Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

[Mark C]

Here's a thought for you: UFO/UAP are being taken seriously lately. What if it turns out that aliens are real? Does that disprove God? Not to me.

Nor does it mean "they" (the waste-stream media) aren't still going to lie.

Are they Star Trek "aliens"? Or something Fallen? And what if (when, I suggest) they say that "they" were our real creators, and engineered our DNA, raising us up?

"Proof" is more difficult than it might seem.

 

[MeganC]

Nor does it mean "they" (the waste-stream media) aren't still going to lie.

Are they Star Trek "aliens"? Or something Fallen? And what if (when, I suggest) they say that "they" were our real creators, and engineered our DNA, raising us up?

"Proof" is more difficult than it might seem.

Disproof is also more difficult than it seems.

Curious, how would you feel if aliens show up and start talking about God?

 

[MeganC]

It takes zero faith for self organisation to happen.

It happens between humans as discovered by proper economic and in natural science as fractal. Both live and unlive things show as fractals.

By itself universe and things itside have structure.

I would argue that what you see as "self organisation" is not an accident. There are way too many instances of such things for them to be random.

 

[FollowingHim]

Curious, how would you feel if aliens show up and start talking about God?

Can you clarify what you mean by talking about God? Give a hypothetical example of what they are saying. Because how people felt about it would depend a lot on that.

 

[Mark C]

Curious, how would you feel if aliens show up and start talking about God?

"Even the demons believe, and tremble."

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Some folks have latched onto the Young Earth theory and that's fine by me so long as they come up with evidence that passes scientific muster to back it up. Referring to passages in Genesis to back up a Biblical claim is circular logic, which is not logic at all.

Genesis can be used to reinforce the tenets, but it is somewhat weak logic to say that we believe the Bible is true because of five pillars, when one of the pillars is that it is verified by science, if in fact it is not.

This line of discussion will only play well with those specific believers who believe this way anyhow.

I do not expect anyone to agree with me on my views. Most people don't. But, I can explain my views and back them up with references that are not of a religious origin. I can also argue some Biblical claims from a rational viewpoint such that non-believers are sometimes swayed just a little.

I would be curious to discuss your views on how the GC was formed. There are a lot of theories, but they do have issues that could be discussed in this forum. We have discussed perceived weaknesses of HPT, which turn out not to be so weak after all. We ought to compare them against other theories to see how they all shake out.

Keep in mind I came to God and Jesus as a purely secular non-believer. I was born and raised into a secular and rational world and after some life experience I came to realize that God and Jesus are real in my life. It was a rational conclusion that followed years of experience and personal observation.

Now that I know God and Jesus are real in my life am I to give up the same sense of reason that brought me to my understanding? Of course not. For me, and I emphasize this... for me to reject reason would be to reject God and Jesus and the truth they are to me.

Please also take note that while I disagree with Daniel's assertions in favor of hydroplate theory & etc. I still hold Daniel in high esteem. I envy him his faith. I am not capable of the level of faith he expresses and even if I disagree with his views on the details he's totally nailed the important part.

I am a bit more of a Doubting Thomas than you might believe, which is the main reason why I hold HPT and C-Decay in such high regard.

A discussion I am having in fellowship right now and that is pissing off one of our men is about Matthew 3:11

"...He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals...."

In particular when I first heard this in discussion on the 16th it struck me what John the Baptist was truly saying here when he spoke of Jesus's sandals:

"I am unfit to remove Jesus' unclean sandals."

In our time it is lost to us just how filthy sandals were in John's time. City streets of the time were covered in human and animal excrement and to touch someone else's turd-covered sandals was to become ritually unclean.

This one gentleman is pissed off at me because I said that something of Jesus' was unclean and he refuses to accept that John said it and not me. I am the one at fault for observing this. At the time this hit me I was impressed with what John was saying. This is really one of those Biblical metaphors I sometimes obsess over and one whose meaning has been lost to us in our time.

It is a detail like this that gives the Bible texture and it impresses upon me just how much Jesus had been made a man and it also impressed me to no end that John recognized his cousin as the prophesied Messiah. The guy with shit on his feet was the Son of the Living God.

Very impressive if you ask me.

I am now rambling.

Back on track here I am not ruling out the hydroplate theory in whole or in part. Just saying that so far I am finding nothing to support it outside of the people who adhere to it.

Yeah, we don't want to hijack this thread. We love you Megan.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

A really good example of this is radioisotope dating. When you actually consider the methods used, radioisotope dating generally tells you the maximum age of an object, not the actual age, because a lot of assumptions need to be made about how to do the calculations and many assumptions are possible that render younger ages.

I would highly encourage you to read what Walt Brown said about Bremsstrahlung radiation, and Fritz Bosch's 1999 Rhenium Beta decay experiment, and Barker's patent for Alpha decay.

For a really simple example, take Uranium - Lead dating. Uranium decays over time to lead. If you measure the uranium content of a sample, and the lead content, and assume that all that lead has come from uranium decay, you can work out how long it would have taken to produce that amount of lead. But that's only assuming all the lead came from uranium. If there was any lead at all in the sample when it was first laid down, then the actual age will be less than this. The age calculated is the maximum possible assuming the extreme (and unlikely) situation of having a starting sample that was completely lead-free. Any other assumption gives you a younger age.

It could have come from other isotopes of other materials formed by the Z-pinch, yes.

All the younger assumptions are rejected. Why? Because the researchers already think that they know the sample is very old. Any assumption that does not give that answer is automatically rejected as wrong, and the one that best fits their presuppositions is considered the right one.

Conclusion first, then research to fill in the details.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

There are simply too many coincidences in our universe for there not to be a Designer.

Stars and planets organize themselves into solar systems. Some of those planets end up in orbits that are conducive to life.

The complexity of polynucleotides to form out of nucleotides which are formed from cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine whose particular molecular bonds are dictated by physics to occur in set patterns speaks to the existence of a Programmer all the same as the computer I am writing on right now speaks to a myriad of designers and programmers. Maybe even more so since the laws that ordered the nucleotides are inherently and inseparably part of the very fabric of our universe.

It takes a huge statement of faith to believe that so many things (stars, planets, DNA, life, us) were an accident. It takes less faith to believe my computer arose organically and that fairies delivered it to my home. My computer being far less complex than the components that make up DNA.

And an eternal or old universe no more disproves God than did these discoveries:

1. That the earth is not the center of the universe.
2. That the sky is not a solid object, a firmament.
3. That the moon is not perfect.
4. That microbes exist.
5. That illnesses are not all caused by demonic possession or demonic oppression.
6. That atoms exist.
7. That atoms are composed of even smaller particles.
8. That man can fly.
9. That space flight is possible.
10. The world is round.
11. That stars are not lights from heaven.

etc.

Despite the bleatings of HERESY!! from so many narrow minded clerics and narrow minded people these facts were eventually accepted and did any of this disprove God? Not at all.

Perhaps your experience is that everyone you know who doesn't cleave to a Young Earth theory denies the existence of God.

It really shouldn't matter how old the earth is so far as our acceptance of God goes.

If the world is fifteen billion years old then how does this disprove God? It doesn't.

Here's a thought for you: UFO/UAP are being taken seriously lately. What if it turns out that aliens are real? Does that disprove God? Not to me.

It'll just mean new people to discuss the Glory of God with is all.

Well obviously @FollowingHim was not trying to argue that there is no god. He was making the point that we need to judge with equal scales, and this whole preconceived notion of one way or the other, is fair to judge, but not without treating the other position with the same consideration.

 

[NBTX11]

Disproof is also more difficult than it seems.

Curious, how would you feel if aliens show up and start talking about God?

Angels can take the form of humans. Why can't demons take the form of "aliens" and other creatures.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

It would more rely on work by Stephan Wolfam. I haven't followed his and associates reserch last year, horewer they were able inside year to get result from both quanthum mechanics theory and theory of relativity. Including what both theories predict and are experimentaly observed.

I m not familiar with his work, but I will say that anything that relies on SR, I find higly dubious.

What is even more impressive their theory also includes computing.

That is not as impressive as you might think.

Unless HPT can do both observations of both quantum mechanism and relativity, it's second grade candidate. Sorry.

For that, you need to look at C-Decay. HPT can explain the radiocarbon dates that you were inquiring about. When you want to get into the weeds with regard to Quantum theory, both Setterfield and Fleming will open your mind. The reason Einstein dogmatically held to SR and GR, is because he denied the existence of the Ether. That is why Nikota Tesla slammed Einstein's work. Now we know about the ZPE, we should discard Einstein. e = mc² was plagerized.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Angels can take the form of humans. Why can't demons take the form of "aliens" and other creatures.

Woah! Now we are getting into Chuck Missler territory!

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Disproof is also more difficult than it seems.

Curious, how would you feel if aliens show up and start talking about God?

It seems all the talk about aliens started, when we started contemplating going into space. First it was Venetians, until we realized that wasn't feasible. Then it was martians, until that turned out to be not very likely. Then it was from some distant galaxy. Call me an alien denier. I do however believe in spiritual beings, so technically those could be considered aliens, but perhaps from a different dimension, or the explanation I personally thought of, is the antiverse, which we commonly refer to as the "spiritual realm".

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

An eternal universe squares with an eternal God Who was and is and will be forevermore. To me this is yet another instance of science unintentionally validating Scripture.

Originally this was an atheist view, that the Universe was eternal, until the realization from observation of the Universe, was that this was "not possible". Scripture does indicate that God stretched out the heavens, but one thing we do know, is that the Universe is NOT eternal, because God says that heaven and earth will pass away. God will abide forever.

 

[FollowingHim]

All cultures have had a belief in strange beings coming from outside our normal experience. A couple of hundred years ago they were fairies, goblins and so forth - and people swore that they had actually seen them. Nobody claimed to see aliens. Today for some reason nobody sees goblins any more, but plenty say they have seen aliens. In another century it may be something else that is popular. It's all different manifestations of the same phenomenon, the name just changes over time.

And that phenomenon is either fake (people in all ages imagine similar delusional stuff), or real (these beings appear in all ages and are called demons / goblins / fairies / aliens depending on the cultural assumptions of the person viewing them). Pick which option you find most plausible.

 

[MeganC]

Can you clarify what you mean by talking about God? Give a hypothetical example of what they are saying. Because how people felt about it would depend a lot on that.

You posted a cartoon about aliens coming to earth and talking about Jesus. I'd say that one is a very good example.

 

[MeganC]

Originally this was an atheist view, that the Universe was eternal, until the realization from observation of the Universe, was that this was "not possible". Scripture does indicate that God stretched out the heavens, but one thing we do know, is that the Universe is NOT eternal, because God says that heaven and earth will pass away. God will abide forever.

Where does God abide forever if the universe is not eternal?

 

[FollowingHim]

You posted a cartoon about aliens coming to earth and talking about Jesus. I'd say that one is a very good example.

I would think that if they turned up and started talking like that, I'd pay attention and have some very careful thinking to do. But I think that's the least likely possibility for aliens turning up and talking about God.

On the other hand, if they turned up and said "we are God" - no, we're being scammed, they're demons.

 

[MemeFan]

Where does God abide forever if the universe is not eternal?

Outside universe. You are assuming all that exists is inside this universe.

 

[MemeFan]

I m not familiar with his work, but I will say that anything that relies on SR, I find higly dubious.

What is SR?

That is not as impressive as you might think.

It's way more than you think.

Because he start with computing itself. There is special type of math enables creation of space and which behaves as per known laws of physics.

In another words, we starts with pure math (ones Turing machine is capable of doing) and deduces physical laws.

He doesn't observations and here is my theory fitting existing data.

For that, you need to look at C-Decay. HPT can explain the radiocarbon dates that you were inquiring about. When you want to get into the weeds with regard to Quantum theory, both Setterfield and Fleming will open your mind. The reason Einstein dogmatically held to SR and GR, is because he denied the existence of the Ether. That is why Nikota Tesla slammed Einstein's work. Now we know about the ZPE, we should discard Einstein. e = mc² was plagerized.

Zero interest why carbon dating on Earth is wrong. What about carbon dating for whole universe?

We do have rocks from outside planet arriving on Earth after flood. Why they are wrongly dated?

This is problematic for HPT. Is starts with flood, rather than general laws.

 

[MemeFan]

I would argue that what you see as "self organisation" is not an accident. There are way too many instances of such things for them to be random.

Even chaos has structure.

Everything has structure.