Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

Status
Not open for further replies.

QwertyJuan

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
11,286
True, but time is not perceived, but observed. One sec will still equal one sec, but what it is called might be different throughout the universe. Even though the speed of time might change depending on the mass, velocity, gravity, etc... of where it's being measured, it is still relative constant.

The problem with all of this, is that I don't see ANYWHERE in the Bible that states that the universe was created in ONE day. I believe if you read Genesis 1:1 THEN go read Genesis 1:2 you will find that there is NO time gap mentioned to let the reader know exactly how much had transpired between the two verses.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,449
The problem with all of this, is that I don't see ANYWHERE in the Bible that states that the universe was created in ONE day. I believe if you read Genesis 1:1 THEN go read Genesis 1:2 you will find that there is NO time gap mentioned to let the reader know exactly how much had transpired between the two verses.

Yet it says that the earth was created before the sun, and that the moon and stars were created on the forth day... which is after the creation of the earth.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,616
The problem with all of this, is that I don't see ANYWHERE in the Bible that states that the universe was created in ONE day. I believe if you read Genesis 1:1 THEN go read Genesis 1:2 you will find that there is NO time gap mentioned to let the reader know exactly how much had transpired between the two verses.

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Same with the second day and the third day and so on.
 

Mr. K6

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,077
The problem with all of this, is that I don't see ANYWHERE in the Bible that states that the universe was created in ONE day. I believe if you read Genesis 1:1 THEN go read Genesis 1:2 you will find that there is NO time gap mentioned to let the reader know exactly how much had transpired between the two verses.
Even as ambiguous as the story in the Book of Genesis is, it doesn't really coincide with any of the evidence we have found about the generation of our universe. Obviously a literal interpretation of the story is completely incorrect, for example, evolution took millions of years, not a day, to evolve land life from sea life. But beyond that there are just obvious realistic inaccuracies that show the ignorance of whoever made up the story at the time, e.g. birds should have come after land animals, vegetation with fruit growing without the sun, etc. Trying to tie actual science into this fairy tale is inane; you're trying to search for credibility in something that was created without it.
 

Ocean

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,927
Except that GOD created time, therefore, he is not subject to time or effected by time. Time is a function of creation and whether we agree with how he did it or not, our perspective is skewed by our limited understanding of time. By the way, you got the time? :D

Nice of you to admit that your comprehension of time is skewed by your limited understanding of time.

Your 6000 units of time could be equivalent to my 13,800,000,000 units of time.

Makes perfect sense since you lack the ability to articulate how long the first day was before the creation of an earth.

------

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Same with the second day and the third day and so on.

You also seem lack the ability to articulate what constitutes an evening and morning when there is no sun.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,616
------



You also seem lack the ability to articulate what constitutes an evening and morning when there is no sun.

Genesis 1:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Sometimes, it is just better if I directly quote so as not to speak incorrectly of what was actually said and done.
 

Mr. K6

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,077
Genesis 1:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Sometimes, it is just better if I directly quote so as not to speak incorrectly of what was actually said and done.
Again though, shows whatever early men wrote the Bible didn't understand that light came from the sun.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,034
Can't believe I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Love shows like this; The Universe, Through the Wormhole, Nova Cosmos, etc.

Looks like I missed a hilarious discussion.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
I think even though we can't agree on creation or science or politics or bitcoins or whether or not Kim Dotcom is the most sexually unappealing man on the planet, I'm glad we can all at least agree that Windows 8/8.1 is awful and that iOS will someday rule the world....

owait :(
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
Genesis 1:
Sometimes, it is just better if I directly quote so as not to speak incorrectly of what was actually said and done.

Facepalm.

Last time I checked the sun is what gives off light/all the energy used for life. So with that said the bible was straight wrong with its explanation, period. Actually the Earth wouldn't have had anything to orbit around (the necessary gravity required) to even form into a planet without the sun first being there, not after. Nor would vegetation have grown, first, like the bible claimed happened, before the sun and moon were created.....lol. Day and night with no sun....derp.

The bible is obviously written by men for men to rule men and I question anyone's critical thinking skills that (supposedly) knows the bible in and out and yet actually still believes it's divinely inspired, seriously, not joking, fucking crazy people.



That said.
"Arguing with a religious person is like playing chess with a pigeon.
You can a make the best move in the world but they can knock over all the pieces, take a shit in the middle of the board and stand there triumphantly."
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Genesis 1:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Sometimes, it is just better if I directly quote so as not to speak incorrectly of what was actually said and done.

Here, allow me to put the entire thing into perspective.

Day one: God creates heaven and earth, and light and dark.
Day two: God creates the firmament.
Day three: God creates land in the water, then plants.
Day four: God creates the sun and moon; then, as an afterthought, he creates the other stars.
Day five: God creates water animals, then birds.
Day six: God creates land animals, then Adam.
Day seven: God rests.

So Day one he creates light and dark, but somehow doesn't get around to creating the Sun/moon and Stars (other suns) and the ONLY SOURCES OF LIGHT...until Day 4..Oh and it gets better, he Creates plants Before the sun, Because That is Totally going to work.

So, lets go Literal for a moment..1 day = 1000 years give or take. So God created plants 1000 years before the Sun. Man if I leave my plants in the dark for a few days they are screwed, 1000 years I'm impressed.

On to other things, Day 1. Creates Earth, yea so we know based on empirical Evidence and how planets and stars form, That is a load of hooey. Afraid Earth and light don't exist without the Sun.

Day 2 firmament Ok I'll let you have this one, since "technically" earth is created before it. Even though earth can't actually exist yet. But for argument at least the Order of Earth _> firmament is at least correct.

Day 3 - Land out of the water. Land came first, then water. So again more unbelievable garbage because this story was written by people with Zero concept of how the universe actually formed.

Day 4 - See original statement, completely impossible.

Day 5/6 - Water animals Check, birds before Land...Bzzzt Sorry doesn't work that way. But For argument sake we will let the exact order of animal creation slide since really nothing exists at this point due to the completely backwards order of earth creation. Why? Because plants 1000 years without a sun = no life. Sorry start again. Of course since the sun finally got created 1000 years ago, there should be a chance if he recreates all the plants again. I mean, I'm not one to judge god but i have fired people in the past for being that inefficient with work and having to redo everything they did because they created it in the wrong order.

Day 7 - Rests. Yea well, I would be tired too if I created all of creation in the wrong damn order and had to start over from scratch. Unfortunately even after this Universal Blunder, he managed to either tell his people the wrong order ANYHOW or...they were idiots and the whole thing is made up anyhow.

Now obviously we know that Creation didn't happen in 7 days or 7000 years for that matter. It took Billions of years and there is Hard indisputable evidence as such. The only evidence to the contrary? A 2000+ year old book, written by people who couldn't figure out basic sanitary issues or how to avoid being made Slaves every few generations. A book that also has major Gaps in its story, dozens of excluded chapters, thousands of translations and hundreds of factions who can't even agree with each other.

Yep..I'm convinced. :rolleyes: Not that I expect to get an intelligent reply to this. You haven't responded to a single direct question from anyone with anything except smiley faces and snide comments. Just proves you are yet another one of the blinded sheep who haven't understood a thing you have read and just spend all your time parroting the same nonsensical garbage your preacher and parents have crammed down your throat your entire life. I sincerely pity you.
 

Ocean

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,927
Yay, time for bible quotes, vetted for scientific certainty.

Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Psalms 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
 

m33pm33p

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - August 2013
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
4,345
I was thinking before I read your post that God is probably scientifically explainable but that we just don't have enough information. That does not mean he doesn't exist. There is a lot of evidence that God isn't made up but to most people even diret proof wouldn't mattter.


WOW.


Please, please, point me in the direction of this gold mine of proof. This could end this whole controversy..

:rolleyes:
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
Eating-Popcorn-Soda.gif
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
Not really. It's typically anti-theist. That's quite different from the meaning of the literal term agnostic.

In fact, most 'science' is driven by the self described 'scientists' who view their own interpretation as absolute truth, even when faced with the historical truth that any given 'science' that is accepted as 'correct' at any given time is typically revolutionized and in favor of new 'study' driven by shifting political views every few decades.




The bigger fact is that nothing in science is repeatable. Heck, if even science was repeatable, there would never be mistakes made. I'd like a scientifically repeatable drag racing car myself, one that I can predict how it will run every time I make a pass down the drag strip. (Since science cannot even predict the weather accurately, I guess that will never happen, no matter how much I analyze 'DA' correction factors).

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. It's all math. Science can't tell the material weakness of the engine internal, transmission, etc without taking it apart. However, if we have the variables, the formulas exist to take the friction in your rearend, rotating assembly, oil weight, oil heat, valve lift, temperature, tire temperature, tire compound and give you very close numbers to what you will make. Just like they use engine modeling programs to tell what an engine can make. The problem is, with so many variables, it's only practical to speak in terms of probabilities, averages, etc. in models.

Years ago we couldn't do what we can do today... and people said, science can't make wireless communication devices! This is fiction. Yet, here we are.. and every time we develop more, people such as yourself just move the goal line, and then argue, if science can't answer every single question, it can't answer anything.

Science doesn't have to answer everything, it's not a faith based proposition. It's based on what we have evidence for.

I watch an object fall to earth, I measure it. I can repeat it over and over again. But yet, there will always be some nut who says... whatever force you are measuring isn't real! You don't know everything, therefor you know nothing.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
Oh I fully understand atheism is a belief, not a fact.

Atheism is the rejection of belief. It's not a denial.

There are three possible answers to believing:

1) I believe that god does not exist
2) I believe that god exists
3) Reject belief.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
I’ll take this one…

The whole reason God set all of this in motion was a plan he had since before the universe was created.

His plan from the beginning was to create a free will being that could ultimately be his children. Meaning they would eventually have a part of his essence.

Yes, he knew sin would come from free will, but in the end sin would be dealt with and eliminated; and because he is so awesome and righteous he himself took on flesh and became a man and dealt with the sin issue in the form of Christ. Yes, Christ was God made flesh.

God is not some cosmic puppetmaster, he wants us to love him willingly and ultimately he provided us a way to get around the sin issue so we all have no excuse.

Please note that I do not understand all of what Christ did when he defeated sin, and I don’t pretend to understand how God can exist outside of time and spark the creation of matter and our universe as a whole. He just did. God is the quantum spark that make scientists wet themselves.

If God is omnipotent, couldn't he have just forgiven us? Why did he have to go through all the trouble? Not sure this makes much if any sense.
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
Atheism is the rejection of belief. It's not a denial.

There are three possible answers to believing:

1) I believe that god does not exist
2) I believe that god exists
3) Reject belief. (Or do you mean (currently) unknowable information?)

(Agnostics meet none of your three options listed unless number three is where I fit into to.)

I'm agnostic, myself. Religion is utter garbage and should be set on fire. However to say for certain nothing set anything/everything into motion is yet without proof (unknowable). The problem is stupid men keep coming up with false explanations for global events. We (inquisitive humans) need more time to understand what is what before making a final decision.

All current (man-made) religions are nullified yet there remains questions that have not been answered nor yet can be answered. We need (space-) time before we can understand if we live in a multi-universe and what lies outside it before making any (any) claims, either way, for any side.

IMO, atheists + theists = STFU, already, seriously! Science (observable proof) is trying to find the answer you fucks are PURELY guessing about.

Be a part of the solution, not, a part of the age old problem.
 

satsunada

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
632
I love when Christians start fabricating crap to fit the mold. Like whoever was saying that the 7 days of genesis was actually 14 billion years, give or take. The Bible is the word of God as transcribed by men, right? Why edit it or distort words when the Bible specifically says that that is tantamount to self-destruction?

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
(Agnostics meet none of your three options listed unless number three is where I fit into to.)

I'm agnostic, myself. Religion is utter garbage and should be set on fire. However to say for certain nothing set anything/everything into motion is yet without proof (unknowable). The problem is stupid men keep coming up with false explanations for global events. We (inquisitive humans) need more time to understand what is what before making a final decision.

All current (man-made) religions are nullified yet there remains questions that have not been answered nor yet can be answered. We need (space-) time before we can understand if we live in a multi-universe and what lies outside it before making any (any) claims, either way, for any side.

IMO, atheists + theists = STFU, already, seriously! Science (observable proof) is trying to find the answer you fucks are PURELY guessing about.

Be a part of the solution, not, a part of the age old problem.

You are correct that you fit into category #3. That is you do not confirm nor deny a that god exists. You reject belief in either direction.
 

KENNYB

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
3,147
If two rainbow unicorns had not crossed their streams we would not be here.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
The debate in this thread is a lot like the fundamental differences that cause deep seated hatred between the monkey and the robot in the Monkey versus Robot music video. Monkey mates in the jungle. Robot replicates in the factory. They both love their mothers. Why can't they love each other?

It's an eerie parallel to the argument here and I think, just like the music video encourages Monkey and Robot to get along, I think that's what should happen here. There's no reason to have a giant rumble and throw each other off buildings or anything over this.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
The debate in this thread is a lot like the fundamental differences that cause deep seated hatred between the monkey and the robot in the Monkey versus Robot music video. Monkey mates in the jungle. Robot replicates in the factory. They both love their mothers. Why can't they love each other?

It's an eerie parallel to the argument here and I think, just like the music video encourages Monkey and Robot to get along, I think that's what should happen here. There's no reason to have a giant rumble and throw each other off buildings or anything over this.

That example only makes sense if the two sides are arguing about something that turns out to be insubstantial, you can't apply it to any disagreement. I think it's pretty clear that there are substantial and irreconcilable differences between the scientific and religious worldviews.

Science is the process of testing ideas against observations. Religion is belief in ideas regardless of observations. How could they not be in conflict?
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,552
That example only makes sense if the two sides are arguing about something that turns out to be insubstantial, you can't apply it to any disagreement. I think it's pretty clear that there are substantial and irreconcilable differences between the scientific and religious worldviews.

Science is the process of testing ideas against observations. Religion is belief in ideas regardless of observations. How could they not be in conflict?

I disagree.
Again, as I've stated elsewhere, I am a christian who has a Masters degree in Evolutionary sociobiology. The thing is, too many people associate 'religion,' which is a man-made organization of men, with a specific belief structure. Only some religions enforce a literalistic interpretation of given holy texts, a minority at that.

So, when people say, "The bible is antithetical to science," that's only true in the most literal of translations. And let's not forget that there is NO SUCH THING as "A" literal translation. If someone says they follow a literal translation of the bible, your first question should be, "which one?" For example, I was raised roman Catholic (not anymore), and the RC bible has additional books that many protestant bibles lack. Living by a literal translation of the bible also requires adherence to books that tell different versions of the same tale. Hence why Bill Nye nailed Hamm about "taking his word" for it because Hamm's version is but one of many.


That all said, living in such a way as to accept the story and lessons of the bible (man was given a chance, f'd it up (eden and the apple etc), was damned but given a second chance (the old testament), screwed that up, and had to be saved (the coming and sacrifice of Jesus), and is now left to but repent and be saved (salvation is now a matter of belief and not works). NONE of that has anything to do with science. Period. They are completely orthogonal. Science, as we know it today, is a process for explaining our world. It is limited to what we can observe with the tools we have. No tool can currently test for (and if you think about it, never will) the existence of any of that.

What science cannot test for, it can make NO statements about. Period. If there is no evidence for, nor against, then science must stay silent.

So in my life, while I love to follow the science of the day, and am often caught rambling on about the insane wonders of evolutionary selection and how it has shaped the world, and humanity, I have no problem with that conflicting with my interpretation of the Bible. Maybe that's apostasy, but as far as I can tell, that's a man-made construct.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
See?! Everyone really can get along if they just think about how to be nice to each other. Sure, there's lotsa good reasons to ask big questions and look for answers, but none of them are good reasons to get upset at one another coming from either side of any debate. More hugs and less growlings!
 

Low Roller

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
1,024
The thing is, too many people associate 'religion,' which is a man-made organization of men, with a specific belief structure.
Agreed. Religion and spirituality are completely different things.

So, when people say, "The bible is antithetical to science," that's only true in the most literal of translations. And let's not forget that there is NO SUCH THING as "A" literal translation. If someone says they follow a literal translation of the bible, your first question should be, "which one?"
Yep. It's just not something the fundamentalist Christian sects can wrap their minds around.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,552
Agreed. Religion and spirituality are completely different things.

Yep. It's just not something the fundamentalist Christian sects can wrap their minds around.

And to be honest, and fair, that's the same with any religion. Christianity suffers the most because of the sheer number of translations its base text has undergone over the millenia. No other religion has spread as much, globally, or been translated BETWEEN languages as much as it has.
But Islam and Judaism (to stick with the Abrahamic religions) suffer from the same. Shoot, the split in Islam comes from the same kind of issues, as do the myriad Jewish sects.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,136
As far as Bible history goes, it was written in a time when man had absolutely no understanding of the universe. Why would any of you expect some sort of accurate description of how we came to be from it is beyond me. I'm sure if He tried again today we'd get a much more detailed explanation of how the universe came to be, and it still would be limited to only what we know and understand.
 

Tawnos

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
3,808
That all said, living in such a way as to accept the story and lessons of the bible (man was given a chance, f'd it up (eden and the apple etc), was damned but given a second chance (the old testament), screwed that up, and had to be saved (the coming and sacrifice of Jesus), and is now left to but repent and be saved (salvation is now a matter of belief and not works). NONE of that has anything to do with science. Period. They are completely orthogonal. Science, as we know it today, is a process for explaining our world. It is limited to what we can observe with the tools we have. No tool can currently test for (and if you think about it, never will) the existence of any of that.

What science cannot test for, it can make NO statements about. Period. If there is no evidence for, nor against, then science must stay silent.

You can test if prayer is effective, if faith is beneficial in this life, etc. You're right, you can't test things like whether an afterlife exists, but with no evidence thereof, I just assume it's like the only model I have, before I was born - nothingness.
 

Mr. K6

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,077
That all said, living in such a way as to accept the story and lessons of the bible (man was given a chance, f'd it up (eden and the apple etc), was damned but given a second chance (the old testament), screwed that up, and had to be saved (the coming and sacrifice of Jesus), and is now left to but repent and be saved (salvation is now a matter of belief and not works). NONE of that has anything to do with science. Period. They are completely orthogonal. Science, as we know it today, is a process for explaining our world. It is limited to what we can observe with the tools we have. No tool can currently test for (and if you think about it, never will) the existence of any of that.
What would you test for? All you're doing is participating in a massive fairy tale, any scientist would say you're delusional and move on. It doesn't have anything to do with science because any science that has looked at the Bible and its stories have found it's a poorly translated, multi-origin tale of bullshit that has been cut, edited, and outright fabricated over the centuries to manipulate the ignorant.

What science cannot test for, it can make NO statements about. Period. If there is no evidence for, nor against, then science must stay silent.
I'm honestly questioning how you got that far in education (although I suppose it depends on where the "masters" is from) and are still this ignorant of how science works. Science has plenty place where something cannot be "tested," there's observable evidence, mathematical models, hypothesis and theory formation, etc.. Honestly, how do you think Newton and Einstein did all of their work which is only being verified (and more impressively proven accurate) now that we have the technology?

The reason people come up with these inane arguments about "science must stay silent" is because whenever you apply any scientific method to religion it reveals it's total bullshit. I realize I'm being very blunt but sometimes that's the best way to get to the bottom of it. People don't like having these discussions because it shakes the indoctrination they grew up with and makes them look inward. The world's a scary place when you realize there isn't any evidence that "someone is watching over us" or that there's a point reward system with bonuses after you die. Most of all, it's really scary that all evidence points to "this being it," one life, one conscious, one shot at existence. I think Dawkins framed it rather poetically though that we're the lucky few combinations of genes that did get to exist, so use it wisely. Anyway, look, enjoy your spiritual coddling but please don't identify as a "scientist" when you clearly aren't one.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
That example only makes sense if the two sides are arguing about something that turns out to be insubstantial, you can't apply it to any disagreement. I think it's pretty clear that there are substantial and irreconcilable differences between the scientific and religious worldviews.

Science is the process of testing ideas against observations. Religion is belief in ideas regardless of observations. How could they not be in conflict?

Nor completely true. Although most scientists are apparently agnostic or atheist, you can believe in some sort of supreme being and believe in science. There's still plenty out there that we don't know that there could be a God. Is there? I don't know. I see no evidence, but it's possible that science will ultimately lead us to this deity.

But until that time comes, God is not science
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,552
As far as Bible history goes, it was written in a time when man had absolutely no understanding of the universe. Why would any of you expect some sort of accurate description of how we came to be from it is beyond me. I'm sure if He tried again today we'd get a much more detailed explanation of how the universe came to be, and it still would be limited to only what we know and understand.
This.
The majority of the bible was written before man understood the mathematical concept of 0.

You can test if prayer is effective, if faith is beneficial in this life, etc. You're right, you can't test things like whether an afterlife exists, but with no evidence thereof, I just assume it's like the only model I have, before I was born - nothingness.
AH. But what YOU are talking about is testing the value of the religious institutions of man. That is different than (and you get close to this distinction) the existence of a god, an afterlife, the salvation from sin etc.

I'm honestly questioning how you got that far in education (although I suppose it depends on where the "masters" is from)...
Ad hominem, nice. Indicative of how strong you must think your argument.
But to answer the question: The Ohio State University.

and are still this ignorant of how science works. Science has plenty place where something cannot be "tested," there's observable evidence, mathematical models, hypothesis and theory formation, etc.. Honestly, how do you think Newton and Einstein did all of their work which is only being verified (and more impressively proven accurate) now that we have the technology?
I don't think you understand the word "test," nor the nature of Newton and Einstein's works. For example, gravity remains a theory because we have absolutely NO idea how it works. We know how to predict it's effects (albeit we learn more and more exceptions every year), but not its nature.
To test something is to observe it under controlled and varied circumstances in order to describe a working model to predict future occurrences of the same phenomena under the same and different circumstances. So, yes, Newton described gravity's effects, and modeled the behavior of mass under Earth's gravity with reasonable accuracy. But not its nature.
Same with Einstein. He used mathematical models, based on observed and tested phenomena, to build a model for how he predicted those same results would play out at relativistic speeds and masses. Some was right some was wrong, based on the TESTING we have done. But don't think for a moment his equations, nor Newton's, were created in a vacuum. They were based on what they saw.

Observation. Data. Repetitive recording of controlled events.

But FAITH. Faith is the belief in something based on emotion, intuition and other non-measurable human quantities IN THE ABSENCE of hard observational data. It is a series of moral concepts that have no basis in observation or data.

Well, yet. I;m not saying they can NEVER be tested. Someday, maybe they will, who knows what devices we will come up with. But as of right now, no data.

The scientific method, which i think you need to re-familiarize yourself with, is a process. Without any data, it's a nonstarter. So, for example, when I was beginning my research, I had to develop a (and I use this word loosely) hypothesis. Mine was, essentially, A > B (I'm simplifying it because it's VERY complicated). Now, the possibility remained that A<B, or A=B, but based on the research done before (existing data), I predicted A>B. I had DATA to start from (like Einstein and Newton). I created multiple circumstances (control and experimental scenarios) to test my hypothesis (as did Newton and Einstein, or at least those that came later with the technology to do so). I discovered A=B. After significant testing, I showed that those who had come before were wrong.

Now, suppose, instead of basing my prediction upon previous data, I came across A and B in the wild, perched upon a log. I did no testing (or could not, it doesnt matter), made no observations, and controlled for no variables. And I simply stated, "There is now way that A>B."

That's not science. That's not s scientific statement. it doesn't use the scientific method as its basis or foundation, and applies no scientific ANYTHING. It is NOT a scientific conclusion. Despite the fact that, like Eistein, the statement makes predictions about the future, and the relation between two things, it is not science. In fact, science, in the vacuum of knowledge about A and B can make no statement at all.

The same is true of the existence of a deity. All we have is a series of historic texts (admittedly of dubious quality, but what 2500+ year old text isn't?) that tell a story.And we can all agree that is NOT data upon which to base any scientific statement.
The reason people come up with these inane arguments about "science must stay silent" is because whenever you apply any scientific method to religion it reveals it's total bullshit.
Please, show me how we can apply science to the existence of a deity. Some way to generate repeated, controllable data, experimental circumstances, and even some nice, neat statistics we can run.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

I realize I'm being very blunt but sometimes that's the best way to get to the bottom of it. People don't like having these discussions because it shakes the indoctrination they grew up with and makes them look inward. The world's a scary place when you realize there isn't any evidence that "someone is watching over us" or that there's a point reward system with bonuses after you die.
Trust me, there is no argument you can POSSIBLY make that I, someone with a BS and MS in evolutionary biology AND a J.D., haven't made to myself hundreds of times over and likely in a more eloquent and unemotional manner (you do see m kind of angry)


Most of all, it's really scary that all evidence points to "this being it," one life, one conscious, one shot at existence. I think Dawkins framed it rather poetically though that we're the lucky few combinations of genes that did get to exist, so use it wisely. Anyway, look, enjoy your spiritual coddling but please don't identify as a "scientist" when you clearly aren't one.
The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books ever written. I own three copies, and have read each several times. It formed the basis for my thesis, and its tenants were among several I pointed to to explain my findings (or at least offer some ideas to explain the difference between what was expected and what was found).
"The God Delusion" is to Dawkins what Vitamin C was to Linus Pauling. it was when he went off the deep end and stopped being a scientist. His militant atheism is the most hypocritical, asinine and dishonest organization not affiliated with a government (or the WBC or the SLPC) that i can think of. It's crap. Writtten by a genius, but crap nonetheless.
 

Draxanoth

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
567
What would you test for? All you're doing is participating in a massive fairy tale, any scientist would say you're delusional and move on. It doesn't have anything to do with science because any science that has looked at the Bible and its stories have found it's a poorly translated, multi-origin tale of bullshit that has been cut, edited, and outright fabricated over the centuries to manipulate the ignorant.

I'm honestly questioning how you got that far in education (although I suppose it depends on where the "masters" is from) and are still this ignorant of how science works. Science has plenty place where something cannot be "tested," there's observable evidence, mathematical models, hypothesis and theory formation, etc.. Honestly, how do you think Newton and Einstein did all of their work which is only being verified (and more impressively proven accurate) now that we have the technology?

The reason people come up with these inane arguments about "science must stay silent" is because whenever you apply any scientific method to religion it reveals it's total bullshit. I realize I'm being very blunt but sometimes that's the best way to get to the bottom of it. People don't like having these discussions because it shakes the indoctrination they grew up with and makes them look inward. The world's a scary place when you realize there isn't any evidence that "someone is watching over us" or that there's a point reward system with bonuses after you die. Most of all, it's really scary that all evidence points to "this being it," one life, one conscious, one shot at existence. I think Dawkins framed it rather poetically though that we're the lucky few combinations of genes that did get to exist, so use it wisely. Anyway, look, enjoy your spiritual coddling but please don't identify as a "scientist" when you clearly aren't one.
Only an idiot would proclaim that current theories about origins of the universe are any less amazing than the idea an invisible tree frog named Merle did it with a dark matter catapult.

Seriously, the creation of stuff from nothing is possible, but higher powers aren't? I don't believe in the Bible myself, but the arrogance of some people regarding spirituality is astounding.
 

Mr. K6

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,077
Ad hominem, nice. Indicative of how strong you must think your argument.
But to answer the question: The Ohio State University.
You can't use your education as a foundation of your argument and then be upset when it gets questioned. How naive are you?
I don't think you understand the word "test," nor the nature of Newton and Einstein's works. For example, gravity remains a theory because we have absolutely NO idea how it works. We know how to predict it's effects (albeit we learn more and more exceptions every year), but not its nature.
To test something is to observe it under controlled and varied circumstances in order to describe a working model to predict future occurrences of the same phenomena under the same and different circumstances. So, yes, Newton described gravity's effects, and modeled the behavior of mass under Earth's gravity with reasonable accuracy. But not its nature.
Same with Einstein. He used mathematical models, based on observed and tested phenomena, to build a model for how he predicted those same results would play out at relativistic speeds and masses. Some was right some was wrong, based on the TESTING we have done. But don't think for a moment his equations, nor Newton's, were created in a vacuum. They were based on what they saw.

Observation. Data. Repetitive recording of controlled events.

But FAITH. Faith is the belief in something based on emotion, intuition and other non-measurable human quantities IN THE ABSENCE of hard observational data. It is a series of moral concepts that have no basis in observation or data.

Well, yet. I;m not saying they can NEVER be tested. Someday, maybe they will, who knows what devices we will come up with. But as of right now, no data.

The scientific method, which i think you need to re-familiarize yourself with, is a process. Without any data, it's a nonstarter. So, for example, when I was beginning my research, I had to develop a (and I use this word loosely) hypothesis. Mine was, essentially, A > B (I'm simplifying it because it's VERY complicated). Now, the possibility remained that A<B, or A=B, but based on the research done before (existing data), I predicted A>B. I had DATA to start from (like Einstein and Newton). I created multiple circumstances (control and experimental scenarios) to test my hypothesis (as did Newton and Einstein, or at least those that came later with the technology to do so). I discovered A=B. After significant testing, I showed that those who had come before were wrong.

Now, suppose, instead of basing my prediction upon previous data, I came across A and B in the wild, perched upon a log. I did no testing (or could not, it doesnt matter), made no observations, and controlled for no variables. And I simply stated, "There is now way that A>B."

That's not science. That's not s scientific statement. it doesn't use the scientific method as its basis or foundation, and applies no scientific ANYTHING. It is NOT a scientific conclusion. Despite the fact that, like Eistein, the statement makes predictions about the future, and the relation between two things, it is not science. In fact, science, in the vacuum of knowledge about A and B can make no statement at all.

The same is true of the existence of a deity. All we have is a series of historic texts (admittedly of dubious quality, but what 2500+ year old text isn't?) that tell a story.And we can all agree that is NOT data upon which to base any scientific statement.
You're arguing semantics because you don't like being wrong, yet you felt the need to reprimand me on my debating technique, cute. Case in point, you didn't rebut anything I said that science has no place where something cannot be tested, which is obviously incorrect. Newton, Einstein, whoever built their theories, equations, hypotheses, etc. on observable phenomenon, conjectured models, etc., yet by your definition that wasn't "science" because there wasn't a neat packaged experiment for each step of the way. Your understanding of what science is is rudimentary at best, and how you want to define it so that you can be "right" is ridiculous. For the record, I have an MD from a MA University, and a lot of lab experience; when you actually get a doctorate, we'll talk grown up science. Until then you can stop being condescending and I will as well.

Please, show me how we can apply science to the existence of a deity. Some way to generate repeated, controllable data, experimental circumstances, and even some nice, neat statistics we can run.

Go ahead, I'll wait.
That was the point, wasn't it? Or did you not understand it? Any time science has been applied to religion, a deity, etc. it shows it's nonsense. I already summarized how the Bible was bullshit, what else? Any controlled look at prayer has shown its a waste of time. There's nothing different or special about a priest, the Pope, etc. There's no observable evidence of a god/God/gods/gawd. Anytime you look at anything religious for substantiated proof you wind up with zilch.

Trust me, there is no argument you can POSSIBLY make that I, someone with a BS and MS in evolutionary biology AND a J.D., haven't made to myself hundreds of times over and likely in a more eloquent and unemotional manner (you do see m kind of angry)
Swearing =/= angry unless you're five years old. Moving on, didn't you just confirm what I said, belief is bullshit? Since there is no evidence or proof that a god/God/gods/gawd exists, and you've experienced that cognitive dissonance yourself, you're really just clinging to an altered personal reality so you can sleep well at night. That's fine, millions of other people do the same, millions of other people don't. But claiming that it's something more than delusion is unfounded nonsense. I recognize that to YOU it may mean more, but you haven't shown otherwise.

The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books ever written. I own three copies, and have read each several times. It formed the basis for my thesis, and its tenants were among several I pointed to to explain my findings (or at least offer some ideas to explain the difference between what was expected and what was found).
"The God Delusion" is to Dawkins what Vitamin C was to Linus Pauling. it was when he went off the deep end and stopped being a scientist. His militant atheism is the most hypocritical, asinine and dishonest organization not affiliated with a government (or the WBC or the SLPC) that i can think of. It's crap. Writtten by a genius, but crap nonetheless.
How is his interpretation any less than yours? He saw no evidence and said "ok, there's nothing to believe in." You saw no evidence and made something up instead. Like I said in my previous post, a lot of people are uncomfortable with this discussion because it questions their core belief system, their emotional crutch if you will, and some people just aren't strong enough to do it. Me, I'm happy to be in the grey area, science is very grey, and I can easily and happily be agnostic until more evidence comes up.
Only an idiot would proclaim that current theories about origins of the universe are any less amazing than the idea an invisible tree frog named Merle did it with a dark matter catapult.

Seriously, the creation of stuff from nothing is possible, but higher powers aren't? I don't believe in the Bible myself, but the arrogance of some people regarding spirituality is astounding.
Again, read the last paragraph about how people get upset when you question their core beliefs and show it has no bearing in reality, as you're being emotional and not rational. We don't concretely know a lot about our world, but believing in something just to "believe" is borderline psychotic and honestly a poor mental health state.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,552
I'm glad you're not my doctor.
I'm more than happy to least my point rest on my previous substantive post since you've insisted on reading it out of context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top