Born of the Virgin on December 25th

[BoyntonStu]

What was there before there was time?

The Milky Way solar system is so large that it takes light 100,000 years to go from one end to the other. How can anyone assume that the Universe is less than 5,000 year old when confronted my this measured fact?

What created God?

stU

Hello Stu,

Stu wrote:
What was there before there was time?

The Milky Way solar system is so large that it takes light 100,000 years to go from one end to the other. How can anyone assume that the Universe is less than 5,000 year old when confronted my this measured fact?

What created God?

I like Hugh Ross's comment on the limitations imposed upon our comprehension of "time" by our own intellectial parameters:

Any discussion about God, time, and eternity is limited by inconsistent and incomplete definitions of time and temporality. These limitations arise from the fact that all humanity’s temporal experiences are confined to a single time dimension in which time can neither be stopped nor reversed. No mere human can get outside of our time dimension to objectively observe all its properties and, thus, arrive at a complete definition.

I agree with you that it is ridiculous to believe that the universe is only 5,000 years old - that is a literal interpretation of the Bible that is thoroughly contradicted by all evidence that human beings have discovered to the contrary.

What created God? God only knows! ;)
(sorry... couldn't resist) LOL

Personally, I doubt if "god" is an anthropomorphic "diety". I tend toward Ernest Holmes' concept of a supernatural (i.e. beyond nature as we know it), omnipresent and omniscient "Mind" that conceives of and maintains the astounding synchronicity behind the universe and the development of all life forms within it.

At www.reasons.org there is the following list of specific conditions that science has enumerated which MUST exist in order for life to have developed and continued to exist on Earth. They are each elaborated upon on the website... and although I personally believe that Dr. Hugh Ross twists himself into semantic knots in his attempt to validate Biblical scripture using these scientific discoveries, I do believe that the scientific discoveries themselves strongly indicate a supernatural Mind behind the universe and the existence and development of life within it (more like what Ernest Holmes professes).

2002 June Update
by Hugh Ross

© 2002 Reasons To Believe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy density of the universe
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Fine structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass of the neutrino
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of big bang ripples
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:

Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, “The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?” Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, “Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust,” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, “Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing,” Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, “A Supernova Brane Scan,” Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
P. deBernardis, et al, “Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology,” Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
A. T. Lee, et al, “A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data,” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
R. Stompor, et al, “Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement,” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
Andrew Watson, “Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up,” Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, “Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Lya Forest?” Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, “A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies,” Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
G. Efstathiou, et al, “Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, “Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, “ Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
Renyue Cen, “Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0205010 v1, 2 May 2002.

[BoyntonStu]

"the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible."

That is a belief. If you can understand what a billion years is, and project about what evolution can occur in millions of generations of DNA exposed to random gamma rays, why is it hard to conceptualize that the 'constants' were either evolutionary, transient, or that they were always there with no beginning?


It is all in the words. How we use them. How we define them.

divine?

seems?

incontrovertible?


stU

BTW:

Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or sometimes Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle passes through an insulator at a speed greater than that of light in the medium. The characteristic "blue glow" of nuclear reactors is due to Cherenkov radiation. It is named after Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner who was the first to rigorously characterize it.

"the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible."

That is a belief. Yes it is, I agree. If you can understand what a billion years is, and project about what evolution can occur in millions of generations of DNA exposed to random gamma rays, Many scientists have projected about what sort of evolution can/could have occurred over millions of generations, but no convincing explanation has yet been offered for the lack of transitional forms present on Earth. In other words, the species are fixed... and fixed far enough apart that they cannot be cross-bred and produce fertile offspring. Darwin himself pointed out that he did not understand why transitional forms were not present. why is it hard to conceptualize that the 'constants' were either evolutionary, transient, or that they were always there with no beginning? It's not hard to conceptualize anything... but it is difficult for me to believe that the convergence of circumstances necessary to produce life was merely coincidental, and also hard for me to believe that the variety of fixed species we see on our planet evolved by mere accident and coincidence. I am open-minded to any proof that becomes evident... whatever it proves. But athiesm is a "dogma" too, of a sort. One reason that I cannot accept organized religion is because it closes its mind based upon books written thousands of years ago and wants to exclude or demonize new information.

It is all in the words. How we use them. How we define them. Right - semantics.

divine? Perhaps "divine" is too religious a word. I like "supernatural"... but many things we once thought supernatural were later discovered to be quite natural indeed.

seems?

incontrovertible? Right... seems... appears to me to be incontrovertible at this time, because no other logical explanation yet exists. The athiests are always striving to prove that everything appeared by accident or a series of natural processes. The theory that all diversity of life appeared by a series of accidental mutations seems quite beyond belief to me, based on the lack of proof... but that's my own personal opinion ( and shared by a number of others).

There is ample evidence of similarity of design between various life forms on Earth, but no evidence of a gradual transition from one form to the next... either alive on Earth now, or in the fossil record. Similar life forms are still too genetically different from each other to have gradually developed one from the other. Scientists are still trying to find enough fossils to fill in the gaps. There is quite a bit of info about this on Hugh Ross's website, www.reasons.org

Steven J. Gould postulated his "punctuated equilibrium" theory in an attempt to explain this gap between fixed species, but that is just a theory... another "educated guess" with no actual substantiation.

When I attended a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship for awhile, I discussed this with a biology professor after one of the services. Gould postulated that sudden, spontaneous mutations had to have occurred which catapulted the individual offspring right out of the genetic species of its progenitors. OK... I said... then if a creature is suddenly born that is different enough from its parents that it could not breed with either its parents, or its siblings, or any other individuals from its former species to produce fertile offspring, how could it become the foundation of a new species? Where would it find a mate? Are we supposed to believe that the same "accident" that produced this genitically original individual would just happen to produce another such individual of the opposite sex, and in close enough proximity to mate with the other one in time to begin a new species? What are the chances of that being an accident?

The biology professor just looked at me and replied, "That's a good question!" (one thing I really liked about the UU fellowship was the open minded exchange of information and opinion... it was a breath of fresh air)

[BoyntonStu]

"...but no evidence of a gradual transition from one form to the next... either alive on Earth now..."

A transitional form of life is a bridge between species. I would not expect to find a sample of a very tiny population.

OTOH Are flying fish alive today transitional to fowl?

stU

A transitional form of life is a bridge between species. I would not expect to find a sample of a very tiny population.

But it doesn't seem possible for a tiny population to have existed long enough to create a bridge between one species and the next, given the incredible amount of time it would take for individuals from one species to gradually change into another. There should be many examples of graduated transitional forms... both now and in the fossil record.

It is not common (in fact, we have never observed this happening) for individual creatures to be born so different from their parents that they are actually on the way to becoming a new species. For example - a Chihuahua and a St Bernard are both dogs, and can actually breed live, fertile offspring (if somebody puts the male Chihuahua up to it.... the other way around would probably be fatal! ;) ) regardless of how different these two animals appear, they are genetically still dogs. Variations within a species don't count.

OTOH Are flying fish alive today transitional to fowl?

I wonder. If they are, there seem to be quite a few intermediate steps missing (not in evidence). Scientists currently believe that reptiles are the ancestors of birds because they've discovered fossil lizards with rudamentary feathers... but there is also the flying fish... so which led to which? We have no intermediates available to tell us for certain.

But could there be an unseen "intelligence" that intervenes periodically? Scientists find that new species suddenly appear in the fossil record at a particular era in history. How can that happen without intervention of some kind? We just don't understand it yet.

Read Algeny, by Jerimy Rifkin - fascinating book. He writes of an experiment in which scientists scrambled up the cells of developing embryos just after they began to organize themselves into the masses that would become the head, spinal column, legs, etc., and the cells managed to alter themselves and reorganize again (without relocating) and develop correctly! Amazing! This could indicate that it is not the information within each cel itself that tells it what part of the developing fetus to become, but some kind of invisible 3 dimensional "map" to which the cels conform.

What "intelligence" is responsible for that invisible information... that "map", and how? Does it spring from the newly combined DNA contained in the xygote? It exists in a form or in a dimension that we cannot perceive with our ordinary senses... but we've discovered that it must be there.

Hmmmm. So if an offspring is suddenly born that is so different from its ancestors that it actually leads to a new species... who or what changed the invisible "map"??? And who or what made sure that two individuals of opposite sexes were born close enough to each other that they could actually procreate and begin the new species??? Could that really have been just an accident? I find "accidental beneficial mutation" much more difficult to believe than the idea that some kind of amazing and (as yet) unfathomable intelligence is actually behind the design of the universe and everything in it. There is just too much that has to be synchronized too perfectly for this all to be a collection of "accidents". In fact, I believe that this intelligence manifests itself as everything in the universe and permeates everything in the universe.

When we receive "guidance" or "leadings" or "hunches" from "somewhere out there" I think we are attuned to that universal Mind and are receiving information through our superconscious mind (not subconscious... superconscious). I believe that so-called psychic experiences are just clear connections facilitated by interconnecting with that Mind. The more closely I know and relate to someone, the more we experience psychic connections - reading each other's minds, knowing what the other person is about to say, knowing when the phone will ring and who is calling, etc. Most of us have had some such unexplainable experiences. It seems to be a matter of being tuned in... and the more we simply welcome it and allow it without trying to force it, the better it works. Being skeptical actually seems to block this ability. Have you ever received guidance from "nowhere"? I have, many times... and the more I trust it, the more it happens for me.

Read The Afterlife Experiments, by Gary Schwartz, PHD. He and his staff conducted well-documented double-blind experiments at the University of AZ using some famous "mediums" like John Edward and Laurie Anderson. The results may surprise you.

When we aren't too bound up in dogma (either religious dogma or athiest dogma), we are more open to new discoveries.

More good reading: Ageless Body Timeless Mind, by Deepak Chopra

[wisper]

A couple of other great books are Howard Bloom's, LUCIPHER PRINCIPLE &THE GLOBAL BRAIN !

Howard spends a few chapters in each discussing memes and proves with the help of many PHDs in many disciplines that memes do not require spoken words.
A few years ago, I was reading a lot ;Bloom, Julian Janes and Carl Sagan at the same time, what a rush, there just weren't enough hours in the day and night!

In Howard's LUCIPHER PRINCIPLE he starts his earth chronology 40 million years ago and after 20 mill to 30 mill. years he describes the molecular, all the way from germs to humans. He talks early in the process of transitions, but what is interesting is, all of a sudden, the clam! The other interesting thing to me was the comparison of the descriptions of what was taking place from about 40 thousand B.C. up through about 4000 B.C. Janes walks us through the bicameral mind history up to the discovery of consciousness, about 3000 B.C.
Till man gained consciousness it was a world of humans hearing voices in their heads (schitzophrenic), but in those earliest days, the witch doctors got some muscle to support them and it became the law that only the witch doctor heard the voice of god.
Carl Sagan is totally convincing with his numbers and scientific theories of the Billions and billions of galaxies, some on the same timescale, and the reality that many were galaxies millions of years further down the path than earth, if you can simply think of time as a linear concept.

[redeemed2]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

"...but no evidence of a gradual transition from one form to the next... either alive on Earth now..."

A transitional form of life is a bridge between species. I would not expect to find a sample of a very tiny population.

OTOH Are flying fish alive today transitional to fowl?

stU

What people leave out is the transitional form is FATAL. What good is a half functioning eye? Or a half developed intestine? All the systems that work together to support life have to be fully functional in order to work, especially in the "survival of the fittest" world that evolutionist believe in....

[BoyntonStu]

[quote=redeemed2]What people leave out is the transitional form is FATAL. QUOTE]


That statement is an opinion. What are the facts upon which this opinion is based?


stU

[RickA]

That statement is an opinion. What are the facts upon which this opinion is based?

Well, lets see. Take one of your eyes and maim it. After that, just sit back and watch it heal.

I wouldn't suggest that you try this on an intestine. Could get pretty scary.

Just think, you could be the one to prove it wrong. Look at all the accolades.