Fed up of non believers

[ivanava]

If my post were meant to antagonise you, you'd be correct.

 

However my post was for everyone else on this thread except you, your reaction to it does not concern me.

 

So you chose to brake forum rules in an attempt to stop other member talking to me. What a nice individual you must be. Not. If you have an accusation to make may I suggest you take it the the help desk instead of derailing topics.

[barleycorn]

In fact the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. As to whether you'd describe that as space 'stretching' or simply movement in space I've no idea.

 

Obviously, losing the influence of the Moon on tides etc is going to be a problem.

 

On the other hand, not nearly as big a problem as would be the case if it was getting nearer!

 

It's just moving away. Slowly. Won't really be a problem, for us anyway, as it'll take a few billion years to scarper.

 

jb

[mjw47]

Also, what is the 'something' that causes nothing (when there is no something) to become or give birth to something (the universe)?

 

If there isn't anything (no space, no time), how can cause and effect be, well, be in effect?

 

Well, I would assume that the aforementioned Georges Lemaitre being a Catholic priest and a Professor of physics would say that his Big Bang theory would originally have been set in motion by God.

 

Personally I believe God only knows.

[perplexed]

Well, I would assume that the aforementioned Georges Lemaitre being a Catholic priest and a Professor of physics would say that his Big Bang theory would originally have been set in motion by God.

 

Personally I believe God only knows.

 

 

Which one?

[Guest]

Read. Enjoy.

 

http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hawking-Turok.htm

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

jb

 

I couldn't help noticing- but isn't this where Krauss seems to re-define the word nothing??

 

When you read the book you realize that by "nothing" Krauss is not referring to "non-being" or to "total absence of reality", but to something fundamental from which the universe began.

 

Even Sam Harris had a problem with this when they both interviewed each other. Sam Harris says:

 

I’d like to linger on the concept of “nothing” for a moment, because I find it interesting. You have described three gradations of nothing—empty space, the absence of space, and the absence of physical laws. It seems to me that this last condition—the absence of any laws that might have caused or constrained the emergence of matter and space-time—really is a case of “nothing” in the strictest sense. It strikes me as genuinely incomprehensible that anything—laws, energy, etc.—could spring out of it. I don’t mean to suggest that conceivability is a guide to possibility—there may be many things that happen, or might happen, which we are not cognitively equipped to understand. But the emergence of something from nothing (in this final sense) does strike me as a frank violation of the categories of human thought (akin to asserting that the universe is a round square), or the mere declaration of a miracle

 

All Karuss has done is play linguistic gymnastics to try and fool those who don't read between the lines.

 

Krauss actual position is that the universe come from something (not from nothing). He states:

 

"For surely "nothing" is every bit as physical as "something" , specially if it is to be defined as the "absence of something" . It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both of these quantities"

 

Hmmm.. a masterpiece of illogical thinking.

[crazybaby]

 

Well I'm with science and a belief in a divine creator, "blind faith" perhaps is how some would describe it, but so what.

And I don't see why there needs to be a conflict with science and religion.

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2014 at 14:14 ----------

 

Isn't this amazing!

 

It's all interesting stuff janie, I won't pretend to know much about it because I don't. Although I'm very open minded when it comes to the mind, human consciousness & the belief in a greater force (whether it's a personified being or an all encompassing energy- I think I would go more with the energy theory)

 

This is an interesting article also: 'cellular memory'

 

In our modern culture, cellular memory was first studied in heart transplant recipients when the patients displayed strange cravings, change in tastes, cravings and mild personality. Major organs like the heart, liver, kidney, and even muscles are known to contain large populations of neural networks, which are self-contained brains and produce noticeable changes. Acquired combinatorial memories in organ transplants could enable transferred organs to respond to patterns familiar to the organ donors, and it may be triggered by emotional signals. Science discovered evidence that nervous system organs store memories and respond to places, events, and people recognized by their donors.

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/organ-transplants-cellular-memory-proves-major-organs-have-self-contained-brains/

[SnailyBoy]

No I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old ( in fact I think you'll find the creationist numpties are going with 5,000 years. )

 

Strange why you would refer to someone as an authority who did believe that..

 

The reason I posted that link was because it contains an easily understood description of Entropy and Evolution and the anomaly which exists in accepting both.

 

Maybe you should have mentioned that, anyway it's been pointed out that such an anomaly doesn't exist

 

You are aware that Morris didn't come up with the theory of Evolution or the theory of Entropy aren't you?

I do not accept his conclusion, but I do think he illustrates the basic difficulty caused by conflicting theories.

 

I didn't say he did....

 

Obviously, there will be a rational explanation, but what is it and which theory will require most adjustment when it is explained?

 

Incidentally in post 215 in an answer to janie48 you stated that ' the most overwhelming evidence for life on earth is evolution.'

 

The inference being that you appear to believe that evolution disproves the existence of intelligent creation.

 

It doesn't, it merely means that intelligent creation decided to go about it in that particular way.

 

Burden of proof, the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. If you have evidence to support 'intelligent creation', submit it for peer review.

 

The reason most - although not all - religions get so worked up about evolution is not because they think it disproves God. It doesn't.

 

The thing it does do,( which throws a huge spanner in the works ) is reduce the importance of the human species in relationship to the Creator.

 

Religions tell their adherents that they are 'special' in the eyes of God. They tell them that God created this world and everything in it for their personal use and that man was created in the image of God.

 

Evolution proves otherwise, it reduces humans to being simply a - possibly - more cognicient form of animal life.

 

Religions can't accept that, it destroys their whole reason for existence. Even if there is a God if this being regards humanity as just another species of billions it created, then where's the special relationship?

 

It removes the possibility of an 'after life' and any reason to worship. No more collections, no more charitable status, no more wonderful buildings or art or comfortable lives for the clergy.

 

As Darwin put it when questioned

 

Q "What was it like, coming up with the idea that changed the world?"

 

 

A "Like confessing a murder."

[Anna B]

Take a look on Youtube at human robots, read up about artificial intelligence.

 

Google is investing billions in AI and expects that in 15 years robots will be smarter than the most intelligent humans, and be able to learn, remember and create, and display emotion. They'll certainly look, move and talk like us.

 

Imagine what they will be like in 50 years. I doubt you will be able to tell the difference, except they will probably be superior to us. But will they be human? Will the soul, or lack of it, be the only difference?

 

Will it matter?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Anna B

[ivanava]

Take a look on Youtube at human robots, read up and artificial intelligence.

 

Google is investing billions and expects that in 15 years robots will be smarter than the most intelligent humans, and be able to learn, remember and create, and display emotion. They'll certainly look, move and talk like us.

 

Imagine what they will be like in 50 years. I doubt you will be able to tell the difference, except they will probably be superior to us. But will they be human? Will the soul, or lack of it, be the only difference?

 

Will it matter?

 

That wouldn't be a difference at all because neither would have one.

[skinz]

Take a look on Youtube at human robots, read up and artificial intelligence.

 

Google is investing billions and expects that in 15 years robots will be smarter than the most intelligeationships, nt humans, and be able to learn, remember and create, and display emotion. They'll certainly look, move and talk like us.

 

Imagine what they will be like in 50 years. I doubt you will be able to tell the difference, except they will probably be superior to us. But will they be human? Will the soul, or lack of it, be the only difference?

 

Will it matter?

 

To some it will, to others it won't. It's predicted relationships , marriage, sex. As for "soul", well my satnav has that. "Soul" I guess can be replicated in the same way it was contrived.