many alien vehicles have been reported to completely contradict the known laws of physics; given that we have never actually found an actual UFO and used reverse engineering to determine how they are capable of moving in abnormal trajectories by definition makes them supernatural(supernatural being what hasn't been explained by science). By the way, I didn't mention anything about interstellar travel I talked about traveling through different dimmensions and other unusual phenomena. Also, never said aliens were supernatural...soooo?

And I'm glad you brought up Raelism, that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Believing in UFOs does not make somebody religious but they can be easily implemented into religion. In otherwords, religion involves the supernatural but the supernatural does not necessarily involve religion. Its not a two way street.

Agnosticism is not religion. Deism certainly is. Have you looked up what the word "religion" means? As for direction, Merriam-Webster perhaps? Or Encyclopædia Britannica?

That is actually not what I asked for at all but good for you for trying!

Miller/Urey as far as I know is completely out of date, and there have been several labs I've read by future theorists that yielded much more promising results. I disagree that the probability is virtually zero. In my opinion at least very basic self replicating molecules ought to be commonplace provided the planet has a stable atmosphere, water, a hot core and isn't constantly being pelted by rocks. The depths of our oceans provide an environment where you have constant chemical reactions heaped upon other chemical reactions, and considering what I know about the properties of emergence you run enough "calculations" (you can look at chemical reactions in a mathematical sense) eventually you're going to end up with the pretty complicated equations.

Well Miller/Urey can't really be out of date in the context I was using it in lol. For all intent and purposes it proves that organic molecules are capable of being synthesized abiotically. My gripe really isn't with this issue or the mechanisms of abiotic genesis for that matter. I'm just a bit unsure about the statistics of such an event being responsible for creating a self-replicating life form.

And personally, I can't be too sure of how abundant Primitive Earth was with self-replicating organic molecules. All lifeforms on Earth evolved from one cell; this leads me to believe that the environmental conditions needed to create a cell were not prevelant through out Earth. That one cell was quite an anomoly or else we would have had multiple cellular lineages today. Instead we only have one. I guess I would be more comfortable with the theory of cellular precursors coming from comets and asteroids. I know it kind of falls into the same school of thought but it is, so far, a lot more satisfying. Perhaps they are remnants from another planet/moon that was once full of life? who knows.

With UFOs/aliens I think there's an assumption that whatever is at work is still bound by the laws of physics, only beyond current human understanding. With ghosts and spirits you have something that is not meant to be relatable to anything in the real world.

Spirits can be considered beyond current human understanding. Many theoretical physicist believe in alternate realities and universes. Maybe entities people have called 'spirits' or 'ghost' are really just beings making contact from another realty?
The UFOs operate with laws of physics beyond human understand, just like spirits might operate on laws of physics beyond human understanding. I don't see how one can be considered supernatural but the other isnt

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would be willing to bet that if we do meet aliens, and they have gods, that their gods would bear a suspiciously striking resembles to them.

While most people disagree on whether or not aliens have come to Earth, scientists agree that aliens most likely do exist, out there. With so many stars, and planets (one hundred billion in this galaxy alone), it is highly implausible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Many alien vehicles have been reported to completely contradict the known laws of physics; given that we have never actually found an actual UFO and used reverse engineering to determine how they are capable of moving in abnormal trajectories by definition makes them supernatural(supernatural being what hasn't been explained by science). By the way, I didn't mention anything about interstellar travel I talked about traveling through different dimmensions and other unusual phenomena. Also, never said aliens were supernatural...soooo?

And I'm glad you brought up Raelism, that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Believing in UFOs does not make somebody religious but they can be easily implemented into religion. In otherwords, religion involves the supernatural but the supernatural does not necessarily involve religion. Its not a two way street.


That is actually not what I asked for at all but good for you for trying!


Well Miller/Urey can't really be out of date in the context I was using it in lol. For all intent and purposes it proves that organic molecules are capable of being synthesized abiotically. My gripe really isn't with this issue or the mechanisms of abiotic genesis for that matter. I'm just a bit unsure about the statistics of such an event being responsible for creating a self-replicating life form.

And personally, I can't be too sure of how abundant Primitive Earth was with self-replicating organic molecules. All lifeforms on Earth evolved from one cell; this leads me to believe that the environmental conditions needed to create a cell were not prevelant through out Earth. That one cell was quite an anomoly or else we would have had multiple cellular lineages today. Instead we only have one. I guess I would be more comfortable with the theory of cellular precursors coming from comets and asteroids. I know it kind of falls into the same school of thought but it is, so far, a lot more satisfying. Perhaps they are remnants from another planet/moon that was once full of life? who knows.

Spirits can be considered beyond current human understanding. Many theoretical physicist believe in alternate realities and universes. Maybe entities people have called 'spirits' or 'ghost' are really just beings making contact from another realty?
The UFOs operate with laws of physics beyond human understand, just like spirits might operate on laws of physics beyond human understanding. I don't see how one can be considered supernatural but the other isnt

You asked me (by the definition of religion) whether or not UFO's were supernatural. I don't consider them to be. At least, not in the same sense as ghosts. It's advanced science vs. magic. I guess you could go the Clarke route (i.e. any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic). But we assume that aliens operate using advanced technology. Most people who believe in ghosts, believe in magic, though they probably wouldn't use that term. To them there is nothing scientific (understandable or not) about the nature of ghosts.

I also haven't seen any credible evidence for the existence of ghosts. Though truth be told, I haven't looked either.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Not at all. Certainly my search for a connection with God required knowledge. And the proof is in my life's experience. I know that God is with me.

Can you give quantifiable evidence? Can we measure the numinous-ity?

Incorrect. Ideas are not physical, yet they exist. Concepts are not physical, yet they exist. Spirits are not physical, yet they exist.

Ideas exist only within your mind. They exist only as electric impulses between neurons.

He wanted us to have free will. To chose to do right or wrong.

But that would mean God would have to create the conditions in which to do wrong. Being benevolent, that goes against his nature.

I didn't say that God was wrong. I said the BIBLE was wrong. And you're right. God doesn't make mistakes.

But that is what God, chose to do. Two children made fun of a man with no hair, and the man prayed to God to kill them, and the God sent down bears to tear the children into 42 pieces.

No it it doesn't. Evolutionists hope that it will- but they haven't accomplished this yet.

With all the quantifiable evidence and facts that exists on the planet, we can see that every organism has a common trait DNA. We can see similarities between entire subgroups of the Animalia family (eg vertebrates) and we can see that, the age of a species is related to the similarities it shares with other species. So from all that evidence (ie every living thing on the planet) we devised the Theory of Evolution.

That's not WHY we're here. It's just something we do. We also kill and steal. That's also not why we're here.

Evolution is the continuing adaptation of life. What happens if you don't breed?

I could very much say the same thing about you and your religion.

Evolution hasn't proven that we evolved cognitive thought. It's just a theory.

Other famous theories in science:
Gravity
Heliocentricity
Electricity
General Relativity
Germ Theory

You wanna go ahead and deny them too?

And The Big Bang explains nothing. It just theorizes that an explosion happened. Not why it happened, where the super-mass came from,

The Big Bang Theory only works as well as Maths and physical laws allows it to. So far the smartest human beings who have ever lived have managed to work there way down, in a model that works accurately to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (yes that is accurate) seconds after the creation of the universe. Just so you know that 10^43 is the smallest interval of time possible. They are very close to figuring out what was going on at the time of the singularity, but it is, like everything that encompasses the massive scope of everything that will ever exist ever, is very difficult. But it works better than every single other theory, so, as of now, it is the prevailing one.

how living organisms grew from the material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I can.

With quantifiable evidence?

Exactly. God wanted us to accomplish something on our own. That's the very meaning of life.

If he is a God that does nothing, why call him God?

And you're no one to judge me or what my pursuits are (Again, very unscientific). You ASSUME that I don't pursue knowledge. I do. I wouldn't be having this discussion if I didn't. It's just that knowledge of evolution doesn't change my belief in God.

The theory of Evolution, the real one, does not include God, ergo, you do not accept Evolution.

You must have an amazing telescope. t:

I don't, but some other guys do, this one changed everyone's understanding of the universe:

Which means it isn't finite.

That's exactly what it means. Unless of course, you are putting forth the theory of Steady State again?

Which means it's infinite. If it ends somewhere, then there's something else outside of it.

No, you see, what you've done here is misunderstood something. Finite is something that is not infinite. Therefore, it has a beginning, time has a beginning, roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

And since something has always existed- the universe is infinite.

Again, what you've done here is misunderstood. All matter and energy exist within a frame of space-time. Space-time was made 13.7 billion years ago.

The current hypothesis, is that spatially, the 3-D universe exists on a holographic image. The reason people have come to this hypothesis is beyond head achingly complicate to even think of now, let alone try to explain. So I'll tell you why they first began to think of it. Vacuum particles are a pair of particles that literally come from nothing and then annihilate each other. However, when forming around a black hole, only one falls into it, the other remains on the surface of the black hole (a by product of this was Hawking radiation, which explains how black holes decay).

Anywhoo, it was then hypothesised that information (which cannot be lost or destroyed) must also be held on the 2-D surface of a black hole. So the information that describes the entire universe, is held on the surface of a 4-D "surface".

The reason it is so hard to explain is because, being creatures that exist in 3-D you cannot accurately describe what a fourth spatial dimension looks like.

You're not helping to sell Evolution as the Be-All and End-All, dude.

I'm honestly lost for words at this profound illogic. Are you trying to misunderstand for comedic effect here? The universe, and potential omni/multi verse, began before evolution.

If I was trying to prove to you the iPad existed, would you doubt my proof of showing you pictures of it if I could not name to you the name of the very first computer?

I have proof. It's simply not proof that will satisfy you.

Show me your measurements, statistics as well as your repeats and corroborations and I promise I will lend your hypothesis credence.

Because God creates the connection of love. Minus God, your above paragraph makes our existence nothing but random happenstance. From that perspective it doesn't matter if we live or die.

Do you matter? On a universal scale? No. Does anyone? No. If Earth was wiped out of the sky right now by an alien force, the universe would not cry out in pain.

So stop thinking like that. Think about what you can do, think about the people you can help. Not because the Bible or God tells you to, but because you choose to. Believe me, if you get to a truly suicidal stage, you'll need someone to tell you that. It worked wonders for me.

No it hasn't, it's offered theories that start in the middle of the story. No explanation of the actual first spark of life or how the lifeless mass was able to yield life.

Actually this, you are correct on. I tried to give a lay explanation, but here is what Evolution describes:

"The Origin of species through the mechanisms of Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow".

Abiogenesis describes the origin of life.

I never said I expected or cared whether anyone else believed what I do. I don't think you're a bad person because you don't believe in God. I think you're missing out on something, but again, free will.

Missing out on what? I was religious, but instead of forfeiting my will to another, who is either capricious or non-existent, I dedicated myself to filling myself with knowledge and the happiness.

 

[Bill]

By having faith. Anyway. God has touched my life too many times for me not to believe.

Faith does not equate to certainty. It is anything but certainty.

That's not correct at all. It was the Tree of Knowledge. And it was placed there to allow man to exercise free will.

According to the KJV, Gen. 2-9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Emphasis mine.

It seems that it is correct after all. We did not know good and evil until we ate from that tree. So, God punished the entirety of humanity for acting imperfectly, as He had created us(by your admission) and despite not having the ability to know that what we were doing was wrong before we had done it.

Who said we were perfect? If we could fail, then we weren't perfect. And Satan was allowed to present man with a choice to- again- allow man to exercise free will. Great things have come from man's having free will. If we didn't have it, then we'd simply be robots and wouldn't accomplish anything other than what were ordered to do. God obviously didn't want that.

So God created flawed beings, then punished them when those flaws were realized?

Can you not be perfect and have free will? Why would God, a supposedly perfect being, create imperfection purposefully?

God supposedly does not deceive, but it is your contention that he placed Satan, the king of deceivers, in the Garden of Eden to do just that to two imperfect beings.

It begs the question, if God had simply allowed us to exist within the Garden in the midst of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, would we have deliberately disobeyed Him. I suspect not, otherwise, allowing Satan to deceive us into eating of the fruit would be redundant. And we all know God can't possibly be redundant.

I have to say that the serpent certainly got the shaft as he had arms, legs and could speak.

 

[Marvolo]

Personally, I've always found more flaws in an omnipotent and omniscient god than the fallible gods of polytheistic religions. Backwards as that sounds. I've also always leaned more towards polytheistic religions. If and that is a BIG if, our religions and gods were based on advanced beings who visited our planets long ago it seems more likely that the polytheistic religions are the result of those visitations and not the monotheistic religions. Polytheistic religions also seem to be less destructive than monotheistic religions. Tho, I could be very wrong about that observation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would say that their very nature makes polytheistic religions less destructive. They aren't very well organized, and give people more options.

Monotheism is essentially a theistic monopoly. It does not allow for differences of beliefs. That's how the Vatican enslaved Europe for centuries, before the schisms.

 

[DBryan]

I can't take testimonies of personal experiences as proof of god seriously and this is why.

Let's say hypothetically there is a person with schizophrenia, telling me that god has touched their life, that god has been with them, that god has revealed himself to them. How can I tell if the man with schizophrenia is telling the truth or if he is just delusional? How can I tell his claims apart from someone else who claims to talk to god?

If claims aren't falsifiable, if they're not demonstrable, then one story of personal experience is as good as another. The man with schizophrenia claiming he can talk to Elvis has the same legitimacy as the man who claims he can talk to god.

If god has no demonstrable, measurable, or quantifiable traits - I cannot tell god apart from nothing.

If people are interested in discussing that kind of stuff in more detail, we ought to move it to the atheism thread.

 

[Golgo-13]

I would be willing to bet that if we do meet aliens, and they have gods, that their gods would bear a suspiciously striking resembles to them.

While most people disagree on whether or not aliens have come to Earth, scientists agree that aliens most likely do exist, out there. With so many stars, and planets (one hundred billion in this galaxy alone), it is highly implausible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

This.

 

[Dragon]

Can you give quantifiable evidence? Can we measure the numinous-ity?

No. But that's the point. If the connection with God were something that could be measured, then it wouldn't require faith.

Ideas exist only within your mind. They exist only as electric impulses between neurons.

Right. They don't exist physically. But they certainly exist. Your point was that only physical objects exist. The electric impulses aren't the ideas. They simply show your brain is functioning.

But that would mean God would have to create the conditions in which to do wrong. Being benevolent, that goes against his nature.

No he doesn't. God allows negative forces to exist, so as to give us a choice. But he doesn't create the conditions.

But that is what God, chose to do. Two children made fun of a man with no hair, and the man prayed to God to kill them, and the God sent down bears to tear the children into 42 pieces.

Okay, I know that story. And in that case the ones who were slain were evil. Now again I don't accept everything in the bible at face value and the story is very simplistic. But I don't believe that God destroys the innocent. We should defend ourselves against evil, but we should look out for each other.

Neither do I accept the story of Job.

With all the quantifiable evidence and facts that exists on the planet, we can see that every organism has a common trait DNA. We can see similarities between entire subgroups of the Animalia family (eg vertebrates) and we can see that, the age of a species is related to the similarities it shares with other species. So from all that evidence (ie every living thing on the planet) we devised the Theory of Evolution.

That sounds reasonable. I said from my initial post that I certainly think that some aspects of evolution are true. I simply don't believe that it means God doesn't exist. In fact, that strands of DNA tell us what traits the different species developed, that pretty much suggests that intelligence was behind the design of the various species. It makes no sense that the species would just by luck develop their individual traits, such as survival underwater, the different dietary needs of the various species, etc. If it were only about luck and adaptation, the different species would have likely died out before they could adapt. And then- why do species go extinct? Why don't they simply continue to adapt?

Evolution is the continuing adaptation of life. What happens if you don't breed?

We don't all breed. So that's not why we're here.

I could very much say the same thing about you and your religion.

I don't have a religion. But connecting with God is essential. He's why we live. Why we breathe. He keeps our hearts beating.

Other famous theories in science:
Gravity
Heliocentricity
Electricity
General Relativity
Germ Theory

You wanna go ahead and deny them too?

No. But then I'm not denying evolution.

The Big Bang Theory only works as well as Maths and physical laws allows it to. So far the smartest human beings who have ever lived have managed to work there way down, in a model that works accurately to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (yes that is accurate) seconds after the creation of the universe. Just so you know that 10^43 is the smallest interval of time possible. They are very close to figuring out what was going on at the time of the singularity, but it is, like everything that encompasses the massive scope of everything that will ever exist ever, is very difficult. But it works better than every single other theory, so, as of now, it is the prevailing one.

And it still doesn't answer the question I asked. It can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

More theories. Not proof.

With quantifiable evidence?

Yeah, for me. Just not for you, apparently.

If he is a God that does nothing, why call him God?

He created us. He provides for us. Heals us. I wouldn't call that nothing. He just expects us to do something with ourselves. Life is living in connection with God.

The theory of Evolution, the real one, does not include God, ergo, you do not accept Evolution.

Okay, so in your view I have to accept all of one belief or all of the other. I disagree.

I don't, but some other guys do, this one changed everyone's understanding of the universe:

So it saw the end of the universe? Then it must have seen what comes after.

That's exactly what it means. Unless of course, you are putting forth the theory of Steady State again?

I'm putting forth the belief that the universe, which is one with God, is infinite.

No, you see, what you've done here is misunderstood something. Finite is something that is not infinite.

Really?

Therefore, it has a beginning, time has a beginning, roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

So what existed before that?

Again, what you've done here is misunderstood. All matter and energy exist within a frame of space-time. Space-time was made 13.7 billion years ago.

Made from what? If nothing existed it couldn't have been made. And it would have taken TIME to form Space-time- so time had to exist before 13.7 billion years ago.

This is more far-fetched than anything in the bible.

The current hypothesis, is that spatially, the 3-D universe exists on a holographic image. The reason people have come to this hypothesis is beyond head achingly complicate to even think of now, let alone try to explain. So I'll tell you why they first began to think of it. Vacuum particles are a pair of particles that literally come from nothing and then annihilate each other.

Wait- so you can believe these particles can come from nothing- but not that God formed the Earth and all of its inhabitants from nothing?

However, when forming around a black hole, only one falls into it, the other remains on the surface of the black hole (a by product of this was Hawking radiation, which explains how black holes decay).

But what formed the black hole? Did it also form from nothing?

Anywhoo, it was then hypothesised that information (which cannot be lost or destroyed) must also be held on the 2-D surface of a black hole. So the information that describes the entire universe, is held on the surface of a 4-D "surface".

And again- you evolutionists say that the bible is far-fetched? Information which cannot be lost or destroyed- but apparently appeared from this great nothingness- by LUCK and is held on the 2-D surface of a black hole- When nothing that exists physically can be 2-D. Everything has 3 dimensions, no matter how thin.

The reason it is so hard to explain is because, being creatures that exist in 3-D you cannot accurately describe what a fourth spatial dimension looks like.

So I guess that means it's not quantifiable. Sounds more and more like faith.

I'm honestly lost for words at this profound illogic. Are you trying to misunderstand for comedic effect here? The universe, and potential omni/multi verse, began before evolution.

Before evolution on Earth. What has been theorized to have happened before Earth was formed is still evolution.

If I was trying to prove to you the iPad existed, would you doubt my proof of showing you pictures of it if I could not name to you the name of the very first computer?

No I wouldn't. But that's exactly what you're doing with belief in God.

Show me your measurements, statistics as well as your repeats and corroborations and I promise I will lend your hypothesis credence.

I can't do that. If we could measure or analyze statistics regarding God's existence, then we wouldn't need belief. And we also wouldn't have free will. There'd be no challenge to our existence.

Do you matter? On a universal scale? No. Does anyone? No. If Earth was wiped out of the sky right now by an alien force, the universe would not cry out in pain.

Exactly my point. But we do matter to God. And by extension, we should all matter to each other.

So stop thinking like that. Think about what you can do, think about the people you can help. Not because the Bible or God tells you to, but because you choose to. Believe me, if you get to a truly suicidal stage, you'll need someone to tell you that. It worked wonders for me.

I already know what I can do. And that amount of help is multiplied in conjunction with God. Because God is infinite- so are we. We have spirits that exist beyond the physical realm. And through our spiritual existence, we're all connected.

Actually this, you are correct on. I tried to give a lay explanation, but here is what Evolution describes:

"The Origin of species through the mechanisms of Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow".

Abiogenesis describes the origin of life.

It only gives a portion of the story, as I'd said.

And as you've pointed out above, theoretical science still suggests, that something had to come from nothing. Even the Bible doesn't ask us to believe that. It says that everything came from God.

Missing out on what? I was religious, but instead of forfeiting my will to another, who is either capricious or non-existent, I dedicated myself to filling myself with knowledge and the happiness.

You keep bringing up religion, even though I repeatedly say I'm not religious. I believe in God. I think there are useful teaching tools in the bible and also from Buddhism, Taoism and yes (GASP) Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. etc.

And based on reading some of the principles you've presented here, I'm even more baffled at how you can say that God is an improbability.

Intelligent life developed, but an intelligent being couldn't have always existed. Particles can come from nothing- a black hole can come from nothing, and information can come from nothing- but the existence of God is illogical? Seriously?

God doesn't look for you to forfeit your will- which is again why he gave us free will. God wants you to work with him, not for him. He doesn't need us. But we need him.

 

[DBryan]

Why are there still people in this thread who don't understand the word theory? I'm not explaining it again.

No. But that's the point. If the connection with God were something that could be measured, then it wouldn't require faith.

And that is EXACTLY why faith is undesirable. It is not a method for finding truth.

 

[DBryan]

theoretical science still suggests, something had to come from nothing.

No it doesn't.

Give one single example in which a scientific theory says something came from nothing.

There has only ever been examples of something coming from something.

Define nothing. What can you point to and say 'that's nothing'. When has there been an example of nothing?

 

[bunk]

Spirits can be considered beyond current human understanding. Many theoretical physicist believe in alternate realities and universes. Maybe entities people have called 'spirits' or 'ghost' are really just beings making contact from another realty?
The UFOs operate with laws of physics beyond human understand, just like spirits might operate on laws of physics beyond human understanding. I don't see how one can be considered supernatural but the other isnt

It's not the same with aliens, because you have an assumption that whatever technology is being used also corresponds with what humans have knowledge of—it's just more advanced technology. You could imagine aliens that exist in a different reality the way ghosts might, but this doesn't seem to be the train of thought UFO believers have. We also have enough information about the other systems to see that life could exist elsewhere. It's thin, but the concept is essentially just more technologically advanced humans.

I don't doubt that imaginative people can conjure some sort pseudo scientific explanation for spirits. I'm suggesting that people that believe in spirits would likely claim to already have an idea of what the phenomenon is and not necessarily consider it 'beyond human understanding'. None of it's defined well enough to enter the realm of science.

 

[Dragon]

Faith does not equate to certainty. It is anything but certainty.

According to the KJV, Gen. 2-9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Emphasis mine.

Yeah, but you said it was the "Tree of Good and Evil". There are differing translations and while some are The Tree of Knowledge or The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil- it's never referred to as the Tree of Good and Evil.

It seems that it is correct after all. We did not know good and evil until we ate from that tree. So, God punished the entirety of humanity for acting imperfectly, as He had created us(by your admission) and despite not having the ability to know that what we were doing was wrong before we had done it.

We knew it was wrong because God told us:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;
יז וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת. 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

So God created flawed beings, then punished them when those flaws were realized?

Yes. Although it wasn't really a punishment. More a disciplining. And we gained from it.

Can you not be perfect and have free will? Why would God, a supposedly perfect being, create imperfection purposefully?

So that we'd have something to work for. It gave our lives meaning.

God supposedly does not deceive, but it is your contention that he placed Satan, the king of deceivers, in the Garden of Eden to do just that to two imperfect beings.

Those imperfect beings had the ability to reason and choose. They chose poorly. But we all become better people by learning from our mistakes.

It begs the question, if God had simply allowed us to exist within the Garden in the midst of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, would we have deliberately disobeyed Him. I suspect not, otherwise, allowing Satan to deceive us into eating of the fruit would be redundant. And we all know God can't possibly be redundant.

Obviously we would and did disobey, once we became aware that we had a choice.

I have to say that the serpent certainly got the shaft as he had arms, legs and could speak.

And I weep for him.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's inevitable that we'll run into alien life if we continue to expand. And we have been intentionally (and unintentionally) broadcasting messages into space for like a century. It's not exactly hard to find Earth.

Especially if like us, they're looking for habitable worlds. Which aren't difficult to find, if you have the means, i.e. the technology.

 

[Dragon]

No it doesn't.

Give one single example in which a scientific theory says something came from nothing.

There has only ever been examples of something coming from something.

Define nothing. What can you point to and say 'that's nothing'. When has there been an example of nothing?

To quote:

The current hypothesis, is that spatially, the 3-D universe exists on a holographic image. The reason people have come to this hypothesis is beyond head achingly complicate to even think of now, let alone try to explain. So I'll tell you why they first began to think of it. Vacuum particles are a pair of particles that literally come from nothing and then annihilate each other.

 

[DBryan]

It's inevitable that we'll run into alien life if we continue to expand. And we have been intentionally (and unintentionally) broadcasting messages into space for like a century. It's not exactly hard to find Earth.

Especially if like us, they're looking for habitable worlds. Which aren't difficult to find, if you have the means, i.e. the technology.

I think people are getting too excited with these UFO conspiracies.

It's one thing to spot worlds that may be habitable on telescope. It's another thing entirely to actually get to those worlds.

Gliese 581g is 20 light years away. We don't even know if it will ever be possible to create manned craft that could feasibly travel that kind of distance. Light speed travel may not be possible.

Also take into account how freakin' HUGE the Universe is.

There could be hundreds - thousands, even - of intelligent civilizations but most of them would be so far spread out that they'd NEVER find each other because even with the best technology we could conceive of, finding one single other intelligent life would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, on a planet of haystacks!

 

[SuperFerret]

Why are there still people in this thread who don't understand the word theory? I'm not explaining it again.

Because they haven't read your explanations and there are two meanings for the word "theory".

 

[DBryan]

Dragon, I don't think the quantum physicists mean literally nothing. It's all complex mathematics, quantum fluctuations, m-theory, etc.

The energy of empty space is still something.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think people are getting too excited with these UFO conspiracies.

It's one thing to spot worlds that may be habitable on telescope. It's another thing entirely to actually get to those worlds.

Gliese 581g is 20 light years away. We don't even know if it will ever be possible to create manned craft that could feasibly travel that kind of distance. Light speed travel may not be possible.

Also take into account how freakin' HUGE the Universe is.

There could be hundreds - thousands, even - of intelligent civilizations but most of them would be so far spread out that they'd NEVER find each other because even with the best technology we could conceive of, finding one single other intelligent life would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, on a planet of haystacks!

I could recommend some literature.

But really, 20 lightyears is peanuts, on an interstellar scale.

But to those who doubt interstellar travel (human or alien), just look at how far we've come. In 60 years, we went from the Wright Brothers cycling in a sand dune, to Neil Armstrong strolling on the moon. And we're not stopping there.

We already have theoretically plausible designs for limited interstellar travel. Now imagine what we'll have in a century or two, when we tap into dark matter.

We're already finding likely habitable planets with modern technology. Give it time.

 

[Bill]

To quote:

In Quantum Physics, particles appear in and out of our space-time continuum all the time. It verifiable, tested and occurs. So, yes, something can come from nothing, or at least how Quantum Theory defines "nothing".

And what you have to understand that in terms of the Big Bang, there was no such thing as "before." Before is a term that we use to describe the passage of time which has no bearing at all when the very beginning of time was the expansion of our current space-time continuum. What came before is meaningless. There was no before.

I can certainly understand that concept is hard to wrap your mind around.