0

>> Evil is present throughout the whole world.
Plus Dark matter/energy sounds more sinister :) Could be both?

Yeah lol. But I think the reason why they call it dark is because we can't see it.

0

>> But I think the reason why they call it dark is because we can't see it.
I know. Was kidding. Still. Did your pastor suggest anything when he gave the sermon about it?

0

>> But I think the reason why they call it dark is because we can't see it.
I know. Was kidding. Still. Did your pastor suggest anything when he gave the sermon about it?

Well the sermon was basically about faith, so no he didn't mention anything about evil. But he always talks about how there's evil everywhere and that Christians should watch.

0

It fascinates me that a pastor would talk about black matter :) Yeah. I'm a nerd :P

Yea, I know. Either he was very educated, or he was just hoping that yall didn't know what he was talking about. Most of the pastors/ youth leaders that I know of are not very educated.. just college kids who took some bull courses and were avg. students.

0

>> Lol its funny how men of God always seem to be/use to be heavy drinkers
Or drug abusers. I don't think that it's that men of God are drinkers but that they're probably the ones who have the more interesting story so they're the ones we hear about.

Now, it's even funnier how heavy drinkers always seem to be/use dark matter/energy :P

1

I think it's because they know what a change or difference it made in their lives once they found God. They've gone through things I'll never experience. They serve God more than anyone else because they've lived both ways and I guess they just came to realize which one was better.

Votes + Comments
Good Post
0

I think it's because they know what a change or difference it made in their lives once they found God. They've gone through things I'll never experience. They serve God more than anyone else because they've lived both ways and I guess they just came to realize which one was better.

And what about the Christians turned atheist? They've experienced both too.. They truly realize which way is right.

0

And I didn't say that they found which way was right, they just found a better way to live. A purpose, a life, a hope.

0

this is interesting to say the least
personally i think it is matters opposite but in it's self the forces are unbalanced so it doesnt make since

also if it were a presence(dont get me wrong here)wouldnt it contradict the fact god is supreme and resides above us. he doesnt exist on this plane of existence in my mind.

antimatter could also be the side effect of energy made during collisions thus m-theory

0

My $0.06 worth:

Antimatter is a known substance. It's the best known opposite to normal matter so far, and some small quantities of it have been developed under careful lab conditions.

'Antimatter' is a generic term for anything made up of the basic 'anti-particles'; subatomic particles with the same mass, but opposite internal charges, as normal matter. The most commonly-heard of antiparticle is the positron, a positively charged particle with the same qualities as an electron. (Except for the charge, of course.)

When a normal electron and a positron come into contact, the two anihilate one another. All that's left is radiant energy and a pair of photons. I haven't read on heavier particle/antiparticle reactions, but I presume something similar would occur with heavy particle reactions. (I'm still trying to figure out what the 'opposite charge' to an electrically neutral particle [neutron] would be. My best guess would be that, since neutrons seem to be proton-electron combinations [see beta decay, for example], the end result is that an antineutron would be a similar combination of antiproton/positron.)

Given that the two substances destroy each other on contact, I'd be quite willing to bet that 'dark' matter isn't antimatter, if only because the universe isn't made up of only one of them.

Also, in a semi-on-topic point, please take a look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047871/


@JoshSCH:
Regarding your contention of Christians becoming atheists, please provide some evidence of this. I'd like evidence of actual Christians doing so, not merely those whose religion or faith was based on their church, or their minister, or their families and friends. Those aren't Christians; they're part of a subset I've heard called 'Churchians'. (Faith in and relationship with the local church, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ.) The scriptures plainly state that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is one.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

0

My $0.06 worth:
@JoshSCH:
Regarding your contention of Christians becoming atheists, please provide some evidence of this. I'd like evidence of actual Christians doing so, not merely those whose religion or faith was based on their church, or their minister, or their families and friends. Those aren't Christians; they're part of a subset I've heard called 'Churchians'. (Faith in and relationship with the local church, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ.) The scriptures plainly state that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is one.

The best example I can give is myself. Born and raised Catholic, I was certainly no "churchian". I went to church every Sunday, practiced my faith regularly, received all my sacraments, was an altar boy, went to CCE classes, went to CYO classes, became a lector, became a Eucharistic minister. I went to a private school when I was young, and I learned a lot about the bible.. memorized the books, most important verses, etc.. I had even argued Christianity against an atheist I met at a church camp once..

However, beginning around 8th-9th grade.. I began to question my faith, if for no other reason, because of science and logic that I thought undeniable. I thought about it very frequently (still do), and I soon became agnostic.. After more in depth thinking and eventually tons of research.. I became an atheist a couple years ago. I am very confident in my decision, but I am open minded to anything..

0

I am very confident in my decision, but I am open minded to anything..

Do you think you will continue with atheism until death?

0

Christians also claim that it is God in the presence of everything science can explain.

Antimatter is a lot different than what is being explained in this thread. This is the first I've heard of dark matter and from what has been explained so far, it definitely isn't antimatter. I know a lot about antimatter, so I could explain what I know in a nutshell or maybe I should probably start a new thread on it.

0

Christians also claim that it is God in the presence of everything science can explain.

Antimatter is a lot different than what is being explained in this thread. This is the first I've heard of dark matter and from what has been explained so far, it definitely isn't antimatter. I know a lot about antimatter, so I could explain what I know in a nutshell or maybe I should probably start a new thread on it.

Do you mean to start another GOD thread?. Please no. We are not
let HIM to rest.

0

No, I don't want to start another one of those. But Josh said that Christians always try to use God as an explanation for things science can't explain and I wanted to clarify that they use God as an explanation for more than just the unexplained.

0

Do you think you will continue with atheism until death?

It depends.. I may grow old and insecure, and need religion to feel better about myself. It all depends on what happens in my life..

No, I don't want to start another one of those. But Josh said that Christians always try to use God as an explanation for things science can't explain and I wanted to clarify that they use God as an explanation for more than just the unexplained.

You mean like the theory that God created science? Yes, I know many Christians believe science is the product of God's will.. and things like evolution are also..

0

And yet there are also christians who believe that the remnants of dinosaurs were simply put on earth by God to test our faith. However its all Rubbish. Infact this is a perfect example of a theory produced by man/christians based upon a time frame that Man has produced as an estimate of how old the earth is based on the bible. Its almost the same rubbish as christians thinking that men have 1 less Rib then females. Which i was taught in primary school as scientific Fact. When really its not that hard to prove this is wrong yourself. Really i think this is the biggest problem when it comes to most christians and that is they tend to believe the things they are told by other christians and never really look into it for themself. Which is where alot of these inconsistancies come from.

Personally i thing God Created the universe and everything in it and the way the things in it work and act. However i do not think that evolution is really a part of that.

0

Then what would you call evolution? Satan's plan to deceive you? lol...

An inaccurate attempt to explain the creation of various forms of life without having to require the intervention of a creator.

Evolution requires that random chance be capable of producing nonrandom results. Well, theoretically, I suppose that's possible, but it'd take more time than even the multi-billion year presumed life of the universe. (Note: I say presumed only because it's not something I've been around for the full length of...make of that what you will.)

On the actual evidence, evolution falls down.

Miller-Urey experiment: False idea of original atmosphere, incomplete and inaccurate list of reduction byproducts even within said atmosphere.

Modified Miller-Urey: Accurate atmosphere tends to generate substances bearing more resemblance to Formaldehyde than to any normal biological substance.

Darwinian Evolutionary Tree: Uprooted by Cambrian Explosion.

Fun with Fruit Flies: Best 'mutation' recorded in labs appears to produce flies with extra wings; said mutation is actually three separate mutations which must be carefully maintained within the lab, and the 'extra' wings replace useful organs called halteres with nonfunctioning pseudowings.

English Speckled Moth test: No new species were created; both subsets of moth (normal and melanic) existed beforehand and afterwards; supposed tests of bird-sighting ability against light/dark bark worthless, as the moths' natural resting spot is the underside of branches, not the trunk. Many of the photos of this shown in textbooks are in fact faked, with biologists afixing dead moths to the trees to create what they think is a nature-mimicing scene.

Archaeopteryx: First bird appears in the fossil record several million years before the 'best' possible ancestor appears.

Darwin's Finches: Studies during a drought showed that the large-billed variant of finch became more prominent during the dry period, and small-billed variant less prominent. Extrapolation by researchers indicated that 'with a drought every twenty years, a new species could emerge within as little as two hundred.' False extrapolation; during the next, normally rainy, year, balance of large-billed/small-billed went back to normal. Also, evidence appears to point to reduction of species through hybridization, rather than differentiation between species.

0

Ok, firs of all, evolution takes a long time.. Evolution is a theory, yes. But It has pretty much been proven, and the entire science community would tell you that they agree with evolution. Every single test ever performed that tested evolution has resulted in the theory being upheld. Face the facts, evolution is true.. so stop trying to find some obscure reason to disagree with..

Human and primeape dna is something like 98% similar.. They are very similar to us, and sometimes can look a lot like us.

Microevolution is true, and has been proven on a day-to-day basis.. Look at the human population.. some people develop new traits all the time.. most die at birth, but still. The easiest way to view microevolution is through bacteria/viruses. More specifically, hiv. It reproduces at a very fast rate, and has built immunities to almost all of our drugs.. why? Because eventually one of the virus strands has adapted and contains the drug immunity. This is evolution on a very small scale.

Many people, specifically christians, believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.. this is absolutely ridiculous. They go hand-in-hand. There is plenty of information of macroevolution as well if only you would open your eyes to the possibilities. Archaeologists have found a species of human in between ape and homo sapiens (I forget their scientific name, but I believe one is known as lucy). Not just this, but species of plants and other animals have been discovered with remarkable similarities.. Darwin's venture through the galapagos island showed how birds could migrate from island to island.. develop small, unique traits.. and then eventually evolve into a whole new species..

Evolution is fact. If you disagree, then I suggest you do some more reading and research.

0

Ok, firs of all, evolution takes a long time.. Evolution is a theory, yes. But It has pretty much been proven, and the entire science community would tell you that they agree with evolution. Every single test ever performed that tested evolution has resulted in the theory being upheld. Face the facts, evolution is true.. so stop trying to find some obscure reason to disagree with..

If it takes so long for it to happen, then how can it be rigorously tested?

Not to mention the fact that the main reason most of the scientific community would tell you they agree with evolution is because, in America at least, you tend to lose your funding if you don't agree.

Human and primeape dna is something like 98% similar.. They are very similar to us, and sometimes can look a lot like us.

Okay, several things with that:

1. 'Primeape' is the name of a creature in the pokemon games; unless you're indicating that you are, in fact, an Artificial Intelligence capable of passing the Turing test, I doubt you have much dna in common with them. I'm assuming here that you meant 'primate', although the number you cited is more commonly used specifically to reference chimpanzees, if I recall correctly.

2. Even so, so what? I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that humans and dandelions share about 68% of their dna. For a dna strand of any given length, considering that there are only four nucleotides to it, [or five if you count the Uracil of RNA], there will be a great deal of similarity between most living things; most of the possible combinations of Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine, and Thymine are lethal to the developing organism.

Microevolution is true, and has been proven on a day-to-day basis.. Look at the human population.. some people develop new traits all the time.. most die at birth, but still. The easiest way to view microevolution is through bacteria/viruses. More specifically, hiv. It reproduces at a very fast rate, and has built immunities to almost all of our drugs.. why? Because eventually one of the virus strands has adapted and contains the drug immunity. This is evolution on a very small scale.

Microadaptation is not really evolution; a trait present in some, but not all, of the population, becomes more common as those without it are rendered less fit to survive in a new environment.

And I find it interesting that your best example is HIV, which, as a virus, may not qualify as a living organism; virii have an RNA genome rather than the DNA genome of ordinary living things.

Many people, specifically christians, believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.. this is absolutely ridiculous. They go hand-in-hand. There is plenty of information of macroevolution as well if only you would open your eyes to the possibilities. Archaeologists have found a species of human in between ape and homo sapiens (I forget their scientific name, but I believe one is known as lucy). Not just this, but species of plants and other animals have been discovered with remarkable similarities.. Darwin's venture through the galapagos island showed how birds could migrate from island to island.. develop small, unique traits.. and then eventually evolve into a whole new species..

Okay, now I'm a bit curious. Did you even read my arguments? The evidence on the Galapagos finches garnered by researchers within the past few decades indicates that, beyond cyclic changes caused by, and alleviated by, weather patterns, the finches are fairly steady, not evolving, and that those changes that do appear look to be the result of hybridization between multiple sets.

As to the rest, most of the proposed species between ape and man are the results of small fossil finds; I recall one famous (or more properly infamous) case where a single tooth was used to give the basis of an entire new subspecies of mankind...the tooth later turned out to be from an extinct, but known, species of pig. From what I've read on the topic, the entire current set of known fossil remains of 'proto-man' would fit into a box about 6x6x3. I'm not sure how much information you can get off of that.

Evolution is fact. If you disagree, then I suggest you do some more reading and research.

I have done the reading, I have done some research. And what I've found leads me to believe that the evolutionary hypothesis does not stand up to the test of the evidence.

0

If it takes so long for it to happen, then how can it be rigorously tested?

Microevolution can, and has been tested,

Not to mention the fact that the main reason most of the scientific community would tell you they agree with evolution is because, in America at least, you tend to lose your funding if you don't agree.

haha.. are you telling me that the entire American scientific community is receiving funds for testing evolution? lol.. only a small fraction of the scientific community is actively involved in research and evolution testing.. All the other scientists, many of which have been to graduate school, back evolution completely.


1. 'Primeape' is the name of a creature in the pokemon games; unless you're indicating that you are, in fact, an Artificial Intelligence capable of passing the Turing test, I doubt you have much dna in common with them. I'm assuming here that you meant 'primate', although the number you cited is more commonly used specifically to reference chimpanzees, if I recall correctly.

haha.. you got me there.. I was trying to recall from memory, and was obviously mistaken by the spelling and species.

2. Even so, so what? I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that humans and dandelions share about 68% of their dna. For a dna strand of any given length, considering that there are only four nucleotides to it, [or five if you count the Uracil of RNA], there will be a great deal of similarity between most living things; most of the possible combinations of Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine, and Thymine are lethal to the developing organism.

You obviously don't know how many different combinations that the four nucleotides can create within any given chromosome.. and given the fact that species have different numbers of chromosomes each of which have different traits that are programmed very differently through dna. I highly doubt that human and dandelion dna is 68% related.. prove me wrong.

Microadaptation is not really evolution; a trait present in some, but not all, of the population, becomes more common as those without it are rendered less fit to survive in a new environment.

Survival of the fittest and adaptation is a huge factor in evolution.

And I find it interesting that your best example is HIV, which, as a virus, may not qualify as a living organism; virii have an RNA genome rather than the DNA genome of ordinary living things.

That example was just to prove my point about evolution.. I don't know of any living thing that is capable of reproducing as fast as hiv, and thus have known adaptations found in our lifetime.

Okay, now I'm a bit curious. Did you even read my arguments? The evidence on the Galapagos finches garnered by researchers within the past few decades indicates that, beyond cyclic changes caused by, and alleviated by, weather patterns, the finches are fairly steady, not evolving, and that those changes that do appear look to be the result of hybridization between multiple sets.

The same is true for humans. What is your point? Just because a species is not prone to evolution now, doesn't mean it never has been or never will..

As to the rest, most of the proposed species between ape and man are the results of small fossil finds; I recall one famous (or more properly infamous) case where a single tooth was used to give the basis of an entire new subspecies of mankind...the tooth later turned out to be from an extinct, but known, species of pig. From what I've read on the topic, the entire current set of known fossil remains of 'proto-man' would fit into a box about 6x6x3. I'm not sure how much information you can get off of that.

? We have discovered entire skeletons of semi-human remains..

I have done the reading, I have done some research. And what I've found leads me to believe that the evolutionary hypothesis does not stand up to the test of the evidence.

haha.. I see no evidence in either of your posts.. no links to data whatsoever.. There is tons of evidence for evolution, and I suggest you search for it instead of some christian site proclaiming bogus information relating to evolution and science alike. Evidence seems to be against you..

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.