The Book of Revelation Unlocked

Amazing stories.

Yes, the quanta is just energy which composes the wave function before it is observed and collapses.
That wave function contains the information which can make it a wave or a particle.
The observation of either the wave or the particle determines what the wave will become.

My point was that before there was any matter, before The Big Bang,... everything had to have been quanta.
Hence, some observer had to exist before there was a material universe.
That observer was the Creator, by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

True.
But if they exist, they are part of Reality.

 

OK.
Good.
We agree on Gen 1:1 then?

 

We use our senses to determine what is true in the Reality we realize has us trapped inside it.
At birth, we feel, see, smell taste things.

We decide that this tastes good, and we eat it.
Or we decide that smells and feels wrong, and we do not eat it.
We start using our senses to find things we say are true.

When we are older, our friends agree with what we have self discovered, and together we build up more sensations which produce facts which everyone else acknowledges, too.
This is essentially the Scientific Method.

We believe our senses can tell us what is real because they discover what is true.

 

As I keep telling you....Wave Function Collapse does NOT hae to occur for Matter to exist.

It's not like everything was Quantum Particle/Wave Forms and some GOD observes them and they turn into Matter.

Observation was not necessary for the Big Bang to happen and observation is not necessary for Quantum Evolution which is the process by which Quantum Particle/Wave Forms naturally arrange themselves into more complex states which become at their most basic level a Hydrogen Atom and then H2.

NO OBSERVATION IS NECESSARY for this to happen nor for the H2 to gather via Gravity and when enough H2 existed in a grouped postion via Gravitic Compression it ignites via Fusion and you get a STAR.

No observation is necessary for all of the star formation and planet formation and Galacitic Cluster Formation etc.

AboveAlpha

 

'fact = something believed to be true or real.'
"believe" See here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/believe
None of the definitions made available declare that what is believed is actually 'true', but rather that those things that are believed are merely 'accepted as true'. To a person with a non inquisitive mind, acceptance of something as 'true' is a common place thing to do. I think that some people might agree with me that it is easier to accept something is true as opposed to making inquiry which would amount to questioning the validity of what others have so casually accepted as true. As for our senses being accurate... there are many instances wherein the senses are not accurate at all. Can your senses detect the presence of carbon monoxide, absent other conditions that might give additional warning (such as the sound of an internal combustion engine running or seeing a gas flame burning in the fire place with clogged or otherwise inadequate ventilation). Can your senses detect when metal fatigue is going to cause a plane to crash and kill hundreds of people? Was the scientific method capable of preventing the Challenger from exploding within a few minutes after the launch? I find that it is true that the scientific method was incapable of preventing the explosion. I find that it is true that our senses are oft times inadequate.

 

Fact = something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence.

Fact = thing that is known or proved to be true:

Fact = A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.


Quote - completed.

Fact = Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

 

Absolutely. Being able to repeat experiments is preferred. But, there are cases where replication is only partly available. Besides the big bang, we have evolution, and climate change, at least, where replication of a significant part of the process is not really possible. We also have cases where it is hard to do in a controlled way, such as defense policy - think of UK trying to test theories on maintaining its empire to maximum advantage. And, we still don't know what TARP did to our economy even after the fact.


So, a lot of cosmology gets done by examining what a particular theory would predict about what we can see today, maybe somewhat like looking for what evolution theory predicts about the fossil record. If any of those predictions are found to be false, it would degrade or falsify the theory. There have been lots of theories about the beginning of the universe that have not survived this process.

 

No, I was being somewhat fascetious - I meant just the "In the beginning".

Sorry.

 

We did not evolve from apes, if we did then why are there still apes, and why do they not have us in the zoo.
The Big Bang Theory does not prove God doesn't exist, however it proves that he does. Because if it was the big bang, well then what caused the Big Bang.
Aliens are fallen angels. Don't be deceived by the great deception coming soon. The pope is coming to America to tell the people E.T. has been found and we need to reexamine or religious faith. He is also going to tell us that a new economic and ecological order must be found.

 

In science, a fact is something slightly more basic than that - the difference being that science can not create a fact through logic. Scientific method doesn't ever prove anything to be true.

A fact is a recorded observation - a temperature reading of a particular instrument at a particular time and location, for example.

If logic is involved, then it is a theory or hypothesis. And, it takes serious investigation to turn a hypothesis into a theory.

 

Apes: definitely true. Humans and apes evolved from something that came BEFORE either humans or apes. The family tree split and one fork moved toward humans and one moved toward apes.

Big Bang: Yes, it does not prove God doesn't exist. Science can not say ANYTHING about God's existence or participation in any event. And, that also means that the Big Bang doesn't prove God DOES exist. Nobody knows what came before that event. And, not knowing something does NOT mean that "God did it". It means we don't know.

Pope: I've read cool stuff about what the Pope has said, but never about this ET idea. What he says about ecology seems like pretty basic stuff.

 

Actually humans did not evolve but were literally created from clay. And there are many scientist that are on the verge of admitting there is a creator. The odds of life just popping into existence is more than all the stars in the universe. And their theory on the universe being billions of years old is incorrect. God made the heavens and the stars, earth, the sea, and everything therein, in six days. So if we was to find out the length of one of God's days, multiply it times six and we would know approximately how old the earth is. Then we would be able to use scientific data to prove or disprove this. And why is it that scientists are claiming they found the God particle. More and more everyday science proves of God. This is also in the Bible, where it is said that one of the end times signs is the gaining of knowledge. Of course knowledge is gained everyday but God knows this. That is why I believe the knowledge he is talking about is of his existence.

 

Yes, there are Christians who are scientists. That's well known. That doesn't mean they doubt human evolution.

Your math is not even close.

The "God particle" is a ridiculous name for a particle that has some incredibly cool properties, including being central to gravity. It's called the Higgs boson by physicists as it is a particle postulated by a physicist named Higgs. It has nothing to do with the existence or lack of existence of any god and everything to do with coming up with a catchy name for the general public that doesn't know squat about bosons.

Science has absolutely NOTHING to say about god one way or the other. It is preposterous to think that science could detect the presence or absence of affects coming from god, let alone detecting god directly. So, if you are thinking that science can be involved in your quest for god, you are just plain wrong.

Believe what you want to believe, but please remember that science has NOTHING to say about god.

 

The 'God Particle' is simply a sensationalist name dreamed up by a Newspaper for a particle.

 

I'm curious what this could possibly mean.

After all, clay doesn't have much of anything humans are made of. It doesn't have enough carbon or water for example.

And, it has an overabundance of silica, as that's what clays are mostly comprised of.

If you allow a human body to decompose to the point of there being one consistent compound, that compound would certainly not be anything close to clay.


Of course, my own view is that this "make man from clay" idea is entirely allegory.

 

Higgs Boson......I might be incorrect on the spelling, but look at this.
By Dr. Richter DasMeerungeheuer on June 22, 2014

Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail2W.I.T. scientists, in conjunction with the Human Genome Project and Bob Jones University, have made what may be the most astounding discovery of this, or any generation. While working to understand and map the function of sequences of DNA in the human genome known as “Junk DNA” (for their lack of known function), scientists at W.I.T. noted that while the DNA sequences they were seeing bore little resemblance to the coding for biological function, they bore a striking similarity to the patterns of human language. Contacting and working closely with linguists and philologists from Bob Jones University, W.I.T. set out to analyze and decode the areas of Transposons and Retrotransposons which seemed indicative of human language.

Linguistic professors at Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor, began to attempt to translate the decoded segments that W.I.T. was providing. The structure was notably and demonstrably human in nature. The coding language found, which utilized sequences of twenty-eight independent values, fell easily into the incidence range of known alphabets. Sequences of independent connected values likewise mirrored the structure of word composition in human languages. The Linguistic and Philology team at Bob Jones began an extensive comparison of the quizzical script found in the “Junk DNA” with the catalog of every recorded human language; hoping to find similar lingual threads so that they could begin to formulate translations of the message laying hidden in the DNA. Professors were rocked with sheer awe when they found that one existent language, and one language alone, was a direct translatable match for the sequential DNA strands.

The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes.

On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.” This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people.

Matthew Boulder, chief linguist for the project and professor of applied creation sciences at Bob Jones University, issued this statement: “As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day. And the beauty of it, that God would lay down the words of truth in our very beings, shows his love and The Miracle.”

Scientists at W.I.T. await replication of our own research extracting and sequencing “Junk” DNA and verification of translation into Aramaic by independent sources before we move forward on the peer review process and the release of our total research and discovery to date.

 

Some use the term clay from the ground, some use the term dust from the ground. Either one God formed man from the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life.

 

Yes, I don't get to decide what the words mean - you do!

That's part of what makes religion exciting!

 

Before the Big Bang there was only Wave Functions which existed.
We KNOW this, because the Big Bang was when Matter (and the Space/time necessary to hold that Matter) appeared for the first time.

The ONLY way a Wave Function CAN collapse is by observation.

 

You say religion as if you are not religious. A little heads up here for ya! Atheism is a religion, to choose not to believe in something is a belief. If you was to have a country of atheists, your country's religion would be atheism.
A belief that nothing is above man.

 

Yes a Fact is something believed to be real because Truth has identified it by using the human senses.

If one places one's hand in the fire, and gets burnt, one believes fire burns.
Then, as science does this with other peoples' hands,... and they all admit to getting burnt, we say "Fire Burns."

Fire Burns is what we call "a fact."

You don't deny the Facts, do you?
You can always see the Facts yourself, if you do the same experiments over again.

 

And there have been accounts where the theory of evolution have provided to science, its own 'god of the gaps' within the fossil record as it pertains to the so-called evolution of man. Evolution as it is understood, is a very slow process... and as such, there is a reasonable expectation of finding fossils that show this slow process as opposed to the sudden almost instantaneous changes that are portrayed in images often portrayed as the actual evolution of man. Evolution would not allowed such sudden changes in skull structure... it would require small incremental changes, which would mean that there should be a greater variety of fossils bringing those drastic changes closer together... But such fossils either have not been discovered else they don't exist.

 

But the Big Bang Theory rests upon the observation that all matter is fleeing from a central point that it has escaped from, indicating that at one time, every piece of matter originated at that mathematical single point.
That IS an observation.

And it was this one thing which Hubble observed that supported a point we call the Big Bang location.

Hence, there is no need to set up an other experiment to see if, like a grenade,... every part explodes away from the point of denotation.

 

"Truth identified it"??? Really,,, now you are attributing a human function to what you are calling "Truth". Please go back to writing your own version of the 'Bible'.

Really? Wow! How astute you are.

That is amazing.... I have poured lighter fluid into the palm of my hand, forming a pool of such fluid and then ignited the fluid. I did not get burned. I have also taken a lit cigarette and held it between my thumb and index finger (one end of the cigarette on one finger and the other end on the other finger) and did not get burned. Amazing what science tries to teach people.

Actually 'fire consumes' and then excretes various solids and gases along with radiant energy.

I only deny your method of attempting to explain things.... such as your incessant showing of your progress on re-writing the 'Bible' and trying to force it and science to be in accord.
Facts cannot be seen, as facts are something believed to be true or real. As for your experiment: try this one. rub your hands together, applying as much pressure as you can for about 20 minutes without stopping and without lessening the amount of pressure. After that period of time, you will have a good probability of seeing at least one blister on your hands,,, and there was not 'fire' involved.

 

?
If an experiment demonstrates a result which every human can, himself, observe.
We call that a truth we all see.

It is part of the ideal of all truths.
We say that there is only one Truth which exists, which is the sum of all individual truths together.