SEALINE - South African Angling and Boating Community Home 
Home Recent Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


 Moderated by: Trophy, Emperor Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Poll
Do You Believe In Other Life Form's Out Side This Planet?
   
   
View Results
 
Vote
Aliens Really Do Exist!  Rating:  Rating
 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu May 27th, 2010 04:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
121st Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sarah de Jager wrote: Will watch later and give u my opinion..
Thank's .. you will find it's very interesting . The 9part series. 'Big Bang'

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 27th, 2010 08:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
122nd Post
F.L.A.S.H
Sealiner


Joined: Tue Mar 24th, 2009
Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Posts: 1250
Equipment: TNT, you never blank
Best Catch: Whale Shark
Favorite Fishing Spot: The local street corner
Boat: .
Club: Mile high
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
my, eyes hurt from reading all these long replyes, but its very interesting

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 27th, 2010 10:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
123rd Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
F.L.A.S.H wrote: my, eyes hurt from reading all these long replyes, but its very interesting

Interesting & controversial (Thank's for taking the time)

It's a mind boggling concept to understand, Please watch (If you have time) the 9 part's of the 'Big bang' .. And then you might understand how life would/may/could of been formed..

I do know this is hard to take in if you are a strong hearted god follower and wont listen to other reason's or explanation's on how earth would/may/could of been started or formed so to speak.

Last edited on Thu May 27th, 2010 10:24 pm by Glenn

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 03:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
124th Post
thika
Sealiner


Joined: Sun Jan 18th, 2009
Location:  Elands Bay, South Africa
Posts: 2723
Equipment: Shimano and some old Penn's.
Best Catch: All fish best catch.... reckon good panfish also OK
Favorite Fishing Spot: Mtentu to Mboytji. Bazaruto islands. Anywhere off the beaten track!
Boat:  Ace Craft 660 DV
Club: Not recently-KULU and GLENMORE in the 90's
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Kay Guys and Guyesses...

I am going into the them daar dunes now under the full moon!

I will smoke some zol and court a wolf (if there is Zol here :) )

JOKING!

And tomorrow you will have ALL the answers ?

MAN knows NOTHING!

Simen is right!  And scroll back and read my posts!

This is a GOOD lounge topic but going nowhere....we are like dust:

"What is a MAN who has but a breath in him? "

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 03:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
125th Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
thika wrote:
This is a GOOD lounge topic but going nowhere....we are like dust:


 


Apparently we where made from dust Thika  ..  ::S

Have you watched the 9 part serie's the big bang? I think you should thika & give it a chance..

I'm waiting on Simen's reply ...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 05:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
126th Post
Simen
Administrator


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: Swakopmund, Namibia
Posts: 7325
Equipment: shimano/daiwa reels - blue marlin/ shimano/Waft rods
Best Catch: 120kg bronze whaler 27 kg cob 17kg kingfish, 13kg ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: Namibie--Winston,Mile 98, Arrarat, Blare.
Boat: none
Club: Henties Baai
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My Gallery: 
Glenn wrote: thika wrote:
This is a GOOD lounge topic but going nowhere....we are like dust:


 


Apparently we where made from dust Thika  ..  ::S

Have you watched the 9 part serie's the big bang? I think you should thika & give it a chance..

I'm waiting on Simen's reply ...

Havn't forgotton, just a bit busy but will get to it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 05:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
127th Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Simen wrote: Glenn wrote: thika wrote:
This is a GOOD lounge topic but going nowhere....we are like dust:


 


Apparently we where made from dust Thika  ..  ::S

Have you watched the 9 part serie's the big bang? I think you should thika & give it a chance..

I'm waiting on Simen's reply ...

Havn't forgotton, just a bit busy but will get to it.

Ok, no probs.. You should find all your answer's on all the 9part's , forget the time travel thing'' I wasn't that bothered with that one.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 08:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
128th Post
Carlic Bait
Sealiner


Joined: Mon Nov 24th, 2008
Location: Parow, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 2359
Equipment: Daiwa SL50H ; Blue Marlin 5 Pc
Best Catch: 45Kg Bronze ; 23Kg Cob
Favorite Fishing Spot: Saldanha
Boat: Still waiting for this present from wife.....
Club: No
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
EK HET AL DIE DELE GEKYK WANT EK VIND DIT INTERESANT,NIE DAT EK ALLE SNERT GLO NIE. .INDIEN DAAR DIE "BIG BANG"WAS WIE HET DIT GE-TRIGGER,AS DIT ATOME WAS MOES IETS OF IEMAND MAGTIG DIT VERSTEUR HET OM DIE REAKSIE TE BEGIN.EVELUSIE GLO EK OOK NIE WANT GOD HET DIE MENS NA SY BEELD GESKAPE,SO WAAR DIE AAP STORIES INKOM?,MISKIEN DIEGENE WAT DIT GLO SE VOOROUERS.EK WIL NIE ENIGIEMAND SE GELOOF AAN KRAP NIE DIT IS SLEGS MY MENING. VERDER DAT DAAR LEWE OP ANDER PLANETE KAN WEES SAL EK SE DIS MOONTLIK MAAR NIE IN ONS STERRESTELSEL NIE.KLONING IS OOK SO OUD SOOS DIE DIE WERELD SELF, AS EK REG ONTHOU WAT EK OOR GELEES HET, HET DIT DIE UITWISSING VAN DIE INKAS VEROORSAAK,DIT VAT EK OOK MET N KNIPPIE SOUT ,WANT PAPIER DRA DIE ST... WAT DAAROP GESMEER OF GESKRYF WORD.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 09:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
129th Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
@ Carlic Bait

Dankie, dit is intersant...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 09:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
130th Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Some readings on the subject which I found interesting to follow:

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 09:36 am
  PM Quote Reply
131st Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Henry F. Schaefer III

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

This is the second part of a two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. Part 1 of this lecture appeared in The Real Issue, November/December, 1994.

We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174). I love that statement.

Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings"(p. 56). Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

The first time I read A Brief History of Time, for the first 122 pages I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But then everything changes and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes adulterated by poor philosophy and theology.

For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122). The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated and what happens is that a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God of Biblical history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous God of the gaps.

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1).

So Hawking is uncertain about his belief in a god of his own creation. I cannot resist the conclusion that Stephen Hawking's god is too small.

At the end of the book he states, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . then we would know the mind of God"(p. 175). I'm sympathetic to this statement but I think he's claiming a bit much. I would modify it to say that if we had a unified, complete theory, we would know a lot more about the mind of God.
The Anthropic Principle

I must say something here about the anthropic principle: there are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the earth uninhabitable by human beings. A book that I strongly recommend is by Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. He has a substantial discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed.

One such person is the pantheistic astronomer, George Greenstein, who makes this statement: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?"

I think Greenstein has gone a little too far in the other direction. I do not think we have proof of the existence of God but I think we do have, in the big bang understanding, some good evidence for the existence of God.

Others have commented on this evidence. A book I recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg. He doesn't have God in the title, but God is discussed in the book. He tells the story about a poem by the Venerable Bede, a religious person of the Middle Ages. In the poem, Bede talks about the banqueting hall being our ordinary existence and Weinberg's comment on this is, "It is an almost irresistible temptation to believe with the Venerable Bede that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall." There must be something beyond materialism.

Of course this view is echoed in the New Testament. For example, Paul the Apostle wrote, "Ever since the creation of the world, God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made"(Romans 1:20). This is exactly what Weinberg is talking about-that almost irresistible temptation.
Atheism

It is very rare that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us than we had any right to expect."

Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, stated, "The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."

Some scientists express surprise at so many accidental occurrences. However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees divine purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.

Against overwhelming logic, some atheists continue to claim that the universe and human life were created by chance. A reply to this argument has been developed by the philosopher, William Lane Craig. The atheist's argument states that since we're here, we know this must have all happened by material forces. Craig's counter-argument states,

Suppose a dozen sharp-shooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad. They all shoot a number of rounds in that direction, but the prisoner escapes unharmed. The prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharp-shooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to some remarkable piece of good luck. But he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharp-shooters had deliberately missed. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Hawking's No Boundary Proposal

Let us return to Hawking's no boundary proposal-the universe as a wave function, popping into existence 15-20 billion years ago. The use of imaginary time is a powerful mathematical trick that is used on occasion by theoretical chemists and physicists. My best friend at Berkeley, William Miller, in 1969 used imaginary time to understand the dynamics of chemical reactions and it made him a household word. It is a powerful tool.

In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, the notion that the universe has neither beginning nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only. In real time, which is what we as human beings are confined to rather than in Hawking's use of imaginary time, there will always be a singularity, that is, a beginning of time.

Among his contradictory statements in A Brief History of Time, Hawking actually concedes this. "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities . . . ," he wrote. "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science breaks down"(p. 139). Only if we live in imaginary time would we encounter no singularities. So here he has really answered his own question.

Science is primarily concerned with facts, not motive, and thus a complete scientific description of the creation does not rule out a providential account at the same time. William Paley's famous argument suggests that if you're taking a walk in the woods and you find a watch on the path, you don't conclude that the watch just assembled itself, despite the fact that we can take the watch apart, look at every single part and completely understand how it works. We look at the watch on the path and we prudently conclude that it was designed by some higher intelligence.

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking states, "If the no boundary proposal is correct, he [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions"(p. 174). This statement is a leap into irrationality. Why does Hawking find, within the functioning of the universe, aspects that appear to him to be limitations of God's power? This stems not from any attitude of an infinite God, but rather from the attributes of finite man. Namely, we as human beings are able to scientifically discern characteristics of the Creator only as they are related to that which is created, that which we can observe. This limitation of ours immediately reduces what might be infinite to the finiteness of our existence.

Of course Biblically there is no problem in accepting divine constraints to divine option, if the Creator chooses to run the universe according to His stated and established laws. Divine tenacity to His own laws is, of course, the very essence of the Biblical God.

Another of Hawking's controversial statements needs to be addressed. Although it is not original with him, it is this: "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence."

My response to that statement by Hawking, and to others that have said this over the years, is that that's a silly thing to say. There isn't any evidence to date that life exists anywhere else in the universe. Human beings, thus far, appear to be the most advanced species in the universe. Maybe God does care about us! Where Hawking surveys the cosmos and concludes that man's defining characteristic is obscurity, I consider the same data and conclude that humankind is very special.
Scientist Believers

Does everyone agree with Stephen Hawking's opinion on these matters? The answer is no. Alan Lightman, a MIT professor, said in his book Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists (Harvard University Press, 1990), "Contrary to popular myths, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public."

This fact can be established either from anecdote or from statistical data. Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science.

There are many prominent counter-examples to Stephen Hawking. One is a colleague of mine at Berkeley for 18 years, Charlie Townes. Townes won the Nobel Prize for discovering the maser. One statement he made differs greatly from Hawking's view; he said, "In my view, the question of origin seems to be left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence."

Arthur Schawlow is another Nobel Prize winner, a professor at Stanford who identifies himself as a Christian. He states, "We are fortunate to have the Bible and especially the New Testament which tells us so much about God in widely accessible human terms."

The other Cambridge professor of theoretical physics for much of Hawking's career was John Polkinghorn, a nuclear physicist. He left his chair of theoretical physics at Cambridge in 1979 and went to seminary to become a minister. Upon completing that, he had a parish church for awhile and now has recently come back to be the President of Queen's College at Cambridge. He states, "I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer and I believe that God exists and has made Himself known in human terms in Jesus Christ."

Probably the world's greatest observational cosmologist is Allan Sandage. Sandage works in Pasadena, California at the Carnegie Observatories. In 1991, he received a prize given by the Swedish academy that is given every six years in physics for cosmology and is worth the same amount of money as the Nobel prize (there is not a Nobel Prize given for cosmology). Sandage has even been called "the grand old man of cosmology" by the New York Times.

At the age of 50, Sandage became a Christian. He states in Lightman's book, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, "The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures." When asked the famous question regarding whether it's possible to be a scientist and a Christian, Sandage replies, "Yes. The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together."

One of the persons closest to Stephen Hawking, whom you know if you've seen the movie about A Brief History of Time, is Donald Page. Page has had an excellent physics career in his own right, but he started to become famous as a post-doctoral fellow with Stephen Hawking. The Hawkings were not financially well-off in the years prior to his book and needed some help to keep going. So the post-doctoral fellows would come to live with the Hawkings. Donald Page did this for three years.

Page described these years in the book (the book about the film about the book!). He said, "I would usually get up around 7:15 or 7:30, take a shower, read in my Bible and pray. Then I would go down and get Stephen up. After breakfast, I would often tell him what I'd been reading in the Bible, hoping that this would eventually have some influence. I remember telling Stephen one story about how Jesus had seen the deranged man and how this man had these demons and the demons had been sent into a herd of swine. The swine then plunged over the edge of the cliff and into the sea. Stephen piped up and said, 'Well, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not like that story, would they?'"

Page stated, "I am a conservative Christian in the sense of pretty much taking the Bible seriously for what it says. Of course I know that certain parts are not intended to be read literally, so I am not precisely a literalist but I try to believe in the meaning, I think, it is intended to have."
The Limits of Science

A statement that I think gives some balance to all of this is by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger, after whom the most famous equation in science is named: the Schrodinger equation. I have spent a good bit of my professional life trying to solve this equation for atoms and molecules.

Toward the end of Schrodinger's career he made this statement, "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us."

Schrodinger believed that science has limits; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Jane Hawking has commented on this aspect of her husband's work. "Stephen has the feelings that because everything is reduced to a rational, mathematical formula, that must be the truth," Jane explained. "He is delving into realms that really do matter to thinking people and, in a way, that can have a very disturbing effect on people-and he's not competent."

The irony of the story is that Hawking's professional life currently is devoted to telling a story about the cosmos in which all the elements which make his own life so fascinating-love, faith, courage and even creative imagination-disappear from view. Aspiring to know the mind of God, he can imagine nothing more interesting than a set of equations governing the motion of particles. I love these equations too, but they are not the be-all and end-all of life!

A unified field-theory would be an amazing, magnificent scientific accomplishment, of course. But to Hawking it is just a step toward a distant but attainable goal of what he calls "a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence."(p. 169)

The way to this goal does not seem to require reading the Bible or Shakespeare, living in a variety of cultures, experiencing art, climbing mountains, or falling in love and having children. All it involves is the intellectually challenging task of developing better approximation methods.

Richard Feynman states in his last technical book, The Character of Physical Law, "Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons and electrons, while in daily life, we talk about men and history or beauty and hope. Which is nearer to God-beauty and hope or the fundamental laws? To stand at either end and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is a complete understanding, is a mistake." I would have to say that what Stephen Hawking has done is to walk off one end of that pier.
Some Conclusions

After evaluating all the cosmological evidence, Hugh Ross has come to a number of conclusions (The Fingerprint of God, pp. 181-2). With only minor modifications, I wholeheartedly concur:

1. A Creator must exist. The big bang ripples are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.

2. The Creator must have awesome power and wisdom. The quantity of material and the power resources within our universe are truly immense. The information, or intricacy, manifest in any part of the universe, and especially in a living organism, is beyond our ability to comprehend. And what we do see is only what God has shown us within our dimensions of space and time!

3. The Creator is loving. The simplicity, balance, order, elegance, and beauty seen throughout the creation demonstrate that God is loving rather than capricious. Further, the capacity and desire to nurture and to protect, seen in so many creatures, makes sense if their Creator possesses these same attributes. It is apparent that God cares for His creatures, for He has provided for their needs.

4. The Creator is just and requires justice. Inward reflection and outward investigation affirm that human beings have a conscience. The conscience reflects the reality of right and wrong and the necessity of obedience.

5. Each of us falls hopelessly short of the Creator's standard. We incur His displeasure when we violate any part of God's moral law in our actions, our words, and our thoughts. Who can keep his or her thoughts and attitudes pure for even an hour? If each person falls short of his or her own standards, how much more so of God's standards?

6. Because the Creator is loving, wise and powerful, He made a way to rescue us. When we come to a point of concern about our personal failings, we can begin to understand from the creation around us that God's love, wisdom, and power are sufficient to deliver us from our otherwise hopeless situation.

7. If we trust our lives totally to the Rescuer, Jesus Christ, we will be saved. The one and only path is to give up all human attempts to satisfy God's requirements and put our trust solely in Jesus Christ and in His means of redemption, namely, His death on the cross.

(Editor's note: This article is a transcript of a lecture Dr. Schaefer presented at the University of Colorado in the spring of 1994, sponsored by Christian Leadership and other campus ministries. Over 500 students and professors were present.)

Original article here:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 09:37 am
  PM Quote Reply
132nd Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism
Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists
by Quentin Smith


Since the mid-1960s, scientifically informed theists have been ecstatic because of Big Bang cosmology. Theists believe that the best scientific evidence that God exists is the evidence that the universe began to exist in an explosion about 15 billion years ago, an explosion called the Big Bang. Theists think it obvious that the universe could not have begun to exist uncaused. They argue that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the cause of the universe is God. This theory hinges on the assumption that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The most recent statement of this theist theory is in William Lane Craig's 1994 book Reasonable Faith.[1] In it Craig states his argument like this:

   1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   2. The universe began to exist.
   3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[2]

In a very interesting quote from this book he discusses the first premise and mentions me as one of the perverse atheists who deny the obviousness of this assumption:

    The first step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself. And as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious. The old axiom that "out of nothing, nothing comes" remains as obvious today as ever. When I first wrote The Kalam Cosmological Argument, I remarked that I found it an attractive feature of this argument that it allows the atheist a way of escape: he can always deny the first premise and assert the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing. I figured that few would take this option, since I believed they would thereby expose themselves as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and not in really discovering the truth about the universe. To my surprise, however, atheists seem to be increasingly taking this route. For example, Quentin Smith, commenting that philosophers are too often adversely affected by Heidegger's dread of "the nothing," concludes that "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" - a nice ending to a sort of Gettysburg address of atheism, perhaps.[3]

A Baseless Assumption

I'm going to criticize this argument from scientific cosmology, which is the most popular argument that scientifically informed theists and philosophers are now using to argue that God exists.

Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. Therefore, there's no reason to think it's true. It is either false or it has the status of a statement that we do not know is true or false. At the very least, it is clear that we do not know that it is true.

Now suppose the theist retreats to a weaker version of this principle and says, "Whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause." Now, this does not say that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause; it allows that it is possible that some things begin to exist without a cause. So we don't need to consider it as a self-evident, necessary truth. Rather, according to the theists, we can consider it to be an empirical generalization based on observation.

But there is a decisive problem with this line of thinking. There is absolutely no evidence that it is true. All of the observations we have are of changes in things - of something changing from one state to another. Things move, come to a rest, get larger, get smaller, combine with other things, divide in half, and so on. But we have no observation of things coming into existence. For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence. Here again, you merely have a change of things. An egg cell and a sperm cell change their state by combining. The combination divides, enlarges, and eventually evolves into an adult human being. Therefore, I conclude that we have no evidence at all that the empirical version of Craig's statement, "Whatever begins to exist has a `cause'," is true. All of the causes we are aware of are changes in pre-existing materials. In Craig's and other theists' causal principle, "cause" means something entirely different: it means creating material from nothingness. It is pure speculation that such a strange sort of causation is even possible, let alone even supported in our observations in our daily lives.
An Uncaused Universe

But the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist's causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale - that is, on the level of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe - our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang - would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.[4]

So scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. If you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then you must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists uncaused, in accordance with the Wave Function law.

Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.

Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.

So contemporary scientific cosmology is not only not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism.

Original article here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 09:38 am
  PM Quote Reply
133rd Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Science vs. Religion" discovers what scientists really think about religion

A book called SCIENCE VS. RELIGION What Scientists Really Think By Elaine Howard Ecklund

Americans are almost evenly divided between those who feel science conflicts with religion and those who don't. Both sides have scientific backers. Biologist Richard Dawkins rallies atheists by arguing that science renders religious faith unnecessary and irrational. Geneticist Francis S. Collins (before becoming NIH director) organized evangelical scientists to offer a vision of science and faith reinforcing each other.

Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund offers a fresh perspective on this debate in "Science vs. Religion." Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.

Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, "the academy is really doing itself a big disservice," worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.
ad_icon

Religious groups -- creationist movements in particular -- are not without blame here. Creationist attacks on evolution "have polarized the public opinion such that you're either religious or you're a scientist!" a devout physicist complains. Indeed, the National Science Board recently spiked a report on American knowledge about evolution, claiming that it was too difficult to tell the difference between religious objections to evolution and questions raised about the state of the science.

Only through a genuine dialogue between scientists and the broader public can these divisions be bridged. To her credit, Ecklund avoids editorializing even while encouraging such dialogue. She gives voice to scientists, relaying and synthesizing their experience. Though "Science vs. Religion" is aimed at scientists, her myth-busting and her thoughtful advice can also benefit nonscientists. For Ecklund, the bottom line is recognizing and tolerating religious diversity, honestly discussing science's scope and limits, and openly exploring the disputed borders between scientific skepticism and religious faith.

Original article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052801856.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 12:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
134th Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
@ landshark

Thank's for your fab input.. I would just like to comment on 2 thing's ..

The report has a slight different view (1994) than it has now (2010) Obviously with time scale and knowledge etc. etc..

For Example:

My response to that statement by Hawking, and to others that have said this over the years, is that that's a silly thing to say. There isn't any evidence to date that life exists anywhere else in the universe. Human beings, thus far, appear to be the most advanced species in the universe. Maybe God does care about us! Where Hawking surveys the cosmos and concludes that man's defining characteristic is obscurity, I consider the same data and conclude that humankind is very special.
Scientist Believers



Hmmm .. I think your being a bit rational saying that we are the ONLY life form out there ??  :lol:1

 

For Example:

Science is primarily concerned with facts, not motive, and thus a complete scientific description of the creation does not rule out a providential account at the same time. William Paley's famous argument suggests that if you're taking a walk in the woods and you find a watch on the path, you don't conclude that the watch just assembled itself, despite the fact that we can take the watch apart, look at every single part and completely understand how it works. We look at the watch on the path and we prudently conclude that it was designed by some higher intelligence.

 

The above statement has a VERY good point.. And it does make one think.



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 04:00 pm
  PM Quote Reply
135th Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Hiya Glenn,

Yeah, I do think that there is a bit more knowledge available now compared to 1994 however, not much, it seems as if our mathematical systems are simply still too rudimentary and this is really hampering scientists to fully describe their theories.

What he said in 1994 is still relevant to Hawking’s view of the universe as a lot (most) of what Hawking is referring to in those episodes is still based on what he published in a Brief History of Time.

Also, I’m pretty sure that even with the little bit of new evidence one will not convince Prof. Schaefer to change his beliefs...

... not that I agree with his (Schaefer's) point of view but it is however the view of a scientist and for sure, it made me pose some questions around my own beliefs.

I think you will notice in the second article Prof. Smith it says completely the opposite.

I merely posted the first two to illustrate that even the most hard-core scientists have conflicting views on religion and this is confirmed by the last Science vs. Religion post.

Last edited on Mon May 31st, 2010 04:07 pm by landshark

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 04:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
136th Post
Glenn
Sealiner


Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: N.I
Posts: 2896
Equipment: To Long To Fit In Here ....
Best Catch: 37.5lb Common Carp - 20lb Wels Catfish - 12Kg Natal ...
Favorite Fishing Spot: St.Lucia Estuary - Cape Vidal - Durban - Blue Lagoon
Boat: The Eric Cotton
Club: The Glenn You Can Kiss My Ass Club!
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
landshark wrote: Hiya Glenn,

Yeah, I do think that there is a bit more knowledge available now compared to 1994 however, not much, it seems as if our mathematical systems are simply still too rudimentary and this is really hampering scientists to fully describe their theories.

What he said in 1994 is still relevant to Hawking’s view of the universe as a lot (most) of what Hawking is referring to in those episodes is still based on what he published in a Brief History of Time.

Also, I’m pretty sure that even with the little bit of new evidence one will not convince Prof. Schaefer to change his beliefs...

... not that I agree with his (Schaefer's) point of view but it is however the view of a scientist and for sure, it made me pose some questions around my own beliefs.

I think you will notice in the second article Prof. Smith it says completely the opposite.

I merely posted the first two to illustrate that even the most hard-core scientists have conflicting views on religion and this is confirmed by the last Science vs. Religion post.



Indeed landshark .. They many not all agree on certain thing's.

How ever the world is still a pretty big place.. And I think no one even with out guess Or with out good evidence can really say 100% If god had anthing to do with the start and if even god exists himself? (That goes to your own belief's)

You could say that we all came out of the sea as fish and formed? And the other was came out of ape's? There is evidence that the two subject's above that I mentioned could be a posibility.. How ever if you look at certain aspects of the two I just mentioned, the fact's dull the theory somewhat.

I was just thinking the other day, and I don't think ANYONE out there can prove or describe where the wind come's from or what start's it???

Tho I have a theory, that it may be gases in the air hitting each other or something like that.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 04:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
137th Post
landshark
Senior Member


Joined: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 956
Equipment: Lotsa toys
Best Catch: Any fish any time
Favorite Fishing Spot: Arniston, Reunion Island
Boat: Perception Napali kayak
Club: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Glenn wrote:
Indeed landshark .. They many not all agree on certain thing's.

How ever the world is still a pretty big place.. And I think no one even with out guess Or with out good evidence can really say 100% If god had anthing to do with the start and if even god exists himself? (That goes to your own belief's)

You could say that we all came out of the sea as fish and formed? And the other was came out of ape's? There is evidence that the two subject's above that I mentioned could be a posibility.. How ever if you look at certain aspects of the two I just mentioned, the fact's dull the theory somewhat.

I was just thinking the other day, and I don't think ANYONE out there can prove or describe where the wind come's from or what start's it???

Tho I have a theory, that it may be gases in the air hitting each other or something like that.

You could say that we all came out of the sea as fish and formed? And the other was came out of ape's?

Personally, I think Darwin pretty much nailed that one...

Wind...

I think that one is pretty much sussed out ... the cause and effect of the earth’s heat exchange is well documented...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 05:12 pm
  PM Quote Reply
138th Post
thika
Sealiner


Joined: Sun Jan 18th, 2009
Location:  Elands Bay, South Africa
Posts: 2723
Equipment: Shimano and some old Penn's.
Best Catch: All fish best catch.... reckon good panfish also OK
Favorite Fishing Spot: Mtentu to Mboytji. Bazaruto islands. Anywhere off the beaten track!
Boat:  Ace Craft 660 DV
Club: Not recently-KULU and GLENMORE in the 90's
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Glen,

Hawking is Gorilla sh!t!

Stop being influenced so much by him :)

Figure out with what God gave you AND him!

We know zulch and YOU must decide whether you accept non-proof or proof

And time is short..the earth is 4 600 MILLION years old! And you WILL die in your bed alone and soon, regardless of what Malema says, with only your own thoughts on this matter!

Hawkings will be wormshit by then and so will all of us before the ice even STARTS melting this cycle around! 

Go have an Ale !  :)

Thika

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 05:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
139th Post
Psy
Sealiner


Joined: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008
Location: Langvlei Duine, Wildernis., South Africa
Posts: 6923
Equipment: Blue Marlin's/Assasins/Pentagons c/w Shimano's
Best Catch: All sorts
Favorite Fishing Spot: ><((((((ō>
Boat: ><((((((ō>
Club: <ō))))))><
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Guys

Believe or dont believe....

This is from my regular contact with Author and Explorer Micheal Tellinger (ex South African Pharmacist) who has written one of many books. His articles allow your vision to expand.....

 "Slave Species of god" - Micheal Tellinger

Chromosome Fusion
 

Evidence of DNA manipulation in our distant past?
 

The Human Genome Project has dished up some real surprises to scientists. The first surprise was the vast percentage of the human DNA that is inactive. It is estimated that at least 97% of our DNA is in actual fact a waste of space, as it does not contain any active genes that actually carry the code for any of our physical makeup. Then within the genes there are Introns – parts that do not carry any code; and Exons - sections that carry some sort of genetic code. The full length of our DNA is made up of some 20 000 genes that have now been identified. These genes carry the blueprint for the structure of our entire body. What is very puzzling is the fact that Homo sapiens, as the supposed pinnacle if civilized evolution on this planet, should have such large parts of unused DNA. We seem to have the longest DNA molecule among all other species, but we use the smallest part of it in proport ion to the other species. In other words, all the other creatures use much more of their DNA than humans do. Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
 
This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution. Humans should have the most complex and evolved DNA of all creatures, to have reached levels of civilization seemingly much higher than any other species on Earth over millions of years of evolution. What is even more curious is the predicted number of genes in species. The numbers seem to increase steadily from basic organisms to the most advanced. We would expect that humans should end up having most genes, but strangely this is not the case. Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in species. Fruit Fly 21 000; Zebrafish 50 000; Chicken 76 000; Mouse 81 000; Chimp 130 000; Human 68 000.
 
Can you see the problem here? The Chimp is supposed to be our closest know genetic relative and yet it has almost twice as many genes as humans. New research has revealed that Dolphin DNA is very closely related to humans. This will not be surprising to thos who have studied the work of Drunvalo Melchiezedek.

But then we get to the anomaly of the chromosomes. Our DNA is broken up into 23 pairs of chromosomes. By comparison, all apes have 24 pairs. One would expect that Homo erectus, our immediate evolutionary precursor would then also have had 24 chromosome pairs.
 
In April 2005, researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute announced that "A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes" as reported in Nature. It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for survival.
 
So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like species that arrived on Earth some 445 000 years ago, it suddenly makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker removed certain parts of the "Tree of life" to trim the ability of the new "creature" and how they struggled to make the perfect "primitive worker" so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to question their existence. Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu Laws of Manu. 
 
The Koran:

•         Ya Sin: "Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?"

•         The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets tell us. "We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh…"

Laws of Manu:

•         19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.

•         20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
 
Notice the reference to "We" by the creator. The cloning of humans as a more primitive worker or "lulu amelu" suddenly does not seem so far fetched and the strange genetic anomalies seem to support some genetic manipulation in our distant past. The modern-day researchers go further to say that this "fusion" of our chromosome 2, is what makes us human.

Are we getting closer to proving that humans were created by his MAKER as slaves to work in the early gold mines on Earth? It certainly seems like it.
 
Please click here to share my articles with your friends who you know will appreciate them.
 
Keep Exploring
Michael Tellinger.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 31st, 2010 05:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
140th Post
Psy
Sealiner


Joined: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008
Location: Langvlei Duine, Wildernis., South Africa
Posts: 6923
Equipment: Blue Marlin's/Assasins/Pentagons c/w Shimano's
Best Catch: All sorts
Favorite Fishing Spot: ><((((((ō>
Boat: ><((((((ō>
Club: <ō))))))><
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 

The Hexagon:
 
This ruin has become the subject of much research and measurement by Johan Heine. It features prominently in our new book Temples Of The African Gods. There are multiple alignments with the cardinal geographical points. The perfect hexagon is formed by extending the length of the flattened edge across the top right side into the circle. This has a very important significance since it suggests that the architects had a good understanding of particle physics and sacred geometry, since the hexagon is just a flattened perspective of a Star Tetrahedron. It is directly linked to advanced ancient knowledge. The Star Tetrahedron is a very important structure in the study of sacred geometry. Leading physicists believe that this is the fundamental structure of all matter in the universe.
Notice the completely eroded and ruined walls and structures around the site. This indicates that it was originally a much older structure that was rebuilt or maintained after the other structures around it became obsolete. When viewed from certain angles some distance away, the completely eroded remains of a much larger complex settlement is clearly visible. 
 
Please click here to share this email with your friends who you know will appreciate it.
 
Keep Exploring
 
Michael Tellinger

Back To Top PM Quote Reply


Current time is 04:57 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  Next Page Last Page    
SEALINE - South African Angling and Boating Community > Non-Angling Discussion Area > Lounge > Aliens Really Do Exist! Top