A Few Things That Support a Young Earth

Originally posted by RJHinds

We see tadpoles growup to be frogs and caterpillars change to butterflies that seem to support the theory of evolution. .

Its a good job you are not supporting
evolution with crazy notions like these!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Its a good job you are not supporting
evolution with crazy notions like these!

These are the facts, not simply notions.

Evidence of light recorded as what? I haven't read the rest of the thread but light has no concept of time, The big bang created the arrow of time as it’s t./dimension. Thus before the separation of galactic matter/gas there was nothing but light as light, being a mass less particle, consists or photons which ripple lives waves on water. As it's massless, it has no concept of time hence E-MC^sq is used to define the interchangeable relationship between mass and energy with 'C' of course being speed of light (299 million metres per second). So the light you see today was the same light that was travelling at the start of time 14.6 bn years ago. Some call this light God 🙂

However, being physicist, i find it somewhat overwhelming how that evidence of light beyond the notion of the arrow of time can only lead to a prevailing and timeless source of energy that has no concept of the laws of thermodynamics or the 2nd law

Sorry the above was in response to the very first comment about light. Will read the rest today. Very interested in what people generally agree with or oppose. Being a professor in Quantum mechanics, I find some of these claims not only bizarre but absolutely based on concepts and theories that just don't work or add up! Also some really interesting points, especially about evolution. However, why is that when one supports evolution they suddenly oppose religion? Just because Darwinian notions are contrary to Christian beliefs and thus a creator doesn’t mean that every other doctrine or holy text has been violated in any shape or form!

A lot of old theories are being proven correct, as that is ultimately what science does. For example, over 500 years ago it was written that the earth has in it approximately 8.68 billion species and biodiversity will always fluctuate, naturally. 500 years later scientists quote: The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161)
Very conscious that I don't want to create the old science versus religion debate whatsoever, but I do think we have become obsessed with only believing what we can prove, not necessarily what we can disprove.

I suggest that it's not a good idea to pick and choose ideas from ancient scriptures and use their apparent coincidences with modern physics/science to then go back and justify the entire ancient body/philosophy.

Well how is one to make comparisons? I do understand your point but science does exactly the same with religion. I mean wasn't science a bi product of philosophy? Therefore comparisons must have taken place & scriptures deciphered.
Science has developed at a phenomenal rate in the last century, some argue on the verge of no longer being in our control (nuclear warfare etc). And yes, I agree, needn’t reinvent the wheel.

In regards to string theory, the way in which Sikhism, Toaism, Buddhism and many other eastern religions explains it doesn’t adhere modern criteria whatsoever – why would it? If we have mathematical formula to illustrate m theory, and find more dimensions, that simply means we are stumbling on new knowledge in a mathematic form. When for example in Sikhism it states the tenth gate, it is speaking of the inner soul and not to define reality as everything we can see and touch (in 3d) but more so that our soul has chosen the body to observe the creation as opposed to our body choosing the soul etc......without getting too involved with the meaning of this as it will only divert the topic (further) but my point is we are not to become obsessed and convinced that the universe exists in only and observable form and other dimensions exist and we live in them, unknowingly as the reality of this nature is beyond the concept of our language and 5 senses.

Anyway, in the interest of trying to drag this back to the topic, Brian Greene for example. , The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos is a book worthy of reading. However, if we take him at his word, he may be making an infinite number of appearances to promote it!!!! So what about the idea of the ‘hidden reality’ according to Greene and Penrose, Frank Close etc (who i do love btw). Greene’s book at the heart is both unproven (admittedly) and corrosive. They violate what many call "The Moral Principle.".

Ideas such as Newton's universal gravity, Darwin's theory and change from a common ancestor, and Einstein's general and special relativity, are of course tremendous achievements in science. Newton (arguably) laid the framework for flight; Darwin's theory makes new cures possible....Einstein's relativity enables GPS....and of course much more however the same theories have a way of filtering into popular culture, where they sometimes mutate and do harm.

A prime example is eugenics, a mishmash of Darwin's theory of evolution and Herbert Spencer's political philosophy. Invented by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin's, this pseudoscience caught the imagination of many powerful non-scientists, ranging from Theodore Roosevelt to Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for people in power to imagine that they know bad genes when they see them. The harm that followed was appalling. Forced sterilization, institutionalization of "morons," and, some say, the Holocaust.

Opponents of evolution argue that Darwin's theory was responsible for all these ills. This is demonstrable nonsense, but even if the charge were valid I would resolutely defend the teaching and application of evolutionary theory for one simple reason: all the evidence supports it. Evolution, as an explanation for the diversity and common ancestry of life, towers above other major scientific theories as the best supported, most coherent and most fruitful of them all.

Contrast that with the conjecture of parallel universes. It grows out of quantum physics. That's a problem to begin with: Quantum theory, though experimentally verified to an astonishing number of decimal places, is incomplete. Something in our understanding is wrong, because it doesn't fit with the also verified theory of general relativity. Quantum and gravity theories mix like oil and water.

Greene and many others believe that string theory may resolve that conflict. Indeed, it might. But string theory exists entirely in dense mathematics. None of it can so far be tested, and much of it lies beyond confirmation in principle. Yet, from these mathematical speculations arise conjectures of parallel universes set in an infinite multiverse. It's quite a leap.

There are numerous varieties of parallel universe conjectures. The late Hugh Everett III created the Many Worlds theory to explain how quantum "choices," such as whether a beam light will be a wave or a packet of particles, are made. He argued that at every decision point, the universe splits in two, with the decision being realized in opposite ways in each new whole. Possible, but profoundly absurd.

More recently, the mathmanauts who explore string theory have found hints that the gigantic bubble we inhabit may be just one of an infinite number of such bubbles, each a random dice-roll of particles and laws. That's where the trouble starts. For, if true, it means that every possible variation exists, and not only exists, but exist an infinite number of times. So, as in Star Trek, there are worlds where the Roman Empire never fell, worlds where Hitler won and so on. But there are also worlds that are precise duplicates of ours -- indeed, an infinite number of such worlds.

Though there is method in it, that way madness lies.

Enter, the Moral Principle. It states that we should resist accepting any proposition that tends to disable moral reasoning, unless and until the scientifically interpreted evidence compels us. Ok this principle is in the context of my critique of religion, but it applies, for example, to the secular idea of the philosopher's zombie. The Moral Principle prevents us from accepting the idea that anyone else is a zombie who appears to be just like any other person, except that there's no real consciousness inside. If we were to accept that idea, there would be no moral barrier to torturing or murdering "zombies." In fact, it would be much like Hitler's dehumanization of the Jews.


The danger lies in how they take root in popular culture. If we come to believe that choices do not matter, that any action is matched by its opposite somewhere, we risk losing our capacity for moral reasoning. History shows that, inbuilt though that capacity may be, ideas can short-circuit it.

In short, what I am saying is that those of us who are NOT so brilliant as to be able to follow the math need to resist being seduced by visions of parallel bubbles in a multiverse. They may exist. Indeed, personally I think its likely that they do.

Whether they exist in untrammelled profusion, however, is another question? It is one that has to be weighed against the possibility that, orderly as our universe generally is, there may be a higher order to the arrangement of the multiverse. In fine, lacking definitive evidence we need to keep alive the possibility of a moral order. If there is indeed a multiverse, it may yet prove to be but a part of the multiverse! Either way, it's mind boggling! i love the subject though. Thank you!

Anyway, have fun and remember in some world you are doing what you want to do!

A man can only perceive in accordance with limited senses of understanding and farsightedness. God has bestowed tremendous power within human beings and that power can only be sparked with total submission to God. If a person is adamant and relies on his own wisdom then that partial state is incomplete and he remains submerged in vanity than knowing the World at large in totality. We are all captivated with limited ability to understand God in its manifestation, unless the mind transcends into the unknowns, there is no way one could have answers for everything. Scientists or atheists are also the creation of God, but they cannot achieve salvation and for them God will always be in isolation and remote. This is my view, and even a scientist, I still uphold it.

Originally posted by nonamesleftatall
A man can only perceive in accordance with limited senses of understanding and farsightedness. God has bestowed tremendous power within human beings and that power can only be sparked with total submission to God. If a person is adamant and relies on his own wisdom then that partial state is incomplete and he remains submerged in vanity than knowing ...[text shortened]... ill always be in isolation and remote. This is my view, and even a scientist, I still uphold it.

Where does your god lie in respect to the conjectured multiverse? Doesn't belief in a god force you to make concessions about the multiverse like there is a multiverse that only belongs to your god and a multiverse that 'belongs' to us?

BTW, GREAT posts!

Where do you teach? My son in law teaches physics (statistical physics) at Federal Uni in Brazil, where my daughter teaches music also. They live in Natal Brazil.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where does your god lie in respect to the conjectured multiverse? Doesn't belief in a god force you to make concessions about the multiverse like there is a multiverse that only belongs to your god and a multiverse that 'belongs' to us?

BTW, GREAT posts!

Where do you teach? My son in law teaches physics (statistical physics) at Federal Uni in Brazil, where my daughter teaches music also. They live in Natal Brazil.

Most assume a divine intervention and divines principals that stand above all nature. These unfortunately have been tarnished by organised religions and man’s interpretation of messiah’s over time. Thus when one finds a flaw in one religions, they assume immediately that all other divine doctrines are measured within the same disciplines which is not the case. Dualism became a character of western civilisation in order to determine what can be experimentally observed (by 5 sense) and this inevitably included the spirit . By separating the spirit from matter the model of western philosophy was born. A chap called Bertrand Russell put it like this:


“The combination of mathematics and theology, which began with Pythagoras, characterized religion philosophy in Greece, in the middle ages and in modern times down to Kant.....In Plato, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz there is an intimate blending of religion and reasoning, of moral aspiration with logical admiration of what is timeless, which comes from Pythagoras and distinguishes the intellectualized theology of Europe from the straight forward mysticism of Asia”

I quote Newton (from his work titled Opticks) “ It seems probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that these primitative particles being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first creation”

Now this is not a wishy washy religious view whatsoever. You can conjecture as much as you like and debate what we perceive to determined as fact but nothing really changes. ALMOST EVERY REPUTABLE SCIETIST you can refer to, whose was at the top of their ‘class’ and discipline in the end submitted to a divine [power but not all of them submitted or converted into organised religions! Most scientist work on hidden realities of the World and universe. They are moving from one point to another in diversity; they satisfy their own curiosity. It is no way near any authorization to pronounce the unknown in command. God is infinite power and everything else is its enclosure, so whether someone tries to prove makes no difference to HIS overall Authenticity. One exception Professor idiotic and extremist dawkins! “In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction. — Albert Einstein”

There are so many quotes. Of course this doesn’t make them right or wrong but I find it very amusing when people who don’t believe in God try to oppose it with Science. Which, when they get their teeth into usually makes them blush or simply admit to the fact that there is a divine power at work that some just choose to call God!

Me, well I cannot define my belief of God on a thread. However, Think of the smallest thing, well the atom may come to mind, the word atom come from the Greek word atomos (which means indivisible or uncuttable). No we managed to cut that, so we found particles and a nucleus etc.....we then cut than and found the particle zoo as well as up/down quarks. Well my point being, we have kept on cutting to a point where our technologies just couldn’t cut further but through conjecture and mathematics the likes of Peter Higgs added to the standard model of physics which enabled us to in theory, write a language which explained everything in nature (but gravity) but even then it was not the ‘theory for everything’ or the grand design (as Hawkins puts it). So we, in mathematical terms discovered string theory, we then found 5 complete string theories which didn’t violate any laws of thermodynamics or motion (albeit classical or modern physics). So eventually got M-Theory (combination of the five) [aka matrix theory]. When looking into the theories (and without going into the math) we found that a Planck length (the time it takes light to cross a plank length which is 1.616199(97)×10−35 m) was made up of strings. This gave us string theory. Now these strings oscillate and vibrate according the 2nd law of motion and they also force negative and positive balance. When People ‘empty’ their minds they in fact become one w3ith nature without thoughts of manmade interference ( to think without words). No one can say meditate and they will find that if they can unify and work in harmony with the strings that vibrate – fact is some do this through prayer too.

As for multiverse theory, I don’t believe there is a God that is only ever present in our universe because of our laws as our laws break down rapidly beyond 6 dimensions. I don’t believe in a man in a white beard whatsoever. I believe God to be a source of light that is in everything and is not subject to the laws of physics as the laws of physics are only a matter of a language created in order to explain nature absolutely that can relate to our composure of mind in the 3rd dimension. Anyway, this is only my humble opinion and am happy to discuss further but not on this thread s I hardly visit it email me if you like aduggalios@yahoo.co.uk

Originally posted by RJHinds
These are the facts, not simply notions.

The crazy notion I am talking about is
your belief that metamorphosis supports
evolution. It shows you know nothing about
evolution ... or anything at all really.

Plus you have the reading comprehension
level of a 7 year-old!

Originally posted by nonamesleftatall
Most assume a divine intervention and divines principals that stand above all nature. .....we found that a Planck length (the time it takes light to cross a plank length which is 1.616199(97)×10−35 m) was made up of strings. ...... When People ‘empty’ their minds they in fact become one w3ith nature

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The worst thing about String Theory is the name.
If it was called one-dimensional sub-atomic particle
theory we wouldn't have bozos trying to get in tune
with vibrating strings like the universe were a giant guitar.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The crazy notion I am talking about is
your belief that metamorphosis supports
evolution. It shows you know nothing about
evolution ... or anything at all really.

Plus you have the reading comprehension
level of a 7 year-old!

I'll let the facts speak for themselves for I have to get ready to drive to Columbia to play OTB chess tonight.

Originally posted by nonamesleftatall
Sorry the above was in response to the very first comment about light. Will read the rest today. Very interested in what people generally agree with or oppose. Being a professor in Quantum mechanics, I find some of these claims not only bizarre but absolutely based on concepts and theories that just don't work or add up! Also some really interesting ...[text shortened]... e fun and remember in some world you are doing what you want to do!

Dear Professor,

Were you absent that day in graduate school when they told you it was wrong to plagiarize?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/the-danger-of-believing-i_b_817349.html

Passing off other people's work as your own is generally frowned upon among serious academics.

Originally posted by nonamesleftatall
Evidence of light recorded as what? I haven't read the rest of the thread but light has no concept of time, The big bang created the arrow of time as it’s t./dimension. Thus before the separation of galactic matter/gas there was nothing but light as light, being a mass less particle, consists or photons which ripple lives waves on water. As it's mas ...[text shortened]... d timeless source of energy that has no concept of the laws of thermodynamics or the 2nd law

You speak of the big bang. That sounds like an explosion to most of us. So what was there to explode and were did it come from?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The crazy notion I am talking about is
your belief that metamorphosis supports
evolution. It shows you know nothing about
evolution ... or anything at all really.

Plus you have the reading comprehension
level of a 7 year-old!

I do not have to know much about evolution to know there was no such thing. It is another lie of Satan the devil. 😏