Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

[rjc34]

Its ok i wont take it wrong.

Much appreciated

 

[JCFantasy23]

Great mod hat.

Thank you

 

[dad]

While the conclusion of the scientific community on this paper has been that the finding may be premature, it would not change anything about the age of the universe. (Still 13.7 billion years...)

Of course not, I agree. If flood waters in space left some little bits here and there, that has no effect on when the earth and stars were created. Their 'conclusions' aren't worth beans anyhow on things out of their shallow present state physical only depth!

 

[Matthijs]

Causality is a priori: since the universe is an effect, it must have a cause.

"... space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, Physics and Philosophy, 1958

The past cannot be infinite because then time would never arrive at the present (Zeno/Aristotle).

If you believe in the Catholic (Lemaitre) myth of the Big Bang then the Big Bang must have a cause.

And even if you don't believe in the Big Bang myth, there must be some cause for the universe and a cause of plasma, the chemical elements, atoms, and all that we observe in the material universe.

But if God is that cause, then what caused God? And if God does not require a cause, then why does the Universe?

 

[AV1611VET]

But if God is that cause, then what caused God? And if God does not require a cause, then why does the Universe?

If the universe was self-existent, rather than God, then that would mean the universe created God, Who then wrote in His Diary, the Bible, that He created the universe.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Matthijs]

If the universe was self-existent, rather than God, then that would mean the universe created God, Who then wrote in His Diary, the Bible, that He created the universe.

Does that make sense to you?

But that only follows if you presuppose that God exists and that the Bible is his diary.

All I am saying is - why, of God needs no cause, do we assume that the universe does?

 

[AV1611VET]

But that only follows if you presuppose that God exists and that the Bible is his diary.

All I am saying is - why, of God needs no cause, do we assume that the universe does?

Because we believe that God exists, and that the Bible is His Diary.

Just like unregenerate scientists believe the universe exists, and that nature is its diary.

Our God is Jesus Christ; their god is Mr Universe.

 

[Matthijs]

Of course not, I agree. If flood waters in space left some little bits here and there, that has no effect on when the earth and stars were created. Their 'conclusions' aren't worth beans anyhow on things out of their shallow present state physical only depth!

I think a better theory is that the bits of life came from when Zeus fought Chronos. Obviously bits of him were splattered far and high and some ended up on meteors, which are now falling back on earth.

Or maybe the meteors grazed the Tree of Life that grows through Midgardr, Walhalla and Halja and picked up the bits there.

You can't disprove that with your limited, physical only science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't disprove that with your limited, physical only science.

But we can reject it, using our Bibles as justification.

For instance, I don't disprove macroevolution -- I reject it.

 

[Matthijs]

Because we believe that God exists, and that the Bible is His Diary.

Just like unregenerate scientists believe the universe exists, and that nature is its diary.

Our God is Jesus Christ; their god is Mr Universe.

That is a VERY loose comparison. Firstly I don't know of a lot of people who talk to the universe or worship it, and secondly, scientists follow the evidence to come to their conclusions about the universe, and do not start with a leap of faith.

But in the sense of a first principle, I agree. Christians see God as their first principle, most unreligious scientists see the universe i much the same light.

what is unregenerate anyways?

 

[Tomatoman]

But we can reject it, using our Bibles as justification.

For instance, I don't disprove macroevolution -- I reject it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a VERY loose comparison.

Thank you.

Firstly I don't know of a lot of people who talk to the universe...

Neither do I, their god is deaf and dumb; so why would they?

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

... or worship it,

The Bible says some will.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

... and secondly, scientists follow the evidence to come to their conclusions about the universe, and do not start with a leap of faith.

We don't follow evidence though, and our faith is counted as evidence.

Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence to support it, or when there is evidence, but it says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this an unbeliever trying to make up his mind?

 

[Matthijs]

But we can reject it, using our Bibles as justification.

For instance, I don't disprove macroevolution -- I reject it.

Not rationally though - in the same way that a rejection of bacteria in meteorites leading to the possibility of life having begun elsewhere in the universe on the basis of it conflicting with the Edda is not rational.

At the basis of your acceptance of your belief is a leap of faith. You open your heart to Jesus, and then the rest makes sense because of the subjective experience that follows. At least that is what I am often told by believers who want to share their faith with me. To me this means that conclusions reached by faith should not be mixed with conclusions reached by rational means. Religion describes YOUR truth to YOU, but does not allow you to make positive statements about reality as a whole.

Religion, I think, is a purely internal resource, and can be a source of pride, strength and joy - but not of judgement. To do otherwise is to claim to know the mind of God, and to be absolutely sure we interpreted it right. That is Hubris, to partake of that which is God's. I think religion can be a source of Inspiration, but not of Justification.

As far as I am aware, the scientific method does not require a leap of faith, bar maybe "What we observe is probably real".

 

[Matthijs]

Is this an unbeliever trying to make up his mind?

reminds me of a good joke I heard recently:

Atheist Knock Knock Joke

Knock Knock
Who's there?
God.
Who's there?
God!
WHo's there?
GOD!!!
Hmmm must be the wind or something...

 

[AV1611VET]

Not rationally though -

Since when are we to rationalize with the universe in the things of God?

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

See that word rudiments? I think of the Periodic Table when I see that word.

To me this means that conclusions reached by faith should not be mixed with conclusions reached by rational means.

Most scientists reason themselves out of having to believe:

Matthew 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

 

[AV1611VET]

reminds me of a good joke I heard recently:

Atheist Knock Knock Joke

Knock Knock
Who's there?
God.
Who's there?
God!
WHo's there?
GOD!!!
Hmmm must be the wind or something...

Reminds me of a passage in the Bible:

John 12:28b Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

 

[Tomatoman]

Is this an unbeliever trying to make up his mind?

I wonder where anyone got the idea that creationists are educationally backward from...

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder where anyone got the idea that creationists are educationally backward from...

The Internet?

 

[Doveaman]

But if God is that cause, then what caused God? And if God does not require a cause, then why does the Universe?

Because the evidence points to everything in the universe having a cause. There is no evidence for anything outside of the universe having a cause, such as God. There is evidence of physics having a cause but no evidence of Spirit having a cause. We have to follow where the evidence leads.