User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
The orgin of the universe

I have two questions that i would like to see an atheist point of view on. 1. If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist, How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy, that the universe is constantly expanding? Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"? and 2. The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form? Also how did this energy condense in this incredible form of order as all energy observed today continues to go to disorder. Science has yet to show how one can take random disordered energy and make it ordered again. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Jon,

I'm not a cosmologist, so take what I say as a pointer to go explore further.

It's my understanding that space itself is expanding (and not that matter has exploded into a pre-existing space). The cause is not known, but the hunt is on for a repulsive force that would cause it. Look up "dark matter" and "dark energy" for the current thinking on the subject. More experimentation is needed to figure out what's really going on.

As for the sum of the energy in the universe, be aware that pulling apart all the matter in the universe to scatter the stars across the universe actually counts as negative energy. If gravity (only) were allowed to work, that energy would be recovered as everything would collapse. It is my understanding that the sum of the energy is zero, which includes the positive energy of all the matter, heat, etc, and the negative energy of the gravitational potential energy of the stars that I just described.

All that said, it's not a violation of the accounting of energy that the universe exists. It does still leave the question of how it was caused to be. Some of the greatest minds are working on that important question.

QUOTE: "1. If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist, How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy, that the universe is constantly expanding? Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"?"

The Universe is "everything that was, is, and will be". 1929 an astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovery in every direction he looked, every galaxy in the sky was moving away from us. The nearby ones were moving relatively slowly, but the farther away a galaxy was the faster it was moving away from us. What is meant by expansion is being stretched out, causing the distances between the galaxies to increase. In this sense, the Universe is similar to the surface of a balloon. If you inflate a balloon, then its surface area increases but there is no particular point on the balloon that is "the" center of the expansion. In fact, the center of the expansion is not on the balloon at all, but inside the balloon.

QUOTE: "2. The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form? Also how did this energy condense in this incredible form of order as all energy observed today continues to go to disorder. Science has yet to show how one can take random disordered energy and make it ordered again."

ENERGY ANSWER: Free energy, the ability to do work, is the most universal currency known in the natural sciences. In an expanding, non-equilibrated Universe, it is free energy that drives order from disorder, from big bang to humankind, in good accord with the second law of thermodynamics and leading to the production of entropy. On all scales, from galaxies and stars to planets and life, the rise of complexity over the course of natural history can be uniformly quantified by analyzing the normalized flow of energy through open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems.

SINGULARITY ANSWER: Einstein's relativity fails to explain the very birth of the universe: In 2000, Martin Bojowald, and Abhay Ashtekar at the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, used loop quantum gravity to create a simple model of the universe. Physicists have known about LQC since 2003 about the theory (Big Bounce) that our universe could conceivably have emerged from the collapse of a previous universe. Now the theory is poised to make predictions we can actually test. If they are verified, the big bang will give way to a big bounce and we will finally know the quantum structure of space-time. Instead of a universe that emerged from a point of infinite density, we will have one that recycles, possibly through an eternal series of expansions and contractions, with no beginning and no end.

LQC is in fact the first tangible application of another theory called loop quantum gravity, which combines Einstein's theory of gravity with quantum mechanics. We need theories like this to work out what happens when microscopic volumes experience an extreme gravitational force, as happened near the big bang (equations of general relativity in a quantum-mechanical framework) to show that the fabric of space-time is woven from loops of gravitational field lines. And unlike general relativity, the physics of LQC did not break down at the big bang. A problem for Cosmologists was the singularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the temperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with such infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the big bang.

When they ran time backwards, instead of becoming infinitely dense at the big bang, the universe stopped collapsing and reversed direction. The big bang singularity had truly disappeared. The universe according to LQC agreed brilliantly with general relativity when expansion was well advanced, while still eliminating the singularity at the big bang.

To Linda: I enjoyed your polite comments here! Your comments on other threads included some name-calling and some strikingly dismissive replies. But I've enjoyed your writing - it's enlightening. I do have a separate question for you that is unrelated to this thread (please forgive me as I'm not sure how to properly correspond on message blogs very well and I'm one a dem radical christiens, too.) This actually isn't a rhetorical question, though it may sound like that's where it would be going; it's a bit two-fold: Why do we die (not how, but why?)? And: why do we exist (again, not how?)?

This is a rhetorical question! People who live according to ancient myths don't want reality-based explanations! They want to perpetuate stupid myths. To say the bible is the "truth" is absurd. Although, revised many times, the bible came from ancient myths. Biblical scholars know this is a certainty.

The Biblical title of Eve, "Mother of All Living," In Assyrian scriptures she was entitled Mother-Womb, Creatress of Destiny, who made male and female human beings out of clay, "in pairs she completed them." The first of the bible's two creation myths gives this Assyrian version, significantly changing "she" to "he" (Genesis 1:27).

In northern Babylon, Eve was known as "the divine Lady of Eden," or "Goddess of the Tree of Life." This does prove where that myth of Eve and Eden came from.

Deliberate misinterpretation produced ideas for revised creation myths like the one in Genesis. Some Jewish traditions of the first century B.C., however, identified Yahweh (Jehovah) with the serpent deity who accompanied the Mother in her garden. Sometimes she was Eve, sometimes her name was given as Nahemah, Naama, or Namrael, who gave birth to Eve and Adam without the help of any male, even the serpent.

Because Jehovah arrogantly pretended to be the sole Creator, Eve was obliged to punish him, according to Gnostic scriptures. Though the Mother of All Living existed before everything, the God forgot she had made him and had given him some of her creative power. "He was even ignorant of his own Mother." It was because he was foolish and ignorant of his Mother that he said, "I am God; there is none beside me." Gnostic texts often portray the creator reprimanded and punished for his arrogance by a feminine power greater and older than himself.

Eve was one of the common Middle-Eastern names of superior feminine power (long before the scriptures.) The secret of God's "Name of power," the Tetragrammaton, was the three-quarters of it invoked not God, but Eve. YHWH, yod-he-vau-he, from the Hebrew root HWH, meaning both "life" and "woman" in Latin letters, E-V-E. 16 With the addition of I (yod), it amounted to the Goddess's invocation of her own name as the Word of creation, a common idea in Egypt and other ancient lands. Many biblical stories came from Egypt.

Gnostic scriptures said Adam was created by the power of Eve's word, not God's. She said, "Adam, live!" "Rise up upon the earth!" As soon as she spoke the word, her word became reality. Adam rose up and opens his eyes. "When he saw her, he said, You will be called "the mother of the living, because you are the one who gave me life."

Adam's name meant he was formed of clay moistened with blood, the female magic of adamah or "bloody clay" (the potters wheel.) He didn't produce the Mother of All Living from his rib; in earlier Mesopotamian (the cradle of civilization and religion) the Stories State Adam was produced from hers. His Babylonian predecessor Adapa (or Adamu) was deprived of eternal life not by the Goddess, but by a hostile God.

The biblical idea was a reversal of older myths in which the Goddess brought forth a primal ancestor; she made him her universal, archetypal divine-incest relationship traceable in every mythology. The reversal was not even original with biblical authors. Aryan patriarchs who called

CONTINUED:

Brahma the primal male ancestor evolved it. They claimed their god brought forth the Mother of All Living from his own body, then mated with her, so she gave birth to the rest of the universe.

In the Hebraic version, a wombless God made his offspring with his hands, and the actual birth giving was left to Adam. The bible as revised by patriarchal scribes said nothing about a divine birth giving, since the scribes were determined to separate the concepts of "deity" and "mother" insofar as possible.

Gnostic scriptures are the originals and said Eve not only created Adam and obtained his admission to heaven; she was the very soul within him. Adam couldn't live without "power from the Mother," so she descended to earth as "the Good spirit," the "Thought of Light" called by him `Life' (Hawwa). She entered into Adam as his guiding spirit of conscience: "It is she who works at the creature, exerts herself on him, sets him in his own perfect temple, enlightens him on the origin of his deficiency, and shows him his (way of) ascent." Through her, Adam was able to rise above the ignorance imposed on him by the male God.

By this Gnostic route came the Midrashic assertion that Adam and Eve were originally androgynous, like Shiva and his Shakti. She dwelt in him and he in her; they were two souls united in one body, which God later tore apart, depriving them of their bliss of union. Cabalists took up the idea and said the paradise of Eden can be regained only when the two sexes are once more united; even God must be united with his female counterpart, the heavenly Eve called Shekina.

Another Gnostic version of the story made God a true villain, who cursed Adam and Eve and expelled them from paradise out of jealousy of their happiness. He also lusted after the Virgin Eve, raped her, and begot her sons Jahveh and Elohim, whose other names were Cain and Abel. Here was one of several myths that made Eve the mother not only of Adam, but also of Jehovah and of all the elements as well. The myths went on to say the first of Eve's offspring ruled the male elements of fire and air; the second ruled the female elements of earth and water.

Eve brought forth death as well as life, she brought forth all living forms, all of which were subject to death for the very reason that they were alive. Under patriarchal systems of belief, the fact that every living thing is doomed to die was blamed on the Mother who gave it a finite (not infinite) life.

Instead of blaming God for casting Adam out of the paradise where he might have lived forever, the patriarchs blamed Eve for bringing this about. Fathers of the Christian church said Eve conceived by the serpent and brought forth Death.

St. Paul blamed only Eve, absolving Adam from guilt for the apple-eating incident: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14). A church council announced in 418 A.D. that it was heresy to say death was a natural necessity rather than the result of Eve.

This was the real origin of the church fathers fear and hatred of women, which expanded into a sexist attitude that permeated all of western society. Woman was identified with Death. Her countervailing responsibility for birth was taken away, and the creation of life was laid to the credit of the Father-god, whose priests claimed he could remove the curse of death. Medieval theologians said Adam was forgiven. Christ descended into hell and rescued Adam along with other biblical patriarchs. He escorted Adam into heaven, saying, "Peace be to thee and to all the just among they sons." But for Eve there was no forgiveness. No peace was offered to her or her daughters. Presumably, they were left behind in hell. Christian theologians espoused the same theory as Persian patriarchs, that heaven was closed to all women except those who were submissive and worshipped their husbands as gods. Even modern theologians naively blame human death on the Edenic sin. Rahner said, "Man's death is the demonstration of the fact that he has fallen away from God Death is guilt made visible." Theologians have not yet dealt with the question of what "guilt" causes death among non-human creatures.

Actually, churches depend for their very existence on the orthodox myth of Eve. "Take the snake, the fruit-tree, and the woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment no need of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian theology." Equally destructive to Christian theology would be restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and Eve were created together but she was his superior. "She brought with her a glory, which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. She taught me a word of knowledge. And we resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the God who had created us."

Some of these once-sacred books made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of injustice, and destroy him.

As an allegory, this might reflect a social truth. Fragile constructs of the collective mind, gods are easily destroyed by those who ignore them. Early Gnostic documents show that most women of the ancient world were disposed to ignore the God who was said to have cursed their sex and their descendents forever. Had one of the other versions of the Eve myth prevailed over canonical version, sexual behavior patterns in western civilization almost certainly would have evolved along very different lines. Christianity managed to project man's fear of death onto woman, not to respect her as Kali the Destroyer was respected, but to hate her. The uncanonical scriptures were no more and no less creditable than the canonical ones. Their picture of Eve as God's stern mother, the defender of mankind against a tyrannical demon-deity, had more adherents in the early Christian centuries than the pictures that is now familiar. One of Christianity's best-kept secrets was that the Mother of All Living was the Creatress who chastised God.

If you want to know more about mythology that the scriptures came from I suggest you read things written by the scholars, scientist, archeologist etc… the ancient kingdom of Ugarit.

I saw on the Science channel with Brian Cox that our universe is made membranes (branes). Two of these branes merged. One brane is time, the other is the three dimensional universe. Time goes on forever. I speculate that the collision could have created the Big Bang and since the collision is multi-dimensional it makes the universe expand. Maybe the three dimensions are fragments and the expansion is time itself. So, maybe if our universe stopped expanding it would reverse in time like a reverb and then one day stop. I hope that once it does stop, whether or not it reverbs, we can still continue in time.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I saw on the Science channel with Brian Cox that our universe is made membranes (branes). Two of these branes merged. One brane is time, the other is the three dimensional universe. Time goes on forever. I speculate that the collision could have created the Big Bang and since the collision is multi-dimensional it makes the universe expand. Maybe the three dimensions are fragments and the expansion is time itself. So, maybe if our universe stopped expanding it would reverse in time like a reverb and then one day stop. I hope that once it does stop, whether or not it reverbs, we can still continue in time."

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. The idea you are referring to is based on one particular variant of superstring theory (the theory of everything) in which our universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk".

The idea is that billions of years from now time will cease and everything will stop if the idea is true. This means that the universe may come to a standstill - that time could be running out and could, one day, stop altogether. Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, forever, but our planet will be gone by then.

However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe.

One thing that is not included in the models is the possibility of having more than one time dimension.

Some cosmologists believe the idea has merit. They believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's the reverse effect.

(Create Universe in Lab) Put that in search and you can read about this experiment: - Physicists in Japan plan to create new universe in lab using the Higgs field, which involves such elements as false vacuums and Z bosons. Scientists theorize it is possible to cause a 'baby universe' to break off from our own, safely.

Point 1: "If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist [SIC], How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy [SIC], that the universe is constantly expanding?"

Well we only have experience of this current universe, although string theory does talk of a possible multiverse. The expansion of the universe is an observable phenomenom. Things are obviously and measurably moving away from a central point. Just some more 'science' that has 'proven' something that contradicts your 'moronic' belief system.

Point 1a: "Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"?"

No.

Point 2: "The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form?"

Ok your just stupid.

Point 2a: Also how did this energy condense in this incredible form of order as all energy observed today continues to go to disorder. Science has yet to show how one can take random disordered energy and make it ordered again. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Don't know, but I'll bet you a billion dolars God had nothing to do with it. What is the thiest need to paste the God of the gaps everywhere. Pick up some science books and read yourself smart.

To: GR

Jon Asked - Point 1: "If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist [SIC], How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy [SIC], that the universe is constantly expanding?"

GR said, "Well we only have experience of this current universe, although string theory does talk of a possible multiverse. The expansion of the universe is an observable phenomenom. Things are obviously and measurably moving away from a central point. Just some more 'science' that has 'proven' something that contradicts your 'moronic' belief system."

Linda Answer: That Big Bang is the phenomenon that contradicts creation - but perhaps not all beliefs involve a creator. I don't recall Jon bringing up any belief system - why insult someone for asking questions - that are not stupid questions - and that you don't seem to be very capable of answering either. The present acceleration of the universe is a consequence of the standard cosmological model for the early universe: inflation. The new solution to the paradox posed by the accelerating universe relies on the so-called inflationary theory, born in 1981. According to this theory, within a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the universe experienced an incredibly rapid expansion. This explains why our universe seems to be very homogeneous. Recently, the Boomerang and WMAP experiments, which measured the small fluctuations in the background radiation originating with the Big Bang, confirmed inflationary theory. It is widely believed that during the inflationary expansion early in the history of the universe, very tiny ripples in spacetime were generated, as predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. These ripples were stretched by the expansion of the universe and extend today far beyond our cosmic horizon that is over a region much bigger than the observable universe, a distance of about 15 billion light years. It is the evolution of these cosmic ripples that increase the observed expansion of the universe and accounts for its acceleration. Adding this new key ingredient, the ripples of spacetime generated during the epoch of inflation, to Einstein's General Relativity to explain why the universe is accelerating today. It seems that the solution to the puzzle of acceleration involves the universe beyond our cosmic horizon. No mysterious dark energy is required. "Whether Einstein was right when he first introduced the cosmological constant, or whether he was right when he later refuted the idea will soon be tested by a new round of precision cosmological observations," Kolb said. "New data will soon allow us to distinguish between our explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the dark energy solution."

Jon Asked - "Point 1a: Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"?"

GR: "No."

Linda Answer: If you can't explain why the answer is no you haven't contributed anything - so why bother. The universe expanded from a singularity. There is no space outside of the universe; there is NO "nothingness" that the universe exists inside of. Everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity. The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.

Point 2: "The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form?"

GR: Ok your just stupid.

Linda Answer: I don't know how you concluded that Jon is just stupid when you can't answer the questions he asked. He was not being offensive and I don't see being offensive to a person who is only asking questions! - The Big Bang theory explains what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening. There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge; it would have neither beginning nor end- it would simply be. No need for a creator.

Jon asked: "Point 2a: Also how did this energy condense in this incredible form of order as all energy observed today continues to go to disorder. Science has yet to show how one can take random disordered energy and make it ordered again. Any help would be greatly appreciated."

GR: "Don't know, but I'll bet you a billion dolars God had nothing to do with it. What is the thiest need to paste the God of the gaps everywhere. Pick up some science books and read yourself smart."

Linda Answer: You don't know the answer! Why don't you go with him to pick up some science books? Even if I perceive the questions to be for an anterior motive (meaning if they can't be answered it proves there is a god) unless the person is being nasty (some are very nasty) I don't insult people who are not insulting me.

A sphere (such as) planets and stars is the most steady and effective form for a massive object to take since gravity pulls towards the center of mass. This effect of gravity to make objects above a certain mass assume a spherical shape has NO CONNECTION TO THE SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE, since the universe did not form from the accumulation of separate clusters of matter which gradually amalgamate into a sphere due to the force of gravity; the universe expanded from a singularity.

It is free energy that drives order from disorder, from big bang to humankind, in good accord with the second law of thermodynamics and leading to the production of entropy. On all scales, from galaxies and stars to planets and life, the rise of complexity over the course of natural history can be uniformly quantified by analyzing the normalized flow of energy through open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems.

I think that these are concise answers than my first Jon.

Fair enough

I understand that Linda is adamant in her reliance on scientific knowledge, but there are many evidences that scientific method is not everything, does not give all the answers and fails in many aspects.

My understanding of scientific method is that it is good with what can be dissected or reproduced, but there is plenty of things that just could not. Here are some examples. The living cell - can be killed, but cannot be divided into living parts, because it is the whole organism. The very idea of what is life or what is human soul is out of reach of science! Try to find a good working definition of subject of biology or psychology. There are only intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living and the difference between humans and animals.

Another example of scientific limits is that scientific method requires rigorous proof to the extent that scientists especially in the field of nuclear physics even use fowl language criticizing an opponent. But imagine a "scientific" doctor of medicine who will tell that you are not suppose to have your pain because the laboratory results do not substantiate your claim of severe pain and that you need to "scientifically" proof that you are right.

I could give many more examples of scientific limitations. My point is that science is good only where it is good. Anywhere else I need another, wider approach to find my way in this life, approach known as common wisdom. This wisdom tells me that human logic is limited, that there are too many things around that are logically impossible, but exist even inside the science, like wave-corpuscular duality of elementary particles (photons, e.g.)

I know that I cannot "proof" my point, that narrow-minded people will believe in the ideas which they are more comfortable to live with. And I am not willing to convert them. But also I believe that the truth must be spoken, that the search for the truth should not be obstructed, that the scientist must have courage to find the truth, even not pleasant one.

When I understood that my scientific method is limited, I opened my mind to another possibilities. I said to myself what if it is true that God exists? Will it hurt me to accept the hypothesis until I find the proof?

Now, I have found the proof that I cannot share with you, because the proof is inside me, it is my secret personal relationship with God that gives me confidence in His presence and His love. And God Himself is very secretive, He is not interested in proving His power to arrogant, self-sufficient sinners. Sorry, you have to do it yourself!

So, as a nuclear physicist and born again Christian I believe that the World was created in six days, and that the scientific theories are very helpful formal mathematical tools to discover the inner structure of the Universe around us, but not more then that.

Alex Goldovich, email me at alexgoldovich on yahoo period com.

A. Goldovich said, "I understand that Linda is adamant in her reliance on scientific knowledge, but there are many evidences that scientific method is not everything, does not give all the answers and fails in many aspects."

Science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers scientists accept have been proven to be true. Science doesn't test for "imaginary friends". When apologists come up with some evidence that can be falsified then scientists will call it science. At the present there is no "imaginary friend" theory that has been submitted for testing.

A. Goldovich said, "My understanding of scientific method is that it is good with what can be dissected or reproduced, but there is plenty of things that just could not. Here are some examples. The living cell - can be killed, but cannot be divided into living parts, because it is the whole organism."

Cells can be disassembled by chemical methods and their individual organelles and macromolecules isolated for study. The process of cell fractionation enables the scientist to prepare specific components, the mitochondria for example, in large quantities for investigations of their composition and functions. Using this approach, cell biologists have been able to assign various functions to specific locations within the cell. The fluorescent proteins have brought microscopy to the forefront of biology by enabling scientists to target living cells with highly localized probes for studies that don't interfere with the delicate balance of life processes.

A. Goldovich said, "The very idea of what is life or what is human soul is out of reach of science!"

You're kidding. I think scientists know what human life is. Science can't study the mythological "soul" or any thing for which there is no evidence. This is a belief not a scientific theory.

A. Goldovich said, "Try to find a good working definition of subject of biology or psychology. There are only intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living and the difference between humans and animals."

This gibberish has so little meaning. The apologists have never submitted a scientific theory, but they are the one's who know what life and psychology really means. The apologists have pin pointed all of the scientific problems. We are supposed to just scorn science and accept what they assume the word of god says happened on creation week.

Intuitive means "clear-sighted" descriptive means "clarifying." Guess what - apologists don't know a damn thing about science; it's pseudo-science that has been used to detract their followers from learning what real science is discovering. It's the same kind of smoke screens that you're trying to concoct.

A. Goldovich said, "Another example of scientific limits is that scientific method requires rigorous proof to the extent that scientists especially in the field of nuclear physics even use fowl language criticizing an opponent."

Why would science require rigorous testing of a hypothesis before it could become a theory? They should test the hell out of evolution, but just accept Intelligent Design (creationism) without a theory. The scientific method: "Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

A. Goldovich said, "But imagine a "scientific" doctor of medicine who will tell that you are not suppose to have your pain because the laboratory results do not substantiate your claim of severe pain and that you need to "scientifically" proof that you are right."

Sure! If a doctor thinks someone is a drug addict, they can refuse to give them more pain pills. That's the only reason a doctor would question that a patient had severe pain. In most cases nobody has to PROVE that they are right if they are in severe pain. There are many ways to confirm severe pain, and if you knew anything about the subject you would know that. There are people who pretend they have pain to get drugs. Doctors spot them and refuse to give them any more drugs, and that is why they go to multiple doctors.

A. Goldovich said, "I could give many more examples of scientific limitations. My point is that science is good only where it is good. Anywhere else I need another, wider approach to find my way in this life, approach known as common wisdom. This wisdom tells me that human logic is limited, that there are too many things around that are logically impossible, but exist even inside the science, like wave-corpuscular duality of elementary particles (photons, e.g.)"

X-rays scatter as particles - a fact that illustrates clearly the dual nature of light. The dispute between the wave theory and the corpuscular theory is over. The new theory is a wave theory in a higher degree than any previous theory. Using the new theory it has been possible to give a qualitatively and quantitatively correct account of the theory for the differential cross section based on the photon concept.

A. Goldovich said, "I know that I cannot "proof" my point, that narrow-minded people will believe in the ideas which they are more comfortable to live with. And I am not willing to convert them. But also I believe that the truth must be spoken, that the search for the truth should not be obstructed, that the scientist must have courage to find the truth, even not pleasant one. When I understood that my scientific method is limited, I opened my mind to another possibilities. I said to myself what if it is true that God exists? Will it hurt me to accept the hypothesis until I find the proof?"

You're saying that nobody can question that an "invisible being" is an obvious truth. If someone does question the existence of your invisible being it means that they are "narrow-minded", but you admit that you can't prove anything. Come back when you can prove it "scientifically" (without insulting people) based on it's own merit, then the narrow-minded people might listen.

A. Goldovich said, "Now, I have found the proof that I cannot share with you, because the proof is inside me, it is my secret personal relationship with God that gives me confidence in His presence and His love. And God Himself is very secretive, He is not interested in proving His power to arrogant, self-sufficient sinners. Sorry, you have to do it yourself!"

Something that exists in your understanding is not proof that it exists. Something that exists in reality is proof that it does indeed exist. If there is no God in reality, then saying "god is inside of you" doesn't change a thing! The burden of proof is on those who make claims. Reasonable people do not believe things on blind faith, even if you bash them with typical fundamentalist insults.

A. Goldovich said, "So, as a nuclear physicist and born again Christian I believe that the World was created in six days, and that the scientific theories are very helpful formal mathematical tools to discover the inner structure of the Universe around us, but not more then that. Alex Goldovich, email me at alexgoldovich on yahoo period com.

Well, as Homer Simpson said, "Operator! Give me the number for 911!"

BS! A scientist that doesn't know why they rigorously test theories? You don't need rational proof? What needs to happen to center you in reality is this, the next time you unload a pile of crap like this on someone I hope they dump it on your head. I hope it will make you feel really silly while it oozes down your face. Where you go from there is up to you.

I don't have a problem with anyone who feels they have a secret personal relationship with a God that brings them enjoyment. The problem is when you feel it is necessary that others also share in your delusions. You admit that you cannot convert anyone, but that doesn't stop you from trying. You admit that the proof you have cannot be shared because it's only within you, but still you insist that what you think you have is the truth. It would be best to just keep it inside you.

From my understanding of what it is to be born again, you yourself are not free from sin, you yourself are also a sinner. So calling others arrogant, self-sufficient sinners put you in the same category. You assert that the scientific method is full limitations and claim that you have an open mind. How is it that you have an open mind when you choose a religion that is arguably the most closed minded of them all? Why do you choose to believe in fairytales when all rational thinking logical minds points to certain facts that contradicts almost everything in your holy books. How is it possible that you think that you have this open mind when you claim that you have the truth and it's the Christian faith that is absolute in your mind? If you had an open mind or used it at all, you'd say that you "don't know" and you can wait until more evidence can be provided. But instead you make mental leaps in logic, neglecting all that science offers and has proven with high degrees of certainty. You rather make-up fantasies in your mind and twist your brain in order to have your God exist and then you call it proof. It's dishonest and simply sad that you have chosen this as your way of thinking. It's sad that you can simply say that you don't know.

Thank you for reply, Linda and also Sammy. Honestly, I was thinking that the approval committee will just dump my note. Sorry, I don't have time to answer everything right now. There is so much that I cannot agree with. If you are ready to get serious, may be I can learn something from you. Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

You should've looked at the Bee Gees lyrics to Stayin' alive - "Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother, you're stayin' alive, stayin' alive. Ah, ha, ha, ha, Stayin' alive. Stayin' alive. Ah, ha, ha, ha, Stayin' alive.

Living organisms try to stay alive.

"Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

Okay let's start. There are so many interpretations to what "life", means. In a biological sense, life is defined by what an observed material is doing and can do. Such as eat, reproduce, release waste, grow, etc. and if it passes the criteria for life then we assume that it is alive. In a philosophical sense, life is what we as people make of it and there are millions of way people can interpret their life. I don't believe putting a meaning to "life" is as easy as adopting a religion. For some people it works for them, but for others it takes more than third person's account of events thousands of years ago. For some people, evidence and a large collective of verifiable observations is the only way of knowing our reality.

I'm sure that what you think you know is real and absolute to you because you have mindfully accepted that ideology for your life, but that does not give you any reason that what you believe ought to be what others should also believe. And claiming to be a born again Christian puts you in conflict with everyone that disagrees with your beliefs.

In your Christian belief, you are expected to spread your views and most common than not religious organizations will target the most vulnerable of the population to spread their ideologies. I'm sure you believe that you have good intentions, but you don't seem to realize that there are billions and billions of people that don't believe as you do. Like most Judeo-Christian beliefs, what is grotesque about this branch of religion is that there is this reward and punishment. Where it claims, not believing justifies eternal torture, while blind devotion and surrendering your mind is praised and rewarded. Unlike you, some people have found peace without your beliefs. You don't seem to accept that others can live full, rich, moral lives that do not agree with a God explanation.

I can only give you my opinion about the meaning of life and for me it's about living, to live, simple as that. But you don't seem to be content with just living, so you think it is necessary to attach other meanings to life. But religion does it more elaborate and bright and shiny, in order to sell it to the masses. You bought into the sales pitch, but you neglect to read the contract and fine print. It's an emotional appeal and you choose to only see the good things that your adopted belief allow you see, but you choose to ignore or disregard the evil that your ideology has and continue to imposes.

Everyone is allowed to question, but I think that people are not only allowed to question but free to choose and decide for themselves what they believe. And to do so without being threatened by some ideology that has no merit other than special pleading. Thanks but no thanks. I'm not buying and I think you are like some dishonest car salesmen selling me a junk idea. I believe you are dishonest and what is most sad is that you are dishonest to yourself.

Sammy,

A. Goldovich said, "I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

He is claiming to be a legitimate scientist (nuclear physicist) that looked on the web for a definition of living and non-living and couldn't find it, and he got better answers from his "common wisdom", but he didn't have an answer. Maybe he should've looked for a definition of NEW and KNEW.

A. Goldovich says, "I understand that Linda is adamant in her reliance on scientific knowledge, but there are many evidences that scientific method is not everything, does not give all the answers and fails in many aspects."

He is stating that his religious philosophy is superior to science; it's not about "there may be millions of ways people can interpret their lives." The meaning of life is only a philosophical discussion that would not necessitate any scientific knowledge. The fact that he claims his personal relationship with god is a better source of scientific information makes it about science. The idea of god, heaven or hell is not a scientific concept it is a belief that only requires dogged adherence without the slightest proof of it's credibility. He is saying that his "flights of fancy" (common wisdom) are superior to scientific knowledge. There's far more evidence regarding fraud and deception in religion than there is in science. The bible has been amended many times (in the margins) because of pious Christian fraud and forgery.

Creationist's arguments haven't got a damn thing to do with science. The only reason they claim it is science and not religion is their scheme to get creationism into education. Life began from non-living chemicals to single-celled organisms. There is no debate in science concerning life evolving from non-life to a single cell organism. What forms that simplicity would have taken has been debated. What we call life scientifically is a function to use energy to marshal chemicals into making more copies of it's self. The first life would have been very simple and taken many, many generations to evolve. Life is now far more complex than the first life.

What he "believes" does not indicate he has mindfully (or painstakingly) investigated anything. What he knows about the origin of life indicates that he has mindfully studied creationism, a religious belief that has nothing to do with science. What he believes is on faith alone because logic wouldn't lead you to it.

The "born again" movements prey on superstition and the uneducated, and that's why this prattle is being spread mostly in third world countries. Most of the (end times) "born again" movements preach that all other churches are wrong and demonic. They preach that it is up to them to cleanse the churches - take over the government - then the world - before Jesus can return. They are raising a new generation of warriors to do just that. This is the real war. They do believe America should be a theocracy. Although, they believe that every other religion in the world is wrong, and the followers are going to hell, it doesn't give them one thing in common with atheists. Atheism isn't even close to what these fools are about. Their belief has the same origin as any other. Due to Christians penchant for burning books what was originally written has been lost to us forever; their "movement" doesn't have the "original doctrine" any more than any other Church does. They claim to be the only true Christians as a maneuver to gain membership and money. Even though they are slick operators converting atheists is a little out of their league.

If "his intentions were good" I don't think he would call anyone he can't browbeat narrow-minded. Those who have been browbeaten become browbeaters who never think of themselves as brainwashed, and they will vehemently defend the people who make them into chicken fried minions.

This is an egotistical arrogant phony with delusions of competence trying to sell the idea that religion has more value than science. The difference between living and non-living forms of life is a well known "straw man" used by apologists who don't understand evolution. His demonstrations of the limitations of science were simply foolish, and he can't give us one example of an Intelligent Design (creation) theory that has been submitted to the scientific community, or any Intelligent Design (creation) theory that makes predications. The discussion is about his suggestion that his ideology is science. If he were honest he would admit that there is nothing scientific about his religious views, and he would just present them for exactly what they are, "beliefs", and admit that there is no scientific evidence that backs it up.

Linda,

I appreciate your wisdom and knowledge of many things, but I don't know why your comment is addressed to me when your complaints are toward A. Goldovich. Did you object to what I had to say to A. Goldovich? Was my response not to your liking? I think I stated my positions as clearly as I can and you just repeated them in your own way.

I'm sorry if I'm not as aggressive as you are toward conversing with others that you disagree with, but that is not how I choose to approach people. I think I have a pretty good idea of the intentions of A. Goldovich comments and I am capable of seeing through the fake disguises. I gave A. Goldovich more credit than deserves but that is not for you to decide how I go about responding to comments.

Thank you for the thoughts on the "born again" movement, the Creationist's arguments, and Christian history of fraud and forgery, but it wasn't necessary. I feel that I have a fairly good grasp on the issues, so I feel a little insulted that you take it upon yourself to instruct me about religion or what A. Goldovich had said or his/her intentions.

Obviously, A. Goldovich has a belief and is trying to use the credibility of science to booster those beliefs in par with science, but I think I did okay refuting the claims and answered the questions as I saw fit. Maybe you did not intend to offend me by giving me your thoughts, but I don't need someone to tell me what I already know and think. What specifically did I say that you objected to? If your objections were not directed towards me, then I suggest that you make it out the person(s) that it does.

Sammy,

I'll try to clear things up for you Sammy; although, drawing a picture might be better. Reiterating what Alex Goldovich's wrote was done because what you wrote was not pertinent to this discussion. A. Goldovich's comments about my (Linda's science) implied that his euphemism for religion (common wisdom) had better answers, but he didn't give any answers to Jon's questions. If in fact his common wisdom has better answers than science where are his answers to Jon's question? A. Goldovich sidestepped that issue with he couldn't find a scientific definition of living and non-living.

You didn't address that either; Sammy said, "Okay let's start. There are so many interpretations to what "life", MEANS."

A. Goldovich said he couldn't find a scientific definition of living and non-living. He didn't say anything about what life MEANS. Despite the fact that Jon didn't ask any question about a definition of living and non-living. Don Baker and I (Linda) answered Jon's questions about the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE with scientific theory because there are no other kind of acceptable theories.

Sammy said, "In a philosophical sense, life is what we as people make of it and there are millions of way people can interpret their life."

There may be millions of ways people can interpret their life philosophically, but what A. Goldovich wrote was about a scientific definition of living and non-living. Although, A Goldovich wouldn't have faired any better in a philosophical discussion, his remarks were about my scientific answers, and A. Goldovich didn't point out any defects in those answers. He didn't address the questions about the origin of the Universe at all. That's why I was answering his nonsense. A. Goldovich said, " I understand that Linda is adamant in her reliance on scientific knowledge, but there are many evidences that scientific method is not everything, does not give all the answers and fails in many aspects."

A. Goldovich would have to answer Jon's questions with better answers in order to prove that statement, but he didn't. Sammy wasn't even in the same ballpark. Sammy didn't address any of the actual issues.

A. Goldovich's comments clearly defined what the discussion was about, and it was about what I (Linda) wrote to Jon who asked: "1. If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist, How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy, that the universe is constantly expanding? Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"? and 2. The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form?"

These questions indicate that Jon is deficient in spelling and science. I thought everyone knew that the Universe is expanding, and it expanded from an infinitesimally small point called the singularity.

When Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity, he found that it was incompatible with a static universe; the equations predicted that the universe must either be expanding or shrinking. The prevalent bias against this conclusion was so strong that Einstein altered the equations of relativity in order to allow for a static solution.

Edwin Hubble found that the universe was indeed expanding, Einstein retracted this alteration, calling it the biggest blunder of his life.

The universe started with a giant explosion called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. The Universe before the Big Bang was one very compact tiny sphere - the singularity.

Sammy said (to A. Goldovich), "I'm sure that what you think you know is real and absolute to you because you have mindfully accepted that ideology for your life"

MINDFULLY (meaning carefully, scrupulously and correctly) chosen what he thinks is real. Since he has demonstrated a total ignorance of anything scientific and thinks creationism is better I think that is probably not an accurate statement. I think he believes in something without investigation, which I was pointing out.

Sammy said, "And claiming to be a born again Christian puts you in conflict with everyone that disagrees with your beliefs."

No, they create the conflict wherever and whenever they can with people who don't agree with them. Most Christians (born again or not) think that they have the right to force their beliefs on others.

Sammy said, "Like most Judeo-Christian beliefs, what is grotesque about this branch of religion is that there is this reward and punishment."

Don Baker told Mr. T. that Christianity is based on reward and punishment, but that was because of what was being discussed at the time. The methods used to brainwash people were not actually part of this discussion. All beliefs are based on reward and punishment, not just one particular branch.

You are expressing your views on remarks that A. Goldovich made about a discussion that I had with Jon a long time ago, and your comments don't fit the discussion. You posted the comments and you got criticized. That's what happens when you enter into a discussion that had nothing to do with anything you are saying (or anything you wrote to begin with.)

Sammy said, "I can only give you my opinion about the meaning of life and for me it's about living, to live, simple as that." That's fine Sammy but no one was talking about the meaning of life. A. Goldovich said he couldn't find a satisfactory scientific definition of living and non-living, which actually had nothing to do with Jon's questions about the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE either. That's what A. Goldovich needed to be told. Alex Goldovich was saying creationism provides better answers than science, and as I stated there is no scientific theory that has ever been presented based on ID or creationism. Alex Goldovich was trying to discredit my scientific answers to Jon's scientific questions without giving any better answers, and I think that is the point.

You (Sammy) were not answering A. Goldovich's assertions or pointing out that creationism isn't science. There are no scientific ID or Creationist theories about the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.

Sammy said, "I think that people are not only allowed to question but free to choose and decide for themselves what they believe. And to do so without being threatened by some ideology that has no merit other than special pleading."

Atheists are nothing like Leonard Cohen's song lyrics to "I'm Your Man" we won't just do anything for you A. Goldovich! Ironically enough (ha!) Don Baker just told Mr. T. the same thing when he had us (hypothetically) in the ocean being eaten by sharks, but that doesn't fit this discussion either. A Goldovich is not using threats like the one's posted on that thread, he is claiming that his relationship with God (common wisdom) is better than science. That makes everything you have said beside the point.

I (Linda) said, "If he were honest he would admit that there is nothing scientific about his religious views, and he would just present them for exactly what they are, "beliefs", and admit that there is no scientific evidence that backs it up."

The reason I said that is because what you seem to think he is not being honest about (his beliefs) is not the issue. If he wants to believe something he can, what he isn't being honest about is that his beliefs have no scientific merit. I don't care what he believes. When you post anything on a message board it can be disputed, analyzed, agreed/ disagreed with or ignored. That is obviously what discussion means, and I'm saying what you wrote was not germane. I have answered this seven ways to Sunday so if you want to continue you will have to talk to yourself, which I'm sure you're good at. I'm done.

Again I don't know why you are addressing your comments to me when your objections are with A. Goldovich. Please do draw a picture because your incisive ramblings are nice but sometimes difficult to follow. I made no reference to you or to Jon or Don or Mr. T, so I don't even know why you are mentioning them to me or relating what I wrote to what they wrote. I made my comment pertaining to what A. Goldovich was asking where he said, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life." I gave him my thoughts about it and also gave him my criticism of his Christian views. I made no insults to you or even wanted your opinion. I only ask that you not repeat to me the points that I made as though you had made them yourself and that you direct you objections and insult elsewhere. I don't need you to tell me what arguments I should address or which questions I need or need not answer. My comments were towards A. Goldovich. And surely, I don't need you to tell me how to think or if my comments are germane or not. You clearly have a personal vendetta against me since you feel the need to insult me for no reason or do you make it your duty to critique everybody's comments and undermine other people's thoughts. I hope that you are "done" because you are so out of out line. So actually, I am done, with you, Linda.

Sammy said, "Again I don't know why you are addressing your comments to me when your objections are with A. Goldovich."

Alex Goldovich's post was about my scientific answer to Jon's scientific questions, and your answers (Sammy) were not logical answers to his contentions. Your answers didn't address the obvious basis of his argument (his belief has better answers about the origin of the Universe) than science.

A. Goldovich said, "I believe that the World was created in six days, and that the scientific theories are very helpful formal mathematical tools to discover the inner structure of the Universe around us, but not more then that."

What you (Sammy) wrote has nothing to do with what A. Goldovich was saying that (there are better answers than science can give to scientific questions) but he did not give any better answers.

A. Goldovich needs to prove that there is something more than the Universe, and then he needs to prove that there is a creator. So far nothing A. Goldovich has said is scientific, it doesn't explain anything, and he has not presented a falsifyable scientific theory that makes predictions. Therefore, A. Goldovich is talking about pseudo-science. Jon's questions were about the origin of the Universe and they were answered with scientific theories that are falsifyable and do make predictions. That would be the bone of contention. A. Goldovich thinks that the universe and all living things were created in six days - this goes against evolution or any scientific theory that has been used in any known scientific theory. What scientific theory was developed from a creator or a six-day creation hypothesis? This also involves how life evolved from non-living to living. There is no other issue. Anything else is of no value to this discussion.

Sammy said, "Please do draw a picture because your incisive ramblings are nice but sometimes difficult to follow."

Alex Goldovich's post must also have been difficult for you to follow since your answers were not applicable to his assertions about my answer to Jon's scientific questions.

Sammy said, "I made no reference to you or to Jon or Don or Mr. T, so I don't even know why you are mentioning them to me or relating what I wrote to what they wrote. I made my comment pertaining to what A. Goldovich was asking where he said, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life."

Alex Goldovich didn't say anything that alluded to reward, punishment, threats or the meaning of life. Don Baker's use of the reward and punishment system of Christianity was applicable to a post from Mr. T., but NOT this one. It was not consistent (had no relationship) to what A. Goldovich was saying about his "common wisdom" having better answers than science, so any other issue is not relevant to this discussion.

Alex Goldovich said, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

That's the entire quote. Biology is a science and what you (Sammy) wrote was not the entire quote. That is what A. Goldovich wrote after the answer to his first post, and he is saying that science could not define living and non-living. A good scientific definition of life is not the "meaning" of life. You (Sammy) did not address anything that remotely pertained to A. Goldovich's most obvious contention that his Christian views (creation week) are better than science.

Sammy said, "I gave him my thoughts about it and also gave him my criticism of his Christian views. I made no insults to you or even wanted your opinion. I only ask that you not repeat to me the points that I made as though you had made them yourself and that you direct you objections and insult elsewhere.

Your views (Sammy) were about his criticism of something I wrote. There is always the possibility of criticism when anyone gives their views, and (Sammy) your summary of A. Goldovich's Christian views excluded the one that applies to this discussion. A. Goldovich's post was about his belief that everything was created on creation week, and that his view is a better answer than my science.

Additionally, I would never repeat anything you have ever said as if I said it. I put your name and quote marks before what I was discussing that you said. Everyone knows that means you said it. Sammy, this is a discussion, and I can discuss the fact that your post didn't have anything to do with A. Goldovich's claims that science doesn't answer things as well as his "common wisdom" - what ever that may be.

Sammy said, "I don't need you to tell me what arguments I should address or which questions I need or need not answer. My comments were towards A. Goldovich. And surely, I don't need you to tell me how to think or if my comments are germane or not. You clearly have a personal vendetta against me since you feel the need to insult me for no reason or do you make it your duty to critique everybody's comments and undermine other people's thoughts. I hope that you are "done" because you are so out of out line. So actually, I am done, with you, Linda."

Well, Sammy, I guess you didn't notice A. Goldovich was discussing what I wrote to Jon, therefore if I took your same stance I would say you had no right to answer that post. I didn't say that because anyone can answer his post or any other post. People have the right to answer anything posted if there is something that they think needs to be addressed. That's what happens. It is actually very common. I don't recall answering a "Sammy" but I do recall reading these same complaints. You don't seem to understand how discussion boards work. If someone is answering a message about (Linda's relying on science too much because there are better answers) other than scientific one's anyone can answer it, but if their answer doesn't address the actual obvious issue they can be told that by anyone. The discussion was not about the philosophy of A. Goldovich's beliefs. The issue is obviously that A. Goldovich was saying he was a nuclear physicist who believes in the six-day creation story and not the scientific theories (evolution), which negates any creation theory of the origin of the Universe and life in the Universe. His pseudo-science was debunked so I guess the only place to go from there is his (totally irrelevant) belief.

Linda,

Please continue telling me how a message board works, since apparently I am not doing it right. Please tell me again that my comments to A. Goldovich were irrelevant and it is up to you to lecture me on the correct way to respond. Please continue your insults and condescending remarks since you are far more informed and can state the points that I have made far better. Even though Jon, Don, or whoever has not made any comments addressed me or critiques about what I wrote, I am sure that they would have if you hadn't done so first. Please continue doing what you do because you do it so well, undermining other people's thoughts and seeming that you are the sole voice/editor in this forum. Please continue with your senseless attacks because it so informative and appreciated. This is your stage, so forgive me if I interrupted your thrashing of A. Goldvich's views of Creationism vs. Science. Please finish your conversation with A. Goldvich because I too would like to contribute my thoughts, as irrelevant as they may seem.

My comments maybe asinine and not worth of your praise, but at least they are mine and from the limited knowledge that I have acquire. They are personal views that I have shape through my own observations and sorry if I was defensive when I felt that you were devaluing my thoughts. It is clear that you are the authority in matters of my how people should think and comment. I've never interacted with such a shrewd poster as you, so forgive me if my message board expertise is lacking. If only to express my thoughts, I've achieved my goal on this forum, but I know now that you are far superior and I must bow to your authority. Please continue because you (Linda) make this experience so delightful.

Sammy,

Someone decided to attack what Linda said in an argument with Jon nearly a year ago. I think that it was actually her place to defend her position, but since you felt that you needed to answer those remarks I think it was your obligation to investigate what the person disputing her science was claiming. Someone who says he is a nuclear physicist and believes in the biblical six-day creation story, but he has better answers and you can't figure out this is the issue?

Unless you intend to investigate the claims made by a "nuclear physicist" who was stating that the answers Jon had gotten were not the best answers then why bother. I think it was absolutely correct to inform you that you were not helping and actually I would have said butt out.

Wouldn't it be pointless to argue with someone that does not use reason or evidence to prove their points? It's about belief and that is what A. Goldovich was trying to steer the discussion to. It wasn't about scientific evidence anymore but about his faith, in which A. Goldovich is not able to share. I was responding to the change in topic from the material that Don and Jon were discussing to what A. Goldovich is questioning which is about "life". Where in all my comments do you disagree with? If you do not disagree with what I said, then like Linda why are you telling me what I could answer and what I can not. You ask me to investigate an absurd claim by someone calling themselves a "nuclear physicist" as if anybody should take this person seriously. No, I don't have to do that and I'm still able to say what I want to say. And I did. If you or Linda feels the need to tell me or anyone else what to do or how to respond on a message board, please don't waste your time. I have no alliance with Linda or you or anyone that treats me with insults. And for someone to tell me that my comments are "irrelevant", can move along.

Obviously A. Goldovich is a nuclear physicist who speaks before thinking, and the results were extremely funny. Your first comments were about the original post that was a scientific question. Please explain what your "faith" has to do with a scientific question. Did you think his question should be answered with theology? A. Goldovich you didn't seem to like Linda's scientific answer -what is your better answer? I'm sure you will come up with a better answer when "critical thinking" is put on your list of things to do.

What does the scientific method requiring rigorous proof or nuclear physicists using fowl language to criticize an opponent have to do with scientific limitations? It sounds to me like you can't understand anything too complex, so, you resort to belittling scientists.

Your claim that a scientific doctor would not give medicine for sever pain without first doing lab test to prove the patient is in pain is rubbish. Doctors can tell if someone is in fact in severe pain. One symptom is that your blood pressure is usually very high, and even if the doctor doesn't know the cause of the pain he will stop the pain first, and then look for the cause later. If the doctor determines that the pain is psychosomatic and not physical he will refer the patient to a psychologist. Most doctors are cautious about prescribing painkillers since they are addictive.

Your (common wisdom) religion has never solved any dilemma that has faced humanity - it actually stopped progress for a very long time, and that's all it will ever do. Scientists have found all of the cures for diseases - and taken man into space - religion took mankind into the darkness of the dark ages, and it could do it again.

You know that you can't prove your point, so, why should we believe your ideas that you can't prove? Why would we be losing out if we don't believe that dead people come back to life and live in a heavenly Disneyland? Why wouldn't we be comfortable with that? I think that you are the one that doesn't have the courage to give up all the goodies. It's clear that you have little or no scientific knowledge, and you haven't presented anything except apologetics.

As for your story about not wanting to convert atheists, you couldn't, and convert is just a "nice" word for brainwashing,

Your scientific method is limited because you don't understand science. Scientists don't assume something is a fact with no evidence or observations, because that is not logical. To just go willy-nilly looking to prove things for no apparent reason would be a big waste of time and money. Science will never give proof of god's existence because it's a myth.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that people who claim to have a relationship with god is no SECRET, and they are a dime a dozen. If I wanted to cultivate a relationship with a believer it wouldn't be hard to do, but I don't because I don't share their beliefs, and I don't like them. If there are people who just love conversing with them that's their right.

There is no scientist that has any credibility that believes the creation story in Genesis. What we know scientifically about nature as it exists does not agree with the account in Genesis of creation. Scientists don't modify scientific theories to fit theology. Evolution is a science and creationism is not; ID is a claim of religion not science, which rests upon a falsehood. You seem to think that if science doesn't correspond with what you already believe they are covering up the truth. Real scientists don't accommodate religious beliefs when they look for the answers to questions, and if anyone is covering up the truth it's the religious fanatics. Religion has nothing to do with science; it never has and never will. Confirming beliefs is not the purpose of science, even though, there are groups wasting millions on pseudo-science that appeal to ignorant people who desperately want scientific proof of their beliefs. This money could be much better spent on authentic scientific research. These advocates of ID or (creation science) have never produced a theory that makes accurate predictions therefore it is worthless to science. ID's failure to make any predictions at all is a major failure, especially in contrast with evolution's record of success.

Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley have shown that the core machinery for initiating DNA replication is the same for all three domains of life - Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.

The molecular machinery that starts the process by which a biological cell divides into two identical daughter cells apparently worked so well early on that evolution has conserved it across the eons in all forms of life on Earth.

I don't know why you are putting your e-mail address on an atheist web page, but don't be too surprised if you don't hear from anyone.

The problem here is that Linda doesn't seem to realize that she addressed Sammy directly and made it a personal. Although Linda claims that anyone can freely respond to anyone's comments, it is not typical to address a specific person if you wanted to make general comments about what was said or interpret comments made be others. Since Linda clearly named Sammy in her reply, this usually means that it's between them. This would be analogous to person (A) speaking to person (B) and then person (C) comes along to tell person (A) that the way they spoke to person (B) was incorrect and goes on telling person (A) how they should have responded to person (B).

In my opinion Sammy responded to Alex Goldvich's comments was reasonable. Alex claimed he was a born again Christian so Sammy expressed thoughts about it and when Alex asked for a definition to "life" Sammy expressed thoughts about that.

So that there is no misrepresentation, Alex says, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..." Sammy commented about this by saying, "There are so many interpretations to what "life", means.

Linda then claims, "He (Alex) didn't say anything about what life MEANS. Isn't looking for a definition also the same as looking for the meaning of something? When you reference a dictionary for a definition aren't you also looking for the meaning of that word?

Sammy says, "In a biological sense, life is defined by what an observed material is doing and can do. Such as eat, reproduce, release waste, grow, etc. and if it passes the criteria for life then we assume that it is alive. In a philosophical sense, life is what we as people make of it and there are millions of way people can interpret their life. I don't believe putting a meaning to "life" is as easy as adopting a religion."

This seems to be a fairly reasonable response because "life" can be explored both biologically and philosophically. Linda claims, "The meaning of life is only a philosophical discussion that would not necessitate any scientific knowledge."

Repeat, "The meaning of life is ONLY a philosophical discussion", but don't we have a meaning for life in biological terms as introduced by Sammy. What is Linda objecting to? Sammy gave a logical explanation about how science goes about explaining "life" and also broadens the view in biological sense in which Alex neglects to mention.

In philosophical terms, is it not true that there are many interpretations of "life"? When Sammy says, "I don't believe putting a meaning to "life" is as easy as adopting a religion." Isn't this the same objection that Linda has when she says, "He (Alex) is stating that his religious philosophy is superior to science? Is it not clear to Linda that Sammy's response parallels hers? Sammy says, "I'm sure that what you think you know is real and absolute to you because you have mindfully accepted that ideology for your life, but that does not give you any reason that what you believe ought to be what others should also believe. And claiming to be a born again Christian puts you in conflict with everyone that disagrees with your beliefs."

From this I think Sammy is relating Alex's ideas about "life" and that Alex's ideologies are not shared by others who are not Christian. From what Sammy consistently says, "life" to other people represents different things and it is not Alex or the Christians that gets to define the definition of "life". Linda on the other hand, is linking Sammy's comments to previous comments made by Jon, Don in their discussion about definition of the Universe. This discussion has nothing to do with what Alex is asking about "life". This to me seems to be a separate discussion but Linda wants to incorporate her pervious discussion to the definition of "life".

Even after Sammy tells Linda that his comments only concern Alex's question, Linda insist that Sammy's response to Alex's question was irrelevant. Of course it is irrelevant to the discussion between Jon and Don because Sammy wasn't addressing their issues. But it is relevant if Sammy was addressing the question that Alex created, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

Linda claims, "A. Goldovich's comments clearly defined what the discussion was about, and it was about what I (Linda) wrote to Jon who asked: "1. If the universe is by definition everything that exists and will ever exsist, How is it possible, according to the big bang theroy, that the universe is constantly expanding? Wouldn't this be a contradictory statement to the very definition of "universe"? and 2. The big bang theroy points out that all energy was condensed into a point of singularity at the start of the universe. Energy takes up space, we know this through einstiens famed equasion as well as through the more recent string theroy, so since it must take up space wouldn't that mean that a much smaller version of the universe exsisted, in at least some form?"

Sorry but Alex did not clearly define that the discussion was about the definition of the universe. Alex defined the discussion about the definition of "life". Furthermore Alex introduces life in biological and philosophical terms, not cosmological or big bang or singularity or energy or whatever Linda is trying to assert.

Repeat, "Let's start with a definition of a supposed subject of biology - the life. I had spent hours on the web in search of a good scientific definition of life and found only what I said above: "... intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living ..."

Sammy says, "In your Christian belief, you are expected to spread your views and most common than not religious organizations will target the most vulnerable of the population to spread their ideologies. I'm sure you believe that you have good intentions, but you don't seem to realize that there are billions and billions of people that don't believe as you do." Linda expanded Sammy's thoughts by saying, "The "born again" movements prey on superstition and the uneducated, and that's why this prattle is being spread mostly in third world countries. Most of the (end times) "born again" movements preach that all other churches are wrong and demonic. They preach that it is up to them to cleanse the churches - take over the government - then the world - before Jesus can return. They are raising a new generation of warriors to do just that….."

When Sammy says, "Thank you for the thoughts on the "born again" movement, the Creationist's arguments, and Christian history of fraud and forgery, but it wasn't necessary. I feel that I have a fairly good grasp on the issues, so I feel a little insulted that you take it upon yourself to instruct me about religion…." This outburst is understandable since Sammy, in his comments, already objects to religious indoctrination. It would be like trying to explain the Theory of Relativity to Einstein. Sammy made the initial assertions that religious organizations will target the vulnerable of the population to spread their ideologies, so why is Linda basically repeating what Sammy said and addressed it to Sammy but with her own spin. When Sammy asked that she not do that, "I (Sammy) only ask that you not repeat to me the points that I made as though you had made them yourself…." Linda replies, "Additionally, I would never repeat anything you have ever said as if I said it. I put your name and quote marks before what I was discussing that you said."

cont.

If you look at Linda's first comments to Sammy where it starts, "The "born again" movements prey on superstition and the uneducated, and that's why this prattle is being spread mostly in third world countries…." No where before or after that paragraph did Linda credit Sammy for making that similar assertion.

Even though Sammy's comments were to Alex, Linda responded directly to Sammy before Alex even made any retort to Sammy. Linda is suggesting that Sammy did not correctly answer Alex's questions and when Sammy disapproves of Linda's reaction toward the comments, Linda continue to throw insults saying, "I'll try to clear things up for you Sammy; although, drawing a picture might be better." How Linda starts her comments can be considered incendiary because she is talking down to someone. Over and over Linda makes condescending remarks. Linda is framing the discussion the way she wants to discuss it. Linda makes this claim, "The discussion was not about the philosophy of A. Goldovich's beliefs. The issue is obviously that A. Goldovich was saying he was a nuclear physicist who believes in the six-day creation story and not the scientific theories (evolution), which negates any creation theory of the origin of the Universe and life in the Universe."

On this thread, Alex asserts that the scientific method has limitations, "The very idea of what is life or what is human soul is out of reach of science", and "that he found the proof that he cannot share with you, because the proof is inside him…" In my opinion, Sammy's response was reasonable and adequate. Linda's on the other hand, questionable.

Let's get this out of the way first: The definitive statement that was made specifying the superstitious, uneducated people in the third world as easy prey for the "born again" fanatics was not the same as Sammy's vague statement. It was clearly pointing out their lack of knowledge (scientific) is why they are easy prey. There was no reason to give credit to someone who made a vague comment about vulnerable people.

I didn't see anything in Alex Goldovich's arguments that involved reward and punishment, threats or special pleading (Jesus died for our sins) is an example of special pleading. I noticed Sammy didn't attempt to expose any of the fake claims about what science couldn't do. I'm sure Sammy thinks he did a great job but it was Linda who debunked the crappy science.

If Alex Goldovich was not talking about the scientific answers that were given to the questions on "the origin of the Universe" on this thread then what the hell was he talking about? Alex Goldovich "I understand that Linda is adamant in her reliance on scientific knowledge, but there are many evidences that scientific method is not everything, does not give all the answers and fails in many aspects."

He is claiming that reliance on the scientific method to answer questions like the (origin of the Universe) does not give all the answers, although, it has given us all the answers that we have today.

Alex Goldovich > Try to find a good working definition of subject of biology or psychology. There are only intuitive, descriptive definitions that state what we always new: the difference between living and non-living and the difference between humans and animals.

We didn't always know about spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter until scientists found those answers. If there are theories that answer more questions where are they? Good question! I want an answer from Alex Goldovich.

Alex Goldovich > Another example of scientific limits is that scientific method requires rigorous proof to the extent that scientists especially in the field of nuclear physics even use fowl language criticizing an opponent.

Alex Goldovich gives the fact that the scientific method requires rigorous proof and (the use of fowl language criticizing an opponent) as a limitation of science. I guess a good scientist doesn't require any rigorous proof they just "believe" in the answers and never use profanity.

Alex Goldovich > But imagine a "scientific" doctor of medicine who will tell that you are not suppose to have your pain because the laboratory results do not substantiate your claim of severe pain and that you need to "scientifically" proof that you are right.

I have never known of anyone that was not given medicine for severe pain without proving it first. If a doctor orders tests it is to look for the cause of the pain.

Alex Goldovich > I could give many more examples of scientific limitations.

If you have many more examples of scientific limitations I think you should give them so that they can be debunked like all the others have been.

Alex Goldovich > My point is that science is good only where it is good. Anywhere else I need another, wider approach to find my way in this life, approach known as common wisdom.

Psychologists are in the field of medical science and they do help people find their way in this life all the time. A good one does that without imposing a belief system on their patients. The fact is that there are people who see and hear things that are not there. Scientists can't go looking for them. There are mental conditions that cause some people to see and hear all kinds of things, and nobody (including scientists) would be able to prove to them that illusions are not real.

Alex Goldovich > This wisdom tells me that human logic is limited, that there are too many things around that are logically impossible, but exist even inside the science, like wave-corpuscular duality of elementary particles (photons, e.g.)

It is because of science that we know anything about particles and waves, and it looks like science has found the answers.

Alex Goldovich > I know that I cannot "proof" my point, that narrow-minded people will believe in the ideas which they are more comfortable to live with.

People who don't believe something that can't be proven to be true are called logical not narrow-minded. People who believe things are true without any proof are called ignorant.

Alex Goldovich > And I am not willing to convert them. But also I believe that the truth must be spoken, that the search for the truth should not be obstructed, that the scientist must have courage to find the truth, even not pleasant one.

What truth? If you can't prove something it can't be called the truth. If you think that scientists should work that way you are sadly and badly mistaken, and it wouldn't be more honest.

Alex Goldovich > When I understood that my scientific method is limited, I opened my mind to another possibilities. I said to myself what if it is true that God exists? Will it hurt me to accept the hypothesis until I find the proof?

Some people think it is very foolish to accept things without any proof. It is a waste of time and in many instances money. If scientists wasted their time that way it would prevent them from finding the real answers to real questions that solve real problems. They are just too honest to play on the emotions of ignorant people.

Alex Goldovich > Now, I have found the proof that I cannot share with you, because the proof is inside me, it is my secret personal relationship with God that gives me confidence in His presence and His love. And God Himself is very secretive, He is not interested in proving His power to arrogant, self-sufficient sinners. Sorry, you have to do it yourself!

Alex Goldovich is insulting scientists and anyone who requires proof for what they believe is true, albeit, anyone who is even slightly logical requires proof that something is true before they believe it. People who don't believe things without any proof or reliable evidence (according to Goldovich) are arrogant and self-sufficient sinners. That has been the point of this whole rant. Goldovich's beliefs are not the issue it is what he is saying about people who don't believe things without proof. That is their sin according to Goldovich; he is spreading the same ignorant ideas that kept people living in darkness for thousands of years, that being self-sufficient (independent) and finding the answers yourself is sinful. The arrogant scientists have found answers that dispute the six-day creation story and other biblical claims. I'm saying scientists have provided real testable proof with evidence for what they say is true, and even if you think they are sinners, that is more than any of the evangelicals have done. They have no proof of the existence of any god, but we have plenty of proof that the biblical stories came from ancient myths. If you would like to read some scholarly investigative work on the subject read Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth by John G. Jackson originally published in 1941.

Since this person claimed to be a physicist, that believes the world was created in six days, I would like to see the proof of that. Science has presented us with plenty of proof that it was not. The scientific answers about the origin of the Universe on this thread did have testable theories to back them up. Where are your theories A. Goldovich?

I do not want an answer from anyone but Alex Goldovich who seems to have wiggled out of this discussion.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

From the officers:

The ACA Lecture Series continues, Sunday September 14th at 12:15pm at the Austin History Center, 9th and Guadalupe. Chase Hunter will talk on "Inside Scientology." The Austin History Center opens at noon.

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.