Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

To me, "peer review" in this situation is a bit like Galileo asking the Vatican Publishing Council (or whatever it was back in his day) if they wouldn't mind publishing a paper demonstrating that the Church is wrong in its infallible views.

Peer review is great and keeping orthodoxy, but not so good at challenging orthodoxy.

I guess that's why Einstein was a patent clerk, rather than an "establishment" scientist, when he made his breakthrough.

The electric universe concept always made more sense to me than the traditional explanations. It has actually been around for some time.

Hi John,
Please explain your understanding, I'm all ears. I can't stand all the fluff one has to wade through on these inflated links.
atb
Derek

Interpretum your being illogical and crying, "foul" and it's not much different to crying, "wolf"!

Hi Derek

Personally, I wouldn't say I was being illogical. Actually, I think I'm being very logical.

As you know about me, I believe Science is wrong on a lot of things, such as macroevolution (i.e. birds to mammals).

Yet it is maintained through a mixture of dogma ("If we keep saying a 70 million year old dinosaur, people will believe it"), authority ("We say it, so it must be true") and sleight-of-hand ("look at this species lose its legs, evolution must be true!")

I think cosmology is in much more of a state of flux than macroevolution, yet dogma and authority are still strong in this field, too

I actually believe that the idea of a plasma universe is being suppressed (not necesarily deliberately, but simply by the sheer weight of its implications).

For if the plasma model turns out to be true, then there is no need for the Universe to be billions/i] of years old.

And that is a [i]dangerous notion for an evolutionary scientist.

Hi Interpretum,

When it gets down to the nitty gritty you guys won't answer basic questions!!

Look at what happened when I asked for some facts on the alleged 'plasma' death ray used on 9/11!

Macro-evolution is a typical red-herring and nothing to do with a plasma universe.
BTW I thought you believed in macro-evolution in birds and it took place in less than two-thousand years..... :)

As is the case with 9/11, the suppression of knowledge in the world of academia is so vast and all-controlling that it is difficult to imagine how such a huge deception could be pulled off.

Masons are controlling the world from the top down, and their organization is a pyramid. The basis for Freemasonry is Kabbalah, known before the middle ages as Mishnah. This esoteric mysticism teaches that everything came from the Tree of Life, or the Sephiroth. It teaches the big bang concept and billions of years of evolution. It is the opposite of the Biblical account and is designed to discredit it. A plasma universe would collapse the entire "scientific" house of cards that Satan has built over the centuries since the Copernican Revolution, and this false foundation has formed the basis of all fields of modern man's "knowledge".

Karl Marx gave Darwin the credit for giving him the basis for Communism, which teaches that there is a superior race, a totally Satanic idea. This is the foundation for the New World Order.

Here's an article from Wiki that explains it very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Life_(Kabbalah)

Excerpt from above article:

The Tree Of Life is a diagram representative of the process by which Kabbalists believe the universe came into being. It can be noted that the explanation that Kabbalists give of the evolution or emanation of the universe is startingly similar to that given by modern scientists in various fields. Modern science generally accepts the idea that the universe began from a singularity, a dot in the centre of nothingness containing possibly infinite energy. It is thought that the energy next went through a stage of cooling as it expanded into space and time. Both the hot energy of the Big Bang and the coldness of space cooperated to create the material of the universe and resulted in the formation of the first atoms and galaxies.

On the Tree of Life the beginning of the universe is placed at a space above the first Sephiroth, or Kether, which means the Crown in English. It is not always pictured in reproductions of the Tree of Life, but is referred to universally as Ain Soph Aur (Ain - Nothing, Soph - Limitless, Aur - Light). To the Kabbalists, it symbolises that point beyond which our comprehension about the origins of Being cannot go any further; it is considered to be an infinite nothingness out of which the first 'thing' (thought of in science and the Kabbalah to be energy) exploded to create a universe of multiple things. Kabbalists also do not envision time and space as pre-existing and place them at the next three stages on the Tree of Life. First is Kether, or the Crown in English, which is thought of as the product of the contraction of Ain Soph Aur into a singularity of infinite energy or limitless light. In the Kabbalah, it is the primordial energy out of which all things are created. The next stage is Chokmah, or Wisdom, which is considered to be a stage at which the infinitely hot and contracted singularity expanded forth into space and time. It is often thought of as pure dynamic energy of an infinite intensity forever propelled forth at a speed faster than light. It is considered to be the primordial masculine energy, which is also referred to in Chinese Taoist philosophy as Yang. Next comes Binah, or Understanding, which is thought of as the primordial feminine energy, the Supernal Mother of the universe which receives the energy of Chokmah, cooling and nourishing it into the multitudinous forms present throughout the whole cosmos. It is also seen as the beginning of Time itself. It is analogous to the Chinese concept of Yin which together with Yang are considered to be the basis of all of creation. There are many parallels between Taoist philosophy and the Kabbalistic conceptions of the Tree of Life.

:heartbeat:
Jesh

Hi Derek,

Too much to explain here but...

The best explanation I have ever read for it is at this link:
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasm/ch3.html

It is also a bit entertaining to boot! ;)

Hi Derek

Part of the reason I don't bother answering basic questions any more is because the answers to those questions are out there, usually a few clicks or Google searches away.

But if people can't be bothered to read an article which explains it, then I often can't be bothered to type one up.

For instance, on the subject of "ice cores", which you raised in a discussion on the other forum, and which you said creationists don't address, there is an entire BOOK on the subject by a creationist.

So the "basic questions" are answered time and time again, but are usually ignored or sidestepped.

Well, I personally don't know about when you asked that, nor have I ever heard of this theory.

Please bear in mind that, when it comes to 9/11, there are a lot of competing versions of events, including the official one.

If (and I emphasize the word "if", because I don't intend to start a debate on 9/11 here on this thread) there was more to the story than 19 hijackers with box-cutters, i.e. some kind of government and/or intelligence community involvement, then there is also going to be DiSINFORMATION.

That's just the nature of the beast.

I know it has nothing to do with a plasma universe, I brought up macro-evolution as an example of where I believe Science is wrong but insists it is true using the power of dogma, authority and sleight-of-hand.

What I mean is, I don't believe humans came from anything other than humans. And I don't think birds came from anything other than birds.

Thanks for the website John. I find it hard to grasp, but i will do my best :)

Hi Interpretum,

This is what I mean

I quote you:
What I mean is, I don't believe humans came from anything other than humans. And I don't think birds came from anything other than birds.

You are obviously speaking about a subject you need to study a lot more.
I noted this on the other forum when I asked you about endemic bird species living on isolated islands, you gave a very odd answer.

I have studied this subject for over fifty years.

If all birds came from a common ancestor I would say that it is pretty drastic macro-evolution that you believe in.

The sad thing about Young Earth Creationists is that their attempts to use science to justify a literalistic day interpretation of Genesis makes Christians look a laughing stock in eyes of the community at large. What is more serous is that any youngsters studying science would be put off Christianity by such vociferous and ill judged missionary-like pushing of pseudo science.

Hi Derek

Well, I don't remember my precise answer, but I'd suggest your answer is embedded in the above statement... endemic BIRD species.

They are still BIRDS. They won't ever become bananas, or humans, or poppies... no matter how many quadrillion years you allow.

Well, this is not quite what I or most other creationists mean. I'm not suggesting that everything that flies came from one creature, the BIRD. If that's what you think I mean, then I apologize for giving you the wrong impression.

I'm suggesting at Creation there were X number of flying creatures, and each flying creature was created with the genetic capacity to produce lots of variety - what scientists today call a "species".

That X has now multiplied into the variety of birds and flying creatures we see today.

Creationists do not know precisely what number X is, but I'd suggest that a simple way they could find out is to attempt to interbreed species. If they can potentially mate, then you have a "kind".

(For example, they did that recently with several "species" of giraffe. Under certain circumstances, they would mate. Therefore I'd conclude that these several "species" belong to the same Biblical "kind".)

Anyway, I don't really want to sidetrack this discussion on the Electric Universe :D

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "pseudo science".

If you mean dogma wrapped up as science, then I absolutely agree. I certainly wonder when the scientific community will finally stop pushing the "common descent" theory of evolution pseudo-science onto youngsters.

If you mean the unproven geological assumption that "the present is the key to the past" (aka the "Uniformitarian Principle") that is foisted upon young geology students as a FACT, then I agree.

Unfortunately, I know you don't mean those things.

Christians will always be a laughing-stock in the eyes of the community at large, because "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor 3:19), and therefore conversely the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world.

Why do you think so many of the world stumble over the resurrection? It's because God said, "I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside" (1 Cor 1:18-21)

And that's just from Christ's death and resurrection!

So why should it be any different with how God created the Universe?

Do you really think that because we can look into the atom, or see the far reaches of our Universe, that the world has suddenly become wise?

Sorry, but science lacks wisdom precisely because it discards any notion of God or spirit.

Science is great at producing material "things" (like microwave ovens), and for telling us the material structure of things. But do you really trust these same people to tell you about the things of God?

Ask them about the angels, or the nature of the holy spirit. Go on.

You probably already know what kind of response you'll get.

Why? Because science can only study what it can see or detect, i.e. material stuff (such as atoms) and forces (such as gravity) which are related to matter.

In other words, science is ultimately the study of the material world.

"In the beginning" was about the creation of that material universe from a supernatural being not of that material universe.

Do you really believe science would be able to convincly deduce how it was done, just by studying the universe in its present state - when they, by nature, have to miss out the critical element, namely God?

I'm a Young Earth Creationist because God was not restricted by "science" when he created the Universe - he violated it, because He had to bring it into existence in the first place!

So He could have brought the entire universe into existence instantly if He chose, because He was creating something out of nothing in the first place!

And this is where the Plasma model comes in... because it provides the "glue" for binding all the structure together, like invisible cords (an illustration which the Bible also uses, interestingly).

All this was done "In the beginning", right at the start. No need for any time to pass at all!

Right in the first sentence of the Bible, God created Time ("In the beginning"), Space ("the heavens") and Matter ("the earth").

Assuming God did create the Universe instantly, how different would it look? The answer is, it would look exactly the same!

The only real reason we assume large amounts of time is because of the large distances involved - we therefore assume a correlation between time and distance. (That's like saying how old New York is, based on its distance to Chicago.)

Hi John, Thanks for that!! LOL
I find it incredibly fantastic, so fantastic in fact, it's almost fictional in presentation, but it has the ring of truth.
I would be grateful in others opinions, if you have the mental acuteness as well as stamina and the time, to read thru the entire dissertation.

Hi Interpretum, Again you give a twisted view of all science/ scientists that do not fit into your Young Earth model.

There are many here who are Old Earth Creationists, yet you try and polarize the debate as being one between evolution and creation.

Although I do not agree with his theology......I am more attuned to Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross.

http://www.reasons.org/


One of the other problems, as I see it, with Y.E.C. is that it is so full of barmy time compressing ideas to enable 'life' to fit into its preconceived 'Mayfly' timescales. So much so that it then fails to honour the true wonder and complexity of the Creation by the Logos.

Hi John,
Thanks for that. I'll read it up when I get a chance.
Derek

ps: I looked at this one: :) http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasm/ch3.html
It was not quite what I expected! :)

I do not think Eric Laithwaite would agree with the guys theory, although he quotes him.
I heard Eric Laithwaite lecture on linear motors nearly fifty years ago when I was studying electrical engineering. (I see he has been dead 11 years so we shall have to wait until he comes back to see what he would really have to say.)

Do you believe in cold fusion? I would love to know what Isomam thinks?