What did God do before creation?

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 23 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1285689 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 23:27:55 UTC - in response to Message 1285585.  
Last modified: 19 Sep 2012, 23:28:54 UTC

Einstein's special law of general relativity as well as general law of relativity are being called or thought of as being just theories.

Why? Because these theories are pure speculation. ...

You WHAT?!!!

I guess you'd best turn off your GPS and never use it again, just for one proven real world example.

Or can you realign your idea of "theory"?...

Note that the humility of science acknowledges that we are not all-knowing Omnipotent. Such blind arrogance is reserved only to Religion.


Please get real. Or at least do not abuse real science with your befuddlement religion.

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285689 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1285695 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 0:27:39 UTC - in response to Message 1285689.  

Oh, didn't Albert Einstein receive the Nobel Prize for his special relativity?

Apparently some people were foresighted even at that time.

Or maybe I am wrong on this point.
ID: 1285695 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1285728 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 4:18:50 UTC - in response to Message 1285695.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 4:19:35 UTC

Oh, didn't Albert Einstein receive the Nobel Prize for his special relativity?

Apparently some people were foresighted even at that time.

Or maybe I am wrong on this point.


Yes, you are wrong, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The photoelectric effect is not part of Einstein's theories of relativity
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1285728 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285904 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:18:27 UTC

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again. Just like Mr. E's theory that gravity bends light.
ID: 1285904 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1285908 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:24:51 UTC - in response to Message 1285904.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 17:29:32 UTC

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again...

And that 'theory' as you describe it has been found to be baseless/false. There is a non-fanciful theory that better fits what we observe in the real world.

A very religious man, Darwin is famously credited with our best fitting theory for how and why life evolves on our planet. His work is corroborated and complimented by many others.

I'm sorry, but "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" are just two examples of blind belief. No theory there at all. Do they go as far as being their own religions?


As ascribed to another religious man turned scientist: And yet it moves...

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285908 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1285917 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:31:18 UTC - in response to Message 1285904.  

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again. Just like Mr. E's theory that gravity bends light.


How does one test for Intelligent Design?
ID: 1285917 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1285938 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:16:51 UTC

Here is another link I found today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulation

Apparently the word axiom is being used instead.
ID: 1285938 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1285941 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:22:12 UTC - in response to Message 1285917.  

+1
ID: 1285941 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285943 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:29:21 UTC

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again just like Mr. E's theory that light is bent by gravity."
ID: 1285943 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1285953 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:58:33 UTC - in response to Message 1285943.  

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again just like Mr. E's theory that light is bent by gravity."

ID, would you please elucidate what test I can observe.
ID: 1285953 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1285957 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:01:45 UTC - in response to Message 1285943.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 19:01:55 UTC

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again..."

You can repeat the same claim as many times as you wish. That just makes you very repetitive.

Regardless of however many number of repeats you wish to impose, wild baseless claims will remain just as wild and baseless.


Try reading Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" to see how that world fits your dreams?

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285957 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1285959 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:02:29 UTC - in response to Message 1285953.  

yes how does one look over the shoulder of the Creator to examine his/her work?


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1285959 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1285961 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:05:18 UTC - in response to Message 1285959.  

yes how does one look over the shoulder of the Creator to examine his/her work?

There's the old philosophical Zebra Crossing paradox for that...



Keep searchin',
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285961 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1286020 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 22:08:08 UTC

To the Darwinists,
Intelligent Design is a very legitimate scientific theory. Only a fool who does not understand genetic engineering would dare to challenge the word of God!

There is a full scientific document, its called the Bible, and its jam packed full of scientific evidence for God.

To those people here that are knocking Robert for saying Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, you guys are liars and fools! You don't represent the mainstream scientific community. You don't speak on behalf of the global scientific community! Many of you claim to have "scientific evidence" on your side. But you don't!! You have nothing to back up your claim that living creatures evolve!

You are in a very small minority of the global population of Earth that does not believe in a creator God of some kind! So remember that!! Darwinists and Evolutionists are very much a minority group of people!! Me and Robert are part of the majority who know with 100% scientific confidence that God exists! Me and Robert know this because we read the Bible and we know the truth!

John.
ID: 1286020 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1286027 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 22:32:34 UTC
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 22:39:47 UTC

So there are still some people around here who are believing in God?

If you are not a believer, are you supposed to think or believe that everything in nature is based on chance, randomness, coincidences and the like?

Hard to believe in the fundamental principles? Are there any such principles?

Does Quantum Theory give us any fundamental laws for us to base different natural phenomena on? Does Quantum Theory gives us an explanation regarding the subject of time?

The world is so much more difficult to explain in the atomic or sub-atomic world. We are still unable to agree whether everything around us is matter, or just pure energy.

We associate mass with matter, it is slightly more difficult to do the same when it comes to pure energy. Still energy is thought of as being particles.

There are stories being told about astronauts who happened to be seeing flahes in their eyes. This happened because they were hit by cosmic radiation which had traveled a long way (and for a long time) through space. This radiation in fact is particles, but some people are thinking about radiation being emitted by means of or in the form of waves. Also gravity waves are being thought of as existing, still we apparently are not yet able to associate gravity with a specific particle (like the Higgs boson).

The discussion definitely goes on and on regarding this subject.
ID: 1286027 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1286033 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 22:54:10 UTC - in response to Message 1286020.  

John. I am happy for you and ID and I enjoy reading your posts. I gain some insight about that side of the human race. We all have our own ideas about critical thinking, yours are just different.
ID: 1286033 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1286039 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 23:04:06 UTC - in response to Message 1286033.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 23:04:39 UTC

John. I am happy for you and ID and I enjoy reading your posts. I gain some insight about that side of the human race. We all have our own ideas about critical thinking, yours are just different.

betreger,
Explain why you think my views are "just different"? Whats different about them?

John.
ID: 1286039 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1286042 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 23:10:41 UTC - in response to Message 1286039.  

John, most people in these forums use empirical evidence to back their statements. you withhold that data and argue passionately about the withheld data. I find that odd at best.
ID: 1286042 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1286048 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 23:16:22 UTC - in response to Message 1286042.  

John, most people in these forums use empirical evidence to back their statements. you withhold that data and argue passionately about the withheld data. I find that odd at best.

betreger,
This is a SETI chat message board, not a science journal. Thankfully most people are happy with a link to a Wikipedia article that might back-up some point they are making.

And as much as possible, i always use science to back-up my point. And i regularly use links to Wikipedia to clarify points.

most people in these forums use empirical evidence to back their statements.

And thats just not true. The vast majority of discussions on these forums about evolution do not include any scientific reference to back-up the case.

John.
ID: 1286048 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1286052 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 23:22:33 UTC - in response to Message 1286048.  

John, you just used the Bible as your claimed scientific back up.
ID: 1286052 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 23 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.