Explaining the God particle

[dad]

And if you were studying someone who allegedly did incredible things in front of hundreds of witnesses, would you be satisfied if you had only a few accounts that contradicted each other?

There is no question as to whether Persia existed, or the king who issued the decree. There is no question how many years later Jesus existed. This means we have a predicted event from a certain point in time. It is a fool's game to be in denial.

 

[dad]

There aren't necessarily any "sides" when it comes to science and religion.

That said, if you make sides where there aren't naturally any present, and if you put legitimate scientific concepts with strong evidence on one side and set yourself on the other, then it's not possible to win that battle. Still, Christianity as a whole doesn't do that, so there are no sides when it comes to Christianity and science.

You also sacrifice something of the beauty of the natural world if you claim that we're largely incapable of learning truth about its history from observing it.

So how does this work? Does the 'beauty of the natural world' mean that there was no Eden and will be no heaven? Does it mean man was not really created as Jesus said? Does it mean that you are related to a cockroach? Does it mean that we should teach kids all that kind of thing in some macabre attempt to compromise with the world?

 

[dad]

There were MASH units in Korea and Vietnam that were a big improvement over the medical care they got during WW2. I knew a guy that got shot during the invasion at Normany and he lay there on the beach for 4 or 5 hours before he got any medical care. Of course it's not a documentary, but they do maintain some degree of historical accuracy. Back when I was in High School I talked to the army dude and most of the jobs they were offering me at the time had to do with working in a MASH unit.

Right, so the story is known to be just entertainment, and not meant to be gospel. It is good in that it is realistic, and based on some reality and history. Obviously the comparison to the creation of God is merely an impish and dishonest attempt to brush off the issues.

 

[Metal Minister]

Just a quick question because I keep seeing "same-state past" being posted, but even science has to admit that things were very different on the earth in the past (going strictly by secular definitions here) because we've found that abiogenesis can't take place in our current atmosphere. That means the earth by itself would've been very different by science's own definition would it not?

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[dad]

Just a quick question because I keep seeing "same-state past" being posted, but even science has to admit that things were very different on the earth in the past (going strictly by secular definitions here) because we've found that abiogenesis can't take place in our current atmosphere. That means the earth by itself would've been very different by science's own definition would it not?

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

Not to the extent that we are talking about here. To the extend that laws and forces would not be as they now are. To the extent that continents could move fast with no great heat for example. Or to the extent that trees could grow in weeks, or man live 1000 years. It is not an in box tweak of a change we are looking at.

But, yes you are tight, that they have to invoke changes to make their fable seem plausible!

 

[Metal Minister]

Not to the extent that we are talking about here. To the extend that laws and forces would not be as they now are. To the extent that continents could move fast with no great heat for example. Or to the extent that trees could grow in weeks, or man live 1000 years. It is not an in box tweak of a change we are looking at.

But, yes you are tight, that they have to invoke changes to make their fable seem plausible!

They do of course understand that if the big bang were true, all of these same laws would have to be suspended, or were not yet there right?

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[dad]

They do of course understand that if the big bang were true, all of these same laws would have to be suspended, or were not yet there right? "

Right, I think they admit that much..that in their fable, current laws would 'break down' before they reach the imagined little magic hot soup speck.

 

[Metal Minister]

Right, I think they admit that much..that in their fable, current laws would 'break down' before they reach the imagined little magic hot soup speck.

It's always boggled my mind that people would believe that an explosion of unheard of proportions, could magic itself from nothing, instantaneously create the perfect laws of physics that keep everything from coming apart at the seams, and create all the matter in the universe, and in the same breath tell Christians that God is a myth...sheesh!

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

So how does this work? Does the 'beauty of the natural world' mean that there was no Eden and will be no heaven? Does it mean man was not really created as Jesus said? Does it mean that you are related to a cockroach? Does it mean that we should teach kids all that kind of thing in some macabre attempt to compromise with the world?

I actually wasn't referring to Young Earth Creationism or any other common form of creationism when I said that. My issue was with rarer forms where the past is just a mural on a wall to make it look like a tunnel, with starlight and rock strata all showing events that never occurred. I don't agree with Young Earth Creationism, but it doesn't say that large parts of the natural world only look like something interesting and that we can't really learn anything from them.

I was addressing this more to the idea of embedded age, which is the system of creation belief that AV1611Vet subscribes to.

An interesting perspective ... one that I think the book of Revelation is going to shred to pieces when this dispensation ends.

Science will be turned inside-out, upside-down and backwards as one event unfolds after another.

Those on the winning side, according to the book, will live forever in a New Heaven and a New Earth; with the universe running under a new set of laws.

I know that, for you, it's not a matter of reinterpretation of scientific evidence like it is with young Earth creationists. So, we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree, because if we don't, this is going to go to topics other than science really quickly. It's really a difference in our underlying ways of approaching the situation, so it's not a scientific debate.

 

[dad]

It's always boggled my mind that people would believe that an explosion of unheard of proportions, could magic itself from nothing, instantaneously create the perfect laws of physics that keep everything from coming apart at the seams, and create all the matter in the universe, and in the same breath tell Christians that God is a myth...sheesh!

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

I guess they need to be desperate to avoid the truth.

 

[dad]

I actually wasn't referring to Young Earth Creationism or any other common form of creationism when I said that. My issue was with rarer forms where the past is just a mural on a wall to make it look like a tunnel, with starlight and rock strata all showing events that never occurred.

Poetry. Nice. So do you accept creation by God?

I don't agree with Young Earth Creationism, but it doesn't make everything that we can learn about the world or the Universe through science basically meaningless. You may not agree with me that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we both agree that they existed.

I don't care if they did! Believers know that birds came in creation week. How dinos got here science doesn't know. Now if birds rapidly evolved in some cases, adapting to the world of the time as needed, I could live with that. But until it is known I would not preach it.

I was addressing this more to the idea of embedded age (which I do understand doesn't include dinosaur bones like Omphalos does, but they aren't viewed as the bones of living creatures, so it still has the same problems).

I'll leave that one, I don't know much about the concepts of embedded age.

I know that, for you, it's not a matter of reinterpretation of scientific evidence like it is with young Earth creationists.

Sure interpretation is all well and good. Science uses the Satanic inspired concepts of focusing only on this present world to fabricate an alternate creation. So it is about their interpretation.

So, we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree, because if we don't, this is going to go to topics other than science really quickly. It's really a difference in our underlying ways of approaching the situation, so it's not a scientific debate.

Well if you have science rather than poetry then start posting it. No, it is not OK to disbelieve the bible.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Poetry. Nice. So do you accept creation by God?

Yes, although I believe that God used evolution.

Well if you have science rather than poetry then start posting it. No, it is not OK to disbelieve the bible.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not a tremendous fan of the fact that you are. Do you have any particular points where you disagree with me when it comes to scientific ideas? I'm not sure what areas we differ on other than evolution, but we can debate that if you want to. I can crack out science just as well as poetry (probably a lot better than I can with actual poetry)

 

[dad]

Yes, although I believe that God used evolution.

If that is after Adam...fine. If it is before is is unbelief.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not a tremendous fan of the fact that you are. Do you have any particular points where you disagree with me when it comes to scientific ideas?

Start posting some and we will see.

I'm not sure what areas we differ on other than evolution, but we can debate that if you want to. I can crack out science just as well as poetry (probably a lot better than I can with actual poetry)

Get cracking.

 

[Jamin4422]

How dinos got here science doesn't know.

Would we even know that Dinos existed if Science had not told us about them?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

If that is after Adam...fine. If it is before is is unbelief.

You believe that God made Adam's body from the dust, right? I believe that He used a different method to do the same thing.

Start posting some and we will see.
Get cracking.

Alright.

First off, there's our genetic similarity to other primates. People argue about the exact percent of shared DNA, but everyone agrees that it's a substantial part of our genome. Given that most of the human genome (99%) is non-coding, there would be no reason for this DNA to be shared simply to form similar structures. A small percent of the non-coding DNA in the human body does serve a purpose, but having so many strands of non-coding DNA which are so similar to the non-coding DNA of lower primates wouldn't be necessary.

We also share a substantial part of our genome with other organisms. We can look at many different genes (coding and non-coding) and see similarities. Sometimes, genes are exactly the same, and sometimes they're strong evidence for evolution precisely because of the ways that they aren't the same. With those examples, we can look at the similarity to other organisms that we know from the fossil record to have evolved at different points in time, and we see a strong correlation in the number of differences and the distance in time at which their split occurred, along with an increasing complexity in the genome with more recent organisms as compared to those we know from the fossil record to have evolved earlier on a different route.

Chromosome 2 is another good example of human evolution. All other human chromosomes are extremely similar to those of other hominidae. This particular chromosome is similar to two, and looks like what those chromosomes would look like had they fused together. Chromosome 2 not only looks like a virtual mirror of the two chromosomes found in a chimpanzee, but it also has two centromeres (a part of the chromosome normally located in the center, and of which there is normally only one) far from the center of the chromosome. Instead of a centromere, the center of chromosome 2 has two telomeres, which are normally located at the end of the chromosome (where, again, there is normally only one).

Going to the fossil record, we can also trace the evolution of some species across time. There are several transitional fossils, although these generally reflect slow change rather than being drastic "missing links". In the case of human beings, the level of interest has probably contributed to building one of the most complete evolutionary pathways that we have available to us. Although no scientist would claim that it actually is totally complete, it has individuals from every stage of human evolution. We have organisms that look essentially like bipedal apes on one end (the australopithicines), in the same part of the world where we have organisms that gradually begin to look more human. Radioisotope datinh shows exactly what you would expect, namely that the more ape-like organisms are more ancient while the increasingly humanoid organisms are closer to us in time. These organisms also became increasingly sophisticated intellectually, with the earliest producing very simple tools and the latest producing the typical stone age wares that we associate with "cavemen".

Finally, we have evidence that the first anatomically modern human beings emerged in Africa the latest, appearing at a few hundred thousand years B.C., then spreading out in a documented pattern across Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North and South America. They lived mostly as hunter gatherers for thousands of years, and they along with the Neanderthals (who were similar but slightly different) began to create increasingly sophisticated tools and art as time went on. Eventually, while the Neanderthals went extinct, Homo sapiens began to build structures like the temple complex at Gobekli-Tepe (spelling?) in modern Turkey. They also started to realize, in multiple places all at around 10,000 B.C., that they could produce food. Gradually, they started to collect into cities and live as agrarians.

We can see all of this through a combination of paleontology, genetics, and physics (which is useful for various forms of dating used on ancient organisms), along with archaeology for the last chapter. Sometimes linguistics also comes into play for understanding migration routes.

I know that you obviously disagree with me, but which parts of this do you disagree with me on?

 

[Jamin4422]

They lived mostly as hunter gatherers for thousands of years, and they along with the Neanderthals (who were similar but slightly different) began to create increasingly sophisticated tools and art as time went on.

So you want to talk about the first Iron tools that we find? The Bible says that: "there was not a man to till the ground". Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Eventually, while the Neanderthals went extinct, Homo sapiens began to build structures like the temple complex at Gobekli-Tepe (spelling?) in modern Turkey.

Interesting that one of the very first structures we find was a temple.

 

[dad]

Would we even know that Dinos existed if Science had not told us about them?

Maybe. Bones are found in many places. But wasting money digging around for bones doesn't mean the creatures are not a result of creation, regardless of what science fantasizes.

 

[dad]

You believe that God made Adam's body from the dust, right? I believe that He used a different method to do the same thing.

So we ought to take your word over God's? I see. Dream on.

Alright.

First off, there's our genetic similarity to other primates. People argue about the exact percent of shared DNA, but everyone agrees that it's a substantial part of our genome. Given that most of the human genome (99%) is non-coding, there would be no reason for this DNA to be shared simply to form similar structures.

What is non coding now may not have been the same long ago. Again you rely on present state physics.

A small percent of the non-coding DNA in the human body does serve a purpose, but having so many strands of non-coding DNA which are so similar to the non-coding DNA of lower primates wouldn't be necessary.

Well if we knew what the currently non coding stuff did in the former state we might be able to speculate. You don't.

We also share a substantial part of our genome with other organisms. We can look at many different genes (coding and non-coding) and see similarities.

If I build a house in the desert and one in a swamp there would be similarities. So? We live on the same planet. We had the same designer.

Sometimes, genes are exactly the same, and sometimes they're strong evidence for evolution precisely because of the ways that they aren't the same.

Irrelevant. Vague. In some cases there may have been evolving...rapidly from the created kinds, in other cases, maybe not.

With those examples, we can look at the similarity to other organisms that we know from the fossil record to have evolved at different points in time, and we see a strong correlation in the number of differences and the distance in time at which their split occurred, along with an increasing complexity in the genome with more recent organisms as compared to those we know from the fossil record to have evolved earlier on a different route.

No. You can't. There was no earlier in any way you imagine it. Neither did we evolve from the creatures in the early record. They just happened to be able to fossilize.

Chromosome 2 is another good example of human evolution. All other human chromosomes are extremely similar to those of other hominidae. This particular chromosome is similar to two, and looks like what those chromosomes would look like had they fused together. Chromosome 2 not only looks like a virtual mirror of the two chromosomes found in a chimpanzee, but it also has two centromeres (a part of the chromosome normally located in the center, and of which there is normally only one) far from the center of the chromosome. Instead of a centromere, the center of chromosome 2 has two telomeres, which are normally located at the end of the chromosome (where, again, there is normally only one).

Maybe post flood men were perverts. Maybe genes transferred another way...who knows? Not you. Your tactt is to assume all things happened in the days of the fathers as teyy happen now.

Going to the fossil record, we can also trace the evolution of some species across time. There are several transitional fossils, although these generally reflect slow change rather than being drastic "missing links".

No. Name one? Why make stuff up? Slow change? Based on...??

In the case of human beings, the level of interest has probably contributed to building one of the most complete evolutionary pathways that we have available to us. Although no scientist would claim that it actually is totally complete, it has individuals from every stage of human evolution. We have organisms that look essentially like bipedal apes on one end (the australopithicines), in the same part of the world where we have organisms that gradually begin to look more human.

For all we know pre split man looked somewhat different. As for any other monkeys you might try to claim were human also...forget about it.

Radioisotope datinh shows exactly what you would expect, namely that the more ape-like organisms are more ancient while the increasingly humanoid organisms are closer to us in time.

No. The assumption of present state decay being responsible for ratios in the far past is religion. Noo real dating is possible, just faith based evo dating.

These organisms also became increasingly sophisticated intellectually, with the earliest producing very simple tools and the latest producing the typical stone age wares that we associate with "cavemen".

No. Speculation. Proof? What made tools that were simple?

If you migrated away from the ark area, you might not carry sophisticated tools either.

Finally, we have evidence that the first anatomically modern human beings emerged in Africa the latest, appearing at a few hundred thousand years B.C., then spreading out in a documented pattern across Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North and South America.

False! No, you don't. We have evidence that some men did migrate from Africa. No surprise there. When, you have no clue. As for the documented pattern.....lol.

They lived mostly as hunter gatherers for thousands of years, and they along with the Neanderthals (who were similar but slightly different) began to create increasingly sophisticated tools and art as time went on.

Hey...adults are present. No need to drift off into la la lands of imagination. Once man settled down, naturally he would have more art and tools. You just assume that while traveling he was dumb and inferior. No.

Eventually, while the Neanderthals went extinct, Homo sapiens began to build structures like the temple complex at Gobekli-Tepe (spelling?) in modern Turkey. They also started to realize, in multiple places all at around 10,000 B.C., that they could produce food. Gradually, they started to collect into cities and live as agrarians.

Naturally as they settled down they would build stuff. With rapid evolution in the former state, it doesn't matter that some men differed from others at all.

We can see all of this through a combination of paleontology, genetics, and physics (which is useful for various forms of dating used on ancient organisms), along with archaeology for the last chapter. Sometimes linguistics also comes into play for understanding migration routes.

Irrelevant. No dating exists in any way you thought it did. and migration routes have little bearing on anything?

 

[Jamin4422]

Maybe. Bones are found in many places. But wasting money digging around for bones doesn't mean the creatures are not a result of creation, regardless of what science fantasizes.

I thought the issue here was not if but when God created them.

 

[dad]

I thought the issue here was not if but when God created them.

Oh. Well maybe they evolved from birds real fast. Who knows?