Originally posted by LemonJello if it happens to be the case that god does not exist, then he doesn't direct anything. yet the golden rule would still be a concept available to man. i see your 'by the direction of God' as relying on a mighty big assumption that remains dubious.
It is faith from where I'm sitting, always has been.
Kelly
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage The link I posted suggests (as far as I gather) that stars form when immense columns of hydrogen collapse under their own weight.
Well I guess the gas has just been waiting around long enough and voila stars. Lovely. Super.
Non sequitur.
Unfortunately I'm no astro-physicist, but I'm sure one can only be sketchy at best when discussing things that happen billions of light years away which no scientific aparatus in place to test the presence of hydrogen. Maybe that nebula has some free hydrogen floating around who knows. Maybe it was the explosion of one star that was the catalyst in the formation of the other.
Originally posted by Halitose Unfortunately I'm no astro-physicist, but I'm sure one can only be sketchy at best when discussing things that happen billions of light years away which no scientific aparatus in place to test the presence of hydrogen. Maybe that nebula has some free hydrogen floating around who knows. Maybe it was the explosion of one star that was the catalyst in the formation of the other.
Well, yes. I ain't no astro-physicist neither. However, the conclusion that astro-physicists appear to have come to is that...but you've read the article.
Assuming (hypothetically) that stars are created in the manner described...would that make any difference to you? (This is so off topic even for such a grab-bag of a thread. Sorry).
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Well, yes. I ain't no astro-physicist neither. However, the conclusion that astro-physicists appear to have come to is that...but you've read the article.
Assuming (hypothetically) that stars are created in the manner described...would that make any difference to you? (This is so off topic even for such a grab-bag of a thread. Sorry).
It would actually not make much of a difference to me what kind of conclusions physicists appear to have come to. The main reason being that most conclusions are inconclusive due to the fact that in most cases they are simply basing assumptions upon assumptions. In most cases there are different presuppositions that lead to their conclusions. Physicists with different presuppositions may well make different conclusions.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Well, yes. I ain't no astro-physicist neither. However, the conclusion that astro-physicists appear to have come to is that...but you've read the article.
Assuming (hypothetically) that stars are created in the manner described...would that make any difference to you? (This is so off topic even for such a grab-bag of a thread. Sorry).
Assuming that stars are created, would that make any difference to you?
I guess not. It's just the condensing of hydrogen that previously existed into a star. One thing it proves is that the universe is not infinitely old. Because stars (astro-physicists say) produce helium from this hydrogen (fussion), and so if this process was really occuring there would be virtually no hydrogen left.
Originally posted by dj2becker It would actually not make much of a difference to me what kind of conclusions physicists appear to have come to. The main reason being that most conclusions are inconclusive due to the fact that in most cases they are simply basing assumptions upon assumptions. In most cases there are different presuppositions that lead to their conclusions. Physicists with different presuppositions may well make different conclusions.
Yes, it's called scientific method. It works quite well provided it doesn't become dogma. Same as faith...in faith.
Speaking of hydrogen and so on, a bunch of scientists got together a few decades ago and, building on their assumptions, made a bomb that exploded like a miniature sun. What do you make of that? Perhaps it never happened--after all there's no conclusive proof.
You don't happen to live in Edenvale do you? My sister's church is full of people who argue like you. They even 😀 in the same hideous way.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]Assuming that stars are created, would that make any difference to you?
I guess not. It's just the condensing of hydrogen that previously existed into a star. One thing it proves is that the universe is not infinitely old. Because stars (astro-physicists say) produce helium from this hydrogen (fussion), and so if this process was really occuring there would be virtually no hydrogen left. [/b]
unless it all collapsed again and created another Big Bang. and kept doing it, and since sooner or later the monopole gravitation field will overcome the "vaccuum pressure" and pull it all back together where it will be broken down into quarks or something even closer to the center of the "onion" and then BOOM!!! new hydrogen in a new expanding universe.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Yes, it's called scientific method. It works quite well provided it doesn't become dogma. Same as faith...in faith.
Speaking of hydrogen and so on, a bunch of scientists got together a few decades ago and, building on their assumptions, made a bomb that exploded like a miniature sun. What do you make of that? Perhaps it never happened--after all ...[text shortened]... My sister's church is full of people who argue like you. They even 😀 in the same hideous way.
I am afraid that is a different story. When going back so far in time as to try to explain origins one definately moves beyond the realms of science.
Originally posted by frogstomp What I don't see is why it would have to be a biological evolvement when it's could just as easily be an expansion of knowlege of what it takes to survive.
If you making the claim that the the human brain isn't the originator of thoughts , I guess you'd have to explain where the "self" resides.
The mind is immaterial. The brain is its material counterpart. You could call my position Cartesian dualism.
Again, it doesn't have to be shown biologically. I am objecting to another poster's claim that morality has evolved biologically, that is descent with modification. When you say expansion of knowledge or propose a history as you did with the last post, I do not object because you are NOT claiming that science has told you something about things which it cannot study.
Originally posted by dj2becker I am afraid that is a different story. When going back so far in time as to try to explain origins one definately moves beyond the realms of science.
The stars in the link I posted are being formed only 7000 light years away--not too long away even by human standards.
You seem to have a highly geocentric viewpoint. Do you believe that the earth is spherical, or isn't there enough proof?
Originally posted by yousers The mind is immaterial. The brain is its material counterpart. You could call my position Cartesian dualism.
Again, it doesn't have to be shown biologically. I am objecting to another poster's claim that morality has evolved biologica ...[text shortened]... science has told you something about things which it cannot study.
There is also the possibility that "do onto others,,etc" is passed to future generations though the mechanism of epigenetics , but, I'm only mentioning it as a possibility, since I haven't seen any supporting data.
Originally posted by frogstomp There is also the possibility that "do onto others,,etc" is passed to future generations though the mechanism of epigenetics , but, I'm only mentioning it as a possibility, since I haven't seen any supporting evidence.
Does epigenetics have any theoretical relation to morphic resonance?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You seem to have a highly geocentric viewpoint. Do you believe that the earth is spherical, or isn't there enough proof?
10 Aug '05 14:02
Humans: Good or Evil?
Back to Top