Fisherman , the kind hearted ex eb who helps care for a whole load other children, many who come from dysfunctional background,has made the following comment
Peter M Clarke I’ve known as many people who have decided they believe in God as those who don’t or the reverse .No skin off my ass.Doesn’t make them a good person or a bad person either way . I happen to believe in God and intelligent design.(although seeing some people sometimes cause me to question that)mainly because I can’t get my head around how ‘evolution’ can turn rocks into hummingbirds no matter how many bilion years it takes and we aren’t going to get into where the rocks came from in the first place…just doesn’t make sense to me how you can start out with ‘nothing’ and end up with ‘something’ let alone the complexity of everything we see all around us without some sort of catalyst or force to kick off the whole process..
Lets think about these two question. But to make things easier, lets begin with, the question of start out with ‘nothing’ puzzle, first off
Can Fisherman come up with any kind of evidence, with scientists claiming to see back past the big bang, into moment before the bang, so as to know what was there “before”? (or perhaps not there)
And because,they don’t know. There is no human that does. Nobody has ever had any-ability to know “what was”, until such time as AFTER, “first few moments after” the bang
Even atoms what create neuclear explosion start off from something so small , that some people might even figure that that there is “looking like” starting off from something what seem like its next to nothing (in size)
But yet, what we are dealing with is similar stuff as what the nuclear bomb is also doing
Extremely small things can STILL contain mighty powerful energies ?
Fisherman wouldn’t claim that the explosion what came from the nuclear explosion, came from something so small looking in size that it were next to nothing. So = “God musta did” it.Right ? .
Just because we don’t quite know what was. Doesn’t make it right, to jump to conclusion “God did it”
Fisherman constantly “claim” that he’s friendly toward atheists. Well many scientist are atheist too. Plenty of them are normal decent people too. Why is it morally ok to be continually spreading misinformation about their-theory?
I never quite understand how believers, who’ll read holy books, and worship and do charity and act so very kind in other ways. Can then still happily think it all quite ok to constantly misrepresent the claim that scientists made
I try and rationalize and reason why it happen?. But it doesn’t make sense. Unless I start thinking about it from prospective of how the brethren are also kind of acting similar-ways too. They’ll do charity work and so on, yet will still quite happily live with the half truths
Nobody know exactly what “was” before . Even still today they don’t,SIMPLY BECAUSE nobody can ever even see back that far for a start. (Just saying. And for all we know, hell we could assume, “that perhaps” the big bang might of even be something about a time when another “time and place” over on the “other side” of the bang, had of suddenly “spilled over” into here in what would become our own new universe. In “affect” creating it .Or something. Who of us can know?. All I can say is I personally see more evidence of celestial explosion and shooting star and what not, than what i ever feel like i “actually” do see “freely available evidence” of any existing-God. So why so ?)
Science telescope are snapping shots of celestial explosion and sorts all the time. But no telescope has even YET snapped any ONE photo shot of any God-like-figure streaking across the universe or anything like it. Have they?
That’s the real puzzling part to me (specially when holy books have recorded times when “evidently” according to their own recollections this kind of phenomena was common-place and freely available for “everyone” to see, almost anytime they might like to. IE: evidently even evidence of resurrection-phenomena, were not even a problem to see)
Anyway, enough about that question. Lets now move on and reconsider the other question.
How the hell can/could a bunch of rocks ever turn into hummingbird
This question is poorly structured, and so as such its misleading once again,as well . In affect, CONTENT to be misrepresenting what scientist theories are?. A number who are atheists that theist like to claim that they still care about too
Scientist don’t declare that rocks turned into hummingbirds, at all ?
That’s blatant misrepresentation
The rocks what Fisherman mentions, i would say is more likely to do with the scientist thoughts about what the universes was like first of all, for an amount of time long long ago, after the bang. A time when heaps celestial object like perhaps meteorite and so on were headed on collusion coarses, with other celestial objects too, like such as even being on collision course with our own earth as well too, for instance . Those things hurtling through on collusion course with earth, had carried to earth, lots of different chemical (element or whatever) . When they collide with earth, the following explosion, what happen, would then disperse the chemical
Human have found such evidence here on earth (evidence of ancient collision) .
So the rock (that Fisherman speaks of) is likely his own way of describing/depicting these meteorite type things, and what not
They begin to “break up” on impact
Some of those celestial object ,have in recent years, been found out, to contain certain particles, of type chemical , of like what could in fact “in theory” possibly cause a chemical reaction , to spark-up life
For many generation they hadn’t found evidence of any, or formulate their theory on how those particular chemical, might have arrive on earth. Until they consider the early stage of our universe , and had wonder about whether this could HELP explain how life began
Interestingly, some theory involve a chemical solution mix, of what first spark-up life on earth, after early earth were also being constantly bombarded with loads of volatile lighting strike and so on.
Its generally been called “Primordial soup” hypothesis
Here is a general reference source of info, for anyone here interested of reading on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Now . Lets now think about this what follow within what i’d also like to share
Its interesting to think about the primordial soup theory , and to contemplate the hypothesis, that all life on earth might have first started , through chemical reaction of a mix of “chemical soup”, of what bombardment of lightning strike might have then sparked off lifeform ?
Is it really way too far-fetched and hard for us to imagine it could/might ever have occurred like that way that the scientist hypothesis propose it might ?
First before anyone decide
Lets also think about this other interesting info, together too , at the same time we are still freshly involved in trying to imagine how a simple spark ,such as a lightning strike or whatever, might ever have anything to do with sparking life-up , here on earth .
Good question right?
Enjoy the following interesting info then. For sake of interest
A Flash of Light Occurs at Moment of Conception
end quote (my bold)
Be sure to read right to the bottom of the page. Notice how human life can be still kind of fairly closely described within chemical reaction type scenario . Without too much problem
Even today, conception is still involving a-spark ?
If we can accept that there is indeed a spark of what STILL ignite more life on earth here today
Well then why?
But why is it still so hard for human to imagine and wonder if in fact, perhaps very first-step forward toward any sign of progress toward evolution of a lifeform, might in fact been also happening too, back in times way long long ago, a time when earth was volatile and were still being bombarded with all kind of chemical and things, while also being bombarded with loads of “lightning SPARKS” and so on, as well too all at the same time
So what’s the big problem?
Is it only that this hypothesis isn’t going to provide the-other option of what is also been long been totally relied on and been long “longed for“and hoped for ?
Yes i understand
I even still wish it were so also too myself too as well. Specially so too, after my own experience, with faith abuse. Its natural ? . Natural to like the idea, that there might be hope for justice , later on
I get that
Its only natural to feel that way
But sadly it will do none of us any good. Will it? .If in fact the God hypothesis, is incorrect
It wont will it. And yet ,while we are ALREADY still busily banking so much on (HOPE OF)this one particular hypothesis.
Then meanwhile, at the very same time it ALSO remain far easier for the cults to get away with continuing to destroy human life in the way they STILL too often do
In part,its due to there still being higher population of believers
Lower population of atheist
If there STILL be, less believers feeling any scepticism in regard of faith in an eternity
Then that will also explain why the faith abuses have been left to continue?
As obviously it ALSO create a HUGE MASSIVE lack of SENSE OF urgency. Among human ranks. Generally