Incidentally, "red shift" can only be explained by saying that the universe is expanding so, in my opinion, we do not need a light-speed space craft. Although, as I said earlier, theories such as this are often proved wrong (especially in physics!) so it would be useful for verification.
Misunderstanding of Evolution
- Thread starter Kevin G
- Start date
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
You're right, added to the fact astronomers can measure the distance galaxies are moving apart and the galaxies at the edge of our sight appear very ancient it is probable the universe is expanding and we can see the majority of the measureable universe...
After re-reading my original post I haven't made that point well it was meant to be driving at the point that the limit of the speed of light will in my humble opinion always limit our knowledge about the "limit" or "eternality" of the universe...
After re-reading my original post I haven't made that point well it was meant to be driving at the point that the limit of the speed of light will in my humble opinion always limit our knowledge about the "limit" or "eternality" of the universe...
Last edited:
The problem with the notion of a higher being is that in order to create a complex universe, the creator must be equally or more complex then the universe that it creates. Thus there exists a cycle of complexity in religious beliefs. I am of opinion that there exists room for religion, however when such religion conflicts with concrete science, then religion needs to be be altered. I mean to say the Earth and universe are only a couple of thousands of years old and to have the farthest stars being billions of light years away (if you do not know how this is a problem you lack primary scientific knowlege) there exists a conflict that should not be explained away as saying scientists are lying. I mean how did Noah save all the animals of the world before the flood. How was one man capable of going to every corner of the Earth, ie. New Guinea, the Andes the tundra of Northern America and fit the countless species many of which are still unknown on to a wooden ship, then after the flood miraculously return those species exactly where they came from. What I am saying is that for millenia, if something could not be quickly explained, well a higher power did it, and then everyone is content to wallow in their new found wisdom. As to a previous post, on how could billions of people be wrong. Are you serious? As science develops we learn more and more and this ultimately facillitates the decline of religion. Billions of the world's people are essentially living like they did hundreds of years ago without much input from contemporary scientific ideals or advances. How many Ethiopians or Haitians do you see going into space?
Kevin G you obviously know something about the bible as you know the story of Noah!! I did read something about Noahs Ark just recently and saw a scale model of it and questions were answered about the Ark, however I have forgotten all of it! I will try and find some of the answers for you.
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Remember the majority of the bible was written by powerful men in the first few hundred years after the death of Christ... It's main purpose I believe was to use storytelling to attract people to the new faith and should be taken with a grain of salt while absorbing the relevant parts...
Last edited:
Doddy yes I know a little about the bible. Unlike many in the religious community, I choose to know what I am talking about before arguing a stand. The problem NZ Jeremy is too many people literally take the bible and other religious writing at face value. Seen in the construction of the creationist museum here in the states. People do not question the farfetched stories which are nothing more than stories. I mean when you have people saying the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis and other fossilized hominids are nothing but fabrications you begin to lose credibility. Many on this thread have stated where's the evidence for evolution and the such. When it is presented to them, they state well it is fabricated. Tell me how light from a star billions of lightyears away managed to get to us within the last 10,000 years? Now one states that it is inplausable for the big bang to have occured because how can something puff into existance. But where did the higher power come from? If it was always there, then did it not puff into existance?
I've always believed that religion has two main pilars that brought it into the world, and it still rests on.
First of all, the need of people to be able to explain everything they see. Anything they can't explain must be devine, because what else is there? Some things that were devine in the past (lightning, sunrise spring to mind) are not anymore now. But there will always be things that are inexplainable. You can argue over the origin of the universe, and if you can conclusively show that it wasn't a devine being there will be other things, up until "what's after death" and you'll be stuck nonetheless. There's hardly a reason to debate about this really, it's up to what people believe (usually, that's what they were brought up with...).
The second pilar is the really annoying one, the need for people to want to belong to a group. It creates the feeling of "us" (funnily shown by Toddy top page 2, btw), the need to care for others within your group (and sometimes even outside your group) in many ways which is great.
But it also creates the feeling of "them". The other side, the rest, the ones that don't believe what we do. They think different, and since what we believe is right, they must be wrong. For some reason, many people need a common enemy to make the bonds within their own group tighter.
You can debate that religion is one of the basis that extremist groups are build on, but if religion isn't around people will find other beliefs to get the exact same. Multitude of examples; left-wing, right-wing, green-wing, hooligans, gangs...
Ín my mind therefore, there's not much use debating religion.
I'm a believer in Star Trek's theory: As soon as people will find out they are not alone in the universe, they'll realise the differences between them all are minor and we'll have a new common "enemy". It's only when we realise we are all alike, and are one group of people when peace will become an option (come back in a couple of thousand years, i think...).
First of all, the need of people to be able to explain everything they see. Anything they can't explain must be devine, because what else is there? Some things that were devine in the past (lightning, sunrise spring to mind) are not anymore now. But there will always be things that are inexplainable. You can argue over the origin of the universe, and if you can conclusively show that it wasn't a devine being there will be other things, up until "what's after death" and you'll be stuck nonetheless. There's hardly a reason to debate about this really, it's up to what people believe (usually, that's what they were brought up with...).
The second pilar is the really annoying one, the need for people to want to belong to a group. It creates the feeling of "us" (funnily shown by Toddy top page 2, btw), the need to care for others within your group (and sometimes even outside your group) in many ways which is great.
But it also creates the feeling of "them". The other side, the rest, the ones that don't believe what we do. They think different, and since what we believe is right, they must be wrong. For some reason, many people need a common enemy to make the bonds within their own group tighter.
You can debate that religion is one of the basis that extremist groups are build on, but if religion isn't around people will find other beliefs to get the exact same. Multitude of examples; left-wing, right-wing, green-wing, hooligans, gangs...
Ín my mind therefore, there's not much use debating religion.
I'm a believer in Star Trek's theory: As soon as people will find out they are not alone in the universe, they'll realise the differences between them all are minor and we'll have a new common "enemy". It's only when we realise we are all alike, and are one group of people when peace will become an option (come back in a couple of thousand years, i think...).
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Well put Kevin G, that is at the crux of the issue, isn't it..?
I determined to look into the science relating to the universe and its origins to see if the answers there were more plausible than creation...
As I said what I found was that science can explain the physics of the universe (to a high degree) and the evolution of life over the last 13.7 billion years but as to the origin of the universe itself science finds itself lacking... The four main issues and many smaller ones I raised indicate to me the big bang was the result of a Higher Power and the reasons we cannot explain many of the issues surrounding it by physics is due to this fact also some signs of intervention especially in the early universe seem apparent to me, I'll be happy to be corrected by the Large Hadron Collider and re-evaluate...
I've re-typed that to speak to your point about fabrication... If you accept (as I do) the fact the big bang was the result of a Higher Power and that the uniformity of the universe and the weakness of gravity indicate possible early intervention then you must accept the possibility that that Higher Power could have created a universe at any point in time over the last 13.7 billion years and made it to look as old as the Higher Power wished...
It all comes down to faith, mine is based on the probability that inertia tells me something never comes from nothing and matter stays at its energy level unless exposed to a catalyst or has worked performed on it... After looking at the evidence I see no natural catalyst or work and therefore find nothing to change my mind so far...
The creationist museum is a laugh, I always wonder why so many people have dedicated themselves to 6,500 years..? Because someone added up the supposed ages of the people in the bible..? Why not state God created the world 2 million years ago and the Garden of Eden is a parallel to the Rift Valley..? Anyway each to their own, I love transport museums particularly those with trams and trains I bet those driving V8's think I'm a bit nuts too...
I determined to look into the science relating to the universe and its origins to see if the answers there were more plausible than creation...
As I said what I found was that science can explain the physics of the universe (to a high degree) and the evolution of life over the last 13.7 billion years but as to the origin of the universe itself science finds itself lacking... The four main issues and many smaller ones I raised indicate to me the big bang was the result of a Higher Power and the reasons we cannot explain many of the issues surrounding it by physics is due to this fact also some signs of intervention especially in the early universe seem apparent to me, I'll be happy to be corrected by the Large Hadron Collider and re-evaluate...
I've re-typed that to speak to your point about fabrication... If you accept (as I do) the fact the big bang was the result of a Higher Power and that the uniformity of the universe and the weakness of gravity indicate possible early intervention then you must accept the possibility that that Higher Power could have created a universe at any point in time over the last 13.7 billion years and made it to look as old as the Higher Power wished...
It all comes down to faith, mine is based on the probability that inertia tells me something never comes from nothing and matter stays at its energy level unless exposed to a catalyst or has worked performed on it... After looking at the evidence I see no natural catalyst or work and therefore find nothing to change my mind so far...
The creationist museum is a laugh, I always wonder why so many people have dedicated themselves to 6,500 years..? Because someone added up the supposed ages of the people in the bible..? Why not state God created the world 2 million years ago and the Garden of Eden is a parallel to the Rift Valley..? Anyway each to their own, I love transport museums particularly those with trams and trains I bet those driving V8's think I'm a bit nuts too...
Last edited:
Just as NZ Jeremy said, it all comes down to faith, whether you have faith to believe in God or faith to believe in no God!! Neither of these can be proved as fact and therefore you have to trust and faith, and for me; I have faith in the God of the Bible. As to do with evolution vs creation and the age of the world, well, I believe that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
You're a creationist?
taun
Well-Known Member
Really? I think in that case someone/nation/group would sell the rest of us out to save themselves (it's the curse of Human beings)
This always puzzles me, because i was raised a protestant, but i always thought "what if my parents put me up for adoption and i was adopted by a muslim family". Then would probably be muslim.
My only conclusion could be that my parents determine what god i believe in, which i thought was incredibly strange. Why would i believe in something because my parents tell me to? What's wrong with the Muslim god, with Buddha, the god of the Tenach, Vishnu or any other. Why not believe in those gods?
Since i believe that nothing besides personal experience (and definately not things like religion) should influence who i like, or spend time with, or dislike, the only viable option would be to become atheïst, and thus i did.
I always wonder what makes you come to a different conclusion, why believe in the god of the bible, and not any other?