# Dark Matter: Where is it?



## Thanatos (Jul 4, 2013)

http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/

I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...

O yes! There it is. I guess we must have _faith_ in our scientific theories.


----------



## PappyHoel (Jul 4, 2013)

According to Star Trek next generation it floats around space and if you drive the Enterprise through it, it will cause the warp drive to fail.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 4, 2013)

PappyHoel said:


> According to Star Trek next generation it floats around space and if you drive the Enterprise through it, it will cause the warp drive to fail.



Then the universe rips asunder...good thing we got more than one


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/
> 
> I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...
> 
> O yes! There it is. I guess we must have _faith_ in our scientific theories.



I'll go one further.  Based on the reasoning often demonstrared here it goes something along these lines.  

We have evidence that there is some undergirding force in the universe that we can neither see, demonstrate, nor completely explain so it must be a fairy tale and anyone who dares to espouse such a claim is both intellectually incompetent and mindlessly naive.

Oh,  It's, you say of a scientific nature and not religion. Oh, we'll why didn't you just say so.  Well, by all means,  it must be true.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 5, 2013)

Silly scientists, faith is for Christians....


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll go one further.  Based on the reasoning often demonstrared here it goes something along these lines.
> 
> We have evidence that there is some undergirding force in the universe that we can neither see, demonstrate, nor completely explain so it must be a fairy tale and anyone who dares to espouse such a claim is both intellectually incompetent and mindlessly naive.
> 
> Oh,  It's, you say of a scientific nature and not religion. Oh, we'll why didn't you just say so.  Well, by all means,  it must be true.



LOL, that pretty much sums it up!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh,  It's, you say of a scientific nature and not religion. Oh, we'll why didn't you just say so.  Well, by all means,  it must be true.



If you can theorize it's existence, it is possible, unless "it" is God.....then you need concrete proof.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll go one further.  Based on the reasoning often demonstrared here it goes something along these lines.
> 
> We have evidence that there is some undergirding force in the universe that we can neither see, demonstrate, nor completely explain so it must be a fairy tale and anyone who dares to espouse such a claim is both intellectually incompetent and mindlessly naive.
> 
> Oh,  It's, you say of a scientific nature and not religion. Oh, we'll why didn't you just say so.  Well, by all means,  it must be true.



I accept your theory of God as a possible working model, subject to further review and encourage you to make better efforts to adequately substantiate claims made by the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

PappyHoel said:


> According to Star Trek next generation it floats around space and if you drive the Enterprise through it, it will cause the warp drive to fail.




Speaking of Star Trek, I've seen books that describe how the propulsion system, transporters, phasers and such work on the Enterprise.  All fantasy but based on reality and theoretical properties of matter.

Care to explain a resurrection?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 5, 2013)

Intelligence, as far as can be understood by man, is visceral.  It requires housing and an energy source.  In other words Intelligence does not float around with out a physical form.  I think the problem so many have with the concept of "God" is he/she/it is unencumbered by mass.  I personally don't see how something outside the physical realm can have any influence over anything, much less create.

Science looks for physical evidence.  Yes, science does theorize, but when the theory is disproven the theory is scraped for something different.  And yes I know some scientists come up with a theory and then set about proving it at whatever cost, but we know they are at that point being dishonest.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Intelligence, as far as can be understood by man, is visceral.  It requires housing and an energy source.  In other words Intelligence does not float around with out a physical form.  I think the problem so many have with the concept of "God" is he/she/it is unencumbered by mass.  I personally don't see how something outside the physical realm can have any influence over anything, much less create.
> 
> Science looks for physical evidence.  Yes, science does theorize, but when the theory is disproven the theory is scraped for something different.  And yes I know some scientists come up with a theory and then set about proving it at whatever cost, but we know they are at that point being dishonest.



...Like when they say "Nothing is eternal EXCEPT for this one guy who made everything and loves us."  Bad science.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Care to explain a resurrection?



Not so difficult a hurdle to cross if you believe there exists something which can create life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> ...Like when they say "Nothing is eternal EXCEPT for this one guy who made everything and loves us."  Bad science.



Is that thing outside the physical?  Or, does it exist beyond our current reality?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> ...Like when they say "Nothing is eternal EXCEPT for this one guy who made everything and loves us."  Bad science.



Oh, that represents the Willard argument very well. 

And BTW, it's not a scientific argument, it's a philosophical argument based on logic.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is that thing outside the physical?  Or, does it exist beyond our current reality?



He doesn't want to go down that road, because he knows he can't get past where the logic points.


He'd rather misrepresent arguments to make believers look silly.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is that thing outside the physical?  Or, does it exist beyond our current reality?





stringmusic said:


> He doesn't want to go down that road, because he knows he can't get past where the logic points.
> 
> 
> He'd rather misrepresent arguments to make believers look silly.



No I get it completely and I'd like Him to be made of cotton candy.  Can I do that or does He need to be made out of 'something' that I can't possibly comprehend?  Can he be fueled by Dialithium Crystals?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> No I get it completely and I'd like Him to be made of cotton candy.



Personal preference is irrelevant to the fact.  If he is made out of cotton candy, it's not 'cause you want it that way.



ambush80 said:


> Can I do that or does He need to be made out of 'something' that I can't possibly comprehend?  Can he be fueled by Dialithium Crystals?



Who defines "need" in this scenario?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Personal preference is irrelevant to the fact.  If he is made out of cotton candy, it's not 'cause you want it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Who defines "need" in this scenario?



My point is that following Willard's argument leaves you at "Well, it's a 'something' that we don't know what it is."  But you don't stop there.  You assign all kinds of qualities to 'It', based on what?

If I were to say " God is the greatest most bestest creature in the Universe and he loves us more that we can ever know" It sounds ridiculous because you know who I am. If I were a believer (change the inflection to suit and imagine me with my eyes closed and my hands raised)  it would sound like loving devotion.


Let's get back to the resurrection.  How might something like that work?  And if 'he' can resurrect, can he make a donkey talk?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Oh, that represents the Willard argument very well.
> 
> And BTW, it's not a scientific argument, it's a philosophical argument based on logic.



Is my paraphrasing wrong?  Which part?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You assign all kinds of qualities to 'It', based on what?



Nature.  Existence.  Faith.



ambush80 said:


> If I were a believer (change the inflection to suit and imagine me with my eyes closed and my hands raised)  it would sound like loving devotion.



People do what people see people do.  When I determined that I did things from habit rather than compulsion, I stopped doing those things......and they became ridiculous for me to do (not judging others who do).  That being the case, it seems the motivator for the actions would determine the manner in which they are recieved, wouldn't it?



ambush80 said:


> Let's get back to the resurrection.  How might something like that work?  And if 'he' can resurrect, can he make a donkey talk?



Two different questions.  If God can create life, a resurection is not really beyond the typical.  He just restored whatever spark it is which is lost in death.  There is no difference between your matter 1 second after you die than there is 1 second before you die.....but something is missing....

To the talking donkey.....I guess he could.  However, it would require some anatomical rearranging in order for it to happen.  But, much like a whale swallowing a person, I tend to think there is some allegory in the OT particularly in those instances where actions or events occur beyond that which we understand reality to be.  The NT narrative is completely different, and I tend to think it has less allegory, and is more focused on instruction.  The gears change, and I think for a reason.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/
> 
> I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...
> 
> O yes! There it is. I guess we must have _faith_ in our scientific theories.



Back to the OP.  

Are you mocking the scientists?  Tsk, tsk.  Maybe you can check their equations.  If you can find their mistake I'm sure they would be more than grateful.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Speaking of Star Trek, I've seen books that describe how the propulsion system, transporters, phasers and such work on the Enterprise.  All fantasy but based on reality and theoretical properties of matter.
> 
> Care to explain a resurrection?



I accept your theory of phasers as a possible working model, pending further review and encourage you to make better efforts to substantiate these claims, specifically toward blueprints.  I would love to build a phaser sniper rifle due to lack of wind drift, trajectory,time of flight, and possibly felt recoil and noise signature.  The quicker you can get on this the more appreciative I would be.  Before deer season would be a huge plus.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I accept your theory of phasers as a possible working model, pending further review and encourage you to make better efforts to substantiate these claims, specifically toward blueprints.  I would love to build a phaser sniper rifle due to lack of wind drift, trajectory,time of flight, and possibly felt recoil and noise signature.  The quicker you can get on this the more appreciative I would be.  Before deer season would be a huge plus.



You should start praying.....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Intelligence, as far as can be understood by man, is visceral.  It requires housing and an energy source.  In other words Intelligence does not float around with out a physical form.  I think the problem so many have with the concept of "God" is he/she/it is unencumbered by mass.



I would agree that some people may have a hard time conceptually envisioning an unembodied spirit.  Personally I have a hard time envisioning what it is like not being bound by the constraints of time itself, but that is not to say its unreasonable that such a spirit exists.  To me science proves that it must exist, because we know that something existed before the Singularity.  We also know that prior to that instant time, mass/energy, and all the laws of physics did not exist. So whatever existed must be eternal and without mass/energy and function outside the laws of physics.  I find it nothing short of miraculous that this is just how the Bible describes God.



drippin' rock said:


> I personally don't see how something outside the physical realm can have any influence over anything, much less create.



But isn't this exactly what Darwinism demands of you?  That somehow the laws of physics themselves, which are not physical in any way, shape, or form, CREATED life.  Laws only describe how nature works.  They have no power what so ever to change or manipulate.  The law of gravity only tells me when I drop a rock that it will fall.  The law itself cannot start the process, stop the process, nor change the trajectory of the rock once it is started.  Life can only be created by something that has a life force innate within itself to pass along.  This is one of the most basic observations of nature, yet neither time, matter, nor chance possess this and neither do the laws that govern the universe.



drippin' rock said:


> Science looks for physical evidence.  Yes, science does theorize, but when the theory is disproven the theory is scraped for something different.  And yes I know some scientists come up with a theory and then set about proving it at whatever cost, but we know they are at that point being dishonest.



That my friend is an epic understatement specifically with regards to evolution.  If all the accurate criticism of evolution from within ever comes to light and understood by the general public it is going to erode so much of the integrity of the field that science as we know it will never be the same.  Science has hitched it's integrity to the evolutionary wagon and placed more weight on it than the evidence can bear.  If afraid it's gonna be their undoing.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Is my paraphrasing wrong?  Which part?



Nothing _physical_ is eternal.....


You take an entire argument and only present a caricature of it to make it seem like a silly argument, when the fact is you just simply don't like where the logic of the argument points.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would agree that some people may have a hard time conceptually envisioning an unembodied spirit.  Personally I have a hard time envisioning what it is like not being bound by the constraints of time itself, but that is not to say its unreasonable that such a spirit exists.  To me science proves that it must exist, because we know that something existed before the Singularity.  We also know that prior to that instant time, mass/energy, and all the laws of physics did not exist. So whatever existed must be eternal and without mass/energy and function outside the laws of physics.  I find it nothing short of miraculous that this is just how the Bible describes God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet many of the A/A's in here will accept it based on the same kind of faith that they claim believers are wrong for.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You take an entire argument and only present a caricature of it to make it seem like a silly argument, when the fact is you just simply don't like where the logic of the argument points.



Which is pretty much the primary counter-argument to most of what we say in here.  It usually isn't recieved well when we flip it around, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Which is pretty much the primary counter-argument to most of what we say in here.  It usually isn't recieved well when we flip it around, though.



Actually, "all powerful, indescribably good, spirit being" sounds just as silly when I say it as when you do.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Nothing _physical_ is eternal.....
> 
> 
> You take an entire argument and only present a caricature of it to make it seem like a silly argument, when the fact is you just simply don't like where the logic of the argument points.



The argument points to a superpowerful, indescribable, timeless being, right?

I think I understand completely.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, "all powerful, indescribably good, spirit being" sounds just as silly when I say it as when you do.



You can search every post myself, string, or a few of the other regulars on here have ever made, and you will not find the term "wonderfall," unless it's quoting you.

Which is the point.  

And, we describe the "spirit being" as God.  Ours is the name, yours is an adjective used to ridicule the concept.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

Richard Dawkins encourages Atheist to ridicule when arguments fail.  He's just following protocol.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> You can search every post myself, string, or a few of the other regulars on here have ever made, and you will not find the term "wonderfall," unless it's quoting you.
> 
> Which is the point.
> 
> And, we describe the "spirit being" as God.  Ours is the name, yours is an adjective used to ridicule the concept.




Hey, you can have whatever you want in your Heaven.  I want chocolate wonderfall (for eternity.).  Does eternity have a beginning?  How will I know how long I've been standing at the chocolate wonderfall?

What do you have against American Indians?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Hey, you can have whatever you want in your Heaven.  I want chocolate wonderfall (for eternity.).  Does eternity have a beginning?  How will I know how long I've been standing at the chocolate wonderfall?
> 
> What do you have against American Indians?



Great discussion questions!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/
> 
> I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...
> 
> O yes! There it is. I guess we must have _faith_ in our scientific theories.



It is in God's closet when he turns the light switch off.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you can theorize it's existence, it is possible, unless "it" is God.....then you need concrete proof.



Lots of scientific theories. Theories do not mean a quick guess. After such intense procedures there is a reason the scientific world comes up with other things, "dark matter" being one them, than deducing it all down to God. Science certainly is not fool proof. But it has and continues to whittle away at religions claims. Once dark matter is recognized, it will be time to find some other almost impossible thing to hang onto claiming it is God or because of God......till that crumbles too.
Now I will go hide in my hut just in case I have made God angry and he makes the moon go away or mountain blow it's top.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Back to the OP.
> 
> Are you mocking the scientists?  Tsk, tsk.  Maybe you can check their equations.  If you can find their mistake I'm sure they would be more than grateful.



Heck no...I want them to find it. That way we can move onto the the next theory we must put our faith in to make our existence irrelevant and meaningless.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Hey, you can have whatever you want in your Heaven.  I want chocolate wonderfall (for eternity.).   How will I know how long I've been standing at the chocolate wonderfall?



Ok.



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> Does eternity have a beginning?



By definition, no.  An individual's entrance to such an existence would be a point in time, however.



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> What do you have against American Indians?



They don't open enough restaraunts


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Lots of scientific theories. Theories do not mean a quick guess. After such intense procedures there is a reason the scientific world comes up with other things, "dark matter" being one them, than deducing it all down to God. Science certainly is not fool proof. But it has and continues to whittle away at religions claims. Once dark matter is recognized, it will be time to find some other almost impossible thing to hang onto claiming it is God or because of God......till that crumbles too.
> Now I will go hide in my hut just in case I have made God angry and he makes the moon go away or mountain blow it's top.



Ok.  I get it, the god of your gaps is cool, because scientists have pondered over it for many hours, but the god of my gaps is just superstition?

If I had enough time, I could come up with a theory for just about anything, and as long as it was untestable, somebody out there would hang their hat on it, particularly if it in any way "elliminated" god from the equation.

How many Christians believe the earth is 7k years old 'cause the preacher says so?

How many atheists believe in certain theories because scientists say so?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 6, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where is that point relative to the eternal timeline?  Anywhere?  Everywhere?  Nowhere?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 6, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I get it, the god of your gaps is cool, because scientists have pondered over it for many hours, but the god of my gaps is just superstition?
> 
> If I had enough time, I could come up with a theory for just about anything, and as long as it was untestable, somebody out there would hang their hat on it, particularly if it in any way "elliminated" god from the equation.
> 
> ...



We could theorize about the mechanics of a warp drive engine.  I imagine it would be based on principles that we know plus some that we might guess at; speculating about possible technological advancements.


Lets theorize a God.


Where would we start?  Let's see...It's a being, like us, but better.  It gets mad and sad and jealous.  It does everything we wish we could do.  It is benevolent sometimes but has no reservations about meting out punishment.  It wants our loyalty and devotion.  Always good.  Always right.  Always mysterious.  How about a name?   Vishnu?  Yaweh?  Forest Spirit?  Did I come up with this stuff on my own through rigorous investigation or was the concept told to me as a child?  Perhaps it was etched onto my spirit by the creator.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Where is that point relative to the eternal timeline?  Anywhere?  Everywhere?  Nowhere?



Eternity would be circular, I think.  And an individual would be getting on for the ride.  

From eternity's perspective it would be irrelevant, I guess.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> We could theorize about the mechanics of a warp drive engine.  I imagine it would be based on principles that we know plus some that we might guess at; speculating about possible technological advancements.



HAve you ever heard the theory which concludes that animals evolve rapidly during transition, explaining the lack of transitional items in the fossil record.  god of the gaps.




ambush80 said:


> Lets theorize a God.
> 
> 
> Where would we start?  Let's see...It's a being, like us, but better.  It gets mad and sad and jealous.  It does everything we wish we could do.  It is benevolent sometimes but has no reservations about meting out punishment.  It wants our loyalty and devotion.  Always good.  Always right.  Always mysterious.  How about a name?   Vishnu?  Yaweh?  Forest Spirit?  Did I come up with this stuff on my own through rigorous investigation or was the concept told to me as a child?  Perhaps it was etched onto my spirit by the creator.



Etched in your spirit, I think.  I do not buy that people are born atheist.  Almost every civilization has some kind-of God concept, completely independent civilizations with no link to others will theorize a god in some manner or another.  Interesting stuff to ponder, really.

Did we evolve to believe in a god, or, did God create us to think that way?  

What animals worship God?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> HAve you ever heard the theory which concludes that animals evolve rapidly during transition, explaining the lack of transitional items in the fossil record.  god of the gaps.



I have heard that theory but I also have seen evidence (to me) of transitional fossils.  Just think about what a stroke of luck it is that we even find fossils or that a fossil is made at all.  I can understand why certain best guesses have to be made, but they're good guesses and as always, always under scrutiny.  I wouldn't mind so much if people thought of god as a theory;  scrutinized it as such, modified it to reflect changes in understanding.  That would be a prudent position to take IMO.






JB0704 said:


> Etched in your spirit, I think.  I do not buy that people are born atheist.  Almost every civilization has some kind-of God concept, completely independent civilizations with no link to others will theorize a god in some manner or another.  Interesting stuff to ponder, really.
> 
> Did we evolve to believe in a god, or, did God create us to think that way?
> 
> What animals worship God?



I think the think the idea of god probably came about around the same time as art, maybe around the time of the first existential dilemma.

I wondered what my dog made of her remote shock collar.  We joked that she thought it was God, which is good, so that she wouldn't blame me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I have heard that theory but I also have seen evidence (to me) of transitional fossils.  Just think about what a stroke of luck it is that we even find fossils or that a fossil is made at all.  I can understand why certain best guesses have to be made, but they're good guesses and as always, always under scrutiny.  I wouldn't mind so much if people thought of god as a theory;  scrutinized it as such, modified it to reflect changes in understanding.  That would be a prudent position to take IMO.



In reality, it would seem all fossils are transitional, wouldn't it?  But, I found the theory above to be an interesting approach to a percieved "problem" in the record.  The point was that gaps are filled by men of faith and men of science.




ambush80 said:


> I think the think the idea of god probably came about around the same time as art, maybe around the time of the first existential dilemma.



Which might also aid in understanding why we are different....a "soul?"



ambush80 said:


> I wondered what my dog made of her remote shock collar.  We joked that she thought it was God, which is good, so that she wouldn't blame me.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> In reality, it would seem all fossils are transitional, wouldn't it?  But, I found the theory above to be an interesting approach to a percieved "problem" in the record.  The point was that gaps are filled by men of faith and men of science.



Did you ever see that graphic that Four pasted about how blue can turn slowly to red? 






JB0704 said:


> Which might also aid in understanding why we are different....a "soul?"



I'm not convinced of this 'soul' thing.  I think it's in our heads.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Did you ever see that graphic that Four pasted about how blue can turn slowly to red?



No, I must have missed it.




ambush80 said:


> I'm not convinced of this 'soul' thing.  I think it's in our heads.



I know.  It doesn't fit your worldview.  If such a thing could be proven to exist, I imagine a few of y'all might go find some religion.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Which is pretty much the primary counter-argument to most of what we say in here.  It usually isn't recieved well when we flip it around, though.



Yep.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I know.  It doesn't fit your worldview.  If such a thing could be proven to exist, I imagine a few of y'all might go find some religion.



A soul doesn't mean a religion is required. If there is an eternity, everyone having equal access to it, regardless of this particular piece of consciousness (what we currently call physical I guess) is just as plausible as the need for us to achieve something here.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

An eternal soul puts us on par with being a God.
Some tell us nothing is eternal, infinite or lasts forever except God and then in the next breath tell us our soul leaves this world and lives on forever somewhere else. Even if the soul does not go to Heaven it still lives somewhere else forever.....so.....how does God have the forever market cornered?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/
> 
> I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...
> 
> O yes! There it is. I guess we must have _faith_ in our scientific theories.



 <br /> Source SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

Never thought of it that way.... But I would like to know why I can't remember my before-life... and why the bible doesn't talk about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> No, I must have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shoot.  All I want is one freakin' talking donkey.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> <br /> Source SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration



I love reading about this, but have you read the article?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I love reading about this, but have you read the article?



Article said the same thing as the pic. I got the pic from an embedded link at the end of the article.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Article said the same thing as the pic. I got the pic from an embedded link at the end of the article.



O! Cool. I look forward to what the LHC comes up with next. Very interesting things happening over there.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

You guys are witnessing the scientific process at work. 

1) Observe a problem.
2) Propose a hypothesis to solve that problem.
3) All of your colleagues, friends, and now non-experts on internet boards, all try to punch holes in your theory. 

It's the same way that we derived the orbital patterns used to refute the dark matter claimed in the article. 

Observation, testing, and scrutiny. 

Michio Kaku described dark matter succinctly. It's a scientists way of saying "I don't know" right now. 

Here's what we do know;
1) Galaxies spin too fast for their gravitational strength, based on observable matter, to be held together.
2) The galaxies do stay together.
3) There are unexplained lensing artifacts within the observable universe.
4) Planets within a sample size of 1, our own solar system, don't seem to be affected by this dark matter. 
5) Nothing in the universe is perfectly distributed, or, as shown by Hawking during his TV shows, gravity would have affected all matter equally and precisely nothing would have happened. 
6) The "cosmic web" images that are currently being generated based on observations of galaxies across the universe isn't 100% uniform either. It has areas of higher and lower density than others. 
7) 100% of matter does not equal 100% of space. Space is expanding more rapidly than the accompanying matter can catch up to it. See inflationary model. 

I read all of that to say that Dark Matter may be real, we still can't define it, but that our solar system, maybe even our whole galaxy occupies an area that has a lower density, or maybe even 0 density, of dark matter. 

It's bad science to base your model, or refutation of a model, on a statistical sample size of one. That's why more tests need to be done, perhaps on some of the exo planets we've discovered. 

So, I accept Dark Matter for what it is, or maybe isn't. A placeholder in what science calls the "best fit model" based on our current limitations to our observations until something better comes along. The theory will evolve as our technology and our research into it evolves.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I accept your theory of God as a possible working model, subject to further review and encourage you to make better efforts to adequately substantiate claims made by the Bible.



And we are going to need that peer reviewed.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll go one further.  Based on the reasoning often demonstrared here it goes something along these lines.
> 
> We have evidence that there is some undergirding force in the universe that we can neither see, demonstrate, nor completely explain so it must be a fairy tale and anyone who dares to espouse such a claim is both intellectually incompetent and mindlessly naive.
> 
> Oh,  It's, you say of a scientific nature and not religion. Oh, we'll why didn't you just say so.  Well, by all means,  it must be true.



That's right. And if you don't believe it...oh, nothing happens. No torture, no suffering. What is the fun in that?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You guys are witnessing the scientific process at work.
> 
> 1) Observe a problem.
> 2) Propose a hypothesis to solve that problem.
> ...



Very nice.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Very nice.



Thanks. Reading Hawking and Kaku, and others like them, is a hobby of mine so I know a good deal more than what can be presented in one article, and the justifications for why this model is the best fit one we currently have.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you can theorize it's existence, it is possible, unless "it" is God.....then you need concrete proof.


Hey JB, hope all is well with you.
I get where you are coming from however to me that statement has a problem. I agree any theory is possible including a God. However do believers claim God is a theory or do they claim God is a fact? Which would require concrete proof to be true?
And I want to skip the whole well its true to me so its a fact argument because believers don't keep religion to themselves. I'm talking 1+1=2 kind of fact.
Is it somehow unfair or dishonest or going beyond sensibility to ask for proof if you claim something is a fact? I mean we aren't talking the theory that mice like cheese here, religion makes some pretty big promises and threats to go along with their claims.
IMO if religion was as honest as science and put forth a God as a theory and not as a fact all of a sudden there would be a whole lot less to argue about.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you can theorize it's existence, it is possible, unless "it" is God.....then you need concrete proof.



Theories require proof and/or some evidence. So, whether God is a theory or fact. Somebody is going to have to put up some evidence.(something that furnishes proof).


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 16, 2013)

I noticed this thread, and the snarky jokesters, have died since an explanation on the scientific model and how theory differentiates from scientific law were presented. 

Griz, to your point, we both know that there are more people that hold God up as fact rather than theory who also can't provide proof or evidence of such.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey JB, hope all is well with you.



 Hey Walt, things are going fine.  Hopefully you can say the same yourself.  I haven't been real active in this sub-forum lately, as conversation has turned more towards morality type discussions.....and I am trying to avoid getting in the middle of those. 



WaltL1 said:


> I agree any theory is possible including a God. However do believers claim God is a theory or do they claim God is a fact? Which would require concrete proof to be true?



Good question.  In general, believers will say they "know" God is real.  However, when you dig into Christianity, our beliefs are grounded in faith and hope in Jesus.  I can't prove to you Jesus was real, but I believe he was.....there is a difference, and I recognize it, but it gets me into trouble with my fellow believers from time to time.

As far as God is concerned, I believe there can be a much more solid logical argument for his existence than Jesus'.  Do I "know" to the extent that I could prove it to you if we were to ever find ourselves fishing the same river?  No.  I can't.  But, I can carry on a decent conversation and explain why I can't conclude otherwise?



WaltL1 said:


> Is it somehow unfair or dishonest or going beyond sensibility to ask for proof if you claim something is a fact?



No, it's not unfair to ask me that.  Nor is unfair for me to respond with "the reasons I have hope." 




WaltL1 said:


> I mean we aren't talking the theory that mice like cheese here, religion makes some pretty big promises and threats to go along with their claims.



I think the "threats" turn people away as much as anything else.  I don't much care for "threats."  Nor do I think trying to convince a non-believer that he should believe or burn is going to get anybody anywhere.  

I am a Christian.  My faith will be grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus.  As such, I feel as if my duty is to live a testimony of my faith.  When I read about him, I don't see an angry and condemning person.  I see a loving/compassionate person.  I will never be able to duplicate anywhere near that level of action, but, I can do my best to avoid condeming folks.  That's not my place, or anybody else's.  WE can only relate what we believe.

It's just that faith is held personally to folks, much like their politics, and they get passionate trying to "win the day."  That's where a lot of the distasteful stuff comes from.  I am not perfect, never will be.  But I do try to live my life as a witness to my faith.  My faith is grounded in.....hope, which comes from my logic and reasoning and obviously those thigns I have been taught. That's what I will tell you about if you were to ask.  I can't prove to you a lot of scientific things I believe either.  But, I have "faith" in the word of those who taught me......one set of beliefs is just as real to me as the other.

I can't speak for anybody else on that matter.




WaltL1 said:


> IMO if religion was as honest as science and put forth a God as a theory and not as a fact all of a sudden there would be a whole lot less to argue about.



Could there be an honest debate on the merits after such a proposition?  Which is to ask, is there a possibility one side would win the debate?  Until then, neither side is open minded enough to hear about it.  'Cause our theory involves something you cannot see and touch, as it is in science.  Discussion would have to move beyond the physical, and that realm would have to be taken seriously.  Which, it often is not.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Somebody is going to have to put up some evidence.(something that furnishes proof).



....for you.  Nobody ever "proved" that God existed to me, but I do believe it.

Ever heard my "deer stand coming' to Jesus" story, or my drunken conversion?  These events happened in the absence of proof, with the help of logic (deer stand) and reason (drunken realization).


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....for you.  Nobody ever "proved" that God existed to me, but I do believe it.
> 
> Ever heard my "deer stand coming' to Jesus" story, or my drunken conversion?  These events happened in the absence of proof, with the help of logic (deer stand) and reason (drunken realization).



Out of context but, I understand. Not just for me...according to the definitions/explanations of theories and facts.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Out of context but, I understand. Not just for me...according to the definitions/explanations of theories and facts.



See my response to Walt.

I had a pretty decent thread in here about the universe, and how it can be logically concluded that our reality is limited, but there may exist a realm beyond it, and such a position is not logically impossible.

Can I prove it?  Nah.  But I can tell you the universe is expanding, and it occupies something it didn't previously occupy.

Which then opens the door to possibilities which rely completely on logic, and outside the realm of "proveable."  We cna have a conversation in that space......but it can't be bound by science which is embedded in the tangible.  

I'll be more than happy to discuss it again.....I enjoy the heck out of those conversations.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> See my response to Walt.
> 
> I had a pretty decent thread in here about the universe, and how it can be logically concluded that our reality is limited, but there may exist a realm beyond it, and such a position is not logically impossible.
> 
> ...



It doesn't necesarily have to be proveable to be believable. Shreds of evidence, common sense, logic. All valid. There just needs to be some 'shreds' of evidence.


----------



## David Parker (Aug 16, 2013)

ok, ok.  Matter nuh uh, but this







gotta be real.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Hey Walt, things are going fine.  Hopefully you can say the same yourself.  I haven't been real active in this sub-forum lately, as conversation has turned more towards morality type discussions.....and I am trying to avoid getting in the middle of those.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks I always appreciate your honesty without wavering attitude.
One thing you said made me chuckle as it is the opposite of what I would have expected although its probably due to a lack of knowledge on my part - although pretty much a nonbeliever I have no argument that Jesus probably existed (minus the miracles), its "God" that I have a problem with. But you said a much more logical argument could be made for God. Im going to have to go back and rethink which one I don't believe in now 
By the way, speaking of "finding ourselves fishing in the same river", what river(s) do you fish and in what part of Ga?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Thanks I always appreciate your honesty without wavering attitude.
> One thing you said made me chuckle as it is the opposite of what I would have expected although its probably due to a lack of knowledge on my part - although pretty much a nonbeliever I have no argument that Jesus probably existed (minus the miracles), its "God" that I have a problem with. But you said a much more logical argument could be made for God. Im going to have to go back and rethink which one I don't believe in now



For some non-believers, it is easier for them to assume Jesus is a mythical figure like King Arthur.  I tend to think it's very obvious he was alive, but, the part that is taken "on faith" is the miracles/resurrection/God's son stuff.  It's in a book......that's all I got.

God, on the other hand, as a concept, it much easier to comprehend because we know we exist.  Basically, the universe either has an original cause, or everything in the universe is infinite....every particle, all the energy, all of it, has been here forever.  The stuff that makes "Walt" has always been, and is just currently configured as Walt.  

I tend to think the original cause makes more sense, particularly given that the universe is currently expanding (to where from where???).  If it is an unending cycles of expansion/contraction, we will never know.  If there is an original cause which got the ball rolling on existence, then there must be something outside the physical which is not restricted by the physical.



WaltL1 said:


> By the way, speaking of "finding ourselves fishing in the same river", what river(s) do you fish and in what part of Ga?



As a general rule, I fish in farm ponds and reservoirs.  I have spent some time up on the Coosa and Etowah.  It has been a few years, but I used to love fishing the Chattahoochee north of Atlanta.....I wasn't any good with the trout, but there's something fun about floating down stream and hitting the mouth's of the tributaries.

My current fishing "project" is learning how to catch hybrids on Allatoona.  But, I also will be fishing the Oconee river a good bit in the years to come, as I have just got a hunting lease which is bordered by it.....so I plan to do some serious fishing down there.

How 'bout you?  Your avatar has you in a Kayak.  One of my favorite ways to fish is in the bay around St. George Island on the flats in a Kayak.....been trying for years to get one of those big bull sharks to take me for a ride   When I'm successful, I'll be posting a video up on here, for sure.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 17, 2013)

660griz said:


> It doesn't necesarily have to be proveable to be believable. Shreds of evidence, common sense, logic. All valid. There just needs to be some 'shreds' of evidence.



If you search this forum for "God Tracks" you should be able to find a post I made on the subject.

In summary, we both are seeing the same "shreds" of evidence, and interpreting it very differently.  My first response is "life."  I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but evidence of a creator.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> As a general rule, I fish in farm ponds and reservoirs.  I have spent some time up on the Coosa and Etowah.  It has been a few years, but I used to love fishing the Chattahoochee north of Atlanta.....I wasn't any good with the trout, but there's something fun about floating down stream and hitting the mouth's of the tributaries.
> 
> My current fishing "project" is learning how to catch hybrids on Allatoona.  But, I also will be fishing the Oconee river a good bit in the years to come, as I have just got a hunting lease which is bordered by it.....so I plan to do some serious fishing down there.
> 
> How 'bout you?  Your avatar has you in a Kayak.  One of my favorite ways to fish is in the bay around St. George Island on the flats in a Kayak.....been trying for years to get one of those big bull sharks to take me for a ride   When I'm successful, I'll be posting a video up on here, for sure.


Hopefully we don't get spanked for being off topic for a minute here but I fish the Chattahoochee near Lake Lanier, also lake Lanier, the Ocmulgee near the town of Monticello, Fort Yargo in Winder and also go to Beaufort SC area to flats fish. Last weekend did a kayak/camping trip on the Flint River in the Thomaston area. The Flint was high and muddy so the fish escaped my wrath but the kayaking and camping was great. Do the bulk of my fishing out of the kayak. Ive found it to be much more dependable than a boat and a lot better on gas 
If you ever need a fishing buddy for a day and you don't mind sharing the water with a heathen shoot me a message!


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> In summary, we both are seeing the same "shreds" of evidence, and interpreting it very differently.


Understatement of the year.


JB0704 said:


> My first response is "life."  I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but evidence of a creator.



I am pretty sure you think, GOD did it so, enought said. We can stop looking for evidence. Me, on the other hand, would like science to continue to search. Not only about where we came from but, all aspects of life that were once just explained as "God's will." Thankfully polio, cancer, etc., are not accepted as just an act of God. 

Who knows, maybe science will find a 'creator'. I can guarantee the creator found will not be any of the Gods man has created thus far.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> I can guarantee the creator found will not be any of the Gods man has created thus far.



No you can't.  But, you have just placed yourself in the same category of all those believers who claim to "know" something.....which generally irks you skeptics.

I'm all for scientific advancement.  It is a wonderful thing.  My belief in God in now way limits my desire for man to continue to seek cures for diseases, and understanding of our natural world.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Hopefully we don't get spanked for being off topic for a minute here but I fish the Chattahoochee near Lake Lanier, also lake Lanier, the Ocmulgee near the town of Monticello, Fort Yargo in Winder and also go to Beaufort SC area to flats fish. Last weekend did a kayak/camping trip on the Flint River in the Thomaston area. The Flint was high and muddy so the fish escaped my wrath but the kayaking and camping was great. Do the bulk of my fishing out of the kayak. Ive found it to be much more dependable than a boat and a lot better on gas
> If you ever need a fishing buddy for a day and you don't mind sharing the water with a heathen shoot me a message!




I certainly don't mind sharing the water with "heathens."  And, if the opportunity ever arises, I'll be sure to take you up on that.  Thanks.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> No you can't.  But, you have just placed yourself in the same category of all those believers who claim to "know" something.....which generally irks you skeptics.



All I can say is, I don't agree. 



> I'm all for scientific advancement.  It is a wonderful thing.  My belief in God in now way limits my desire for man to continue to seek cures for diseases, and understanding of our natural world.



What about embryonic stemcell research?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> All I can say is, I don't agree.



A guarantee indicates you know something. 





660griz said:


> What about embryonic stemcell research?



Is it accomplished by killing a human, no.  However, that is not a religious argument, at all.  It is a human rights argument.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> A guarantee indicates you know something.


 Yes. I do. 





> Is it accomplished by killing a human, no.  However, that is not a religious argument, at all.  It is a human rights argument.



Can it be both? The Catholic Church is against embryonic stem-cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. 
In 2005, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a statement voicing its opposition to stem cell research.
In 1999, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its “opposition to the destruction of human embryos … [and] support for the development of alternative treatments which do not require human embryos to be killed.”
United Methodist Church
In 2004, The church maintained its opposition to the use or creation of embryonic stem cells solely for the purpose of research.



So, you are for it?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yes. I do.



Then....



			
				jb0704 said:
			
		

> you have just placed yourself in the same category of all those believers who claim to "know" something.....which generally irks you skeptics.



Regardless of whether you agree or not.  




660griz said:


> Can it be both? The Catholic Church is against embryonic stem-cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos.



There are plenty of your fellow skeptics who are also pro-life......does that make it a "skeptic" position?

It doesn't have to be anything but a human rights position.  The rest of that non-sense just muddies the water, and makes it impossible for the two sides to have a decent discussion about the topic.



			
				660griz said:
			
		

> So, you are for it?



I have already answered the question, but am more than happy to do so again.

If it is only accomplished by killing a human, then no.  Perhaps science can find a way to get these stem cells without creating and killing folks.  That would be a cool advancement.

I think human life begins when an embryo is implanted in the uterus.....that's a little past fertilization, and way before birth.  But, that is the point where all the pieces are put together.  That's a human life.

If embryonic stem cell research requires that implanted embryos be killed, than I am absolutely against it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then....


 It is all over this particular forum. The entire subject matter associated is with man made Gods. 



> Regardless of whether you agree or not.



Now you are acting like you know something.   How can I be in a believer category when I don't believe? How can that irk me? Is this the ol, twist atheism into a religion thing? Do you somehow believe by me saying a deity could be discovered is saying there is a God? Alien life forms could be discovered too. Currently, I don't believe in either. I do however, have an open mind. 




> There are plenty of your fellow skeptics who are also pro-life......does that make it a "skeptic" position?


 If a skeptic was against it...yes it could. It could also be a bovine position if you found a cow against it. I think if you were to look at the major opposition though, keyword "major", you will see it is a religious issue. Yall can spread it around as much as you like. If you are against it and religious, claim it is human rights. Whatever. Fact is, scientific research that could cure cancer, alzheimers, etc. is being held up. 



> It doesn't have to be anything but a human rights position.  The rest of that non-sense just muddies the water, and makes it impossible for the two sides to have a decent discussion about the topic.


I agree. Humans = mammals = breath air = have hair. They should get precidence over harversting cells from something that does not resemble humans at all. 




> I have already answered the question, but am more than happy to do so again.
> 
> If it is only accomplished by killing a human, then no.  Perhaps science can find a way to get these stem cells without creating and killing folks.  That would be a cool advancement.
> 
> I think human life begins when an embryo is implanted in the uterus.....that's a little past fertilization, and way before birth.  But, that is the point where all the pieces are put together.  That's a human life.



Well, there you go. Slowing up scientific research because of issues with the definition of human life. Sad.



> If embryonic stem cell research requires that implanted embryos be killed, than I am absolutely against it.



Got it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

Griz.  You are all over the place.



660griz said:


> It is all over this particular forum. The entire subject matter associated is with man made Gods.



Um.....yes 



660griz said:


> Now you are acting like you know something.



By pointing out that you claim to know something 



660griz said:


> How can I be in a believer category when I don't believe?



Ask yourself.  You are the one passing out guarantees that it won't be "my" god.



660griz said:


> Is this the ol, twist atheism into a religion thing?



Nope.  It is me pointing out a giant gaping hole in your logic that you are somehow refusing to see.



660griz said:


> Do you somehow believe by me saying a deity could be discovered is saying there is a God? Alien life forms could be discovered too. Currently, I don't believe in either. I do however, have an open mind.



Please revisit your statement.  Then maybe we can have an actual discussion.  You said:



			
				660griz said:
			
		

> I can guarantee the creator found will not be any of the Gods man has created thus far.






660griz said:


> I think if you were to look at the major opposition though, keyword "major", you will see it is a religious issue. Yall can spread it around as much as you like. If you are against it and religious, claim it is human rights. Whatever. Fact is, scientific research that could cure cancer, alzheimers, etc. is being held up.



Could it be that this embryonic stuff is all "hope" and you want me to get on board with creating and killing humans based on your "hope" that you can cure cancer.

Not happening, man.  Have you researched alternative research efforts which do not include creating and killing humans?  Or, are you just hung up on this one because it gives you another reason to dislike religious folks?



660griz said:


> Well, there you go. Slowing up scientific research because of issues with the definition of human life. Sad.



Take that to the other end....the parts we all agree on....do you agree with killing 100 year old people for scientific research?  No, of course not.  Do you agree with killing 20 year olds for scientific research.  No.  Of course not.  Do you agree with killing infants for the sake of scientific research?  No.  Of course not.  

Now.....let's get into the grey area.....do you agree with killing a baby 1 day before it's due date for the sake of scientific research?  YEs, no????  There are plenty of folks who do not define that as human life.

Sad?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Griz.  You are all over the place.


 Forced to be.

Sometimes my points are not made as clearly as I had planned. This opens the door for numerous tangents I had no intent or desire to take. It seems those draw more attention than direct questions. And sometimes, in the middle of a good discussion, folks will say seemingly intentional inflammatory remarks that have nothing to do with the conversation, that I have to address.(See dislikes religious folks below)




> Ask yourself.  You are the one passing out guarantees that it won't be "my" god.


 Based on logic and science and from reading the bible. Dead folks don't rise. Artificial insemenation wasn't around then...etc. 
Look, I was just trying to make a point I have been making all along. I don't really think a God is going to be discovered. The point was your God(any current man made God) just doesn't make any sense. Don't get caught up in the "If they discover" or "guarantee part". More for dramatic affect. 



> Nope.  It is me pointing out a giant gaping hole in your logic that you are somehow refusing to see.


 Someone who's logic comes to the conclusion that the christian God is the one true God and believes in a God at all is pointing out holes in my logic? Good one.





> Could it be that this embryonic stuff is all "hope" and you want me to get on board with creating and killing humans based on your "hope" that you can cure cancer.


 Nope, harvesting cells from an embryo. You said killing humans. Flushing sperm down the drain. Killing humans to some? Yes. Hope has already been given. Without research we will never know.



> Not happening, man.  Have you researched alternative research efforts which do not include creating and killing humans?  Or, are you just hung up on this one because it gives you another reason to dislike religious folks?


 Nope, not hung up, just gave an example how religion holds up progress. I can come up with more if this one is uncomfortable. You said you were all for scientific advancement. Just pointing out something. 
Oh, and I don't dislike religious folks. All of my kin are religious folks, all of my friends are relgious folks. I don't even think you could function in society disliking religious folks. And you wonder how come I am all over the place. 




> Take that to the other end....the parts we all agree on....do you agree with killing 100 year old people for scientific research?  No, of course not.  Do you agree with killing 20 year olds for scientific research.  No.  Of course not.  Do you agree with killing infants for the sake of scientific research?  No.  Of course not.
> 
> Now.....let's get into the grey area.....do you agree with killing a baby 1 day before it's due date for the sake of scientific research?  YEs, no????  There are plenty of folks who do not define that as human life.
> 
> Sad?


Pretty simple, could that baby breath, eat, and have hair if delivered? Yep. Does it look like a human? Yep. Their definitions are wrong and can be scientifically proven. Not really a grey area except for most when arguing against the research. Unfortunately, research hindered by folks that consider killing an infant and killing an embryo the same.
An example of taking common sense and twist it to the absurd.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Based on logic and science and from reading the bible. Dead folks don't rise. Artificial insemenation wasn't around then...etc.



Hmmm.....you are limiting the possibilities.  If a "creator" was discovered, you may have to revisit these items.  




660griz said:


> Look, I was just trying to make a point I have been making all along. I don't really think a God is going to be discovered. The point was your God(any current man made God) just doesn't make any sense. Don't get caught up in the "If they discover" or "guarantee part". More for dramatic affect.



Oh, I just locked in on your guarantee.  I'd a been clobbered in this forum for such confidence.



660griz said:


> Someone who's logic comes to the conclusion that the christian God is the one true God and believes in a God at all is pointing out holes in my logic? Good one.



Are you saying that me being wrong excludes you from being wrong?  If not, I don't see your point.





660griz said:


> Nope, harvesting cells from an embryo. You said killing humans.



Then, I gave a very clear definition of human life.  One that is absolutely clear, and not arbitrary as any other line is outside of birth (which very, very few people would believe a baby 1 day before birth is not human).




660griz said:


> Nope, not hung up, just gave an example how religion holds up progress. I can come up with more if this one is uncomfortable. You said you were all for scientific advancement. Just pointing out something.



But, you failed to show where my religion was holding up scientific advancement.  I'd be against killing humans for scientific research even if I was and atheist.



660griz said:


> Pretty simple, could that baby breath, eat, and have hair if delivered? Yep. There definitions are wrong and can be scientifically proven. Not really a grey area except for most when arguing against the research. Unfortunately, research hindered by folks that consider killing an infant and killing an embryo the same.



But.....now you are limiting research based on your definition of human life......sad.

You see, some folks will say that child is not a human until birth.....and you are stuck with your definition (above) against theirs (breathes air).  Mine is much less arbitrary.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Hmmm.....you are limiting the possibilities.  If a "creator" was discovered, you may have to revisit these items.


 Yea. I'll be sure to revise when that happens. 




> Are you saying that me being wrong excludes you from being wrong?  If not, I don't see your point.


I am saying your logic is flawed and mine is not. 




> Then, I gave a very clear definition of human life.  One that is absolutely clear, and not arbitrary as any other line is outside of birth (which very, very few people would believe a baby 1 day before birth is not human).


 Lots of clear definitions can be given. How about, do an ultrasound, look like a minature person? Leave it alone. Can't see it or looks like 4 hockers in a pan? Do whatever. 



> But, you failed to show where my religion was holding up scientific advancement.


 Well, I thought I showed it. I am really not sure what would convince you. Quote from Fred: Religion is holding up scientific advancement. You would then say, Fred lies.  





> I'd be against killing humans for scientific research even if I was and atheist.


 You can't know that. If you get your morals and purpose from God, who knows what you would be up for.  Research on old folks? Ooo. That would be me. 




> But.....now you are limiting research based on your definition of human life......sad.


 Yep. Got to be limits. Let's base them on science and logic and common sense. 



> You see, some folks will say that child is not a human until birth.....and you are stuck with your definition (above) against theirs (breathes air).  Mine is much less arbitrary.



Mine is in no way arbitrary and allows for stem cell research. If it looks like: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Take the cells. 

Good news. They can take em without killing the embryo.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yea. I'll be sure to revise when that happens.
> 
> I am saying your logic is flawed and mine is not.



 




660griz said:


> Good news. They can take em without killing the embryo.



Then I'm all for it.  BTW, I think implantation has to occur for the cells to be in an environment where they can survive.  That's why my line is there.  Not sure what happens in a petri dish.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2013)

Not trying to rock the boat, here, but wasn't this thread about Dark Matter?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I noticed this thread, and the snarky jokesters, have died since an explanation on the scientific model and how theory differentiates from scientific law were presented.
> 
> Griz, to your point, we both know that there are more people that hold God up as fact rather than theory who also can't provide proof or evidence of such.



Naw, Striper I saw the article and enjoyed your post(56).  I'm glad somebody can read Hawkins because my mind started to spin about half way through his book.  I'm dazed but still snarky.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not trying to rock the boat, here, but wasn't this thread about Dark Matter?



Yep. Someone opened the superhighway with "I guess we must have faith in our scientific theories."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Naw, Striper I saw the article and enjoyed your post(56).  I'm glad somebody can read Hawkins because my mind started to spin about half way through his book.  I'm dazed but still snarky.



No worries. The sarcasm is strong with this one, too. 

If you have Netflix try watching Into the Universe w/ Steven Hawking. 

It boils a lot of his theories down to layman's experiments. 

I have to read, re-read, and then read one more time on some of his stuff before it sinks in. 

He does a great job at the metaphors or real world explanations, but when he doesn't try, or can't, to do that then it gets tough. 

Michio Kaku is another great author. I really enjoyed _Physics of the Impossible._


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yep. Someone opened the superhighway with "I guess we must have faith in our scientific theories."



Well, to their point we, as people outside of the field, do have _some _faith in science. 

I don't know about you, but I don't have any time on the LHC at CERN so I can't say that I've seen the antimatter it's produced, or anything else for that matter. I have seen the papers, and the interviews, with those who have done it, so there is a grain of truth in the notion that we have faith in our own chosen language. 

It doesn't hold up very well to intense scrutiny, but that one grain is there...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, to their point we, as people outside of the field, do have _some _faith in science.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I don't have any time on the LHC at CERN so I can't say that I've seen the antimatter it's produced, or anything else for that matter. I have seen the papers, and the interviews, with those who have done it, so there is a grain of truth in the notion that we have faith in our own chosen language.
> 
> It doesn't hold up very well to intense scrutiny, but that one grain is there...



I prefer 'trust', faith has an unthinking tone about it. 
Plus, in the context of our usual discussions...it is not faith.

“Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.” 
― Voltaire


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> I prefer 'trust', faith has an unthinking tone about it.
> Plus, in the context of our usual discussions...it is not faith.
> 
> “Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.”
> â€• Voltaire



I hear ya, but Voltaire is subjective. 

The denotation of faith is 



> faith
> [feyth]  Show IPA
> 
> noun
> ...



Trust in a person or thing, which speaks to our lack of firsthand experience with the experiments.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hear ya, but Voltaire is subjective.
> 
> The denotation of faith is
> 
> ...



Your trust in their findings is based on the premise that they followed the scientific method.  You have first hand knowledge of the scientific method and can verify its credibility.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Your trust in their findings is based on the premise that they followed the scientific method.  You have first hand knowledge of the scientific method and can verify its credibility.



But that's a rationalization. I can do all of that, sure, but how many of us who follow the scientific explanations really do? 

It is still trust, and trust is still a core tenet of faith. 

Unless you're the one doing, or verifying, the experiments then there is an aspect of faith in that position.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

I have faith that Voltaire was discussing faith equal to the context of these discussions. Outside of this, I may utter, "I have faith in you."etc. Which I doubt I would do. Just sounds weird.  There are always reasons I may put faith in something or someone. I do not place my faith blindly. 
I do understand your literal translation of the english language though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> I have faith that Voltaire was discussing faith equal to the context of these discussions. Outside of this, I may utter, "I have faith in you."etc. Which I doubt I would do. Just sounds weird.  There are always reasons I may put faith in something or someone. I do not place my faith blindly.
> I do understand your literal translation of the english language though.



I go back to the dictionary, rather than connotation, simply because it is objective, and actually follows a scientific model itself. 

When a word changes its meaning, through connotation, enough then they change the definition to either include or match the new meaning. 

Plus, I don't know of anyone who has argued the dictionary as being fallible, so it's an objective place to begin any semantic argument.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that's a rationalization. I can do all of that, sure, but how many of us who follow the scientific explanations really do?
> 
> It is still trust, and trust is still a core tenet of faith.
> 
> Unless you're the one doing, or verifying, the experiments then there is an aspect of faith in that position.



How about just believe them but, not really care? Faith seems so strong a word. 
Faith to mean insinuates, I could be harmed, hurt, wronged, if I didn't have faith or that faith was misplaced. 
Faith in a scientist discovery of dark matter? When it gets right down to the average person day to day lives, who cares. Just a topic of discussion amongst geeks. Not a bad topic but, not something where faith should raise it's head. 
This is probably making no sense but, trust me, there is a point.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I go back to the dictionary, rather than connotation, simply because it is objective, and actually follows a scientific model itself.



So context is mute?
Dictionary often has several definitions.
You chose number 1, I don't get to choose?

Also, sorry for being off topic. It is NOT my fault.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

I tell ya what, striperrH, if you read this, "I guess we have to...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmm...

O yes! There it is. I guess we must have faith in our scientific theories."  

And believe they were referring to faith as in definition 1. I will concede the argument because that would be a no win scenario for me. We are not comprehending the above statement the same.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> How about just believe them but, not really care? Faith seems so strong a word.
> Faith to mean insinuates, I could be harmed, hurt, wronged, if I didn't have faith or that faith was misplaced.
> Faith in a scientist discovery of dark matter? When it gets right down to the average person day to day lives, who cares. Just a topic of discussion amongst geeks. Not a bad topic but, not something where faith should raise it's head.
> This is probably making no sense but, trust me, there is a point.



It's the act of belief that determines if faith comes into play, not the act of caring. 

Your connotation of faith deviates from that of the dictionary, which is objective, and is not to say that your take on the situation is wrong, just that it doesn't jive with what society has accepted as the definition of faith. 

Who cares about Dark Matter? Well, who cares that the Earth was round instead of flat? It didn't matter to the layperson in the least, but that knowledge gives us SATCOM, for one, which impacts your life in ways you can't probably imagine. 

In other words, just because there is no immediate benefit doesn't mean that there won't eventually be one, and that it won't become foundational to some other aspect of society. 

What if we could find a way to make dark matter interact with real matter that we choose? We could use the flow of electrons, theoretical, from that interaction to power our world, or maybe starships. I dunno what's on the horizon, but to say that it doesn't matter so why care about it is to condemn ourselves to remaining technologically and scientifically stagnant. 



660griz said:


> So context is mute?
> Dictionary often has several definitions.
> You chose number 1, I don't get to choose?
> 
> Also, sorry for being off topic. It is NOT my fault.



No, context isn't moot. Context matters, but not when discussing definitions. Definitions are denotations where context is only relevant to connotations. They are not interchangeable. 

I did choose #1 because it substantiated my claim to faith being an integral part of a layperson's interaction with science. I'm not arguing, merely stating a fact. If you want to discuss other facts, then we can certainly go down that path, so long as the OP is cool with it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

> In other words, just because there is no immediate benefit doesn't mean that there won't eventually be one, and that it won't become foundational to some other aspect of society.
> 
> What if we could find a way to make dark matter interact with real matter that we choose? We could use the flow of electrons, theoretical, from that interaction to power our world, or maybe starships. I dunno what's on the horizon, but to say that it doesn't matter so why care about it is to condemn ourselves to remaining technologically and scientifically stagnant.



Whoa there! Love science, support science. Compared with "FAITH" as it relates to life after death, torture, heaven, all that stuff from a believers prespective,  whether or not we blindly believe someone has or has not discovered dark matter is well, meaningless. 

You don't have to sell me on possible benefits. Unless I am giving money or trying to talk someone out of giving, my faith in that particular experiment will not determine the outcome. 



> hoose #1 because it substantiated my claim to faith being an integral part of a layperson's interaction with science. I'm not arguing, merely stating a fact. If you want to discuss other facts, then we can certainly go down that path, so long as the OP is cool with it.



I'll wait till you respond to my post before the one you responded to. Yikes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Whoa there! Love science, support science. Compared with "FAITH" as it relates to life after death, torture, heaven, all that stuff from a believers prespective,  whether or not we blindly believe someone has or has not discovered dark matter is well, meaningless.
> 
> You don't have to sell me on possible benefits. Unless I am giving money or trying to talk someone out of giving, my faith in that particular experiment will not determine the outcome.
> 
> ...



You're right, up to a point, about science being science regardless of your belief in it; again, up to a point. 

I would say that a scientist is more motivated to push their envelope if they have a receptive audience. Not caring takes that down a notch, IMO. It's not based on anything other than my own inferences. 

Now, to your post about my post that had to wait on my response to your response to my post.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now, to your post about my post that had to wait on my response to your response to my post.




My final word. If God would have wanted us to see Dark Matter, he wouldn't have made it so hard to see.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> My final word. If God would have wanted us to see Dark Matter, he wouldn't have made it so hard to see.



If God had wanted us to see him, he wouldn't hide behind a veil...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If God had wanted us to see him, he wouldn't hide behind a veil...



Then he would just be a weird dude. 

On a serious note, I have heard the argument, if you could see God, he wouldn't be a God. Makes sense but, he could still make the chocolate wave from Red Lobster magically appear on my desk and win a believer..<waiting>....nothing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Then he would just be a weird dude.
> 
> On a serious note, I have heard the argument, if you could see God, he wouldn't be a God. Makes sense but, he could still make the chocolate wave from Red Lobster magically appear on my desk and win a believer..<waiting>....nothing.



I don't understand how if God revealed himself to us it would somehow make him less of a God.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't understand how if God revealed himself to us it would somehow make him less of a God.



Me neither as long as he/she/it, did it in a very "god-like" manner. Don't just show up as a homeless guy and say, "Here I am." God would have to do something only God could do...not David Copperfield.

By reveal I mean you couldn't see him but, he would prove there was a God. (chocolate wave shows up)


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Me neither as long as he/she/it, did it in a very "god-like" manner. Don't just show up as a homeless guy and say, "Here I am." God would have to do something only God could do...not David Copperfield.
> 
> By reveal I mean you couldn't see him but, he would prove there was a God. (chocolate wave shows up)



A modern day miracle.  That's all it would take.  The Christian response to that is "Well, then you wouldn't need faith." or they will cite: John 20:29

New International Version (NIV)

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So I guess when they get to Heaven they can throw it in the faces of those who had seen Jesus.  "Nah, nah.  I didn't even SEE Jesus and I believed anyway.  I'm blessed."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A modern day miracle.  That's all it would take.  The Christian response to that is "Well, then you wouldn't need faith." or they will cite: John 20:29
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> ...



Ok, so if that's true, then why the burning bush? 

Why the Nile flowing red? 

Why the resurrection? 

What makes the ancients so much better/worse than we that they got to see miracles and we aren't? 

I know, I know, then they'll tell me that miracles happen all around us (babies farting, rainbows) and we are too stubborn to see them as such. 

Babies toot, and laugh, because of a gaseous expulsion caused by an involuntary muscle contraction. Where's the miracle?

Rainbows are just fortuitous angles of incidence with light from a certain observation point and refracted through moisture/precipitation in the atmosphere. A human can make a small rainbow with a garden hose on a summer day. Again, where is the, or any, miracle?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 21, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again, where is the, or any, miracle?



Lots of miracles of healing happen at churches around the world everyday. 
I could point you to some stories, but they would be Christian, and thus suspect to you I imagine. 

Perhaps, and just perhaps, you may be like those who even saw Jesus perform miracles and dismiss it as simply coincidence or luck or even the devil.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Lots of miracles of healing happen at churches around the world everyday.
> .



The proof is in the sauce. 

Like I've always said, I leave room for the _possibility_ of a miraculous curing, but yes, my logical mind would question it. 

First, what's an example, since you proclaim that they happen at churches around the world every day as a fact, of a miraculous healing? 

Second, what's wrong with questioning; other than there's very little objective proof to answer questions about God?

And that's not even getting into the fact of the discrepancy between the scale of the miracles in the Bible and those acts touted as miracles today that you didn't even begin to address.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 21, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The proof is in the sauce.
> 
> Like I've always said, I leave room for the _possibility_ of a miraculous curing, but yes, my logical mind would question it.
> 
> ...



Look into  Reinhard Bonnke's ministry.
Many healings-many healed who were given a "license to beg" because of their condition. 

I have a friend who absolutely was going to have his appendix-which bursted-taken out. He said he prayed in the hospital bed and felt better. The hospital did not want to release him, but he managed to sign the waivers and they let him go. That was 5 years ago. 

Can I prove to your mind these were miracles? No. 
But then again, many didn't believe in Jesus' day either.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Look into  Reinhard Bonnke's ministry.
> Many healings-many healed who were given a "license to beg" because of their condition.
> 
> I have a friend who absolutely was going to have his appendix-which bursted-taken out. He said he prayed in the hospital bed and felt better. The hospital did not want to release him, but he managed to sign the waivers and they let him go. That was 5 years ago.
> ...



Do you know what the Placebo effect is? 

Why not one burning bush?  One talking donkey?  Is that so hard?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't understand how if God revealed himself to us it would somehow make him less of a God.



John 3:12

 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Do you know what the Placebo effect is?



Exactly. The power of positive thinking. The mind is a powerful thing. 

Praying just means you don't approve of "God's" plan and wish to change it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> John 3:12
> 
> 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?



Presuming, of course, that he has spoken directly to me. 

Why do some get whispered to, as I'm sure you'll say I am, and some get a burning bush? 

Even further, what is the point of the mystery? Without the mystery we wouldn't need faith, right? Ok, so why doesn't God want everyone to know about him? If everyone is loved then why wouldn't God make his presence known to everyone without question, unless the point is that he doesn't love equally and actually desires some people to end up in Hades. It is ALL within his power to control, right? He created Lucifer, in the "flawed" state that he was, so there is at least some intent for him to end up the way he did, and thus some intent for those of us who don't believe to end up the way we will, if the story holds true. 

That's, precisely, why I am agnostic. I don't know the answers to these questions, and I don't know why God would create anyone evil, based on the premise of knowing us all before we are even born. It's not an oxymoron in the same vein of "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" If we are all created in God's image, and all things are predestined, or controlled, by God, then there is no justification for "evil" people or people being condemned to Hades. He can stop it, and KNOWS all of us and what we would respond to in order to accept his Lordship. Yet, he doesn't. 

Even if he set a plan into effect at the beginning and has had zero interaction with it, the way that fundamentalists preach, then why is there evil? The Devil, you say? Well God created Him, too, in just that manner, so he wanted the Devil here. Why? 

If this isn't all some test, or entirely a human construct to "explain"  things beyond their real reasoning capabilities, then why evil and why the devil; and as a corollary why no burning bush, if he KNOWS that's what it will take to make me believe. 

It makes no sense what so ever, if you follow logic rather than emotion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 22, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Look into  Reinhard Bonnke's ministry.
> Many healings-many healed who were given a "license to beg" because of their condition.
> 
> I have a friend who absolutely was going to have his appendix-which bursted-taken out. He said he prayed in the hospital bed and felt better. The hospital did not want to release him, but he managed to sign the waivers and they let him go. That was 5 years ago.
> ...


Don't be so hasty. 

If your friend is willing to make his case public, and I don't know why he wouldn't want to if it is proof of a miracle, then I would love to read it. 

I'd also like to see how he had 0 treatments of any kind, and had a completely healed appendix, or at least one that scarred over and kept from killing him. 

I used to be Catholic so forgive my use of their terms here, but has he contacted the Diocese to have this evaluated for miracle status? If not, does he realize how much impact such evidence would have on his church community and the world, at large?


----------

