Dave49

I just returned due to these two posts. You reminded me that I forgot to turn off the reply email notification. Done. Thanks. It's best that I leave. I won't be baited back, and I certainly do not want to try to deprive anyone of their knowledge. You guys take care, Dave

I actually agree with you guys. And I believe that the scientific approach should follow some rules. And if you try to explain something for which there seems to be none, then how can a theory go forward with out the provable answer. For example, take Evolution. This theory has a great amount of suppositions and guesses to it. But nothing can mean anything to me without the beginning. That entire body of work depends on bringing some matter together in some kind of controlled situation to cause single cell life to appear. This might be the end of the theory due to the fact that this, not only cannot be demonstrated, but also can not be duplicated by others. But no matter, we will just "say" that it happened on Earth. So without further ado, we go on to these single cell life forms combining, dividing, and becoming all animals, (and maybe plants), on the planet. This has an enormous body of work because some species sort of resemble other species. But in my mind, for Evolution to be true, it would have to be a universal, ongoing process. So instead of digging up millions year old monkey bones and trying to make that the missing link, we should be able to go out in nature and see these in between stages walking around. But we can't because they don't exist. But does this deter the biological scientists? Doesn't even slow them down. So there must have been some "occurrence" which caused the evolutionary process to stop. And not only that, but it must have wiped out every missing link for all species. Sort of like the magical appearance of the single cell organisms. We just accept that it happened, and so the Creation theory believed by religious people is still just mysticism, and Evolution is science, so it must be correct. Therefore the age old question of the chicken and the egg has two answers. If you are a Creationist, God created the chicken after it's own kind with it's seed inside it. But if you are an Evolutionist, then there must have been a time when a creature which was not quite a chicken, laid an egg with a chicken inside. And so another species was "born". So that leads us to believe that all life evolved from one thing to many different species. And no one seems to believe that both theories are equally dependent on "faith". Faith in the esteem of the person saying it. So what do you know, and how do you know what you know? As for myself, all I know is what other people have told me either in person, or through their written word, that I decide to believe. I have nothing that was not provided by someone else. And so I know absolutely nothing absolutely for myself. I think I will now stop coming to this forum. I'm pretty sure my ideas are not very welcome here. But thanks to all who tried to inform me further. Blue skies, Dave

Ok. Try to divide the threads in this entire forum, all topics, as either science, or pseudo science. I will bet, that the farther you get from your nose outward into the universe, the more blurred the lines will became. Just watch out for all the dark matter, and dark energy. I sometimes try to think of one thing I know for a fact, and how I know what I know. Turns out, that other than stuff told to me by others that I chose to believe, there is very little I absolutely know for sure. What about you guys? But then, I'm just a Quark. LOL!

As to michel123456, you are correct. I was not serious. It was an awkward attempt to show how most every one will make stuff up for what they don't know. It's not a fault, just human nature. Serious scientists do it all the time. The equation breaks down and no longer works, so they invent some particle or "dark" substance which cause the equation to work again. I realize it is an "educated" guess, but a guess none the less. Does it bring us any closer to the truth? That's anyone's "guess". As to Ophiolite, every age considers itself to be "modern" with vastly superior methods and tools with which to "study" the universe around us. I watch and listen all the time to scientists who have observed the solar system with greatly improved telescopes. Some in space. And yet they say how astounded they are when viewing images from probes passing much closer to the planets and moons. Their Earth based observations giving way to what is actually out there. And that is just within our solar neighborhood. Never-the-less, they apply the exact same failed techniques to bodies billions of light years away and call it science. Should we consider these to be popularizations? Is it a respectable occupation since we are now "modern"? A century from now, it would be most interesting to me if I could be there to hear what they do with our best "guesses" of the present time. And their best guesses of their century will also be evaluated by the more "modern" guesses of the century after that. I notice this forum has a section about pseudo science. Tell me, which science is real, and which is pseudo? It's quite impossible for me to tell. And I envy those who can.

Wow! That's a lot going on. You are telling of a lot of stuff just happening. Can you take each happening, and describe exactly the process by which it happened? And also it would help me greatly, if you could describe for me the process by which inanimate matter becomes animate matter. Or simply put, what is the process by which simple matter becomes alive. Thanks

AMEN!

It would not be original to ask: If the Universe is everything, and it is expanding, what is it expanding into?

What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

Well....sure. What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

How prophetic was "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". Who knew?

We seem to be trying to "think outside the box" in which we find ourselves. Try that in reverse and see the point. If I place a closed and sealed box in front of you, and ask you to think "inside the box" and tell me what you theorize is going on in there based on your observations, what will you do? What will you say? Then tell me what "out of the box" thinking is, and if there is any way for us to do that from inside the box. Creation or Physics? Most of each is clearly outside the box.

Truth doesn't seem to require our belief in it before it can be true. I remember from my childhood, say 50 years or so ago, scientists made a lot of predictions based on what was then observable. They theorized all kinds of stuff. Like tropical forests on Venus, to intricate canal systems on Mars. But as time passed, and they were able to get closer views sent back by probes, they were astounded that what they believed was possible, was not possible at all. Even the most recent probes continue to astound them today, because they show that the truth didn't depend on what they theorized from observations. And today, they still try to decide from what is observable, what is clear out at the edge of the Universe that we can see from here, and are probably making the same mistakes. If their theories, based on what was observable at the time, was so far off right in our own Solar neighborhood, what makes them think what they observe 14 billion light years away is any closer to the truth? Every time science "observes" a black hole, no theories apply and they are thrown into a quandary. Usually, if they run into something that doesn't fit their current theories, they make up another "particle" or something not observable to fix the equation. And so how much closer is anyone to the truth now, than they were before? Pardon, if my sentence structure is a little awkward. I am not a scientist. Just someone trying to understand the mindset.

I take that as a very long way of saying "Yes".

Frankly, it takes me as much "faith" to swallow what science theorizes, as what spiritualists theorize. The closer you get to something, the further away it becomes. I would probably worship at the alter of which side can tell me, to my satisfaction, where the first "something" came from. But neither science, nor things spiritual can do that. So for all our fine talk, nothing is ever revealed. No one can begin to nail down what we can see, much less what we can't. Kind of like everyone lives in this cave, with a large fire in the middle. All they can see are their shadows on the wall. But one day someone looks away from the fire and the shadows, and makes his/her way out of the cave to find out what is outside. But with no one to share any of this with, all he/she can do is to go back into the cave and work to lead the others out.

Creation or Physics? Since no human being fully understands either one, who can say? I find some theories from both to be so outlandish that I can't take them seriously. Both require a great degree of FAITH. But like a lot of other shallow people, I wait to find out which one can explain where the very first "something" came from. Do that, to my satisfaction, and I'll worship at your alter.