whats your religon?

[dragburn]

read the bible first before you talk crap...

the bible tells us that someday he comes back when the world is in war

so he isn't "fighting" himself cause that would kinda delay his return...

 

Edit: and who made the first human then? you believe in the monkey theory?

who made the monkey? and so on life can't just pop up.

and for the people that believe in that explosion theory- explosions destroy life not create

206685[/snapback]

the big bang? not even possible in the first place. simply because of newtons laws of motion and energy. there can be no reaction if there is not first an action. as well matter doesnt just come into existance. there has to be a large amount of energy even to create the smallest amount of matter. but through the heat and possibly electricity of an explosion a chemical reaction could take place and possibly be the foundation of life since all we are is one huuuge walking chemical compound. my biology teacher told me that someone was testing this theory and the prospects looked good. then again that is heresay so chose to believe at your own risk.

[crypt1c]

1 sec. accidentally hit post XD

 

 

Delete this post... screwed up again XD

 

Perfect example...

 

Edited October 8, 2005 by Ryzin

[crypt1c]

Some of you need to read up on more of this stuff, stop asking why isn't God so easy to find and to prove. The world is filled with questions. If any of you read so much as five or more chapters in the Bible, and study it, your words in these posts would be different. The whole point of religion, is sprituality, and FAITH. What a word. It's many meanings are:

 

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

Basically, Belief that something is there and watching over you. And someone mentioned that Jesus is coming back when the world is in war... This is referred to the battle of Armageddon. ARmageddon is actually: Bible. The scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world.

 

Basically the point i'm getting at, is research before you criticize anything, or anyone, etc.. If the world was one big religion, or one big nothing, man, would it be boring. And why people are ridiculed for believing in something, is beyond me. If someone believes in something, let it be, and just move on. Dont say, "Oh you're stupid 'cause you think there is a God and he's gonna save you..." and thing like that. That's just your personal belief, thought and opinion. Article 1 of the Amendment right states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." and we also have the right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If a belief is that persuit, let it be and don't make a case out of it to bring that person down, and yourself up 'cause your life sucks or whatever.

 

And now i'm too lazy to type anymore, so, that's my 2 GC

[NitageR]

1st

[Mireille]

the big bang? not even possible in the first place. simply because of newtons laws of motion and energy.

 

 

Newton's rights were not exactly true and Einstein proved it.

[Brom]

Ohh, should I start...I had better keep these thoughts to myself, religious battles can get gruesome! I have not even read this thread and I already have TONS of things to post. I better not start.

[scarr]

i dont have a religion but i do believe in life after dead ;> or that u can come back as an animal :]

 

cuz how do u explain where all the new ppl come from ?

world keep getting more ppl

[dragburn]

Newton's rights were not exactly true and Einstein proved it.

209065[/snapback]

perhaps i should have clarified that i was referring to the law of conservation of energy and the law of (dont remember actual name) actions and reactions. (allthough i thought it was painfully obvious) unless einstien proved that out of perfect void (no energy or mass) that mass could come into existance i believe my statement was correct.

Edited October 16, 2005 by dragburn

[Tanyia]

Note: The below is a clarification of theory--I'm not claming it's fact, but I wanted to clarify dragburn's post.

 

Well...actually...Newton's law of Conservation of Energy still allows for the big bang theory, at least as it's formulated today by many cosmologists (ref: Alan Guth-check out his article in Popular Science a few years ago for a more detailed explanation). The current prevailing theory says that, when the universe was, well, nothing, that random quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang. The reason it did not violate conservation of energy is because not just matter was created, but an equal amount of antimatter was produced as well. THis probably happened thousands, even millions of times before it ocurred in such a way as to allow enough matter and antimatter to be separated just every so slightly enough to prevent annihilation and allow for expansion. The resulting (very very very small) universe was allowed to expand at a super-fast rate, thus further separating the matter from the antimatter. After a period of rapid expansion, the universe cooled a bit and continued to expand at a slower rate.

 

This explains the CMB, or Cosmic Microwave Background observable today. It also explains the large-scale uniformity of the universe, and some other features as well.

 

One version of this allows for many "smaller" universes, called "bubble universes." Another is simply two "parallel" universes (but not sci-fi way of which you are probably thinking right now ).

 

Anyway, the point is, Conservation of Energy doesn't eliminate a Big Bang.

 

Note/edit: I'll explain the other features if pressed...one has to do with general relativity. If you would like a reference, try a GR/cosmology book by Weinburg (seriously tough reading), Guth, or just any modern GR/cosmology book in general .

Edited October 16, 2005 by Tanyia

[dragburn]

^^ this is where the violation of the action reaction law happens. as well if you could explain random quantum fluctuations...i would like to learn more.

[Tanyia]

Action reaction is for forces between particles (i.e. collisions, etc), not energy creation. Lol maybe we should start a new thread in Science and Technology for this

 

I'm going to have to think a bit about a concise way to explain quantum fluctiations...I'm not entirely sure I completely understand it myself

 

Edit: Actually, no one in the world COMPLETELY understands it. If they tell you they do, they are lying.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Tanyia

[dragburn]

Action reaction is for forces between particles (i.e. collisions, etc), not energy creation. Lol maybe we should start a new thread in Science and Technology for this

 

I'm going to have to think a bit about a concise way to explain quantum fluctiations...I'm not entirely sure I completely understand it myself

209892[/snapback]

i interpreted it as applying to energy as well since E=mc^2 allows for the conversion of energy to mass and soforth. i also was thinking of it in the common sense mode and going there had to be something to set it all into motion. kinda like the clockmaker theory.

[Tanyia]

i interpreted it as applying to energy as well since E=mc^2 allows for the conversion of energy to mass and soforth. i also was thinking of it in the common sense mode and going there had to be something to set it all into motion. kinda like the clockmaker theory.

209893[/snapback]

 

Not quite. It applies to "action" forces, and there are no action forces between energies. However, once particles appear, yes, action-reaction would apply to any particle-particle interactions.

 

Hrm, I should have said something extra above, but I forgot about it until now

 

Right after "creation" so to speak, the universe was just a "plasma" of energy. It was too hot for any particles to exist. It had to cool a bit before particles were formed.

 

Edit: This period is the time physicists refer to when they talk about the Grand Unified Theory. It can only be studied at REALLLLLLLLY high temperatures, such as those during the first few minutes(seconds?) of the universe.

 

Aww poo, just thought of another thing. Instead of the "bubble" universe thing, the more common version (at least I think it's more common, at least around where-I-come-from), is that both energy and so-called "dark energy" were created. We can detect the existence of dark energy even today, though we haven't found a way to study it yet (we can't see it!) The estimated amount of dark energy in the universe today doesn't quite account for it's critical expansion rate, but it does imply that perhaps there is no real net amount of matter in the universe today, i.e. that there are equal amounts of energy and dark energy + some-other-stuff-we-haven't -quite-figured-out-yet-but-that-balances -energy/normal matter.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Tanyia

[dragburn]

correct me if i am wrong but what you said boiled down means that energy can burst forth from nothingness?

Edited October 19, 2005 by dragburn

[Tanyia]

correct me if i am wrong but what you said boiled down means that energy can burst forth from nothingness?

211104[/snapback]

 

Net energy is still zero, and that is what matters.

[Placid]

Not quite. It applies to "action" forces, and there are no action forces between energies.  However, once particles appear, yes, action-reaction would apply to any particle-particle interactions.

 

Hrm, I should have said something extra above, but I forgot about it until now

 

Right after "creation" so to speak, the universe was just a "plasma" of energy. It was too hot for any particles to exist. It had to cool a bit before particles were formed. 

 

Edit: This period is the time physicists refer to when they talk about the Grand Unified Theory.  It can only be studied at REALLLLLLLLY high temperatures, such as those during the first few minutes(seconds?) of the universe.

 

Aww poo, just thought of another thing.  Instead of the "bubble" universe thing, the more common version (at least I think it's more common, at least around where-I-come-from), is that both energy and so-called "dark energy" were created.  We can detect the existence of dark energy even today, though we haven't found a way to study it yet (we can't see it!)  The estimated amount of dark energy in the universe today doesn't quite account for it's critical expansion rate, but it does imply that perhaps there is no real net amount of matter in the universe today, i.e. that there are equal amounts of energy and dark energy + some-other-stuff-we-haven't -quite-figured-out-yet-but-that-balances -energy/normal matter.

209896[/snapback]

 

This is interesting. The use of science here implies the need to have faith

[Vanyel]

I usually don't take part in debates about faith - simple reason I don't believe in any gods, don't follow any religion.

Quite opposite, I'm sick with ppl claiming they follow certain religion, takin parts of their holy books and doing quite the rules of their faith want them to.

 

Look at all these fanatics - there is no religion that calls to hate others, but they still hate. Not the fanatics are what makes me sick the most, but people claiming they're good christians (insert any other) and thinking it makes them better than others. I am sick with ppl that claims they follow the true and only God (Gods) that tells them love others and they do love others, but only if they agree with them and, omg - that's scary, follow only same god and have exactly same ideas.

 

It's not faith what makes us good, but our ethics and morality. I don't need to be christian (insert any other) to know that killing others is wrong. I don't need be christian (again, insert any other) to know that some actions and behaviours are bad.

 

So, please, stop looking at me as at somebody worse than you, cos I don't go to church each sunday, don't sing merry songs, etc.

 

I don't want to say a bad word against people that truely believe, quite opposite, I admire them, but, apperantly, these people do NOT treat others as worse. They don't try to force other to follow their religion. They don't try to claim other religions are satanistic/evil. Yes, they are usually just good people and strong in their faith.

Edited October 19, 2005 by vanyel

[Arnieman]

This is interesting. The use of science here implies the need to have faith

211200[/snapback]

An interesting observation, Placid. I had once heard someone say that the more that they learned in science, the more they believed there had to be a god... then again, I've heard it the other way.

 

IMO, everyone has something they have faith in - even in not having faith in something.

[Tanyia]

This is interesting. The use of science here implies the need to have faith

211200[/snapback]

 

One of the downfalls of many scientists I've met so far--they think just because an equation they know fits with observation with a 1% error, that it's fact. Well, many people realize that it's only a model...but some, I think, don't.

 

Edit: Missing comma.

Edited October 19, 2005 by Tanyia

[Placid]

One of the downfalls of many scientists I've met so far--they think just because an equation they know fits with observation with a 1% error, that it's fact.  Well, many people realize that it's only a model...but some, I think, don't.

 

Edit: Missing comma.

211335[/snapback]

What people seem to forget about science, is that it is all theory. Nothing can be proved.

Even when its blatently obvious that a scientific fact is right, its still only theory.

 

The same with Psychology, people assume because Bolby or Freud said so, its fact. Again, as with all sciences, its theory

[Bathory]

Gah. This topic hurts my brain. :|

[Michic0_oL]

Edit: and who made the first human then? you believe in the monkey theory?

who made the monkey? and so on life can't just pop up.

and for the people that believe in that explosion theory- explosions destroy life not create

206685[/snapback]

 

heh, i'm back in teh topic. you an say who made man? ok. god.. so who made god?

 

 

i also saw something about newton, i read lots of stuff saying he isn't right, some ppl even say its bs now.

 

explosion kills and doesn't create life?? but what do you call life? you think you know everything maybe?

[dragburn]

to get back on topic an expolosion wouldndt kill life if it didnt exist at that point. besides the heat and matter involved would create many chemical reactions and basically that is all we are in the grand scheme of things...alot of little chemical reactions..

[Arnieman]

to get back on topic an expolosion wouldndt kill life if it didnt exist at that point. besides the heat and matter involved would create many chemical reactions and basically that is all we are in the grand scheme of things...alot of little chemical reactions..

212674[/snapback]

Certainly, yes, if you break it down to the cells and stuff, we're all just chemicals and junk somehow interacting - but why? If that's all we are, why do we even care?

 

Personally, I feel it comes down to a lot more. If you use "what if" thinking, 1 "what if" usually indicates a 50% chance that it could be, or it could not be. Add another "what if", and it goes to 25%, as both have to line up on the plus side to work. If you think about the creation of the universe, the development of life, and the "evolution" of all organisms, so many "what if" probabilities had to line up just so for it to happen. The odds of that happening are astronomical - too much so for it just to "happen".

[Tanyia]

to get back on topic an expolosion wouldndt kill life if it didnt exist at that point. besides the heat and matter involved would create many chemical reactions and basically that is all we are in the grand scheme of things...alot of little chemical reactions..

212674[/snapback]

Certainly, yes, if you break it down to the cells and stuff, we're all just chemicals and junk somehow interacting - but why? If that's all we are, why do we even care?

 

Personally, I feel it comes down to a lot more. If you use "what if" thinking, 1 "what if" usually indicates a 50% chance that it could be, or it could not be. Add another "what if", and it goes to 25%, as both have to line up on the plus side to work. If you think about the creation of the universe, the development of life, and the "evolution" of all organisms, so many "what if" probabilities had to line up just so for it to happen. The odds of that happening are astronomical - too much so for it just to "happen".

212761[/snapback]

 

 

That happens to be exactly my train of thought too. I guess I fall into the "the more I learn about science, the more I believe there is" category, but that's just me. I can see why people are in the other category--I used to be