Thread: How do you think Humans came to be?

Originally Posted by highsea

Well, protons do not decay. Or at least the time it would take a proton to decay is longer than the universe has been in existence. There are exactly the same number of protons in the universe today as the moment immediately after the big bang.

Not true. Neutron stars, for instance, are the result of a star's electrons being forced onto its protons, creating neutrons.

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Only one I can think of - die. If you meet him after that, he's there.

Hah! Fun answer, but I'm afraid it's not scientific.

-dale

And that I completely agree. Organized religion is the opium of the masses. Look no further than the crusades. But anything before the Big Bang, God is as good an answer as the M-Theory.

Originally Posted by dalem

Not true. Neutron stars, for instance, are the result of a star's electrons being forced onto its protons, creating neutrons.

-dale

That's not proton decay.

If at some point in the future the pressure is reduced, those neutrons would decay to back a proton and electron.

Originally Posted by highsea

That's not proton decay.

If at some point in the future the pressure is reduced, those neutrons would decay to back a proton and electron.

Perhaps neutron decay would lead to a proton+electron+neutrino (or whatever), but for now those neutrons are now neutrons, not protons with electrons mashed onto them.

If you want to push all the way to "total mass + energy is conserved" then sure, no problem, but the distribution changes from second to second.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

If you want to push all the way to "total mass + energy is conserved" then sure, no problem, but the distribution changes from second to second.

-dale

Of course. Matter gets sucked into black holes too, and is therefore out of commission. Sub-atomic particles are created and destroyed on a constant basis.

But there is still no proton decay ever observed.

Maybe I was a little too narrow in my statement, but writ large, the number of protons in existence is virtually unchanged from the moment after the BB.

Better?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And that I completely agree. Organized religion is the opium of the masses. Look no further than the crusades. But anything before the Big Bang, God is as good an answer as the M-Theory.

There are two theories that I'm aware of: The first is that the Big Bang was the result of the previous universe's Big Crunch, ad infinitum. The second theory was brought forth by E. P. Tryon in 1973 in his paper "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" Tyron states that it is possible, and is "simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

I think they are both valid possibilities. According to the Bible, god created everything ex nihilo, out of nothing, and then there was Chaos (Tohu Vavohu.) How is that different from either of the possibilities I raised, and what could religion possibly have to say about anything before the Big Bang, when the first verse in recorded religious scripture starts with the universe being created?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You don't get it, do you. You have fallen into the same trap. You ask why is the case for the tooth fairy of Santa Claus improbable and yet, you failed to take into consideration why cosmic ether, the graviton, M-Theory are all improbable.

We have just as much proof for dark matter, dark energy, graviton as we do for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Pick your religion.

So you reject science despite its manifest and tangible achievements in the expanation of the world around us and indeed the prosecution of our lives today in favour of medieval religious scripture ?

Just because we cannot disprove god exists doesnt automatically mean he must therefore exist, that is a highly subjective view of reality frankly, and one that no fully reasoning individual could ever possibly endorse. I cant disprove that two headed flying purple dragons exist either .... so but if I want to believe in them by definition they must exist too ! What can ever be true if one follows this through to a logical conclusion when if theres something you want to be true then it automatically is ?

Originally Posted by bigross86

I'm sorry, but that does absolutely nothing to resolve any of the questions I raised.

I refuted everyone of your points. I don't know what to tell you if you can not comprehend them. Sorry.

Lord Jesus told the Jews to "search the SCRIPTURES" (John 5:39). If they had not the Scriptures, why will He tell them to search them?

Originally Posted by Julie

I refuted everyone of your points. I don't know what to tell you if you can not comprehend them. Sorry.

Lord Jesus told the Jews to "search the SCRIPTURES" (John 5:39). If they had not the Scriptures, why will He tell them to search them?

Maybe I'm just not understanding it, but I don't see any answers.

Nowhere does it say anything about the Moses from the tribe of Levi and Jesus from the tribe of Judah. Rather it poses Jesus as being a High Priest himself, breaking one of the rules of Judaism that a King is not allowed to be a High Priest and vice versa.

To a Jew during Jesus' time, the Scriptures would refer solely to the 24 books of the Old Testament. Any Scripture from the New Testament doesn't count as anything more than blasphemy to a Jew, then or now.

The text does absolutely nothing to address my point raised about a human author speaking in the name of god. Not only that, your article quotes theologians also raising their opinions on how exactly god works.

I'm sorry, Julie, but there was not one answer to any of my three problems. I'm not trying to be difficult on purpose, but there's nothing there

Originally Posted by bigross86

The text does absolutely nothing to address my point raised about a human author speaking in the name of god. Not only that, your article quotes theologians also raising their opinions on how exactly god works.

I'm sorry, Julie, but there was not one answer to any of my three problems. I'm not trying to be difficult on purpose, but there's nothing there

Archaeological finds prove it for me. The Ebla Tablets discovered in northern Syria reflects consistency with that recorded in Genesis prior to the catastrophe recorded in Genesis 14.

The Black Stele antedated Moses. It is pre-Mosaic by at least three centuries and was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.) and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi.

There is many more findings that justify the writings of the scribes. Your NT contradictions would still not discredit the historical basis of the NT record of events.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Only one I can think of - die. If you meet him after that, he's there.

Suicide seems like a rather extreme method of proving a point. What if your wrong and there is no pie in the sky when you die its not like anyone has or is ever going to come back and tell us is it !

Originally Posted by Black Prince

Suicide seems like a rather extreme method of proving a point. What if your wrong and there is no pie in the sky when you die its not like anyone has or is ever going to come back and tell us is it !

What if you are wrong?

Originally Posted by Julie

What if you are wrong?

Theres certainly no evidence that I am to date. A faith based belief in an irrational and unsustainable premise will never work for me.