Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

[cowiz]

I would like to have the honor of being the first one to say "tits" in this thread.

Can't say tits without posting a tasteful pic of a huge pair - it's the rules.

Then I demand a warning for breaking the code of conduct

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I would like to have the honor of being the first one to say "tits" in this thread.

Can't say tits without posting a tasteful pic of a huge pair - it's the rules.

Then I demand a warning for breaking the code of conduct

[Feck]

I can copy past too ...From Wiki

Assuming that achieving the Omega Point is physically possible, Tipler says this would be accomplished by "downloaded" human consciousness on quantum computers in tiny starships that could exponentially explore space, many times faster than biological human beings. Tipler argues that the incredible expense of keeping humans alive in space implies that flesh-and-blood humans will never personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient uploads of human minds ("mind children" as Tipler calls them, they being the mental uploads of our descendants, or of ourselves[1]) and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. According to Tipler, this should likely start before 2100. Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds could then reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these intelligent von Neumann probes would have completely colonized the Milky Way galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster would be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these "mind children" as it approaches the point of maximum expansion. Per this cosmological model, the final singularity of the Omega Point itself will be reached between 1018and 1019years.[2]

[cowiz]

Physics has many decades ago already proved that God exists in all of existence's ultimate past.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with...

Snippity snip snip

Just about tells us all we need to know. Thanks for stopping by though, it's been great to have you here. Don't forget to take your tinfoil hat with you when you leave.

[Azathoth]

I can copy past too ...From Wiki

Assuming that achieving the Omega Point is physically possible, Tipler says this would be accomplished by "downloaded" human consciousness on quantum computers in tiny starships that could exponentially explore space, many times faster than biological human beings. Tipler argues that the incredible expense of keeping humans alive in space implies that flesh-and-blood humans will never personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient uploads of human minds ("mind children" as Tipler calls them, they being the mental uploads of our descendants, or of ourselves[1]) and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. According to Tipler, this should likely start before 2100. Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds could then reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these intelligent von Neumann probes would have completely colonized the Milky Way galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster would be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these "mind children" as it approaches the point of maximum expansion. Per this cosmological model, the final singularity of the Omega Point itself will be reached between 1018and 1019years.[2]

There is a portrait of him there as well. He is the one with his head on the bench.

[Feck]

Ohhh I think I've got the hang of this now


Titters for Tipler
BY JOSEPH WILSON
Once a respected physicist, Frank Tipler, it appears, has gone off the deep end.

Tipler’s main thesis here is that the tenets of Christianity, from the Virgin Birth to the coming Apocalypse, can all be explained by physics – no faith required. He stretches the laws of quantum mechanics to absurd lengths to explain Biblical passages, and then claims to be stating the facts as they are known in mainstream physics.

He interprets Biblical parables literally and explains Jesus’s resurrection as a case of “electroweak baryogenesis through quantum tunnelling.” Apparently, a chemical analysis of the Shroud of Turin proves his thesis. He accuses those who disagree with him of being “anti-science.”

I actually laughed out loud at his argument that what made Mary and Jesus so special was that they lacked the gene for “original sin.” He claims that the gene that codes for sin is related to the growth of bones in animals, and proof of this, he says, is the fact that protozoa can’t commit murder.

In a bizarre circular argument, Tipler argues that the physical laws of the universe don’t change because God’s word doesn’t change, which means that humans were put on earth to ensure that the universe doesn’t behave in a way that changes God’s laws.

What makes this book pernicious instead of just silly is that it tries to fool people with equations and fancy terminology. Tipler’s lack of self-reflection on how his faith has undermined his scientific objectivity is sad.

In an appalling moment of arrogance, Tipler seeks to give us a lesson on what makes a good scientist: “A scientist… must accept the results of experiment, and nothing but the results of experiment.”

I started to keep track of all the logical inconsistencies in this book but lost count. Tipler should heed his own advice and stop insulting the traditions of both scientific and religious scholarship with asinine arguments.

[Randydeluxe]

Did you cut and paste that all by yourself? Aren't you a clever boy.

I wrote it all by myself.

Nice side-step. You may have written it yourself some time ago, but you copied and pasted it into this discussion. We can see where you and/or others have pasted the exact same text into other discussion boards or comments threads before, by simply plugging your stuff into Google.

You're being chastised for not participating in the discussion, the way that someone who enters a debate and then leaves a portable CD player running on the podium is not participating in the debate.

[James Redford]

Physics has many decades ago already proved that God exists in all of existence's ultimate past.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with...

Snippity snip snip

Just about tells us all we need to know. Thanks for stopping by though, it's been great to have you here. Don't forget to take your tinfoil hat with you when you leave.

Sorry, pawiz, but neither I nor Profs. Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg hold your interest in tinfoil hats. As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." [My emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_Peer ... 070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 62, Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
""

On p. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
""

[James Redford]

Did you cut and paste that all by yourself? Aren't you a clever boy.

I wrote it all by myself.

Nice side-step. You may have written it yourself some time ago, but you copied and pasted it into this discussion. We can see where you and/or others have pasted the exact same text into other discussion boards or comments threads before, by simply plugging your stuff into Google.

You're being chastised for not participating in the discussion, the way that someone who enters a debate and then leaves a portable CD player running on the podium is not participating in the debate.

Of course I am participating in the discussion, as you can here see. If someone has questions about something I have discussed on this forum, they can ask me and I'll attempt to answer them.

[Randydeluxe]

It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang

Bullshit. You should read up on some history before you make such a simple error. Einstein didn't like the physics at first, and neither did some of his counterparts. But Hubble's redshift discovery in 1929 was key to giving scientists the evidence they needed to point to a big bang.

(for some 40 years)

It took about 5 years for Einstein and most others to come around. This was primarily due to language barriers and the great thinkers of the time having very little correspondence. Einstein's famous quote following a Lemaître speech on the subject ("This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.") was in 1933. There were certainly some holdouts, and I'm sure there are still holdouts today, but "the scientific community" you're talking about did what it always does: Some agreed with Lemaître immediately, some waited for all the evidence to come in, and some held onto their pet beliefs too long. There wasn't some meeting of the Anti-Religious Scientist Union that resulted in a proclamation binding on all scientists regarding the big bang.

, due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo,

More bullshit. There are so many writings on the subject from the scientists of the 1930s and 1940s, that it boggles the mind that you've allowed yourself to post this nonsense over and over in various places on the web.

it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it.

Bullshit. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Randydeluxe]

If someone has questions about something I have discussed on this forum, they can ask me and I'll attempt to answer them.

Do you know anything about physics, and the history of physics? Have you studied those subjects at all?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Did you cut and paste that all by yourself? Aren't you a clever boy.

I wrote it all by myself.

Nice side-step. You may have written it yourself some time ago, but you copied and pasted it into this discussion. We can see where you and/or others have pasted the exact same text into other discussion boards or comments threads before, by simply plugging your stuff into Google.

You're being chastised for not participating in the discussion, the way that someone who enters a debate and then leaves a portable CD player running on the podium is not participating in the debate.

Of course I am participating in the discussion, as you can here see. If someone has questions about something I have discussed on this forum, they can ask me and I'll attempt to answer them.

Yes you have. That is why you are still here. Your initial copypasta posts looked like a hit-and-run spam-job and linked to sites referenced by a known spammer, but your subsequent conduct has been OK.

A word of advice though: Drop the huge blocks of text - very few people are going to bother to read them and I doubt any will follow all the links. We are not here to listen to you lecture, no matter how much you like your own voice, but to exchange ideas. Capisce?

[James Redford]

It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang

Bullshit. You should read up on some history before you make such a simple error. Einstein didn't like the physics at first, and neither did some of his counterparts. But Hubble's redshift discovery in 1929 was key to giving scientists the evidence they needed to point to a big bang.

(for some 40 years)

It took about 5 years for Einstein and most others to come around. This was primarily due to language barriers and the great thinkers of the time having very little correspondence. Einstein's famous quote following a Lemaître speech on the subject ("This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.") was in 1933. There were certainly some holdouts, and I'm sure there are still holdouts today, but "the scientific community" you're talking about did what it always does: Some agreed with Lemaître immediately, some waited for all the evidence to come in, and some held onto their pet beliefs too long. There wasn't some meeting of the Anti-Religious Scientist Union that resulted in a proclamation binding on all scientists regarding the big bang.

, due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo,

More bullshit. There are so many writings on the subject from the scientists of the 1930s and 1940s, that it boggles the mind that you've allowed yourself to post this nonsense over and over in various places on the web.

it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it.

Bullshit. You're embarrassing yourself.

A number of the leading physicists are on record that the reason for the physics community's displeasure over the Big Bang theory is due to its theological implications. As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." [My emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_Peer ... 070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 62, Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
""

On p. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
""

[James Redford]

If someone has questions about something I have discussed on this forum, they can ask me and I'll attempt to answer them.

Do you know anything about physics, and the history of physics? Have you studied those subjects at all?

You can answer these questions in the afirmative yourself by reading what I have posted in this thread.

[Randydeluxe]

tom-cruise.jpg (75.19 KiB) Viewed 1604 times

TitsAndCheese.jpg (191.05 KiB) Viewed 1604 times