"I stick strictly to the science"
"... the other realm from which the particles are coming from."
Your theory is just as "out there" so I'm going to discount it accordingly.
Exactly. It's theory. Just as your theories are "out there" and so I discount them accordingly. Glad we agree on something.
You are the one which brought up particle theory and so I played along and threw up theories as well. I'd much rather go to the science. Everything you posted was all about "out there" theories, and yet you make it like I am the one that started that. lol
Replace "theory" with "religion" there.
We have no way, as of yet, to really prove religion. When it comes to theories like that, best not invest too much into them since they are theories. Best stick to what can be proven.
Hi pot, I'm kettle... my dog ate my proof.
Oh, really? I admitted that I was talking about theory, and that we cannot prove theories. The best we can do is see what the evidence points to. And so I said I stick to the science.
No, creation theory is just that - theory built off the same evidence your evolutionists go off of.
Go to www.creationscience.com
. You can read an entire textbook style explanation of the evidences used to support creation model & theory. The author of that book there states at the beginning that he uses ONLY data from SECULAR scientists so that no one can accuse the scientific findings to be biased!
Every single evidence that evolution scientists use to support their theory, the creation scientists use EXACTLY the same evidences, but they have a far better interpretation for how they got to be the way they are.
Creation Theory & Model are 99.999999999% science. The .000000001% that is not is, "In the beginning, God created...". That's it. All creation scientists are doing differently than regular scientists is they're going one step further and theorizing on WHAT created all matter. That's it! Once matter is created, they're going off of the same evidences secular scientists go off of to create their theory.
So you can drop the lame "it's religion" argument.
The author of the book on that website, Dr. Brown, has been around for a LONG time, and he has put out a challenge to ONLY debate the science. He offers a HUGE cash prize to anyone who can prove evolution and disprove creation. He says the person who debates him MUST sign a contract that they will stick only to science and never bring up religion.
The challenge has been there for a long time, and only one scientists took the challenge for public debate, and when they explained that the contract stated he could not bring up religion, the scientist backed out because he knew that if they debated just from scientific facts, he woud lose.
If it were so easy to disprove creationists, why has no scientists taken Dr. Brown up on his challenge and made a fat ton of cash?? If you're so smart, why don't you challenge him? Set up a debate time and sign the contract to never bring up religion and stick strictly to the facts. If you are so certain of what you know, then you should be jumping at the chance to make that money, am I right?
I'll go on and on... but it will bring me back to the same spot.
Yes, the same spot - denying the logical requirement of there having to be an eternal source from which all things were created.
Gibberish? Maybe you're refering to Planck Time, so we'll ignore the first 10^-43 second (the smallest meaningful measure of time). The rest of this can be recreated in particle accelerators. The cooling period that followed and led to the reaching of this 3000K threshold was ~300,000 years... *pause*
Are you a creationist? Did that whole sentence blow right by you because it's on a scale larger than 6500 yrs?
Now, we cannot recreate the big bang in a particle accelorator. We can't even begin to create that kind of energy. It is just arrogant and irrational for us to believe the tiny little experients we do are anything even close to the big bang. Just crashing particles together is not what happened with the big bang anyway. lol
Also, the secular scientists performing those particle accelorator experiments theorized that when they do this, they see particles come into our dimension and go out of our dimension, just as I stated in my theory of what they were seeing. I call the other dimension the spiritual realm, the scientists call it another dimension. That's fine with me. I have no problem with that. I call it another dimension too, but I choose to theorize about what kind of a dimension it is. They agree with me, though, that the particles are coming from or going to another dimension. If you didn't know this, you must not have done much reading about it when they started these experiments.
So... M-theory = bunk
BrianC's particle-dimensional-switching theory = solid
Never said my theory was solid. I said it is the most logical since it adheres to the law of conservation of mass and energy.
I enjoy your "incorrectly so" commentary, btw. I look forward to reading your published research.
BTW, how did you come up with your other dimensions... err, realms?
I came up with it from secular scientists which theorized the exact same thing, as I explained above. Secular scientists claimed that the particles were coming from or going to another dimension.
Dude, don't you get it? I'm going off the same evidences you are! It's not about religion. It's about interpreting the exact same evidences differently. That's it. If you had actually done your research on Creation Theory & Model, you'd know this... You're smart enough to understand the theory. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it. Yes, it's a lot of data and I spent years learning that stuff. But anyone can learn it all and put it all together.
I realize that beliefs are beliefs and everyone's are just a bit different but to steadfastly state that everyone else is wrong because you have your own baseless theory is asinine. Baseless is the keyword there.
Here's is a 3700 word explanation of virtual particles: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ...particles.html
Compare that to your two words and you can see why i'm a bit skeptical.
This is not "my theory" alone. Your secular scientists theorized this themselves! Sure, I had theorized about the spiritual realm simply being another dimension before scientists started doing experiments such as this, but they are the ones who came out and said this stuff. I just figured it confirmed my theory. But they had this theory first, not me. Tell them they're idiots, not me.
Based on your first post, it seems that you do believe that the big bang happened, you're just questioning the catalyst.
But here you state that order can not come from chaos. In the entropic sense, sure. But you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with the notion that life is quite orderly in comparison said bang.
I believe the big bang was just the point at which God created the universe in a controlled fashion. And I do not think it was 14-20 billion years ago. If you actually want to study, rather than scoff at, creation theory and you want to read some high level stuff, you should read The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. He goes into particle physics and quantum physics and all kinds of higher level stuff most people wouldn't really understand. You'd understand it just fine. He starts out by explaining how time is relative to where someone is in the universe. We track time in this galaxy by trips around the sun, but elsewhere, time is tracked differently. And when a universe is expanding, it would definitely be tracked differently. By page 70, he's already laid out the secular scientist's calculations of how long it took for the big bang to expand, and, due to time being relative, he shows the mathmatics of how the universe would've expanded in 6 days, our time, but for the universe, billions of years. The reason? Because secular scientists say they've not only proven that space and time are interwoven, but can simulate it with gravity accelerators. They say if they stretch space, the time within that space accelerates. They have a mathmatical equation for this. The guy uses this mathmatical equation to show that in six days, the billions of years of "expanse" happened in the universe. The math works out perfectly with all of the observable data from the secular scientists.
Please, show me where religion is involved in that. He's examining strictly the science of what happened when the big bang exploded and is using secular scientists' data and their equations. The calculation comes out to six days. Now, all he did was say that it's awful interesting how the expansion of the universe in the beginning calculates out to taking 6 days and the historical record in the Bible claims six days.
You should read his stuff if you're actually interested in learning the science behind the theory. I have a feeling you couldn't care less, though, because you like to twist the argument by always crying "religion! religion!" Well, sorry, but we're not talking about religion here. We're talking about science. What does it point to? What is the logical explanation? I didn't say God in my original question. I simply said that someone or something created. That's not religion. That's just an attempt at figuring out what is more logical in regard to the origins.
When a scientist theorizes and has no proof, it's the same thing. He believes it's a possibility just like I believe someone creating things is a possibility. Science involves tons of "religious" beliefs, because they believe their theory that everything came from nothing withour proof, solely on faith.
If we are so accepting all of the mysteries of God, religion, the universe, etc that are just plain unexplainable, why is it so important that there be a beginning to everything. Why can everything not have existed forever and continue to exist forever? Is it because the human mind simply can't comprehend such concepts? Why MUST there be a start and how are you CERTAIN? (your words).
Because logically, it is the only possibility. We know we exist, because we can think. And if something exists, it has to have been created. There is no way around that... except with the origin of all things, because logically, there must be something which first created the things which exist. It is the only thing that's logical. Everything else makes no sense. I am 100% certain. There is no other logical explanation.
Replace "universe" with God.
The theory that God could just simply come into existence without a source is completely absurd. lol Again, if something exists, it was created, and if it was created, something HAD to have created it. Period. There is no way around that.
Since we're CERTAIN that everything MUST have a source, dare I ask where God came from?
Dude, are you dense or something? I explained this at the beginning of the conversation. I told you, you would ask where God came from, and there would be only two possibilities - always in existence or something/someone created Him. I said that we'd go with the logic that God was created by another God and that other God was created by another God, and so on and so forth, until we got back to the fact that we must eventually acknowledge that one of these Gods was the original source and has always been in existence. And then I said that it is my opinion that God creating another God creationg another God creating another God makes no sense, and so I believe there is one God and He's the original source.
And what do you do? You say, "DARE I ask where God came from?" as if that's a completely new question, one which I was hoping you wouldn't ask. LOL I mean, really? Are you even pating attention to the conversation man?
Logically, we must always come back to there needing to be one origin of all created things which has always been in existence, even though we cannot wrap our minds around eternal existence. It is required because there has to be a source from which all things come. Their energy has always existed, and that is eternal, sure, because it came from the Creator's energy and the Creator's energy is eternal. I have no problem with that. A creator of some sort is required no matter how you look at it.
Again, you have no physical proof either. Maybe we should revisit when one of us can switch to 'theorem'?
Exactly! I never said I had physical proof. I agreed that I have theory, as well. This conversation started with a simple question: which makes more logical sense - that matter came from somewhere or nowhere, to put it simply. That's it. The question was posed in order to cause someone to logically deduce what makes more sense then give their conclusion. That's it. It was never meant to get into particle physics, because that is still under heavy debate and there are tons of theories out there. You went off into theories. I only went off in that direction to accomidate your tangent, but I keep trying to pull you back to the question at hand. I'm only continuing to talk about it because people keep bringing up questions or accusations, etc.. I would much rather examine the science in a different thread and keep it to one specific subject alone instead of jumping all over the place as this thread has begun to do.
... is when you talk about particles coming from other realms, but at the same time discard the one of the most all-encompassing scientific theories that would allow for this?
Actually, I stuck to the science. I said that the law of conservation of mass and energy cannot be defied, and thus, it is more logical to theorize that the particles are coming in from or going out to another dimension. And that is exactly what the scientists thought in the first theories they gave during these experiments.
I was just telling you the same things those scientists were saying. Look up the beginning of those experiments and read the theories. I'd direct you a little better, but it's been quite some time since I looked into that stuff. You're a big boy, though - you can find it on your own.
I have no problem admitting I went into theory, but I did so because I had to show an alternate theory after presenting the necessity of perserving the law of conservation of mass and energy. I could've just said that the theory breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy, and thus, it is not a sound theory. I chose, instead, to give an alternate, more logical explanation which scientists gave initially when doing these experiments. Had I left it open ended, it would not have been as strong an argument.
That's a subject for a whole other thread.
For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and while I would not call myself a practitioner at the moment, I am a believer... but I also believe that science and religion (religious belief, not necessarily organized religion) are wholly reconcilable, if people can be open to it.
I must say, I am quite surprised, simply because of the direction from which your stances seemed to come.
And I agree - science and God are wholly reconcilable. Which is why I offered up Gerald L. Schroeder's The Science of God. And Creation Model & Theory are also reconciliation of science and God. They've taken all of the secular data and put it into a theory which happens to fit with the historical record of the Bible. Tainted historical record with lies? That's is of course a possibility that one must admit. I have no problem admitting that's a possibility.
Catholicism has been twisted since as early as its inception around the Nicene Council in AD 325. Constantine, a Pagan, went and not only mixed Paganism with Christianity and called it Christianity, but he also hated the Jews and so took all of the normal gathering type traditions they had and changed them to a Pagan style of service. Then, after years of screwing it all up even worse, the Protestant Reformation comes and we cut out a lot of the bogus mysticism, but unfortunately, we still carried lots of things from Paganism over and never went back to the Jewish roots of how services should've been - with no leader, but rather everyone being used by God as tools to help each other. It's so backward nowadays in Christianity and Catholicism. I just hope you didn't have to grow up with the Roman Catholic masses and such. Those are awful to have to sit through and participate in. LOL And they are worshipping/praying to dead people (Mary) and angels (Michael) when the Bible tells us not to do those things. lol If you ever go to websites about cults, Roman Catholicism comes up as fitting the bill perfectly for a cult. lol American Catholicism is at least a bit of a mix of Protestantism and Catholicism, so it's not exactly a cult or anything like that. But man, they still protray God, a lot of times, as this cruel, judgmental tyrannt.
I'm a non-demonational Christian. I have done my own heavy research for years in order to combat the things I was taught growing up. Some things I found to be true and some things to be false. I just want to know the truth. That's what I care about. And so I seek it honestly and openly. I love to be proven wrong, because I know I can pursue the truth and correct a misconception when this happens. I do not like religion at all, and the Bible is actually mostly about God directing His prophets and apostles to fight against religion in order to free people from religion's legalism. Most people don't understand that though, because they do not look at the Bible as a whole, but rather, in bits and pieces. That is something a lot of people do with science, too. They take lots of little things here and there and try to place it in a puzzle and build a certain picture without knowing what the big picture is like. The brain is designed to learn from the big picture first, then insert the pieces into it. The problem is that evolution and big bang are the "big picture" they're told, and then they try to fit all the pieces into that big picture when the pieces don't necessarily fit so well.
You and I are not so different, you know? It would seem that the only difference is that you place a lot of credence in secular scientist's theories where as I have seen them disprove their own theories constantly, time and time again. Thus, when they come up with theories, I don't just assume they're correct. It would be unwise to do so. I only believe the theories I believe, because I really do see all the evidences from secular science come together in a big picture way in this theory and it makes perfect sense.
You appear that you actually seek out the truth, and that's what I do too. We just come from slightly different angles is all. If anything I said in this post above offends you, take it lightly. I was just playing your game with you about taking shots at one another. lol I don't mean it personally.
I think you actually would possibly read Gerald L. Schroeder's stuff after that last statement. He has a book about the science of the body too called The Hidden Face of God. Haven't gotten to read through that one yet. I haven't gotten through the other one yet. I love his assemilation of facts, but his stuff puts me to sleep sometimes. LOL I have to work a little harder than normal to keep all of his info in my head to comprehend what he's talking about, and so after reading for an hour or so, it gets tiring and I have to rest my eyes. LOL It's not light reading by any means.