Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / June 2004
Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Doug - 14 Jun 2004 22:22 GMT I recently helped my nephew install a $200 12" sub/amp/box combo in the trunk of his car (Olds Cutlass ca '87). We put the subs facing forward, and he gets substantial bass. They were cheap Profile subs and a Profile amp with a Q-logic sealed box, a Circuit City package deal. I don't know the size of the box, but it was a pretty big one, probably big enough for porting.
Here's his setup: Profile CA400M mono sub amp (class AB?) 200 watts RMS x 1 at 4 ohms 320 watts RMS x 1 at 2 ohms I think the subs are Profile, but I don't recall which ones. Cheap pair of 4-ohm subs wired in parallel for 2-ohm load.
He gets excellent bass; I was amazed at the results. We had to turn down the gain on the amp.
I just installed a similar setup in my Corolla. I'm not happy with the bass.
2 10" Polk GNX10 4 ohm subs wired parallel 2-ohm (I even measured the resistance to make sure)
US Acoustics USB-600D mono sub amp (class D) 200 or 250 watts rms @ 4ohm 300 or 375 watts rms @ 2ohm The Web site states the larger figure; the manual states the smaller figure, same input level.
Two Roadmaster sealed sub boxes from Wal-Mart (I have lots of things to spend my money on, so I try to be frugal where I can). The sub boxes are 0.6 cu ft; the subs require .66 cu ft.
I wasn't happy with the bass, so I stuffed 8 oz of poly fill in each box. ...helped some, but not much. The speakers face rear, but are up against the back seat. I need my trunk space. I moved them all the way back, which helped a bit, but not much, so they're back against the seat now. ...haven't tried them facing the seats.
So, is it the boxes, the subs, the amp, the car? We used the same install kit in each car (4 ga from batt to trunk; 8ga from block in trunk to amp.) Mine aren't as loud or as low as my nephew's. Should I get a better box or bigger subs or more amp???? I bought from Crutchfield, so I can send any of it back within 30 days.
Polk says to break the subs in for 20 hours at moderate volume levels, so I really haven't hit them with full power yet. ...up to about 12 hours so far.
I also have a partial setup I bought for my 91 Burban, but never installed:
A pair of JL Audio 10W1 8 ohm subs, but they require a .75 enclosure, and an ESX Q275 mono sub amp. I don't have a box.
The amp is rated: 275 W rms @ 4 ohm 450 W rms @ 2 ohm
The Polks are rated for 175W rms each; the JL's for 125.
I'm open to suggestions for any of you wizards who have stuck with me this long.
I need small-box 10" subs for the Burban, can go bigger in the Corolla.
Put the stuff from the Corolla in the Burban and the JL/ESX in the Corolla?
Buy bigger subs or bigger box for Corolla?
Tony Fernandes - 14 Jun 2004 22:58 GMT What frequency do you and your nephew have the subs crossed over at?
Tony
 Signature What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> I recently helped my nephew install a $200 12" sub/amp/box combo in > the trunk of his car (Olds Cutlass ca '87). We put the subs facing [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Buy bigger subs or bigger box for Corolla? Todd - 15 Jun 2004 00:10 GMT Tony,
A bit off topic but you wrote:
"What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact"
I would say the fact you are operating within a giant perfectly timed machine called the Universe ought to be clue #1 that there is a Creator, don't you? ;)
 Signature Todd
Tony Fernandes - 15 Jun 2004 08:21 GMT And you wrote: "I would say the fact you are operating within a giant perfectly timed machine called the Universe ought to be clue #1 that there is a Creator, don't you? ;)"
No. ;-)
 Signature What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> Tony, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would say the fact you are operating within a giant perfectly timed machine called > the Universe ought to be clue #1 that there is a Creator, don't you? ;) Todd - 15 Jun 2004 11:14 GMT Well, if a person ignores the evidence ... ;)
 Signature Todd
Dan Erick - 15 Jun 2004 18:01 GMT > Well, if a person ignores the evidence ... ;) Right on Todd. If someone believes that all this happened by chance they have a whole lot more faith than I do. And I believe in a God that most people (including myself) have never seen. Just the evidence of Him that is all around us. =)
Dan
Todd - 15 Jun 2004 19:14 GMT Dan,
I can tell you are a gentleman and a scholar :)
Actually, I really enjoyed "Contact"--a pretty gripping story!
 Signature Todd
MZ - 16 Jun 2004 14:23 GMT > Right on Todd. If someone believes that all this happened by chance > they have a whole lot more faith than I do. And I believe in a God > that most people (including myself) have never seen. Just the evidence > of Him that is all around us. =) Everything happens "by chance". Or, more accurately, is dictated perhaps by the second law of thermodynamics. It's not exactly magic, folks...
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 22:11 GMT >Everything happens "by chance". Or, more accurately, is dictated perhaps by >the second law of thermodynamics. It's not exactly magic, folks... Oh really?
What about the law of thermodynamics that states everything is in a constant state of decay?
Your guy Darwin insisted that life became more complex as time went by. A direct contradiction of this IRREFUTABLE law. (Not theory ... ;)
Talk about having faith in the impossible.
 Signature Todd
MZ - 16 Jun 2004 23:26 GMT > >Everything happens "by chance". Or, more accurately, is dictated perhaps by > >the second law of thermodynamics. It's not exactly magic, folks... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What about the law of thermodynamics that states everything is in a constant state of > decay? Which law is that?
> Your guy Darwin insisted that life became more complex as time went by. A direct > contradiction of this IRREFUTABLE law. (Not theory ... ;) I believe you're confused. There's no such "irrefutable law". Doesn't such a law seem counterintuitive? What's decaying? Are you confusing the term "entropy" with "disorder" (as some introductory textbooks like to draw parallels to), and then misinterpreting "disorder" to mean "decay"?
Anyway, if what you're referring to is evolution, then it's obviously the way of the world, so to speak. This is plain as day to anyone in the biology professions. It should be worth noting, however, that many folks who firmly acknowledge evolution are also religious. They just don't generally take the book of genesis as gospel (pardon the pun). Evolution jives with the existence of a god or gods.
But that's not really the point I was making. The point I was making was that, contrary to what the original poster implied, "chance" isn't quite as random as we may think...
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 23:50 GMT MZ,
This is not a perfect forum for discussing all the intracies of whether or not God exists. I direct you to this site: http://str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/index.htm which does a far more comprehensive job of explaining the intricasies of this subject than I can here.
Bon appetite ;)
 Signature Todd
MZ - 17 Jun 2004 00:00 GMT I guess what I don't understand is this: how did evolution get brought into this? What makes evolution and the existence of a supreme being inconsistent with each other? Most Christians that I know don't espouse a literalist interpretation of the bible. A supreme being can indeed exist and "create" a physical framework whereby evolution can occur. IMO, the religious community is in for a rough ride if they keep insisting that the theory of evolution threatens their religion and must therefore be wrong.
 Signature Mark remove "remove" and "spam" to reply
> MZ, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bon appetite ;) Doug - 17 Jun 2004 00:45 GMT This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, the Bible is disproven, and I become an atheist. Explaining away Genesis undermines the entire Bible. No creation, no god.
Right now, evidence does not fully support evolution. If evolution were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, with increasing diversity as time passes. Instead, the fossil record is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less and less diversity as time passes. There are a very few instances (Archeopteryx, platypus) that seem to show evolution, but the vast majority shows distinct speciation, not gradual change. ...and don't forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain what they see. Many different species (I'm referring mostly to invertebrates here) are in fact the same creatures, or "kind" if you will.
Now I'm done (I hope), as this is really the wrong place. ...just wanted to point out that the science does not fully support either side, and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of evolution.
I'm still not happy with my subs. :-(
>I guess what I don't understand is this: how did evolution get brought >into this? What makes evolution and the existence of a supreme being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >religious community is in for a rough ride if they keep insisting that the >theory of evolution threatens their religion and must therefore be wrong. MZ - 17 Jun 2004 03:57 GMT > This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are > correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, > the Bible is disproven, and I become an atheist. Explaining away > Genesis undermines the entire Bible. No creation, no god. Millions of christians would disagree with you on that point. So is creation of the human (which we know didn't come first) a necessary tenet for the existence of a god? Hardly. At the very worst, maybe it would mean that your religion isn't the right one after all.
> Right now, evidence does not fully support evolution. If evolution > were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, > with increasing diversity as time passes. Why?
> Instead, the fossil record > is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm still not happy with my subs. :-( Science is much more supportive of one side than the other. Ask some other scientists and they'll tell you.
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:22 GMT > This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are > correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, > the Bible is disproven, and I become an atheist. Explaining away > Genesis undermines the entire Bible. No creation, no god. congratulations on becoming an atheist, then....
> Right now, evidence does not fully support evolution. actually, it does. in fact, it is observed, experimentally verified fact.
> If evolution > were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, > with increasing diversity as time passes. which is precisely what is observed, both in the imperfect fossil record and in the better-preserved genome.
> Instead, the fossil record > is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less > and less diversity as time passes. what on earth are you talking about?
> There are a very few instances > (Archeopteryx, platypus) that seem to show evolution, but the vast > majority shows distinct speciation, not gradual change. there are quite a few examples of transitional fossil forms. moreover, the genetics show exactly the gradual change you expect.
> ...and don't > forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain > what they see. Many different species (I'm referring mostly to > invertebrates here) are in fact the same creatures, or "kind" if you > will. ridiculous assertion. there is no such thing as a "kind" outside of the bible.
> Now I'm done (I hope), as this is really the wrong place. ...just > wanted to point out that the science does not fully support either > side, sure it does. evolution is scientifically observed. creation is made up.
> and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of > evolution. creation only makes sense to the uneducated, sorry.
> I'm still not happy with my subs. :-( perhaps they can be improved via prayer?
> >I guess what I don't understand is this: how did evolution get brought > >into this? What makes evolution and the existence of a supreme being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >religious community is in for a rough ride if they keep insisting that the > >theory of evolution threatens their religion and must therefore be wrong. Les - 28 Jun 2004 19:15 GMT > > This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are > > correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > actually, it does. in fact, it is observed, experimentally verified fact. Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!! So far in our scientific studies noone can prove evolution and deny creation, nor can they prove creation and deny evolution. Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do research between microevolution and macroevolution. Once you have studied the difference in those then show your "proof". Right now you post meaningless diatribes with no basis or reference to facts, basically you are utilizing strawman tactics.
> > If evolution > > were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, > > with increasing diversity as time passes. > > which is precisely what is observed, both in the imperfect fossil record and > in the better-preserved genome. Precisely? Imperfect? Seems to me that your precision is a little off.
> > Instead, the fossil record > > is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there are quite a few examples of transitional fossil forms. moreover, the > genetics show exactly the gradual change you expect. Well then list some of those examples. BTW, just because something obeys what you would expect in genetics does not prove one thing and disprove the other.
> > ...and don't > > forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > sure it does. evolution is scientifically observed. creation is made up. Again. No basis in fact. Just a useless troll. Why do I feed these things?
> > and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of > > evolution. > > creation only makes sense to the uneducated, sorry. OHHHHH I see what you are now. Well you have fun in your circle of "educated" people who do not know the difference between theories and facts or macro vs micro.
Les
MZ - 29 Jun 2004 19:20 GMT > Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!! Very few things, if any, can be considered "proven fact" actually. We tend to take things as "fact" if the bulk of the evidence supports it.
>So far in our > scientific studies noone can prove evolution and deny creation, nor can they > prove creation and deny evolution. > Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has > been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do > research between microevolution and macroevolution. Many regard the two as the same thing. These days, I don't think anyone argues that they're distinct processes.
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 20:45 GMT > > > This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are > > > correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. Probably not worth it, but OK.
> It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!! of course it is. evolution has been observed both in the field and in the laboratory. as a biologist, i am quite familiar with this fact. you may not be aware of it, but evolution is both fact (observed) and theory (the explanation for the observation). there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution, but the fact that it occurred and continues to do so is universally agreed upon, except perhaps by fringe groups of crackpots such as are often to be found scurrying about dark corners of the usenet.
evolution is simply the change in allelic frequency over time. as such, it can be observed in simple experiments such as selecting for traits in a population like antibiotic resistence and such. these observations are uncontroversial, and are clear demonstrations of the fact of evolution. these observations are easy to make in microorganisms, but are applicable to any organism.
> So far in our > scientific studies noone can prove evolution you say "our" as if you have worked in the field. what are your credentials again?
in any case, yes, many scientific studies have proven that evolution occurs. in fact, i will probably do one such experiment later on today. for a quick overview of how, simply see: Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84 Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
the latter review paper should be clear enough on this point.
> and deny creation, there is nothing about "creation" to deny.
> nor can they > prove creation and deny evolution. one cannot deny evolution any more than one can deny gravity.
> Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has > been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do > research between microevolution and macroevolution. LOL, the idea of someone who differentiates between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (terms not used by scientists) telling me to do "research" has me in stitches. in fact, i had to show some of my colleagues, who are also laughing at you.
> Once you have studied > the difference in those then show your "proof". OK, no problem: instances of speciation (what you presumably mean by your made-up "macroevolution" term)- here are a few of the many examples from the primary literature: Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
and a very nice textbook selection:
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
as an aside, no creationist has ever explained how evolution would simply "stop" at some arbirtary point, a crucial concept for their "theory". presumably they invoke magic yet again. it is therefore incumbent on those who insist on a distiction between "macro" and "micro" evolution to describe this difference, which of course they never will. care to take a swing at it (providing the appropriate molecualar mechanisms)?
> Right now you post > meaningless diatribes with no basis or reference to facts, basically you are > utilizing strawman tactics. no, i am patiently attempting to correct the woeful deficiencies in your understanding. if my posts are "meaningless" to you, it is only because you choose to understand, or are unable to do so. frankly, i question whether you even know what a "strawman" is, since i didn't use any such tactic.
> > > If evolution > > > were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Precisely? Imperfect? Seems to me that your precision is a little off. yes, but you have demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about, so it doesn't particularly matter what it "seems like" to you.
> > > Instead, the fossil record > > > is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less > > > and less diversity as time passes. > > > > what on earth are you talking about? care to explain this bizarre comment? you skipped it before.
> > > There are a very few instances > > > (Archeopteryx, platypus) that seem to show evolution, but the vast [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well then list some of those examples. there are literally hundreds. how long do you want this post to be?
OK: from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 24(4), December, 1972: "....Similarly, we also tend to refer transitional fossils to that higher taxon which the most resemble or to which their final representatives belong. Consequently, the fact that we are dealing with continuously gradational sequences may be obscured by our conventional practise of superimposing artificially discontinuous, higher rank taxonomic boundaries across such lineages (Olson, 1965, p. 100-101, 202-203; Van Morkhoven, 1962, p. 105, 153; Williams, 1953, p. 29; Cuffey, 1967, p. 38-39). As a result, for example, in the middle of sequences of transitional fossils bridging the conceptual gaps between the various vertebrate classes, we find forms which sit squarely on the dividing line between these high-rank taxa and which can be referred to either of two. In addition to Archaeopteryx between reptiles and birds (discussed previously), we can also note Diarthrognathus between reptiles and mammals, the seymouriamorphs between amphibians and reptiles, and Elpistostege between fishes and amphibians (see references in Table 5). "
In an excellent website replete with documentation from the literature, Kathleen Hunt has documented literally hundreds of transitionary fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
You should also consult the following texts for more information about fossil data. Colbert & Morales' Evolution of the Vertebrates (1991), Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988), and Benton's The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods (1988).
all of this is very well and quite convincing to anyone without an agenda, and that's before consulting the clinching genetic data!
> BTW, just because something obeys > what you would expect in genetics does not prove one thing and disprove the > other. perhaps not, but it is extremely suggestive. in fact, it would be an incredible coincidence (a deliberate deception, perhaps?) for a "creator" to produce precisely the kind of nested hierarchy of descent-with-modification that we see in the fossil record and flesh out with genetics. taking the data at its face value and combining that with observations we can make in real time, the evidence in favor of the general theory of evolution as the mechanism for producing our current bioversity is truly overwhelming. it is the best supported scientific theory of all time, after all.
> > > ...and don't > > > forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Again. No basis in fact. Just a useless troll. Why do I feed these things? well, if by "no basis in fact" you mean "more supporting facts than any scientific theory ever", you may have something there.
as to why you "feed these things", i suspect at least part of you was crying out to be educated.
tell me, did you go to public school or....?
> > > and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of > > > evolution. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OHHHHH I see what you are now. Well you have fun in your circle of > "educated" people who do not know the difference between theories and facts so i suppose you know the difference between "theories and facts"? do tell us.
> or macro vs micro. in terms of evolution, there is no such difference. unless you want to try to suggest how one might exist...?
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:17 GMT > >Everything happens "by chance". Or, more accurately, is dictated perhaps by > >the second law of thermodynamics. It's not exactly magic, folks... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What about the law of thermodynamics that states everything is in a constant state of > decay? a totally incorrect interpretation of thermodynamics.
> Your guy Darwin insisted that life became more complex as time went by. no he didn't.
> A direct > contradiction of this IRREFUTABLE law. (Not theory ... ;) only if you lack basic high-school level physics and biology.
> Talk about having faith in the impossible. talk about having no brains...
Tony Fernandes - 15 Jun 2004 21:01 GMT I think the truth about a "creator" or the nature of the universe or what happens after we die transcends conscious thought. It's not even something you and I can discuss becuase of our finite ability to comprehend. I'll stipulate their MAY be a creator if you can stipulate that there may NOT be one. Becuase really, neither of us really knows for sure. ;-)
Tony
 Signature What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> Well, if a person ignores the evidence ... ;) Doug - 15 Jun 2004 21:58 GMT >I think the truth about a "creator" or the nature of the universe or what >happens after we die transcends conscious thought. It's not even something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Tony Exactly. Both are a matter of faith. One is a faith in an unproven scientific explanation thought up by a guy in the 19th century; the other is a faith in an ancient book proven historically accurate in many regards (at least for Judeo-Christian faith systems). There is evidence to support both sides, but not evidence to prove either.
Agnostics are much more honest with themselves and the world than are atheists. Atheists refuse to admit that they subscribe to a faith-based system. That's dishonest.
Now, about those pesky subs...
MZ - 16 Jun 2004 14:27 GMT > Exactly. Both are a matter of faith. One is a faith in an unproven > scientific explanation thought up by a guy in the 19th century; There is much more evidence supporting what that guy said than there is supporting what that book said. Scientists encounter this evidence on a daily basis.
> the > other is a faith in an ancient book proven historically accurate in > many regards (at least for Judeo-Christian faith systems). It has been proven inaccurate in many more regards...
> There is > evidence to support both sides, but not evidence to prove either. Right. So, in order to determine which is more plausible, you need to weigh the evidence supporting both sides. However, I should point out that the two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
> Agnostics are much more honest with themselves and the world than are > atheists. Atheists refuse to admit that they subscribe to a > faith-based system. That's dishonest. The line between the two can be hard to pinpoint sometimes. Many people consider themselves atheists because they find that the creationism story highly unlikely, rather than subscribing to a single explanation.
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 22:27 GMT MZ,
You wrote:
"It has been proven inaccurate in many more regards..."
I would direct you to what the great scientist Gallileo had to say on this. I paraphase: "The Bible and true science do not contradict each other. Where there is a perceived contradiction the answer is that we do not yet understand exactly how it is that they work together."
 Signature Todd
MZ - 16 Jun 2004 23:27 GMT > "It has been proven inaccurate in many more regards..." > > I would direct you to what the great scientist Gallileo had to say on this. I > paraphase: "The Bible and true science do not contradict each other. Where there is a > perceived contradiction the answer is that we do not yet understand exactly how it is that > they work together." I agree with this. On the other hand, you bring up historical accuracies (even Dickens was historically accurate) as evidence, but dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt as merely something that we "do not yet understand".
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 23:52 GMT I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. Any being great enough to have created life, the universe and everything in it would have no problem turning a human into a pillar of salt.
 Signature Todd
MZ - 17 Jun 2004 00:03 GMT > I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. Any being great > enough to have created life, the universe and everything in it would have no problem > turning a human into a pillar of salt. How do you reconcile this belief with the laws of physics? Or did the laws of physics somehow momentarily cease to be so that this trick could be pulled off?
And, perhaps more importantly, what evidence do you have that it actually happened?
Todd - 17 Jun 2004 00:23 GMT Well, since God created the laws of physics and upholds them to this day, why couldn't he operate outside of the laws he himself created?
>"what evidence do you have that it actually happened? I wasn't there so I must take that statement of Lot's wife on faith. But God wouldn't lie to any of us. It is impossible for him to sin. So, we believe what he says in scripture because we have examined the evidence he provides and found it to be true. Thus we accept as true those things which he states have happened.
 Signature Todd
MZ - 17 Jun 2004 03:50 GMT > >"what evidence do you have that it actually happened? > > I wasn't there so I must take that statement of Lot's wife on faith. Why? Did you talk to her?
> But God wouldn't lie > to any of us. It is impossible for him to sin. So, we believe what he says in scripture How do you know he said it?
> because we have examined the evidence he provides and found it to be true. What evidence is that?
Todd - 17 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT >Why? Did you talk to her?
Well, what do you think? Don't be stupid.
>How do you know he said it?
It is in the scriptures, so it is true. You don't have to believe and are wise not to until you prove it for yourself.
>What evidence is that?
This, for a starter:
(Rom 1:16 NIV) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
(Rom 1:17 NIV) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
(Rom 1:18 NIV) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
(Rom 1:19 NIV) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
(Rom 1:20 NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(Rom 1:21 NIV) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:22 NIV) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
(Rom 1:23 NIV) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
(Rom 1:24 NIV) Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
(Rom 1:25 NIV) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
(Rom 1:26 NIV) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
(Rom 1:27 NIV) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
(Rom 1:28 NIV) Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
(Rom 1:29 NIV) They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
(Rom 1:30 NIV) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
(Rom 1:31 NIV) they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
(Rom 1:32 NIV) Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
(Rom 2:1 NIV) You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
(Rom 2:2 NIV) Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
(Rom 2:3 NIV) So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
(Rom 2:5 NIV) But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
(Rom 2:6 NIV) God "will give to each person according to what he has done."
(Rom 2:7 NIV) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
(Rom 2:8 NIV) But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
(Rom 2:9 NIV) There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
(Rom 2:10 NIV) but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
(Rom 2:11 NIV) For God does not show favoritism.
(Rom 2:12 NIV) All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
(Rom 2:13 NIV) For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
(Rom 2:14 NIV) (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
(Rom 2:15 NIV) since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
(Rom 2:16 NIV) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
(Rom 2:17 NIV) Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
(Rom 2:18 NIV) if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
(Rom 2:19 NIV) if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
(Rom 2:20 NIV) an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
(Rom 2:21 NIV) you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
(Rom 2:22 NIV) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
(Rom 2:23 NIV) You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
(Rom 2:24 NIV) As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
(Rom 2:25 NIV) Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.
(Rom 2:26 NIV) If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?
(Rom 2:27 NIV) The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
(Rom 2:28 NIV) A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
(Rom 2:29 NIV) No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Clearly, God states that the evidence he exists is the fact you live in a creation. You can accept this or dismiss it. It is up to you. It is called free will.
The Stand To Reason website has a great deal of info regarding this. Please read it before asking more questions that you could answer for yourself.
 Signature Todd
MZ - 17 Jun 2004 20:59 GMT > >Why? Did you talk to her? > > Well, what do you think? Don't be stupid. You're taking someone's word in support of the bible, but that person's word came from the bible. Therefore, your argument is circular.
> >What evidence is that? > > This, for a starter: <snip>
I said "evidence". Your entire argument thus far has been circular. You cannot prove that a book is accurate because the book claims that it's accurate.
Todd - 18 Jun 2004 23:31 GMT MZ,
The Bible is a large collection of books written over a very long period of time. If that makes its arguments circular for you then I suspect you wouldn't believe it anyway.
In any event, this is hardly a place to try and preach the gospel, and though I will try to answer any sincere questions you may have I don't perceive any sincerity on your part anyway.
The Stand to Reason site I the best I can direct you too.
 Signature Todd
Dan Erick - 20 Jun 2004 07:00 GMT > The Stand to Reason site I the best I can direct you too. I live
answersingenesis.org drdino.com
also =)
Dan
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:27 GMT > > The Stand to Reason site I the best I can direct you too. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dan yes, these sites are absolutely hilarious. i assume they're parodies, right?
MZ - 21 Jun 2004 00:37 GMT > MZ, > > The Bible is a large collection of books written over a very long period of time. If that > makes its arguments circular for you then I suspect you wouldn't believe it anyway. By definition, a circular argument requires that, as a premise, you accept the topic that's being debated as fact in order to prove that it is fact. That's a circular argument, and it's a logical fallacy. What did you think it was?
> In any event, this is hardly a place to try and preach the gospel, and though I will try > to answer any sincere questions you may have I don't perceive any sincerity on your part > anyway. I spent several years studying the bible, so I don't have any questions for you about its content. In fact, I feel that everyone should read it at least once, simply because of its importance to our society. Whether one agrees with it or not doesn't mean that it should be ignored.
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:25 GMT > Well, since God created the laws of physics and upholds them to this day, why couldn't he > operate outside of the laws he himself created? > > >"what evidence do you have that it actually happened? > > I wasn't there so I must take that statement of Lot's wife on faith. and a "grain" of salt.
> But God wouldn't lie > to any of us. of course. it's impossible for a figment of your imagination to do so.
> It is impossible for him to sin. So, we believe what he says in scripture "god" doesn't "say" anything. men wrote scriptures.
> because we have examined the evidence he provides and found it to be true. occasionally, but mostly we find it to be laughably false.
> Thus we accept > as true those things which he states have happened. lol, i hope you never have jury duty.
Tha Ghee - 22 Jun 2004 21:34 GMT > > I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. Any > being great [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And, perhaps more importantly, what evidence do you have that it actually > happened? seeing how he set into motion the laws of physics (if you believe he exist) I think he could/can do anything he wants. he's not restricted like man is.
MZ - 22 Jun 2004 21:39 GMT > > > I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. Any > > being great [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I think he could/can do anything he wants. he's not restricted like man > is. Which would require that you believe he temporarily disrupted the laws of physics after already establishing them.
Do people really believe this? Do people truly believe he came down out of the sky, waved his magic wand, and turned someone into a pillar of salt? Honestly?
Tony Fernandes - 22 Jun 2004 23:00 GMT Mr. Mark Zarella wrote: "Do people really believe this? Do people truly believe he came down out of the sky, waved his magic wand, and turned someone into a pillar of salt? Honestly?"
I don't. It's a myth. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, but it's basically mythology. Granted, it's one of the greatest and most believed myths. (and I don't just mean the stroy about the pillar of salt, I'm more or less referring to the entire Jesus story...at least most of it).
Tony
 Signature What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> > > > I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. > Any [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the sky, waved his magic wand, and turned someone into a pillar of salt? > Honestly? Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:27 GMT > > > > I don't dismiss stories of people being turned into pillars of salt. > Any [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the sky, waved his magic wand, and turned someone into a pillar of salt? > Honestly? as you can see from this thread, there are boundless wells of human gullibility to draw from.
Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:23 GMT > MZ, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perceived contradiction the answer is that we do not yet understand exactly how it is that > they work together." gee, i wonder why a guy who was being threatened with his life for heresy would say something like that...?
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 22:22 GMT Doug,
You wrote:
"Agnostics are much more honest with themselves and the world than are atheists. Atheists refuse to admit that they subscribe to a faith-based system. That's dishonest."
My view of agnostics is that they are less honest than atheists. Atheists at least take a stand. Agnostics, by definition, offer no conslusion on the matter of whether God exists or not. I suspect God has an easier time stomaching out and out disbelief than he does those so dishonest you won't even make a stand.
 Signature Todd
MZ - 16 Jun 2004 23:32 GMT > My view of agnostics is that they are less honest than atheists. Atheists at least > take a stand. Agnostics, by definition, offer no conslusion on the matter of whether God > exists or not. What makes you so sure YOU know the answer? Are you smarter than thousands of years worth of philosophers who have been endlessly debating the issue?
I suggest you take a gander at your Webster's dictionary and look up the word "faith".
Todd - 17 Jun 2004 00:17 GMT MZ,
You wrote:
"What makes you so sure YOU know the answer? Are you smarter than thousands of years worth of philosophers who have been endlessly debating the issue?
I suggest you take a gander at your Webster's dictionary and look up the word "faith"."
The way Websters defines faith is meaningless. The way the Bible defines it is as follows.
(Heb 11:1 NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Thus faith is simply defined as believing. Are we to simply believe anything at all? No.
(Heb 3:1 NIV) Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.
(Heb 3:2 NIV) He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God's house.
(Heb 3:3 NIV) Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself.
(Heb 3:4 NIV) For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.
(Heb 3:5 NIV) Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future.
(Heb 3:6 NIV) But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.
(Heb 3:7 NIV) So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice,
(Heb 3:8 NIV) do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert,
(Heb 3:9 NIV) where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did.
(Heb 3:10 NIV) That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.'
(Heb 3:11 NIV) So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'"
(Heb 3:12 NIV) See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.
(Heb 3:13 NIV) But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.
(Heb 3:14 NIV) We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
(Heb 3:15 NIV) As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion."
(Heb 3:16 NIV) Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?
(Heb 3:17 NIV) And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?
(Heb 3:18 NIV) And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed ?
(Heb 3:19 NIV) So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.
(Heb 4:1 NIV) Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
(Heb 4:2 NIV) For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
(Heb 4:3 NIV) Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
(Heb 4:4 NIV) For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
(Heb 4:5 NIV) And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
(Heb 4:6 NIV) It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
(Heb 4:7 NIV) Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."
(Heb 4:8 NIV) For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
(Heb 4:9 NIV) There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
(Heb 4:10 NIV) for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
(Heb 4:11 NIV) Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
(Heb 4:12 NIV) For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
(Heb 4:13 NIV) Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
These were people that were brought out of slavery in Egypt by many irrefutable proofs of God's existence, yet they refused to believe that he could provide for them.
So I claim no greater wisdom than ages of philosophers have. That is vanity. I take God at his word and examine honestly the evidence he provides. That which troubles me or seems impossible, for whatever reason, I take on the good and trustworthy word of my Creator because he has never failed me in the past with regard to his promises.
 Signature Todd
Doug - 17 Jun 2004 01:10 GMT I really wasn't going to continue this discussion here, but oh well.
When you look objectively at geology, biology, and the fossil record, there are inconsistencies with either view. Evolution is not proven nor fully supported by observation.
Since neither extreme can be (so far) scientifically proven, both extremes require faith. Agnostics and religious people are the truely honest ones. Religious people admit to faith; agnostics lack faith either way, so rely only on observation. To be an atheist also requires faith. It's just that all atheists I've run across refuse to admit it. That's dishonest.
>Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >exists or not. I suspect God has an easier time stomaching out and out disbelief than he >does those so dishonest you won't even make a stand. Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:36 GMT > I really wasn't going to continue this discussion here, but oh well. > > When you look objectively at geology, biology, and the fossil record, > there are inconsistencies with either view. Evolution is not proven > nor fully supported by observation. actually it is. it is proven fact, observed and documented.
> Since neither extreme can be (so far) scientifically proven, except for the one that can....
> both > extremes require faith. or not.
> Agnostics and religious people are the truely > honest ones. except for the fact that gnosticism/theism are orthogonal and religious people are only honest about making up gods....
> Religious people admit to faith; agnostics lack faith > either way, so rely only on observation. To be an atheist also > requires faith. It's just that all atheists I've run across refuse to > admit it. That's dishonest. no, it's just that you don't understand it. there is not necessarily faith involved in being an atheist.
> >Doug, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >exists or not. I suspect God has an easier time stomaching out and out disbelief than he > >does those so dishonest you won't even make a stand. Mark Stahl - 29 Jun 2004 16:33 GMT > Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exists or not. I suspect God has an easier time stomaching out and out disbelief than he > does those so dishonest you won't even make a stand. of course, like almost everything you've posted in this thread, this is false and frankly stupid. agnosticism deals with beliefs about knowledge- what is/is not "knowable". theism deals with belief in the existence of gods. they're orthogonal. a great many people are agnostic atheists, believing that it is impossible to know for certain whether gods exist (especially given their vague, metaphysical definitions), but believe (in the absence of evidence) that they do not. most people are probably agnostic theists, who vaguely believe (still in the absence of evidence) that gods exist, but realize that such a thing is impossible to prove. the gnostics-- atheist or theist-- are absolutely convinced that they "know" whether gods exist or not.
atheists do not subscribe to a "faith based system" unless they are gnostic, taking it on faith that gods do not exist. an agnostic atheist simply witholds belief in the absence of evidence, much like not believing there is life on mars until shown otherwise.
Todd - 16 Jun 2004 22:19 GMT Tony,
No one can force anyone to believe there is a Creator. He simply offers you incontrovertible evidence that he exists and tells you to sit up and honestly pay attention after that. This road, faithfully followed, leads to eternal life where YOU can actually travel anywhere in the universe and understand all that "transcends conscious thought." You and I will then be able to discuss it because we will have infinite ability to comprehend.
And that in a nutshell is what the Gospel speaks of ;)
 Signature Todd
Tony Fernandes - 17 Jun 2004 08:14 GMT Todd wrote: " No one can force anyone to believe there is a Creator. He simply offers you incontrovertible evidence that he exists and tells you to sit up and honestly pay attention after that."
I can honestly say that in the 32 years I've been alive, I have not once seen any incontrovertible evidence that a god exists. And believe me, if for one second I did, if I felt that a god existed, I would believe in it.
And again: "This road, faithfully followed, leads to eternal life where YOU can actually travel anywhere in the universe and understand all that "transcends conscious thought."
If I thought for one second that the Bible was the word of God, I would believe it. I don't believe everything I read. No one that I know or who I've talked to can offer me proof that the God exists and that following His road will lead to eternal life. Who knows, maybe it does...but I seriously doubt it. When I die it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Tony
 Signature What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> Tony, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And that in a nutshell is what the Gospel speaks of ;) Todd - 17 Jun 2004 09:26 GMT Tony,
You at least show a willingness to look at the evidence. Go here and read what it offers: http://str.org/
I don't think you can honestly read this material with an open mind and not reach a favourable conclusion :)
 Signature Todd
Tony Fernandes - 17 Jun 2004 11:11 GMT Todd wrote: "I don't think you can honestly read this material with an open mind and not reach a favourable conclusion :)"
What conclusion would that be?
We just have a different belief system. I've read and will continue to read some of the articles in the site you provided. But based upon what I've already read, I still don't believe in God. In fact, nothing anyone has said in these posts have gotten me any closer to believing in God. Much like I suppose most relilgious people reading this have not come any closer to not believing in God. What I am enjoying is hearing all sorts of opinions and not a lot of name-calling!! That's nice for a change.
Tony
What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact
> Tony, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think you can honestly read this material with an open mind and not reach a > favourable conclusion :) Todd - 19 Jun 2004 04:46 GMT Tony,
This link leads to a downloadable pdf document about the existence of God. Give it a whirl, it might help :)
http://www.cgca.net/ucg/booklets/exist.pdf
 Signature Todd
MZ - 21 Jun 2004 00:42 GMT > Tony, > > This link leads to a downloadable pdf document about the existence of God. Give it a > whirl, it might help :) > > http://www.cgca.net/ucg/booklets/exist.pdf I began to read it, but the very first paragraph of this document is a lie. Why should I bother to read the rest?
Here it is:
"The discovery was stunning. For 10 days astronomers had carefully trained the Hubble Space Telescope on a tiny patch of sky that appeared no larger than a grain of sand held at arm's length. Focusing on a spotnear the Big Dipper where the view wouldn't be obstructed by nearby planets or stars, the scientists used the giant orbitingtelescope's instruments to methodically gather 342 exposures, averaging 15 to 40 minutes long. They patiently recorded miniscule points of light four billion times fainter than detectable with the human eye."
The last sentence is absurd. What other inaccuracies are in this document? Is this why it's published on a private website and not in something worthwhile?
Todd - 21 Jun 2004 02:30 GMT I don't know what the lie might be, MZ.
But since you know everything, why don't you tell us?
 Signature Todd
MZ - 21 Jun 2004 03:45 GMT > I don't know what the lie might be, MZ. > > But since you know everything, why don't you tell us? I pointed out that the last sentence was incorrect. Specifically, contrast was not an issue and, in the absence of a mask, the human eye can detect down to the single-photon level. It's annoying when an article, whose chief aim is to try to argue in favor of what they feel is the "truth", gets things wrong right out of the starting gate.
I read a bit more of the article (though I did not have the time or ambition to read the entire 32 pages). It appears that the sole argument has two major flaws:
First, it misinterprets the argument made by the other side and thus the article becomes one giant strawman (logical fallacy #1). Specifically, the author demonstrates that he doesn't have much of a grasp about what the second law of thermodynamics is all about, and therefore discounts the possibility entirely. In other words, he provides the physicist's statements regarding how things must have been "designed", yet I'm almost certain that the physicist probably followed that statement with something regarding how the 2nd law of thermodynamics tends to account for such seemingly "designed" processes. Many many aspects of human development, for instance, serve as good examples of how such an apparently well-designed process can be dictated almost entirely by "random-like" events.
Second, even if the author had correctly interpreted the other side's argument, he is still relying on logical fallacies to argue his point. Essentially, the question that he seems to be focusing his argument on is this: "If the laws of physics as currently defined can't account for it, then there must be a god." The argument "if A is not true, then B *must* be true" is also a logical fallacy (#2). But it's moot anyway, because it's not based on a proper interpretation of physics anyway.
It's important to note here that my criticism of his form of argumentation isn't a condemnation of the idea that a "creator" exists. I'm simply dismissing his line of reasoning because it's chock full of holes. And it seems to me like you folks are supporting this very same argument.
The bottom line is that, contrary to the beliefs held by some on both sides, it's impossible to prove that a "creator" does or does not exist.
Les - 20 Jun 2004 05:17 GMT > The bottom line is that, contrary to the beliefs held by some on both sides, > it's impossible to prove that a "creator" does or does not exist. I agree, almost. Personally I would amend it slightly. It is impossible to prove, to another person, that a creator does or does not exist. It is a topic that you basically just have to believe one way or the other and be comfortable in that because as of now it cannot be "proven" in a manner to appease everyone. Now, with that being said, it is a useless argument since neither side can be wrong in their beliefs on the issue. But we shall all find out the answer when we die, so we can discuss who is right and who is wrong then.
Les
MZ - 21 Jun 2004 05:27 GMT > I agree, almost. Personally I would amend it slightly. It is impossible to > prove, to another person, that a creator does or does not exist. It is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, with that being said, it is a useless argument since neither side can > be wrong in their beliefs on the issue. Neither side can be wrong with their beliefs, perhaps. But, as I've hopefully pointed out in this thread, one can be wrong with their reasoning for adopting such a belief system. Like many mysteries, it's simply a matter of weighing evidence and choosing the option which appears to be the most plausible. Unfortunately, most folks arrive at a decision before they actually weigh the evidence. So then they search out evidence that supports their initial belief while ignoring that which doesn't support it.
> But we shall all find out the answer > when we die, so we can discuss who is right and who is wrong then. Well, maybe we won't. If there isn't an afterlife, then we won't find out.
Les - 20 Jun 2004 07:05 GMT > > I agree, almost. Personally I would amend it slightly. It is impossible to > > prove, to another person, that a creator does or does not exist. It is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > matter of weighing evidence and choosing the option which appears to be the > most plausible. One can be wrong with their reasoning, on both sides, to the point of being blinded by their faith. I think that everyone can agree to that, and it has been pointed out. Someone who relies solely on science, which cannot be "proved", seems foolish to those who believe in God. And likewise those who believe in God, which cannot be "proved", seems foolish to those who rely on science. It would reason, although it is flawed as well, that a person who uses BOTH is bound to not be foolish and have the whole picture. But they are usually more sure of their beliefs and not easily swayed. If you can talk somebody into something, then someone can talk them out of it.
Unfortunately, most folks arrive at a decision before they
> actually weigh the evidence. So then they search out evidence that supports > their initial belief while ignoring that which doesn't support it. True, for some people. There seems to be a debate in these types of threads that God and Science are mutually exclusive. They are not. There has never, to my knowledge, been evidence that a belief in God and the Bible defies proven (not theoretical) science. Likewise there has never been evidence to support that believing in proven science means that you cannot believe in God. So it basically boils down to what each individual person chooses to believe.
> > But we shall all find out the answer > > when we die, so we can discuss who is right and who is wrong then. > > Well, maybe we won't. If there isn't an afterlife, then we won't find out. Hmmm. Well if we do, I am sure it will be an interesting discussion.
BTW Mark, it is nice to have a discussion where ideas and thoughts can be exchanged without resorting to name-calling, especially on this oftenly heated topic.
Les
MZ - 21 Jun 2004 17:55 GMT > True, for some people. There seems to be a debate in these types of threads > that God and Science are mutually exclusive. They are not. Exactly the point I've been trying to make in this thread. But I think an important goal for the "believers" should be to try to argue for the case of a god within the framework of physics, rather than in opposition to it. Before the argument even got started, the very first move was for them to try to dismiss all (relatively) well-established scientific notions because they were inconsistent with the details of their belief system.
Their argument would then have to follow one of two paths: 1) physics is wrong; or 2) the god "interrupted" the laws of physics to do something, and then set them back in motion - a timeout, if you will. Sure, both of those ideas are possible. But I'd argue that they're highly unlikely, and I certainly wouldn't default to either of those ideas. We've already seen one poster say something to the effect of "god was powerful enough to create everything; why couldn't he operate outside the bounds of physics?" That argument is a cop out. I'd simply counter with a cop out of my own: "can god create something so heavy that he could not lift it?" :)
Todd - 22 Jun 2004 05:10 GMT MZ,
I can not argue you into believing in God. All of the questions you pose are not original, they've been asked by many people many times before. They are all dealt with on the Stand to Reason site and the other, which offers the "Does God Exist" pdf.
Still, you have doubts. Conversion to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ is not a frivilous endeavour. You will have doubts, friends will laugh at you and mock you and try to hunmiliate you for your belief. Satan will try to deceive you and discourage you. But when you reach the point of surrender we believers will give you a hearty "Welcome to the club!"
But all I can offer you is a course of action to truly place your request for faith before the Creator of the universe. Now what more could any of us humans ask for?
So please bear with me, as this may become a bit lengthy ;)
First I think it would be a good idea to see what the God of the Bible has to say about what being in his presence is like. All quotes are from the New International Version (NIV).
Here is how the author of Revelation described it.
(Rev 4:1 NIV) After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."
(Rev 4:2 NIV) At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
(Rev 4:3 NIV) And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.
(Rev 4:4 NIV) Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.
(Rev 4:5 NIV) From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God.
(Rev 4:6 NIV) Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back.
(Rev 4:7 NIV) The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle.
(Rev 4:8 NIV) Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
(Rev 4:9 NIV) Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever,
(Rev 4:10 NIV) the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
(Rev 4:11 NIV) "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
(Rev 5:1 NIV) Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals.
(Rev 5:2 NIV) And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?"
(Rev 5:3 NIV) But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.
(Rev 5:4 NIV) I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside.
(Rev 5:5 NIV) Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."
(Rev 5:6 NIV) Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
(Rev 5:7 NIV) He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
(Rev 5:8 NIV) And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
(Rev 5:9 NIV) And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
(Rev 5:10 NIV) You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
(Rev 5:11 NIV) Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
(Rev 5:12 NIV) In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
(Rev 5:13 NIV) Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"
(Rev 5:14 NIV) The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
A pretty impressive place to be, if we are to believe the scriptures. What other descriptions are in the Bible of this type of encounter? Isaiah saw this while in the temple in Jerusalem:
(Isa 6:1 NIV) In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.
(Isa 6:2 NIV) Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.
(Isa 6:3 NIV) And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."
(Isa 6:4 NIV) At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
(Isa 6:5 NIV) "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."
(Isa 6:6 NIV) Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
(Isa 6:7 NIV) With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."
(Isa 6:8 NIV) Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
(Isa 6:9 NIV) He said, "Go and tell this people: "'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
And Ezekial saw this vision as he was held in a prison camp in what is modern-day Iraq.
(Ezek 1:1 NIV) In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.
(Ezek 1:2 NIV) On the fifth of the month--it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin--
(Ezek 1:3 NIV) the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians. There the hand of the LORD was upon him.
(Ezek 1:4 NIV) I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north--an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal,
(Ezek 1:5 NIV) and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man,
(Ezek 1:6 NIV) but each of them had four faces and four wings.
(Ezek 1:7 NIV) Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze.
(Ezek 1:8 NIV) Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings,
(Ezek 1:9 NIV) and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.
(Ezek 1:10 NIV) Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle.
(Ezek 1:11 NIV) Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out upward; each had two wings, one touching the wing of another creature on either side, and two wings covering its body.
(Ezek 1:12 NIV) Each one went straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, without turning as they went.
(Ezek 1:13 NIV) The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it.
(Ezek 1:14 NIV) The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.
(Ezek 1:15 NIV) As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces.
(Ezek 1:16 NIV) This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel.
(Ezek 1:17 NIV) As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went.
(Ezek 1:18 NIV) Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.
(Ezek 1:19 NIV) When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose.
(Ezek 1:20 NIV) Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
(Ezek 1:21 NIV) When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
(Ezek 1:22 NIV) Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome.
(Ezek 1:23 NIV) Under the expanse their wings were stretched out one toward the other, and each had two wings covering its body.
(Ezek 1:24 NIV) When the creatures moved, I heard the sound of their wings, like the roar of rushing waters, like the voice of the Almighty, like the tumult of an army. When they stood still, they lowered their wings.
(Ezek 1:25 NIV) Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings.
(Ezek 1:26 NIV) Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man.
(Ezek 1:27 NIV) I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him.
(Ezek 1:28 NIV) Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
(Ezek 2:1 NIV) He said to me, "Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."
(Ezek 2:2 NIV) As he spoke, the Spi |
|