Artificial Life Created

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 10:56AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

We can go further. Take all the matter in the universe and compress it back into the starting point, the primeval atom as it were. Is this a quantum vacuum? No, how can it be, it contains an entire universe. So immediately the concept of something coming from nothing fails.

What?

If the universe came from a quantum vacuum the primeval atom would have appeared out of the quantum vacuum.

Do you understand what virtual particles actually are?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Something from nothing is impossible and you cannot create matter out of energy.

Yes you can

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

philologos · 26-05-2010 11:06AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've only ever heard christians claim that atheists say that tbh. There are a great many very good scientists who have all manner of beliefs but their beliefs do not help them in their scientific endeavours unless these beliefs are scientific. You can argue that their belief gave them the curiosity to get involved in science but the same argument could be made about any belief, as you acknowledge yourself

You might want to read through the comments on the other forum or search through them some time. Many have said that there is severe cognitive dissonance between learning about the world, and their belief in God, which doesn't seem to be the case in reality historically speaking.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 11:11AM

Jakkass wrote: »

You might want to read through the comments on the other forum or search through them some time. Many have said that there is severe cognitive dissonance between learning about the world, and their belief in God, which doesn't seem to be the case in reality historically speaking.

Oh there is cognitive dissonance alright but that doesn't mean that a christian can't be a good scientist, just that he has to keep his beliefs separate from his science. Accepting something to be revealed truth without being able to verify it is bad scientific practise but that's fine as long as they don't do it in the science lab

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 11:16AM

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

If the universe came from a quantum vacuum the primeval atom would have appeared out of the quantum vacuum.

That's a really really really big "IF"

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you understand what virtual particles actually are?

I do. you are misrepresenting, grossly

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes you can

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

You didn;t read this bit then.

It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

So to create a universe your way an accelerator had to exist and appear from nothing. Not only that but it needed massive amounts of energy from nothing and "something" from nothing with the technological expertise beyond what we humans have now from nothing.

Can you not see how ludicrously ridiculous your arguments are.

philologos · 26-05-2010 11:19AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh there is cognitive dissonance alright but that doesn't mean that a christian can't be a good scientist, just that he has to keep his beliefs separate from his science. Accepting something to be revealed truth without being able to verify it is bad scientific practise but that's fine as long as they don't do it in the science lab

I don't see how the cognitive dissonance really arises to be honest with you. The beliefs can still be the motivator of the science. One can be pursuing a career in science because they are in wonder at what God has made, and this can motivate their desire to do it. Indeed, in terms of ethics in science, faith can play a pivotal role in what people feel they should or shouldn't do.

I find the argument that faith should be taken out of someone's life to be absolutely absurd.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 11:28AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

That's a really really really big "IF"

Of course it is, I never proposed that the universe emerged from quantum vacuum. In fact as far as I know it probably didn't

StealthRolex wrote: »

I do. you are misrepresenting, grossly

so why do you say virtual particles are not relevant. Do you think virtual particles don't count as "something"

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

I did read it but unlike you I understood it.

The reason you can't do anything useful with these particles is because they exists in positive negative pairs and destroy each other almost as soon as they exist.

That doesn't mean they don't exist in the first place.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So to create a universe your way an accelerator had to exist and appear from nothing.

No, to create a universe my way you need an imbalance between particles and anti-particles so that after most of them are destroyed you are left with more positive particles.

Which is what we find in the current universe and is known as the Baryon asymmetry problem

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can you not see how ludicrously ridiculous your arguments are.

That is the point. All of the last 100 years of quantum mechanics has been "ludicrously ridiculous" by human standards of common sense.

Which is why appealing to human standards of common sense is a bit stupid.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 11:30AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how the cognitive dissonance really arises to be honest with you. The beliefs can still be the motivator of the science. One can be pursuing a career in science because they are in wonder at what God has made, and this can motivate their desire to do it. Indeed, in terms of ethics in science, faith can play a pivotal role in what people feel they should or shouldn't do.

I find the argument that faith should be taken out of someone's life to be absolutely absurd.

Yes but if they subscribe to the principles of science, which highlight the massive flaws in personal assessment by humans so much so that it is basically out right outlawed from scientific method, why do they accept the existence of God based on their own personal assessment?

This is the cognitive dissonance.

It is like a statistician playing the lottery each week knowing that he is much more likely to die that day than actually win.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 11:31AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how the cognitive dissonance really arises to be honest with you. The beliefs can still be the motivator of the science. One can be pursuing a career in science because they are in wonder at what God has made, and this can motivate their desire to do it. Indeed, in terms of ethics in science, faith can play a pivotal role in what people feel they should or shouldn't do.

I find the argument that faith should be taken out of someone's life to be absolutely absurd.

We've kind of gone in a circle here:

Jakkass: christians can be good scientists. Their beliefs can motivate them to find out about the world
Sam: No one said christians can't be good scientists and any belief could motivate someone to become a scientist. It's about whether or not their beliefs directly help them in doing science
Jakkass: People have claimed there is cognitive dissonance.
Sam: There is. They have to keep their beliefs separate from their science because they're unscientific
Jakkass: christians can be good scientists. Their beliefs can motivate them to find out about the world

And around we go. The question is not can a belief motivate someone to become a scientist, it's do their beliefs help them in doing science. You are addressing the wrong point. Please either address the point being made or concede it.

philologos · 26-05-2010 11:36AM

I don't think we have. I'm questioning your assumptions on cognitive dissonance, not on whether or not someone can be a good scientist. We're agreed that Christians can be good scientists.

It would be dishonest to accuse me of going around in a circle, when I am merely questioning your own stated opinion. If you don't want to discuss, don't.

I believe the motivation can help people in their science. That's the point.

JimiTime · 26-05-2010 11:40AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We've kind of gone in a circle here:

Jakkass: christians can be good scientists. Their beliefs can motivate them to find out about the world
Sam: No one said christians can't be good scientists and any belief could motivate someone to become a scientist. It's about whether or not their beliefs directly help them in doing science
Jakkass: People have claimed there is cognitive dissonance.
Sam: There is. They have to keep their beliefs separate from their science because they're unscientific
Jakkass: christians can be good scientists. Their beliefs can motivate them to find out about the world

And around we go. The question is not can a belief motivate someone to become a scientist, it's do their beliefs help them in doing science. You are addressing the wrong point. Please either address the point being made or concede it.

Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
Pre Big Bang Theory:
Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

Thats just one of the top of my head, where something biblical can be converted into science. Saying the world had a beginning is not science. However, taking that idea and testing and observing in order to examine that claim is science. That would be an example of the two being harmonious.

Another example could be a literal six day creation.
Scientist who is also Christian: If I am to take the genesis account as literal, then God created the world in 6 days and Man out of the dust.

That becomes science, if the said scientists engages this and tests and observes. It only becomes anti-science if he ignores anything that may contradict his 6-day premise.

All in all, science and ones faith can be a very harmonious and indeed productive relationship in theory.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 11:46AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
Pre Big Bang Theory:
Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

What you just said is the exact opposite of science, and is in fact a pretty good example of the dangers of preconceived religious belief entering into science.

Science attempts to explain observable phenomena, not see if there is evidence for an already held position because if you are trying to you will always find evidence for this.

That is what Creationists do and if you are looking for evidence for a pre-held position by golly can you claim you have found it, as the Creationists do. Creationist websites are over flowing with evidence for Biblical creation and it is very very difficult to show that isn't the case if you are already starting with the pre-held notion.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 11:47AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
Pre Big Bang Theory:
Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

Thats just one of the top of my head, where something biblical can be converted into science. Saying the world had a beginning is not science. However, taking that idea and testing and observing in order to examine that claim is science. That would be an example of the two being harmonious.

I'm sure there are a lot of biblical things that happen to coincide with science and if the scientist takes these things as possible scenarios that should be investigated then they're behaving exactly as a scientist should. The problem is accepting that something as revealed truth when it can't be verified. A scientist who investigates a possibility has not done this.

And I don't really see why you need a bible to be able to consider the possibility that the universe had a beginning tbh

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 11:50AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Another example could be a literal six day creation.
Scientist who is also Christian: If I am to take the genesis account as literal, then God created the world in 6 days and Man out of the dust.

That becomes science, if the said scientists engages this and tests and observes. It only becomes anti-science if he ignores anything that may contradict his 6-day premise.

All in all, science and ones faith can be a very harmonious and indeed productive relationship in theory.

Science and faith can be a very harmonious relationship only as long as the scientist does not accept anything on faith. Trusting god's word is what religion is about, investigating things, be it something that is claimed to be god's word or not, is science.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 11:55AM

Wicknight wrote: »

so why do you say virtual particles are not relevant. Do you think virtual particles don't count as "something"

Virtual and theoretical, with mathematical models designed to fit the evidence.

Wicknight wrote: »

I did read it but unlike you I understood it.

No you saw a potential method to use science to win your argument by misrepresenting the science.

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason you can't do anything useful with these particles is because they exists in positive negative pairs and destroy each other almost as soon as they exist.

That doesn't mean they don't exist in the first place.

I never said they don't exist. We do not live in a quantum world or a particle accelerator. What is discovered and perfomed in that environment while interesting and valuable does not translate up to the macro scale that is the universe.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, to create a universe my way you need an imbalance between particles and anti-particles so that after most of them are destroyed you are left with more positive particles.

Which is what we find in the current universe and is known as the Baryon asymmetry problem

again the mis-presentation of theory as fact. "we don't know yet but we are not going to suggest anthing that could be deemed or used to support the theological concept"

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. All of the last 100 years of quantum mechanics has been "ludicrously ridiculous" by human standards of common sense.

Which is why appealing to human standards of common sense is a bit stupid.

Of course. Investigating the quantum world is akin to investigating God. If human standards of common sense cannot be appealed to what can be appealed to, super-human common sense or a higher power?

JimiTime · 26-05-2010 12:06PM

Wicknight wrote: »

What you just said is the exact opposite of science, and is in fact a pretty good example of the dangers of preconceived religious belief entering into science.

You have tunnel vision WN. It is MOST CERTAINLY science if I can model it. Just because you don't like where the idea originated, does not, no matter how much you want it to, make it non-science. Your problem, is that you wish to define science so that it is against anything religious.

Science attempts to explain observable phenomena, not see if there is evidence for an already held position because if you are trying to you will always find evidence for this.

Again, science is not defined by you. Science is a modelling tool. The origin of an idea, be it Darwin looking at birds on the Galapagos, or a Christian looking at a biblical account does not make it science. The process of testing this idea makes it science.

That is what Creationists do and if you are looking for evidence for a pre-held position by golly can you claim you have found it, as the Creationists do. Creationist websites are over flowing with evidence for Biblical creation and it is very very difficult to show that isn't the case if you are already starting with the pre-held notion.

Maybe you misunderstand. I am not saying that you start with an immovable conclusion. I'm saying you start with an idea, e.g. The world has a beginning. You don't set out to disregard anything that contradicts this, but rather use it as a starting point. If a creationist sets out with an immovable conclusion, then I would say that that is not science. However, it is ABSOLUTLEY SCIENTIFIC, to start out with the idea of a 6 day creation, and honestly look to create a model which can show this to be so. It will live or die scientifically, based on your ability to create an accurate model, NOT on where your initial idea came from.

JimiTime · 26-05-2010 12:08PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Science and faith can be a very harmonious relationship only as long as the scientist does not accept anything on faith. Trusting god's word is what religion is about, investigating things, be it something that is claimed to be god's word or not, is science.

I accept that.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 12:41PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You have tunnel vision WN. It is MOST CERTAINLY science if I can model it.

Model what though? The Biblical view that the universe had a start?

If you already have an observable phenomena then the horse if before the cart saying that the Bible can help us go looking for it. It is already there, hence the observable phenomena.

What is not science is going looking for an observable phenomena you think is there because of Biblical scripture, or even worse modeling it without any observations at all (see Creationist "kinds" below).

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because you don't like where the idea originated, does not, no matter how much you want it to, make it non-science. Your problem, is that you wish to define science so that it is against anything religious.

Please stop twisting what I say.

My objection is the notion that you start with an idea (not an observable phenomena) and then go looking for evidence to support that idea. That is not science, it is the opposite of science.

You end up with the sort of nonsense on the Creationist thread, such as Creationists asserting the existence of "kinds" in biology and all the evidence that supports this idea without realizing it is an answer to a question that no one asked since there is no observable phenomena in biology that requires kinds as an explanation.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, science is not defined by you. Science is a modelling tool. The origin of an idea, be it Darwin looking at birds on the Galapagos, or a Christian looking at a biblical account does not make it science.

The difference is that Darwin was looking at a phenomena (birds on the Galapagos) and looking to find an explanation for this. Looking at the Biblical account of creation is not looking at a phenomena.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you misunderstand. I am not saying that you start with an immovable conclusion. I'm saying you start with an idea, e.g. The world has a beginning. You don't set out to disregard anything that contradicts this, but rather use it as a starting point. It will live or die scientifically, based on your ability to create an accurate model, NOT on where your initial idea came from

A starting point for what? Model of what? Science attempts to explain observable phenomena. If you don't have an observable phenomena, if you just have passages in a book, you don't have a starting point.

Models of abstract concepts such as a 6 day creation are not science.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 01:15PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Model what though? The Biblical view that the universe had a start?

If you already have an observable phenomena then the horse if before the cart saying that the Bible can help us go looking for it. It is already there, hence the observable phenomena.

What is not science is going looking for an observable phenomena you think is there because of Biblical scripture, or even worse modeling it without any observations at all (see Creationist "kinds" below).

The difference is that Darwin was looking at a phenomena (birds on the Galapagos) and looking to find an explanation for this. Looking at the Biblical account of creation is not looking at a phenomena.

A starting point for what? Model of what? Science attempts to explain observable phenomena. If you don't have an observable phenomena, if you just have passages in a book, you don't have a starting point.

On Darwin, actually No. you are wrong there. I know wiki is not the best source but it is a reasonable start. Try the wiki page for Darwin and you will find that he first found fossils. Four stops are recorded before he got the the Galapagos and made some observations of birds which intrigued him.

"Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June. He studied Paley's Natural Theology which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[23] He read John Herschel's new book which described the highest aim of natural philosophy as understanding such laws through inductive reasoning based on observation, and Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of scientific travels."

"On the geologically new Galápagos Islands Darwin looked for evidence attaching wildlife to an older "centre of creation", and found mockingbirds allied to those in Chile but differing from island to island. He heard that slight variations in the shape of tortoise shells showed which island they came from, but failed to collect them, even after eating tortoises taken on board as food. In Australia, the marsupial rat-kangaroo and the platypus seemed so unusual that Darwin thought it was almost as though two distinct Creators had been at work."

Darwin started with the Bible and went to make observations. Does that not make him a Creationist?

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 01:25PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

On Darwin, actually No. you are wrong there. I know wiki is not the best source but it is a reasonable start. Try the wiki page for Darwin and you will find that he first found fossils. Four stops are recorded before he got the the Galapagos and made some observations of birds which intrigued him.

Yes. And what am I wrong about exactly?

Did I say that Darwin's first stop was the birds on the Galapagos?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Darwin started with the Bible and went to make observations. Does that not make him a Creationist?

I'm not sure what you mean by "started with the Bible".

Darwin went out into the world to try and understand it. He started by observing the world, which is the first starting point for science, and tried to explain these observations.

He first tried to explain them with biblical explanations but quickly found these lacking. But so far so good, there is nothing unscientific about this.

What he didn't do is go out looking to find evidence for the existence of a phenomena he had read about in the Bible, or at least not as far as I'm aware.

So I'm not really following your point here?

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 01:30PM

Wicknight wrote: »

My objection is the notion that you start with an idea (not an observable phenomena) and then go looking for evidence to support that idea. That is not science, it is the opposite of science.

You might want to try saying that to a masters of Ph.D candidate and see how far you get.

A lot of science is based on "what it" questions followed by pursuit of the answer performed in a scientific manner.

Some science is seredipitous and some is based on exploring observed phenomenon.

Much is based on exploring what we already have knowledge of in the pursuit of a better understanding.

Based on your understanding of science then the Big Bang theory and Quantum Mechanics are not science as both of these started from a basis of non observable phenomena.

If science, according to you, must start only with the observable and ideas as starting points are rejected then you are imposing unreasonable limits on science.

However, if that is atheistic science then it explains rather a lot.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 01:36PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "started with the Bible".

Darwin was a theology graduate therefore know the contents of the Bible. he could not "unknow" it

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwin went out into the world to try and understand it. He started by observing the world, which is the first starting point for science, and tried to explain these observations.

He first tried to explain them with biblical explanations but quickly found these lacking. But so far so good, there is nothing unscientific about this.

What he didn't do is go out looking to find evidence for the existence of a phenomena he had read about in the Bible, or at least not as far as I'm aware.

So I'm not really following your point here?

maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is what is wrong with starting with the Bible and then looking for evidence.

Archeologists go looking for Noah's ark. Is that unscientific?

Geologists go looking for evidence of The Flood. Is that unscientific?

What if someone wants to go looking for Sodom, or Gemorrah? Why should they not.

And moving away from the Bible what about searching for Troy?

Nick Dolan · 26-05-2010 02:14PM

Talking about the bible as a starting point for research is shifting the goal posts a bit. So weve gone from the bible being the word of God to just, well a couple of ideas whacked in there to get us going ?

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 02:32PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Based on your understanding of science then the Big Bang theory and Quantum Mechanics are not science as both of these started from a basis of non observable phenomena.

By Dawkins beard what are you talking about :mad:

The Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain a series of observations starting with Slipher and Hubble's observations that the universe is expanding along with apply general relativity (itself modeling observations of light) to the universe.

Quantum theory is an attempt to explain a series of observations starting with Faraday's observations of particles moving across a vacuum in a cathode ray

Both were theories born out of scientific modeling of observed phenomena.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If science, according to you, must start only with the observable and ideas as starting points are rejected then you are imposing unreasonable limits on science.

Limits on science? The purpose of science is to understand the universe, not the imaginations of humans. It is not a limit, it is the whole point.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 02:38PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Darwin was a theology graduate therefore know the contents of the Bible. he could not "unknow" it

And what the heck does that have to do with my post?

Darwin was attempting to explain observed phenomena. He didn't read a passage in the Bible and think "Umm, lets see if I can support this" and start hunting around for evidence to support that idea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The point is what is wrong with starting with the Bible and then looking for evidence.

Because the Bible is not an observed phenomena.

Why would something think a description in the Bible requires modeling? Why think it actually exists?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Archeologists go looking for Noah's ark. Is that unscientific?

Archeologists go looking for archeological remains and determine what they are based on what they find, not what they were looking for.

They explain observed phenomena.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Geologists go looking for evidence of The Flood. Is that unscientific?

Yes, though the only geologists I've ever seen go looking for evidence of the Flood are Creationists, and guess what, they find it too. How weird.

JimiTime · 26-05-2010 03:03PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Model what though? The Biblical view that the universe had a start?

If you already have an observable phenomena then the horse if before the cart saying that the Bible can help us go looking for it. It is already there, hence the observable phenomena.

Ok, here is what I posted. Observe the bit in bold.

Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
Pre Big Bang Theory:
Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

The hypothetical I gave showed how someone could get an idea originating from their faith, and explore it with science. I'm NOT saying this happened with the big bang, but rather how things from faith CAN encourage scientific exploration. The Bible says things about the reality of this world, and a scientist can take some ideas from this, and explore them scientifically.

What is not science is going looking for an observable phenomena you think is there because of Biblical scripture,

I didn't say it was. I said a persons faith can bring up certain questions that can be explored scientifically.

Please stop twisting what I say.

I don't 'twist' WN, and another accusation of the sort will end my participation. If I have misunderstood something, thats exactly what it is. It does no-one, including myself, ANY good to purposely misrepresent you.

My objection is the notion that you start with an idea (not an observable phenomena) and then go looking for evidence to support that idea. That is not science, it is the opposite of science.

That is simply not true. It doesn't matter where I get an idea from. The process I follow to explore this idea will be what makes it science or not.

A starting point for what? Model of what? Science attempts to explain observable phenomena. If you don't have an observable phenomena, if you just have passages in a book, you don't have a starting point.

Models of abstract concepts such as a 6 day creation are not science.

Analogy:

Christian who is also Scientist:
'The Bible says the world had a beginning' (Not Science)
'If the world began, there may be observable phenomena to show this' (Strating to think in scientific terms, from an idea implanted from faith)
'I'm going to look to see if there is any indication of a starting point'

Looks, notices expanding universe, possible explaination that there was once a centre point etc etc.

Ye get the idea.

All in all, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that someone can't get an idea from whatever source and then use science to explore it. It will stand or fall scientifically on the merits of its scientific observations etc or lack thereof.

JimiTime · 26-05-2010 03:08PM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Talking about the bible as a starting point for research is shifting the goal posts a bit. So weve gone from the bible being the word of God to just, well a couple of ideas whacked in there to get us going ?

No! how you get to the above is just ridiculous in the extreme.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 03:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the Bible is not an observed phenomena.

So are you suggesting the Bible is not worthy of a scientific investigation?

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 03:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No! how you get to the above is just ridiculous in the extreme.

I thought you said " I lament" - no matter. People such as this were predicted in Romans.

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

26 "God delivered them up"... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

monosharp · 26-05-2010 03:19PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Something from nothing is impossible and you cannot create matter out of energy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm
ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 1997) — A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time.

Or NASA if you like.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 03:22PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

you cannot create matter out of energy.

E=MC^2 disagrees

Artificial Life Created

Comments