Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on August 28, 2003, 12:29:08 pm
-
Ran across a good summary of the core argument... I love WikiWiki. ;)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
-
A bit of a stretch, that is...
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
A bit of a stretch, that is...
From 6 days to ~15 bil. years? You bet. :p But it's scientifically sound. :D
-
Haven't gotten off my arse to look aorund this site, but I like the name of it: www.infidels.org/index.shtml
-
*TWWEEEEET!*
Fundamental misapplication/misunderstanding of Special and General Relativity.
Fifteen yard penalty.
Dude. That's like the grossest misuse of Einstein since Alcubierre.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
*TWWEEEEET!*
Fundamental misapplication/misunderstanding of Special and General Relativity.
Fifteen yard penalty.
Dude. That's like the grossest misuse of Einstein since Alcubierre.
What's wrong with it? :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
From www.infidels.org/index.shtml
Taken from The Skeptic Tank
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
President George H. W. Bush, during an August 27, 1987 interview by Rob Sherman, as reported in Brochure # 8286 (circa 1991) published by American Atheist Veterans.
:wtf: That is really a f*cked up statement to make.... Though he made it 16 years ago. But still... :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
What's wrong with it? :)
Like Alcubierre, it shows a blatant disregard for relativity (both special and relative). Based on the tiny amount of information provided by Wikiwiki, I'd have to say its time to go grab the guy's book. I'm all for crazy theories, but they have to make sense. WikiWiki is making me think this guy is applying time scaled independently from space scaling. Since time and space scaling are intrinsically linked, this just doesn't seem possible or plausible. In short, on the surface, it looks about the same as the guy that decided that imaginary time was wrong: interesting idea, complete misapplication of the science.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Like Alcubierre, it shows a blatant disregard for relativity (both special and relative). Based on the tiny amount of information provided by Wikiwiki, I'd have to say its time to go grab the guy's book. I'm all for crazy theories, but they have to make sense. WikiWiki is making me think this guy is applying time scaled independently from space scaling. Since time and space scaling are intrinsically linked, this just doesn't seem possible or plausible. In short, on the surface, it looks about the same as the guy that decided that imaginary time was wrong: interesting idea, complete misapplication of the science.
So you're saying that althoug hthings might "go slower", they'd also have a proportionally "shorter" distance to travel, thereby getting from point A to point B in the same amount of time?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So you're saying that althoug hthings might "go slower", they'd also have a proportionally "shorter" distance to travel, thereby getting from point A to point B in the same amount of time?
Yes. I need more details before I can say with "The guy is nuckng futs!" or "Whoa. He might be right."
I will say that I find it very difficult to reconcile this idea with Hawking, but I'm open to odd ideas. I used to think Alcubierre was the bomb.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Yes. I need more details before I can say with "The guy is nuckng futs!" or "Whoa. He might be right."
I will say that I find it very difficult to reconcile this idea with Hawking, but I'm open to odd ideas. I used to think Alcubierre was the bomb.
Read one of his first 2 books then. ;)
-
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol: :lol:
Oh man, I'm more greatful than ever than I don't live within the jurisdiction of that monkey.
Anyone ever watch The Oblongs? "Dear White Male God, please send down Your holy fire to cleanse us of the Mud Races..." :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Relativity theory teaches that time passes much more slowly in conditions of great gravitational pressure than it does on earth. Using these familiar principles, Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a million million times smaller and hotter than it is today, is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time. Genesis and modern physics are reconciled.
That's off the site... interesting. Never considered that. But I'd like to know what Mik has to finish with. :)
-
Nah :ick:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Schroeder
Here's Victor Stenger's (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html) (Popular American Physicist's) review, and it's quite scathing.
At times you get the impression that this book is a parody, with quite a few good chuckles when read in that context. However, the sections on evolution soon convince you that no parody is intended. They are just too unfunny, too dull. Schroeder trots out all the old, tiresome arguments about why "life could not have stared by chance" and how the simplest forms, even viruses, are "far too complex to have originated without there being an inherent chemical property of molecular self-organization and/or reaction enhancing catalysts at every step of their development" (85). He applies the usual creationist deception of calculating chance probabilities as if chance is the only operative mechanism, and then saying this "proves" that God intervenes along the way when they come out very low. And, of course, the "staccato aspect of the fossil record" refutes classical evolution. "These rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the molecular-genetic level" (87).
Notice how often theists tell us that something cannot be explained except by God? They never seem to learn from history.
-
Well, I'm still impressed by Schroeder's theory and its explanation.
And about this: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html ...
...could anyone EXPLAIN (mikhael?) what's wrong with it? K-I-S-S, please.
-
Though my brain starts freezing up at the horrifyingly dull amount of math and abstruse physics theory involved in explaining how relativity works here, I think this more or less covered it:
Originally posted by Sandwich
So you're saying that althoug hthings might "go slower", they'd also have a proportionally "shorter" distance to travel, thereby getting from point A to point B in the same amount of time?
So it wouldn't matter if one could say that the formation of the universe took 16 billion years- if a day lasted two billion years or whatever at that point, then since time was stretched out you could only get one day's worth of stuff done in that two billion years, not two billion years' worth in that day. He even explains this flaw in his reasoning in the "Einstein's Theory" section, though he obviously doesn't notice it- see the part about heartbeats, etc.
-
You know, on reading this... you can tell this guy's one of the Creationists just by looking at the way he makes points, never mind his actual content. It's all "Einstein tells us" and "the Torah says"- he considers it all true because someone in supposed authority told him so, not because it makes sense on its own. Beware of the person who writes that way- they also think that way, and there's no dealing with them, since if some famous guy said something, no matter how horribly and obviously wrong it was, he'll remember it and take it as Gospel- accuracy rated by mass media attention.
-
Originally posted by Fr3z3r
Well, I'm still impressed by Schroeder's theory and its explanation.
And about this: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html ...
...could anyone EXPLAIN (mikhael?) what's wrong with it? K-I-S-S, please.
The coolest part IMHO is the last paragraph. :D
-
Why do people think that low probabilites = impossible? Just because the probability of humanity being here by chance are trillions to one against, doesn't mean that God intervened! It just means that an extremely unlikely possibility happened. If it HADN'T happened, we wouldn't be here to notice.
The question they're asking to prove the existence of God is 'what is the probability that humanity evolved by chance'. The real question is 'what is the probability that humanity evolved by chance, given that we are here'.
Why do people pick out Earth's uniquities and say that they must have something to do with life? There are billions of uniquities that Earth DOESN'T have. If Earth didn't have a huge satellite but did orbit a Black Hole, then the life forms that may have evolved might say that life can only evolve around a Black Hole! So Earth has a huge moon, orbits a single star, and is just the right distance from that star to make life possible. Yes, that's unlikely, but IT CAN STILL HAPPEN! And, to reiterate, if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to discuss why it hadn't happened.
Message to all die-hard Creationists: Life is most likely an accident. We're here because of a long string of coincidences. Accept that unlikely things CAN happen and stop trying to use flawed statistical arguments to support your case. Believe what you want and let others do the same.
Now, someone please close all 'Creation vs. Evolution' threads, because they never go anywhere.
-
Aren't there several members who have "Yay, I'm a Creationist" in their sigs? Or is that just Rampage? Where are they all?
Now, the real question which relates to the Creationist viewpoint is how reliable is the Bible? I mean, is there any evidence as to who wrote it, why, when etc?
I may just be ignorant of the facts, but I have so far never encountered an official (Church + scholar sanctioned) explaination as to the origins of the Bible. Oh, except that whole Shakespeare thing, but I don't buy it..
Supporters of both theories are so adamantly supportive of their viewpoints that there real is no way to convince a person (or much less people) that they are wrong. Its a matter of personal belief.
-
A good reason to believe in evolution: monotremes.
Ack! :nervous:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
*TWWEEEEET!*
Fundamental misapplication/misunderstanding of Special and General Relativity.
Fifteen yard penalty.
Dude. That's like the grossest misuse of Einstein since Alcubierre.
Oh, you want to see gross, I can show you gross. (http://www.geocentricity.com/whygeocentricity.htm)
It's a safe link for the spirit. The mind, however, might lose a couple dozen IQ points.
-
Supporters of both theories are so adamantly supportive of their viewpoints that there real is no way to convince a person (or much less people) that they are wrong. Its a matter of personal belief.
Ya, someone gets it! :nod:
Oh, you want to see gross, I can show you gross.[/QUOTEThey are nuts.
-
Why do people think that low probabilites = impossible? Just because the probability of humanity...
This is where being into pure math helps; a mathematician would see a huge difference between an exact zero and just a really small quantity. :D But I fully agree with you there. Also, depending on the size of the universe, the probability of life occurring somewhere might actually be extremely high instead of the opposite.
Oh, you want to see gross, I can show you gross.
It's a safe link for the spirit. The mind, however, might lose a couple dozen IQ points.
lol :D think I lost a few brain cells reading that though... :p
-
HotSnoj: No. Just no. People change their beliefs all the ****ing time. Just because it's beyond your abilities to provide a coherent case for something doesn't mean it's impossible to make a compelling argument.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
lol :D think I lost a few brain cells reading that though... :p
[eviltwit] Well, I'm pretty sure you did. "Average loss of neocortical neurons = 1 per second (Pakkenberg et al., 1997; 2003)" :p [/eviltwit]
I should note that there are rather large differences in both parties' (that is, evolutionists, creationists) unshakable "beliefs/viewpoints". Dogma that is founded purely on faith, individual interpretation, twisting of facts can hardly be as credible as dogma that is based upon a foundation of rational, systematic observation and theorizing.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
HotSnoj: No. Just no. People change their beliefs all the ****ing time. Just because it's beyond your abilities to provide a coherent case for something doesn't mean it's impossible to make a compelling argument.
Yes it does, there is absolutely no reason to believe creationism thus it's imossible to make a coherent case for it, every creationist point has been refuted hundereds of times and not one creationist paper has made it into a real scientific journal. In the words of Francais Crick "Anyone who doubts the truth of evolution is either lying, mentally retarded or ignorant."
-
You know, one of the christian HLPers once told me that my belief in the existance of aliens, UFOs et al was 'stupid'. Which I found amusing.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You know, one of the christian HLPers once told me that my belief in the existance of aliens, UFOs et al was 'stupid'. Which I found amusing.
:rolleyes: Thats... an ignorant statement indeed :p
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
HotSnoj: No. Just no. People change their beliefs all the ****ing time. Just because it's beyond your abilities to provide a coherent case for something doesn't mean it's impossible to make a compelling argument.
That wasn't my point :rolleyes:. My point was that it is a belief and that you seem to get my point that it is.
I can't prove creation anymore then you can prove evolution, it's just on how you interpert the evidence.
-
Y'know, it's terribly silly to say "Prove evolution" because science and religion are both not about proving. Proof is unique to math/logic, they facilitate it.
Neither science or religion can prove things! Why do you insist on proofs being necessary to have acceptable "true" conclusions? Do you worship mathematical truth now?
-
TG: I didn't say that creationism was necessarily compelling. Nor did I say that it's impossible to make a decent case for it. Neither are true- I tend to lean towards the evolution end of things, if only because most creationists tend to be snarling wankers when it gets down to really challenging their belief set- anyone who has to get that defensive obviously hasn't thought the idea through that clearly in the first place. However, this does not reflect on all creationists. And, at the very least, there's a better effort to be made towards it than the half-baked one HotSnoj proposed.
Charlotte: In the eyes of a nonbeliever, you must admit the virgin birth of a guy who can ferment water, spontaneously generates fish on multiple occasions (sounds like a cartoon spot, that one- Fish Man!!!!), and says (and does) all sorts of wise things about tolerance and then supposedly turns around and becomes the basis of 2000 years of systematic abuse of gays (whom he evidently associated with multiple times), Jews (of which he was one), blacks (under which category the Palestinian Jews of the time period would certainly have fallen in later times) and women sounds fairly farfetched. As does a large man in the sky siccing a man-eating whale on one of his couriers gone astray. We don't find the miracles ludicrous because they're culturally ingrained. And because there's something of use to be learned in at least a few of them. But it's hardly ignorant to find the whole Bible thing rather silly- just a different bias than the one most of us are used to.
HotSnoj: No. It's not "just a belief", that's the point. For some reason Creationists can't work out the distinction between blind faith and acceptance of a convenient and fairly demonstrable theory in the face of evidence- I suspect it's because you all don't understand logic all that well, which would explain a whole hell of a lot. Not everything is a faith, and the refusal of you as a group to recognize the important distinctions is really the entire reason you lot consistently fail to be convincing in any way, shape, or form, and hence generally get the (reasonably accurate) depiction of being a bunch of irate backwards Bible-belters intimidated by God-knows-what and lashing out at "the Man's reasoning" for no readily discernible reason.
Kami: Science, by definition, is about theory and proof. Exactly like math. Theory is where something cannot be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true 100% of the time, due to the simple fact that we are not omniscient, but is more a provision to allow for flexibility than anything else. A ridiculous degree of "proof" is required for a theory to be deemed workable enough to be used commonly. You can be pretty damn sure that a "theory" that's been in common currency for about 40 years will remain for a long, long time, perhaps permanently. Hence, evolution can be "proven"- not beyond the absolute shadow-of-a-doubt that would require a time machine (and even then some would deny it), but more than enough for any person who isn't just arguing for the sake of being blinkered and contrary to be convinced that it is, at the very least, the best solution available at the moment.
-
Stryke: (sorry, i just joined in the conversation now) you believe in evolution, right?
-
I suppose if I were to be forced to choose one side or the other to "believe", I'd select evolution, yes.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I suppose if I were to be forced to choose one side or the other to "believe", I'd select evolution, yes.
ok cool.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Strykx: (sorry, i just joined in the conversation now) you believe in evolution, right?
You can as much "believe" in evolution, as you can believe that, that glowing ball of hydrogen in the sky is the Sun! (Meaning if you don't believe in the evolution, you might as well not believe in the Sun, gravity, or the value of your own brain).
-
And what's with this "Stryx" crap? I am not an admin (which speaks volumes about the taste and intelligence of the powers-that-be here), nor a horrendous rock band. The name's some five letters and maybe a number long, far shorter and simpler than any of the other handles I use, you could at least get it close to right.
-
sorry, i just replaced the "e" with an "x" by mistake.
i'll edit my post and change it back
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I am not an admin (which speaks volumes about the taste and intelligence of the powers-that-be here)
Why yes... yes, it does - thank you. :D
Personally, I no longer view the issue as Creation vs. Evolution. I see it more as Creation of Evolution if anything, although that's not a solidly thought-out opinion I have. I'm simply not obstinate enough to insist on the Earth being only 5756-odd years old when we have light from stars billions of light-years distant reaching us now. Yeah, I fully believe that God could have placed those waves of light particles (like that one? ;) ) en route to Earth so as to appear like they were billions of years old, but come on... really. :rolleyes:
There have been numerous reports about scientists setting out to disprove the Bible once and for all (need I bring up that whole thing about Herod - or was it Pilate?), and yet reaching a point where they were forced to support, not undermine, the Bible.
-
Erm... It'd be about as fatuous to claim the entire work was fictitious as it would be to claim it was entirely the literal truth. In other words, very, very. That doesn't mean anything.
-
Looks like the religion thread has risen from the HLP grave :p :nervous:
-
It has returned oh my!!:shaking:
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
Looks like the religion thread has risen from the HLP grave :p :nervous:
Nahh, I'm not really interested in discussing the Bible once again. Like I've said before, I'm not the kind of person who likes cramming beliefs down other people's throats. :)
I do find it really cool, though, when there is account of something in the Bible that is unconfirmed by science (or archaeology) for decades, until some discovery is made. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I'm not the kind of person who likes cramming beliefs down other people's throats. :)
Aren't you part of the IDF?
-
Neither science or religion can prove things! Why do you insist on proofs being necessary to have acceptable "true" conclusions? Do you worship mathematical truth now?
Of course! :D But yeah, you're quite there; few things in science can be rigorously proven, and it is accepted for other reasons.
-
Originally posted by Clone
Aren't you part of the IDF?
Yep. And if you want to teach your children to hate me, that's fine. But when they go with intent to harm me, I'll blow their heads off.
So since one usually results in the other, don't you think it'd be wise not to teach them that in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yep. And if you want to teach your children to hate me, that's fine. But when they go with intent to harm me, I'll blow their heads off.
So since one usually results in the other, don't you think it'd be wise not to teach them that in the first place?
I don't like kids, so no.
-
:rolleyes:
Allow me to rephrase that. "...if you want to teach the general population from children on up to hate me..."
Capiche? (sp?)
-
Like I said, I don't like kids.
Watching you butcher thousands of little kiddies would be quite fun to watch.
Does that make me evil? Hell yeah.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The coolest part IMHO is the last paragraph. :D
I've gotta go check up on that...:)
-
It really is a shame that they forgot to print the first page of the bible..... the one with the line 'This is a work of fiction. All characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblence to real people or incidents is purely coincidental.' :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
It really is a shame that they forgot to print the first page of the bible..... the one with the line 'This is a work of fiction. All characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblence to real people or incidents is purely coincidental.' :p
Well, it's undoubtable that major chunks of Genesis began as mere Semitic tribal stories. The difference about this Jewish myth (I am taking the definition of myth as the first from Dictionary.com: a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society) is that it was raised up by God (according to Christianity) and shaped into what actually did happen. As for all the records and national accounts, they seem to me not too distant from regular historical sources.
-
Message for Mary (Luke 1:26-38)
When Libby was six months gone, God sent the same angel—this Gabriel bloke—to a backblocks town called Nazareth, in the Galilee shire, to a nice young girl who was engaged to the local carpenter, Joe Davidson. Her name was Mary.
The angel said to her, “G’day Mary. You are a pretty special sheila. God has his eye on you.”
Mary went weak at the knees, and wondered what was going on.
But the angel said to her, “Don’t panic, don’t chuck a wobbly. God thinks you’re okay. You’re about to become pregnant, and you’ll have a son, and you’re to call him Jesus. He will be a very big wheel, and will be called the Son of God Most High. God will give him the throne of his father—your ancestor—King David, and he will be in charge of the whole show forever.”
“But how?” said Mary. “Joe and I have done the right thing, we’ve never… well, you know. I mean to say, I’m still a virgin.”
The angel answered, “Leave the mechanics up to God. This is heavenly stuff. God’s Spirit will come upon you, and the Big Brain behind the Big Bang will manipulate the necessary molecules to make it happen. So this little kid of yours will be as special as it’s possible to be, and he’ll be called God’s own Son. Look, even Libby, your old cousin, is preggers—at her age! God can do these things. In fact, Libby is in her sixth month because nothing is impossible with God.”
“God’s in charge,” Mary answered. “If that’s what God wants, then it’s what I want to.”
Then the angel nicked off and left her alone.
Mary visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56)
Mary didn’t muck about. She got packed and ankled it up to a town in the hills, where she went straight to Zeck and Libby’s place, so that she could say “G’day” to Lib. When Libby heard Mary’s “Cooee” at the front door the baby in her womb gave a kick like a footie player at a grand final, and Lib was filled with God’s Spirit. With a big grin, and a voice that could rattle windows, she said: “Good onya Mary! You beaut! God’s chosen you out of all the sheilas in the world, and your baby will be God’s toddler. But, stone the crows, why would the mum of my Big Boss, my Lord, come and see me? As soon as I heard the sound of your voice my little bun in the oven went bananas with excitement. Good onya for believing what God told you—for believing that God can do what he says he can do.”
And then Mary said, “My soul is as happy as Larry with God and my mind is just buzzing with God my Rescuer because he picked me—me! And I’m about as important as a bottle washer’s assistant! But from now on everyone who ever lives will call me well off—looked after by God—for the One who can do anything has done great things for me. His name is the only Name that matters. His gentleness rolls on like a river. He has done great things that would just knock your socks off. The rich, the stuffed shirts, the boss cockies, don’t impress God; he knocks them off their perch. But those who don’t have tickets on themselves he gives a hand to. He provides tucker for the hungry and sends the toffee noses away without a feed. He has wrapped his great arms around his chosen. He hasn’t forgotten his kindness and gentleness. Exactly what he promised yonks ago is what is happening now.”
Mary stayed with Libby for a few months and then nicked off back home again.
John is born (Luke 1:57-66)
When her nine months were up Libby popped her sprog. The next-door neighbours and the rellies all heard that God had been kind to her, and were tickled pink.
On the 8th day they came to circumcise the little tyke (as the habit was in those days) and they were going to call him “Zeck” after his Dad, but his mum spoke up and said, “Not on your Nellie. Call him ‘John’.”
They said, “But hang on—you haven’t got any rels named ‘John’.”
They made signs to Zeck, his Dad, to find out what handle he wanted to give the kid. He asked for a bit of paper and pencil, and he knocked them all for six when he scribbled down, “His name is ‘John’.” At once Zeck could talk again, and then he couldn’t stop yabbering, saying how terrific God was. The next-door neighbours had the wind knocked right out of them by this, and soon the bush telegraph was full of it, and in the hill country it was all they talked about
just look at the wording
http://www.theaussiebible.com.au/
-
That's strange. :blah:
Believe me, I've looked at the arguments from both sides (I almost became an evolutionist too) and I believe creationism/christianity is quite logical. And I'd rather go to the grave thinking I'll go to heavan then going to the grave and be wrong about it (i.e. going to hell).
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I believe creationism/christianity is quite logical
But then anything can be logically explained to a Christian by saying 'because God made things that way'
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
But then anything can be logically explained to a Christian by saying 'because God made things that way'
And I think your's is, "It just happened. We don't exacly know how, but nothing exploded."
-
Pretty much. We like to say 'we don't understand the universe yet, but just give us time...'. At the end of the day, sience is more fun. You guys already know everything there is to know about the universe - ie. because God said so. Us scientists have got a long road of discovery ahead, which I reckon will make for more entertaining reading than the Bible.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
And I think your's is, "It just happened. We don't exacly know how, but nothing exploded."
To be more accurate, it is "It just happened. We don't exacly know how yet, but nothing exploded."
It's the whole questioning process. Science is a tool to attempt to understand the world that surrounds us. Faith is a tool to attempt to understand, more or less, the human condition. Really, they are two different things that should deal with different subjects.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I may just be ignorant of the facts, but I have so far never encountered an official (Church + scholar sanctioned) explaination as to the origins of the Bible. Oh, except that whole Shakespeare thing, but I don't buy it..
Well, all I can give you is stuff off Encarta:
Sources for the Old Testament/Torah:
The sources differ in vocabulary, literary style, and theological perspective. The oldest source is the Jehovistic, or Yahwist (J, from its use of the divine name Jahwe—modern Jehovah—or Yahweh), commonly dated in the 10th or 9th century BC. The second is the Elohist (E, from its use of the general name Elohim for God), usually dated in the 8th century bc. Next is Deuteronomy (D, limited to that book and a few other passages), dated in the late 7th century BC. Last is the Priestly Writer (P, for its emphasis on cultic law and priestly concerns), dated in the 6th or 5th century bc. J includes a full narrative account from creation to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. E is no longer a complete narrative, if it ever was; its earliest material concerns Abraham. P concentrates on the covenant and the revelation of the law at Mount Sinai, but sets that into a narrative that begins with creation.
Sources for New Testament:
The most widely held scholarly opinion is that Mark was the earliest written and became a source for Matthew and Luke. Most likely, Matthew and Luke each had other sources as well as a common source, a conjecture made on the basis of much shared material not found in Mark. This theorized but as yet unidentified source has simply been called Q, or Quelle (German, “source”). In a preface, the author of the Gospel of Luke speaks of having researched many narratives about Jesus (see Luke 1:1-4).
-
Somehow I find this quote quite appropriate here:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Einstein
-
I wish that quote didn't have the word 'lame' in it. Now I've got visions of an Einstein-Cartman hybrid.
-
Lame is the word he used.
-
Er... I think perhaps you read too much in to that last post of mine. But not to worry. Let's all eat cookies instead:
(http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/cookies.gif)
-
I love this pic. :D
-
Originally posted by Clone
Like I said, I don't like kids.
Watching you butcher thousands of little kiddies would be quite fun to watch.
Does that make me evil? Hell yeah.
You remind me of an0n...Wait, I think I read somewhere that you are an0n.
-
Ye gods but I want to flame you for that Woolie.
Anyway, Sandwich, to quote Thunder: none of them are clever and none of them are funny after they've been seen once. It just cloggs up the forum. That's bad. Stop.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
If I were an0n I'd flame you for that comment.
Anyway, Sandwich, to quote Thunder: none of them are clever and none of them are funny after they've been seen once. It just cloggs up the forum. That's bad. Stop.
Your a Joy Vampire!(means you suck the joy out of stuff)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Ye gods but I want to flame you for that Woolie.
Oops, I must have misinterpreted a post. My bad.
-
I'm in something of a bad mood. I felt like testing to see if the rules applied to the admins as well.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Ye gods but I want to flame you for that Woolie.
Anyway, Sandwich, to quote Thunder: none of them are clever and none of them are funny after they've been seen once. It just cloggs up the forum. That's bad. Stop.
Yeah, but not every last person has seen it yet. Hmm...
I think I'll hack it into the registration process... ;)
-
:lol: Good idea.
It is a funny picture - one I don't get tired of seeing, unlike all the other ones. :)
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
Somehow I find this quote quite appropriate here:
No it's not, it's completely out of context.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/personal.html
-
Blimey, that dude came up with some good stuff. You know they offered him the presidency of Israel after the war?
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
No it's not, it's completely out of context.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/personal.html
Its beginning to get annoying to have people criticize every reply you make. Can't people see which posts are meant to be 100% serious and don't need any such replies? :doubt:
-
See, now you're seeing HLP properly. Not the axe-endeared version Tiara has impressed upon you. :D
-
yummy cookies
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
That's strange. :blah:
Believe me, I've looked at the arguments from both sides (I almost became an evolutionist too) and I believe creationism/christianity is quite logical. And I'd rather go to the grave thinking I'll go to heavan then going to the grave and be wrong about it (i.e. going to hell).
Ah, Pascal's Wager:
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
I'm personally unconcerned. The physicist and author Gregory Benford had one of his characters say, "God and Heaven exist, or they don't, regardless of our belief or disbelief." That pretty much sums it up for me. I doesn't matter if either exists. I exist in the here and now. I'll worry about those other things when I'm no longer in the here and now.
I do believe, however, after reading more of this guy's work and reviewing relativity theory, his idea about dilated time in an inflationary universe explainging six day creation is, indeed, nuts. His idea hinges upon a very important mistake: It requires a universal reference frame.
-- If you accept that there is no universal reference frame (as relativity theory shows), then this man's theory cannot work.
-- If you accept that relativity theory is wrong (and there IS a universal reference frame), then this man's theory doesn't have any scientific basis and cannot work.
Either way, the guy's theory falls down pretty hard based on his own proof.
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
Its beginning to get annoying to have people criticize every reply you make. Can't people see which posts are meant to be 100% serious and don't need any such replies? :doubt:
You said the quote was appropriate to this thread, Top Gun pointed out it wasn't.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
You said the quote was appropriate to this thread, Top Gun pointed out it wasn't.
Read the quote again. Don't look for hidden meanings. Don't look for what Einstein meant. Look for what it says.
Sometimes that which is obvious, is obviously the hardest to find. :D
-
I don't care! I'm keeping my beliefs even if they are 'illogical' and contrary to science. HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAA
*goes off muttering to self*
-
I don't care if you worship the devil(thats a blatent lie actually, i do care and wouldn't think very highly of you) as long as you don't try and enforce your beliefs on others.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I don't care! I'm keeping my beliefs even if they are 'illogical' and contrary to science. HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAA
*goes off muttering to self*
Dogma is so wonderful, it's so easy.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm personally unconcerned. The physicist and author Gregory Benford had one of his characters say, "God and Heaven exist, or they don't, regardless of our belief or disbelief." That pretty much sums it up for me. I doesn't matter if either exists. I exist in the here and now. I'll worry about those other things when I'm no longer in the here and now.
Ahh, but you are mistaken here. They exist regardless of whether we believe in them or not. It does matter that they exist, it doesn't affect their existance if you believe that to be true. :)
Originally posted by mikhael
I do believe, however, after reading more of this guy's work and reviewing relativity theory, his idea about dilated time in an inflationary universe explainging six day creation is, indeed, nuts. His idea hinges upon a very important mistake: It requires a universal reference frame.
-- If you accept that there is no universal reference frame (as relativity theory shows), then this man's theory cannot work.
-- If you accept that relativity theory is wrong (and there IS a universal reference frame), then this man's theory doesn't have any scientific basis and cannot work.
Either way, the guy's theory falls down pretty hard based on his own proof.
What's impossible about having a universal reference point with a time-dilated universe? God's the reference point, and He exists outside of both the universe and time. Ergo, problem solved. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh, but you are mistaken here. They exist regardless of whether we believe in them or not. It does matter that they exist, it doesn't affect their existance if you believe that to be true. :)
You and I can't prove they exist or don't exist. I don't care either way if they do. Its a matter of belief. You believe and I don't have enough data from which to draw a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I believe. My belief doesn't change the fact of the existence or inexistence. Believing or disbelieving in the existence of Jupiter doesn't change the fact of its existence. Its moot. You think I'm wrong. I think one of us might be. Neither of us can further the debate in a useful manner.
What's impossible about having a universal reference point* with a time-dilated universe? God's the reference point, and He exists outside of both the universe and time. Ergo, problem solved. :)
Sandwich, dude, this is where I may sound insulting, but I don't mean to. If you don't understand why there is no universal reference frame in relativity theory, you don't understand relativity theory enough to talk about it. Its all comes down to there being no universal reference frame. As an experimental theory, relativity, both special and general, is the most successful in the history of science. It has been confirmed over and over again that there is no universal reference frame. For the speed of light to be constant (and hey, in any given medium, the speed of light never changes), there cannot be a universal reference frame.
This guy is presenting a theory that claims to stand on a bedrock of relativity theory (for that is what he is doing when he invokes time dilation, etc). That he then ignores its single most important conclusion leaves his work to crumble like a stool with a rotten leg: it looks sound on casual inspection but as soon as you put any weight upon it, the rotten wood gives way.
* btw, that's reference FRAME, not reference point. A quibble, I know.
-
Hate to reply to myself, but something just struck me. It is, I think, a truly critical point.
Self-consistency is critical for any scientific theory. If I theory is not self-consistent, it is thrown out. This is what the scientific method is designed to do.
This guy presents his ideas as a unification of Bibilical tales and modern science. If we are to follow his logic, we are assuming perforce that God does not violate the rules of the Universe that He set up (whether God CANNOT or merely CHOOSES NOT TO break them is not important here.) It follows then, that God does not break the rules of relativity by providing the necessary and impossible universal reference frame.
If we, instead, assume that God DOES act in such a way that events in the Universe break the rules within the Universe, we can discount this man's theory. In simplest possible terms, it would come down to 'God can do anything He decides,' which throws causality and consistency out the window.
However, our universe IS consistent and causality does exist. Event follows event. Gravity does not suddenly reverse. Light speed is a constant. The Universe is vast and elegant and in all observable cases internally consistent to its own rules (so far as we can understand and observe them). Thus, I again, must say, this man's theory does not hold up.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Sandwich, dude, this is where I may sound insulting, but I don't mean to. If you don't understand why there is no universal reference frame in relativity theory, you don't understand relativity theory enough to talk about it.
You're right - I don't really understand relativity theory because I've never studied it. :D Hmm, perhaps I should read that book already. :p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
For the speed of light to be constant (and hey, in any given medium, the speed of light never changes), there cannot be a universal reference frame.
Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.
That's why he said in any given medium. The speed of light does change in different media. Going from vacuum to air slows light down as does going from air to water (which is where you get refraction from).
-
Originally posted by mikhael
This guy presents his ideas as a unification of Bibilical tales and modern science. If we are to follow his logic, we are assuming perforce that God does not violate the rules of the Universe that He set up (whether God CANNOT or merely CHOOSES NOT TO break them is not important here.) It follows then, that God does not break the rules of relativity by providing the necessary and impossible universal reference frame.
If we, instead, assume that God DOES act in such a way that events in the Universe break the rules within the Universe, we can discount this man's theory. In simplest possible terms, it would come down to 'God can do anything He decides,' which throws causality and consistency out the window.
Good points, I think I follow you. Thank goodness no one will ever need to rely on his theory, then. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Ace
Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.
c is a constant in any given medium. It is not the samein all media, however. Light moves slower in glass, for example, than air. It moves slower in air than it does in vacuum. It does, however, remain constant within the bounds of the medium it is within.
-
W007!! I can bump this without guilt, since it's been less than a month! :p ;)
Anyway, I wouldn't have bumpped it without having run across an excellent article written by Schroder himself "summarizing" the whole theory.
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp
Still reading it myself though. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Still reading it myself though. ;)
What will you do it it turns out to disprove the existance of God?
-
i dont think you can prove or disprove the existance of God...
and this post was dead along time ago!
-
Sandwich, I'm glad you bumped this. Its one of my favorite religious/scientific topics for a long time.
This was a good read. The expanded version of this theory made a few things clearer. In the end however, it only reconfirmed my sincere belief that the author is mistaken. His theory makes for wonderful philosophy, but very poor science.
From the article:
"What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
Is this a quote? If it is not, it should not be presented as a quote. By 1959, any scientist who understood Einstein's equations had already seen that one of the primary solutions explicitly required a start at singularity. I'd really like to see the data from this Scientific American survey. Regardless, the article should present this as a synthesis, rather than as a quote.
From the article:
That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning.
Penzias and Wilson confirmed the echo. The echo was postulated long before, as a consequence of a the singularity solutions of Einstein's equations.
From the article:
Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning, that the first word of the Bible is correct. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery."
And not just the Bible, but beliefs of other cultures dating as far back a 5000BC (Chinese) and 6000BC (Egyptian) and 7000BC (Mesopotamian). In fact, there is a plethora of pre-judeochristian ideologies that postulate a beginning to the Universe. From a strictly secular point of view, why is the version in the Torah preferred to the creation myths of these other cultures?
There follows a long bit of religious rationalization with no accompanying scientific inquiry. I will not touch that. it is the realm of the theologians.
From the article:
Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.
Actually, any competent physicist will tell you that order can arise spontaneously for chaos--and commonly does. Stars and solar systems are examples of order that arose from chaos. The secret to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy increases) is that it does NOT say that order cannot form from chaos. It says that in a given system the overall entropy increases. Any decrease in entropy in one region will immediately give rise to an increased amount of entropy in another region. Thus, the entire system continues to become more entropic as a function of time.
From the article:
Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.)
This is a misunderstanding of propability. For order to arise from chaos in a single region in a vast universe, the propability is near zero. Over the entire universe, the set of all possible regions, containing all possible matter, the probability approaches 1.
From the article:
Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.
This is a misunderstanding of Einstein's thoeries. Time exists as soon as matter OR energy exist. Time exists for energy--it must, elsewise quantum effects like tunneling could not take place! Photons are quanta of light, pure energy. They are emitted and absorbed over time by electrons. Without this, electrons couldn't make quantum leaps to different energy levels and molecular bonding could not take place. If you wish to argue strictly, time is infinite in the reference frame of a photon. Outside the reference frame of the photon, time is not infinite. In both frames, however, it does exist.
There is logically and mathematically a distinct difference between 'infinite' and 'non-existent'. Mathematically, just imagine a graph of a curve. When the tangent becomes vertical, the slope of that tangent does not exist (it is undefined). Where the tangent has no slope (the slope has become zero), the graph continues on to infinity, unchanged. These are distinct. Logically, imagine a box in an otherwise perfect vacuum. Within the box is an enclosed space. This space is either a vacuum (it utterly empty) or it has at least one atom in it (it is not empty). It is a binary state: empty or not-empty. Likewise, does-not-exist and infinite (or exists) are binary.
What follows is an interesting thought experiment with a laser at the beginning of time being shot at the Earth, one pulse per second. 15billion years down the line would we see one pulse per second? No, because in an inflationary universe, space itself between pulses gets stretched out, making the distance longer. Thus the first packet would reach us at t=0, and the second packet would reach us not at t=1, but at t=1+[however long it took to travel the expanded distance]. Indeed, it would take longer and longer for each packet to arrive. But this is true from both points of view. In the Earth reference frame, the source is receding at speed, causing a red-shift in the beam. Its getting farther and farther from us, so each pulse is delayed a little bit by the expanding space. From the reference frame of the source, EARTH is receding. This is an important consideration because it shows that there is no absolute reference frame. In order to ensure that the earth recieved a pulse-per-second, the source laser would have to fire faster and faster (trending toward infinitely fast pulses, limiting at the planck time) . Those six days are still 13-21 billion years, no matter where you sit. You cannot accept the time-space dilation implications of relativity without accepting the implication that there is no absolute reference frame. The one leads to the other.
In the final section, the author discusses time dilation in inflationary universes with respect to a reference frame that exists within that universe. This is where the author makes a very large mistake:
From the article:
Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half.
Only if the observer in question is in an absolute reference frame. If the observer is in a relative reference frame, the perception of time is constant. Only in an (impossible) absolute reference frame could an observer see time and space dilating with respect to each other. Since, however, relativity (the very same relativity that allows for time dilation and initial singularities) does not allow for any sort of absolute reference frame, this is impossible.
-
I think my head just exploded.
-
Mikhael's post made perfect sense to me.
-
I'll respond to the one part that I both understood and is, from what I can see, the core issue.
Originally posted by mikhael
In the final section, the author discusses time dilation in inflationary universes with respect to a reference frame that exists within that universe. This is where the author makes a very large mistake:
[q]from the article:
Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half.
[/q]
Only if the observer in question is in an absolute reference frame. If the observer is in a relative reference frame, the perception of time is constant. Only in an (impossible) absolute reference frame could an observer see time and space dilating with respect to each other. Since, however, relativity (the very same relativity that allows for time dilation and initial singularities) does not allow for any sort of absolute reference frame, this is impossible.
The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.
Imagine time as a (very long) airport slidewalk (not sidewalk). We are all stationary in relation to our anchor point on the slidewalk. This slidewalk has white lines across it every meter, representing a relative 24-hour "day". But way back at the beginning of the slidewalk, the rubber is stretched out, whereas at the point where we are positioned, it is "normal".
Now a "day" as marked in white lines at our position is one absolute meter (compared to the floor on the sides of the slidewalk) in length. But back towards the beginning, that same "day" occupies far far more absolute length than it does "now". However, because we are limited to the slidewalk, we look back along it's length and count not the white lines but the distance. We mentally project ourselves back along the length of the slidewalk and imagine that the meter-long step we take in the "present" will be the same distance (not time-white-lines-distance, but meters-distance) back at the beginning. What we forget is that since we are bounded by the slidewalk, as we travel back along it, we stretch out as well.
And in the meantime, what does our absolute observer see? Why, nothing but a "day" lasting a thousand years on the one hand, and on the other... a thousand years lasting a mere day. :) He counts the white lines:
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
6 literal days of creation that lasted 16 billion years.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.
I've read and I think I really understand. The implications of having God outside the time continuum are pretty profound, especially for stuff like predestination and free will. Errr, anyway, that's about all I want to add to this conversation, or I'll make a fool of myself. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.
You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility. For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.
By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.
You have effectively proven that the theory cannot stand up in the face of scientific inquiry without introducing an element (God) which can violate the framework specified by the theory. Therefore the theory fails to be internally consistent and cannot be used in any sensible way and must be dismissed.
The theory is interesting and, indeed, could be used as the basis of a great story, but it is not consistent with the science or the Universe, despite what the guy claims. I will not argue about the Creation of the Universe itself, mind you. I will only claim that this guy's theory is broken and invalid.
-
Mike, you love arguing much more than I do, obviously?
Ever heard about Don Quichote? :)
-
Cervantes' Don Quixote? Absolutely. But in this case, I tilt not at windmills, but my dear friend Sandwich. :D
Me and Sandwich are having fun. I'd certainly never get into this one with Rampage or his ilk. :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility. For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.
By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.
You have effectively proven that the theory cannot stand up in the face of scientific inquiry without introducing an element (God) which can violate the framework specified by the theory. Therefore the theory fails to be internally consistent and cannot be used in any sensible way and must be dismissed.
The theory is interesting and, indeed, could be used as the basis of a great story, but it is not consistent with the science or the Universe, despite what the guy claims. I will not argue about the Creation of the Universe itself, mind you. I will only claim that this guy's theory is broken and invalid.
But you forget, He (God) made it (the universe). Soooo if he made it then he decides what to do with it. :rolleyes:
BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God. :rolleyes: Duh!
-
God = good and evil
there's my two cents
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But you forget, He (God) made it (the universe). Soooo if he made it then he decides what to do with it. :rolleyes:
BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God. :rolleyes: Duh!
Instead of flaming you, I will direct you back to the subject at hand: a theory proposing to join the six days of Old Testament (more accurately, the Torah) Creation with modern science.
Go back, read, understand. If you do no understand why your response is utterly and completely off topic and irrelevant, be silent.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Instead of flaming you, I will direct you back to the subject at hand: a theory proposing to join the six days of Old Testament (more accurately, the Torah) Creation with modern science.
Go back, read, understand. If you do no understand why your response is utterly and completely off topic and irrelevant, be silent.
I was on topic. You stateted "You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics." my respense "BTW God must be immune to the laws of physics or He wouldn't be God. Duh!". I can see your confusion about the first part or my post but not the second.
If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.
I'd like to point to a fish bowl. Lets say our laser is inside the fish bowl. Inside the fish bowl is the universe. I can watch the laser and move it around, but I'm not in the "universe". We could expand shrink, whatever, the inside of the fish bowl (think relitive stuff here), but my ruler would be an absolute. (remember God is all powerful and metaphysical).
Since God is eturnel then time doesn't really have much meaning. Going from this we can assume that time itself is relative within eternity. Or baiscly time tells us when something happened so there must be an event as a reference point.
Well I need to go to work and my brain is overheating. I think I need to install another heatsink. :blah:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility.
Neither has the Bible been proven wrong. Indeed, and slightly OT, the very existance of the nation in which I live is a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. Whether you view that fulfilment as simply something that, given enough time, would be inevitable or not is another matter entirely. ;)
Originally posted by mikhael
For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.
By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.
Ahh, but on the other hand, the assumtion under consideration here is that God is the one who dictated those laws of physics in the first place. Besides, if God is outside of our universe, then how can you even attempt to argue against the theory by saying that God would have to be immune to those laws. It's like saying that a deadly airborne virus has broken loose on Neptune. Yeah, perhaps if we were actually affected in any way shape or form by the composition of Neptune's atmosphere it would be something to take into consideration before going out for a stroll. But, thank God, the composition of Neptune's atmosphere has absolutely no effect on life here on Earth.
So... you can't prove that there isn't a God existing outside of our universe, unaffected by time and our laws of physics. Since science deals with the space-time continum around us, attempting to disprove the existance of a being outside of our sphere of observation is pointless.
This leaves us at an impasse - or it would be an impasse, were it not for the Bible. Without the Bible, people could say "Oh, God's out there somewhere", and not be able to prove or even give a semi-convincing argument for their position. But the Bible, ostensibly (and I believe actually) inspired and dictated in part by God, is the only thing we have "of God" that can be compared and measured against science.
So what proof does the Bible claim to offer towards God's existance? As far as I know, only prophecy. And current events are pretty convincing for me... Israel is a nation, Jews are returning from the four corners of the Earth, and Jerusalem is a "stumbling stone" to the rest of the world. I can give you scriptural references to those prophecies if you'd like.
Face it. Neo is The One. ;)
Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Neither has the Bible been proven wrong. Indeed, and slightly OT, the very existance of the nation in which I live is a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. Whether you view that fulfilment as simply something that, given enough time, would be inevitable or not is another matter entirely. ;)
Ahh, but on the other hand, the assumtion under consideration here is that God is the one who dictated those laws of physics in the first place. Besides, if God is outside of our universe, then how can you even attempt to argue against the theory by saying that God would have to be immune to those laws. It's like saying that a deadly airborne virus has broken loose on Neptune. Yeah, perhaps if we were actually affected in any way shape or form by the composition of Neptune's atmosphere it would be something to take into consideration before going out for a stroll. But, thank God, the composition of Neptune's atmosphere has absolutely no effect on life here on Earth.
So... you can't prove that there isn't a God existing outside of our universe, unaffected by time and our laws of physics. Since science deals with the space-time continum around us, attempting to disprove the existance of a being outside of our sphere of observation is pointless.
This leaves us at an impasse - or it would be an impasse, were it not for the Bible. Without the Bible, people could say "Oh, God's out there somewhere", and not be able to prove or even give a semi-convincing argument for their position. But the Bible, ostensibly (and I believe actually) inspired and dictated in part by God, is the only thing we have "of God" that can be compared and measured against science.
So what proof does the Bible claim to offer towards God's existance? As far as I know, only prophecy. And current events are pretty convincing for me... Israel is a nation, Jews are returning from the four corners of the Earth, and Jerusalem is a "stumbling stone" to the rest of the world. I can give you scriptural references to those prophecies if you'd like.
Face it. Neo is The One. ;)
Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?
When politics and religion are joined... aww crap I've read too much Dune :p
But hey, it is a valid warning :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
When politics and religion are joined... aww crap I've read too much Dune :p
But hey, it is a valid warning :)
Ah, but you see they are more intertwined then you could possibly imagion! Religion/Worldview rules your ideals/values which rule what you do in politics.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Anyway, back on to the creation/science thing, tell me this. Assume that this theory is correct, what does that "disprove" in modern science? What hard-core factual scientific facts does it negate? Any?
This theory breaks down Relativity if it is correct. I've already stated that farther back in the thread (I think).
If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.
Hotsnoj, I am trying to stay strictly within the realm of scientific inquiry to argue my point here. You can say "God can do anything, He's God!", naturally. Likewise, I can say He cannot. That is matter of faith and faith cannot be proven--indeed, most of the faithful I know or have read have said that if you could prove faith, it wouldn't be faith. Sandwich shows a theory in which God's creation of the universe is consistent with the observed physical laws of the universe. The theory is presented scientifically, and argued scientifically. Let's not break down into a frothing, "God can do anything!" "No He can't!" "Yes He can!" "Can't!" "Can!" rant-counterrant cycle.
Please, focus on the science of the articles in question and try not to interject your faith.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.
Hotsnoj, I am trying to stay strictly within the realm of scientific inquiry to argue my point here.
Okay, I'll take up something here. Humour me - why must it be within the universe to be valid? Because I think one of the points Sandwich is putting forward here is that God's reference is absolute precisely because He's outside the universe, and that this itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry - so science can only go so far, and I think we may have passed that limit.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
This theory breaks down Relativity if it is correct. I've already stated that farther back in the thread (I think).
Yeah, you did, but I don't see how it goes against relativity. It's like saying that there's not a single mountain in the whole world higher than Mt. Everest. To which I respond "Correct, but Olympus Mons on Mars is higher."
Doesn't relativity deal with everything scientifically measurable - our whole reality? That's fine, but how can relativity dictate whether there can or can't be something beyond it's sphere of "influence"?
Originally posted by mikhael
If you can introduce an absolute reference frame into within the bounds of the universe--and it must be WITHIN the universe for it to be be valid--relativity must be wrong. Relativities most important detail is that there are no absolute reference frames.
No absolute reference frames in the same universe, you mean (don't you?). Go beyond this universe, and there's nothing wrong with an absolute reference frame (relative to it's relation with our universe - it could very well be a relative reference frame of other things in it's realm). On the contrary. Everything beyond this universe is - in regard to observations of our universe - an absolute reference frame.
EDIT: Setekh beat me to it. :p
-
Sorry buddy, you know how great minds think alike... also, fools never differ. :p
-
None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.
Look at it this way: for something to observed, data has to travel from the target of the observation to the sensory apparatus of the observer. Generally, we're talking about light. What does it travel through to get to the observer? It must be within the universe.
You could answer this question with "God sees all, everywhere." but that's meandering off into faith, and away from scientific inquiry.
-
You people assume too much. You don't even know whats outside this universe. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.
What I'm about to say also borders on what's inconceivable, but I'll offer it anyway. I'm aware it's a very poor analogy, but hey... anyway. An artist and his painting. The painting itself could be an entire universe. Clearly interaction is possible. But that doesn't make the artist part of the painting. However, this analogy breaks down immediately because the artist and his painting are in the same universe, but... is that worth anything to you? How the universe can exist without God being a part of it?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
What I'm about to say also borders on what's inconceivable, but I'll offer it anyway. I'm aware it's a very poor analogy, but hey... anyway. An artist and his painting. The painting itself could be an entire universe. Clearly interaction is possible. But that doesn't make the artist part of the painting. However, this analogy breaks down immediately because the artist and his painting are in the same universe, but... is that worth anything to you? How the universe can exist without God being a part of it?
It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.
-
Obligatory Response: If God-the-Painter is a Cubist, all bets are off. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.
That is a predicament. :) But then, we are talking about much more than just a regular lifeless painting, and much more than a regular light-seeing eye. I wish I understood it all myself, but I think it's getting to the bits where human minds can't fold themselves around it without getting more confused than when they started... kinda like imagining more dimensions.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
... but I think it's getting to the bits where human minds can't fold themselves around it without getting more confused than when they started... kinda like imagining more dimensions.
That's why I try to avoid arguing-from-faith.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
None of the laws of physics can hold up outside the universe. How can something outside the universe act on something in the universe? Observation is, after all, interaction. Anywhere there is an observer, it must, perforce be within the universe.
Look at it this way: for something to observed, data has to travel from the target of the observation to the sensory apparatus of the observer. Generally, we're talking about light. What does it travel through to get to the observer? It must be within the universe.
Ok, but remember God is metaphysical. So he can be in the universe. In fact I don't really know how we got into this thing about God not being in the universe in the first place. I guess we must assume that either the universe is infinite of finite. If it's finite then what's beyond it? How come in that beyond-ness the place where our universe has the laws it does? What defines the boundries? Why are the boundries the way they are?
Originally posted by mikhael
You could answer this question with "God sees all, everywhere." but that's meandering off into faith, and away from scientific inquiry.
Ah, but it is a matter of faith. You see if you prove that God can't exist then my faith is pointless. And if it's pointless then why bother to believe it? I must hold to my faith that God exists and you must hold to your's that says He doesn't/can't. If you are correct that evolution and so on is true. Then life has no meaning, everything is pointless. Even this very discussion! And if it is pointless then why are you even arguing with me?
Just some points to think about. ;)
Sorry buddy, you know how great minds think alike... also, fools never differ.
How true, how true.
-
Hotsnoj: keep to the subject at hand. Your faith is not in question here, nor is anyone else's.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Hotsnoj: keep to the subject at hand. Your faith is not in question here, nor is anyone else's.
This deserves a :wtf:.
If my faith isn't in question then what is the point of this discusion?
-
Wow, I actually love the painting analogy. Look at it this way. The way we see our universe, in all its chaos and order, is the was that one speck of paint on the canvas sees the rest of the painting. But once you step outside of the painting, once you are an outside observer, then you can see the beauty in the painting. :)
Originally posted by mikhael
It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.
Weak, Mikh. God has X-Ray eyes. :p
And HotSnoJ, we're debating the various merits (and demerits? :p) of the 6 days equals 16 billion years theory. The existence of God is being represented by there being an absolute frame of reference or not. :)
-
Ok now it make a little more sense.
Ive read a book about this. The guy was pushing 1 billion instead. He pointed out that even six milli-seconds is still to long for God.
I now don't see this point. If God created it then He created it! So what's the difference if it's six days or six billion?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I now don't see this point. If God created it then He created it! So what's the difference if it's six days or six billion?
Because according to the Bible, there were the 6 days of creation, and then ~5600 years since those days until now. But according to science, the universe has existed for 16 billion years or so. So there's an apparent contradiction.
What the articles and books I was pointing out do is bring forth a theory on how the 6 days can be correlated with the 16 billion years, scientifically. The debate between Mikhael and I is concerning the scientific soundness of said theory. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Wow, I actually love the painting analogy. Look at it this way. The way we see our universe, in all its chaos and order, is the was that one speck of paint on the canvas sees the rest of the painting. But once you step outside of the painting, once you are an outside observer, then you can see the beauty in the painting. :)
Inspired by C. S. Lewis. ;) (Explaining the difference between the Christian view and the pantheist view on what connection God has to creation - whether He's 'part' of it or quite separate.)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Ah, but you see they are more intertwined then you could possibly imagion! Religion/Worldview rules your ideals/values which rule what you do in politics.
Yes, ideals do drive the views of one person. But unlike most I try not to allow one faith or ideal to narrow my view of the world.
...and I can imagine quite a lot :p
-
Originally posted by Ace
Yes, ideals do drive the views of one person. But unlike most I try not to allow one faith or ideal to narrow my view of the world.
...and I can imagine quite a lot :p
Originally said by Thomas Jefferson
if they said they believed anything, I think that they might be shown to be more full of difficulties and liable to infinitely greater objections than the system they oppose and they were credulous and unreasonable for believing it.
From what you just posted I can assume what you believe. You are a liberal and you are for liberal policies such as big government, abortion, high taxes on the rich, and so on. All of those are narrow views and they stem from your belief in either no God or God just doesn't care. All these things come from the narrow view about God. :drevil:
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
From what you just posted I can assume what you believe. You are a liberal and you are for liberal policies such as big government, abortion, high taxes on the rich, and so on. All of those are narrow views and they stem from your belief in either no God or God just doesn't care. All these things come from the narrow view about God. :drevil:
Why is higher taxes on the rich a bad thing?
-
Gentlemen, keep to the subject please and don't attack one another.
In case you have forgotten, the subject at hand is the scientific validity of the Six Days of Creation being the same as 13-21 billion years of time from big bang to the current epoch.
Sandwich, you mind if I post or ICQ conversation on this?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
In case you have forgotten, the subject at hand is the scientific validity of the Six Days of Creation being the same as 13-21 billion years of time from big bang to the current epoch.
I'm not sure if it's said in the article but in the orginal Hebrew that Gensis is written in, "day" would have been better translated beggining and end (the words were mainly used for sunrise and sunset). I can't remember what exaclty lead to this "discovery", and why some think that it means period of time instead of day (24 hours).
Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did. If the earth is 16 billion (one guy has said as little as 1 billion), or 10,000 what does it matter since we agree that God did creat it? I mean we most likey won't find out how old the earth really is until we die (or the Rapture happens) and go to Heavan. And then we might not ever be told!
-
Go right ahead, Mik. ;)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did. If the earth is 16 billion (one guy has said as little as 1 billion), or 10,000 what does it matter since we agree that God did creat it? I mean we most likey won't find out how old the earth really is until we die (or the Rapture happens) and go to Heavan. And then we might not ever be told!
I said it before and I'll say it again, Hotsnoj: this isn't about your faith. I don't really care what you believe, nor do I care if it differs from what I believe or from what Sandwich believes. Your faith is not relevant to the discussion. If you really must keep bring things back to your faith, please, I ask you: stop reading the thread. Please. Its just irrelevant.
Now, I should point out that we are not talking about the age of the Earth. We're talking about the age of the Universe. The Earth is NOT 16 billion years old. It is about 4.5billion years old. The Universe is anywhere from 13 to 21 billion years (depending on which methodology you're using to guess at the age).
Sandwich, I'll try to post our conversation in a little while.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did.
Sorry to stray from the subject once again but it is this attitude that frustrates me. There are a few openly christian people on this board and for the most part they respect the opinions of other people. What you are basically saying here is that other peoples opinions are not valid unless they are the same as your own and trying to word it to appear open minded. I think Mik is right when he says that there isn't much point in you discussing this subject because your faith appears to be blind and the whole point of the discussion is to relate the tale of Genesis to scientific methods.
I'll be the first to admit that I feel pretty much out of my depth with regards to the scientific principles being discussed (though I feel that it's more a case of the language used and my lack of time to really read what is being said), you seem to be arguing the science of the matter with your faith. That to me seems lopsided because science is logical where (to me at least) faith is more irrational.
-
OT-ness
You are confused about what I meant. It seems (or seemed) that mik is a christian and the argument here is about the age of the universe. Other then coming to a conclusion on how old it is, I see no point in this conversation if we are both christians (which I don't know).
If my faith is irrational then why do I and other people who know way more then I do about science believe it? If my faith was irrational I would have dropped it long ago.
I am reading an apologetics book entitled "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. In it it says about reason (rational too I'd guess) and faith that you must have faith in reason. Think about it, you must have faith that reason is logical in the first place.
Everyone has faith, it can be faith in anything. But that doesn't mean that the object of faith is reliable. For instance I faith that the chair I'm sitting in won't collapse under me when I sit down. But that doesn't mean that it won't. Like wise I have faith and it is reasonable that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it doesn't mean it won't.
I think Mik is right when he says that there isn't much point in you discussing this subject because your faith appears to be blind and the whole point of the discussion is to relate the tale of Genesis to scientific methods.
:confused: How have I been since I was told what exacly the discussion is about? (though note that I haven't really talked about it since then) Because I thought that mik was arguing against God even existing, he may be but I don't really know for sure.
From what I've read the topic is about how old the universe is and if God is in it or outside of it. Am I warm?
-
Sorry, I'm going to stray somewhat off the main topic here.
Because of the un-observability of anything "out" of the universe it's largely pointless to argue a viewpoint that depends on something "out".
I might as well argue that dragons exist "out" of the universe just because some picture book told me. e.g. "Dragons exist because some picture book told me. Oh, did I mention the magical dragons influenced the book author? I should also add that the book prophesizes vague, but clearly true, futures of the world including wars ending with big firey weapons (nukes, no doubt). Coincidence? I think not!!"
I'd like it if the christians/jewish explain to me why your beliefs are any more credible than a theoretical belief like the one above.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
From what I've read the topic is about how old the universe is and if God is in it or outside of it. Am I warm?
No.
WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS:
--whether or not the theory presented by Sandwich is scientifically plausible.
WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS NOT:
--does god exist?
--Hotsnoj's religious views.
--Anyone else's religious views.
I really hope that clears it up. Please, take discussions about the existence of God, the validity of religion, and the other related bickering to another thread.
-
However, are we to just assume god started the whole chain and argue the possibility of the physics in the act? I think it's inevitable to argue god if any religion-related theory is presented.
For example, what's the point in arguing to Sandwich that within the physical world its not possible to have "relative" 6 days that are billions of years using science, without mentioning god (after all, the theory is supposed to support theistic views).
-
I mention God freely in whilst arguing my side, Kami. I see no need to argue whether or not God exists. I simply don't care whether or not God exists, nor do I care what God's nature is. Those are seperate arguements--ones from which I try to abstain.
Let us accept that the universe began at some point in the past. God may come into play or may not depending on the specific point at hand. This is a thought experiment, not an examination of faith.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I'd like it if the christians/jewish explain to me why your beliefs are any more credible than a theoretical belief like the one above.
Ok, trying to keep it simple here... There are a number of prophecies in the Bible that have come true in ways that would have seemed impossible before their actual fulfilment. Some of which are the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, the subsequent "blossoming" of said land, and now more currently, Jerusalem being a stumbling stone for all nations. These are just a few that come to mind. If you're interested in finding out what others have come to pass, I'm sure there are plenty of sites detailing (overdetailing, probably :p) the subject.
And for the sake of the debate, "God" is alot quicker to type than "absolute reference frame". :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And for the sake of the debate, "God" is alot quicker to type than "absolute reference frame". :p
Yeah, what he said. ;)
-
Argh. There's a lot I wan to add to this thread, but I fear I'm out of my depth in the physics.
Firstly -
Originally posted by Sandwich
Neither has the Bible been proven wrong. Indeed, and slightly OT, the very existance of the nation in which I live is a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.
Not knowing an awful lo about Israeli History, I wonder if this would have occured had the prophecy not been written at all? My (admittedly vague) understanding of the subject seems to make me believe that the formation of Israel had been something the Jews had wanted for hundreds of years, primarily to fulfil that prophecy. Basically it comes down to a question of whether it's really a prediction being fulfilled, or an order being carried out if people have to actively make it their mission to fulfil it.
Also, does this theory address the age of the earth as well as the age of the universe? Through scientific procedures such as carbon and other forms of radiological dating, we can prove scientifically the earth has existed longer than 5760 years - even relatively short term Carbon dating takes us back tens of thousands of years, and that's from the POV of the earth, where time as we experience remains constant (I think... As I said, the kind of physics being discussed here really isn't my forte). In my opinion at least, justifying a single part of the biblical timeline while disregarding the rest doesn't seem to have much of a point.
However, my major contribution would eb to actually challenge the very basis of the theory itself- the text of the bible that are being dealt with here. As has been touched on before, what we read today as the bible is not something "Of God", at least not any more. It has gone through several translations, copies, and even blatant rewrites (The King James Version As I recall). Ultimately, trying to use the specific wording of the bible as a basis for a scientific theory is pointless. Not saying religion is pointless - despite all the rewrites and suchlike, I doubt the overall message of the bible has changed much. Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.
It's this that pisses me off about organized religion mainly - they're basically forcing peoples faith into a mould that doesn't really reflect more than the germ of the idea that was written down all those years ago. Go Quakerism.
-
Not knowing an awful lo about Israeli History, I wonder if this would have occured had the prophecy not been written at all? My (admittedly vague) understanding of the subject seems to make me believe that the formation of Israel had been something the Jews had wanted for hundreds of years, primarily to fulfil that prophecy. Basically it comes down to a question of whether it's really a prediction being fulfilled, or an order being carried out if people have to actively make it their mission to fulfil it.
Good point.
Also, does this theory address the age of the earth as well as the age of the universe? Through scientific procedures such as carbon and other forms of radiological dating, we can prove scientifically the earth has existed longer than 5760 years - even relatively short term Carbon dating takes us back tens of thousands of years, and that's from the POV of the earth, where time as we experience remains constant (I think... As I said, the kind of physics being discussed here really isn't my forte). In my opinion at least, justifying a single part of the biblical timeline while disregarding the rest doesn't seem to have much of a point.
Most carbon dating starts with the assumption that the earth is very old in the first place. So the tester assumes what the ammount of stuff was in the object in the first place and calculates from there. So it is circular thinking. Using an assumption to prove that same assumption.
However, my major contribution would eb to actually challenge the very basis of the theory itself- the text of the bible that are being dealt with here. As has been touched on before, what we read today as the bible is not something "Of God", at least not any more. It has gone through several translations, copies, and even blatant rewrites (The King James Version As I recall). Ultimately, trying to use the specific wording of the bible as a basis for a scientific theory is pointless. Not saying religion is pointless - despite all the rewrites and suchlike, I doubt the overall message of the bible has changed much. Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.
You're right that the basic message is kept intact during the translation, but a NIV Bible wasn't translated from the KJV. It's translated from the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek. And the argument that the bible has been translated so many time as a reason not to believe it isn't a good argument. It's been translated into other langauges so other people can read it. There are different versions (NIV and KJV for instance) of the Bible because they change the english text to fit current knowledge of the Bible's original langauges. Wouldn't it be smart to retranslate a text to fit the meaning it has in the original language? Especially when you find out something new about the origianal langauge.
Living ones life on biblical principles (be a good bloke and don't kill people) is probably a good thing.
I don't know what your view on God is, but if you're athiest... If you believe that God wasn't involved in the making of the Bible then why are somethings good while somethings are bad (think Ten Commandments). As Bill Jack says, "You're stealing lumber from my worldview to build your's. And that's a no-no, unless you're a secular-humanist that is." (or something along those lines)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Most carbon dating starts with the assumption that the earth is very old in the first place. So the tester assumes what the ammount of stuff was in the object in the first place and calculates from there. So it is circular thinking. Using an assumption to prove that same assumption.
Not True. Like all scientific principles, Carbon Dating begins not with an assumption, but with repeated observation, and a testable theory. We can observe the rate of C14 breakdown, we can test this rate to see if it remains relatively constant. We can also observe the proportions of C12 and C14 in the atmosphgere and in living organisms, and find them to be the same, no matter how many times we look. This is the basis for a scientific theory that has not one shred of evidence against it. Denying it because it doesn't help your faith makes no difference.
To use your own terms, we're using the scientific method, reputable observations and tried and tested theories toprove an assumption.
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You're right that the basic message is kept intact during the translation, but a NIV Bible wasn't translated from the KJV. It's translated from the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek. And the argument that the bible has been translated so many time as a reason not to believe it isn't a good argument. It's been translated into other langauges so other people can read it. There are different versions (NIV and KJV for instance) of the Bible because they change the english text to fit current knowledge of the Bible's original langauges. Wouldn't it be smart to retranslate a text to fit the meaning it has in the original language? Especially when you find out something new about the origianal langauge.
[/b]
Just out of curiosity, do you know when the bible was written in relation to the stories it portrays? And there is no evidence to suggest the basic originals that are used to translate modern versions (Of which most follow the basic KJ Mould) were even the first written down. The bible is a third hand account - not a bad thing if you're after a moiral or theological guidebook, but not exactly ideal if you want a word for word copy of Gods Autobiography.
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I don't know what your view on God is, but if you're athiest... If you believe that God wasn't involved in the making of the Bible then why are somethings good while somethings are bad (think Ten Commandments). As Bill Jack says, "You're stealing lumber from my worldview to build your's. And that's a no-no, unless you're a secular-humanist that is." (or something along those lines)
Just so you know, Christianity doesn;t have a monopoly on "Be a good bloke and don't kill people". I happen to think a healthy respect for ones parents is a good thing. I also think random murders tend to coarsen ones nature and so should be avoided. Fooling around with another mans Girl is also a no no. I donlt believe these things because the bible told me to. I believe them because of my own personal code of ethics and morality. The essential message of the bible (see "good Bloke" comments above) pretty much fits those morals, and while it doesn't precisely match the way I believe life should be lived, they also don't fall far enough away that I have a problem with people who follow them, as long as they don't act like retards or try to cram it down my throat.
Anyway, as Mik's said, this is primarily a physics/Religion thread, so we probably shouldn't continue the blatant OTness.
-
I give up. Sandwich, we've been threadjacked.
-
Yeah, well I'm surprised it stayed on topic as long as it did. So just tell me one thing. Does relativity rule out an absolute...err, God existing outside of our universe/dimension/plane of existence?
-
Science only deals with naturalistic concepts. If science can theorize about it, then by definition it would be natural. So, no.
Unless you accept the multiverse theory, and are talking about out of our universe. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yeah, well I'm surprised it stayed on topic as long as it did. So just tell me one thing. Does relativity rule out an absolute...err, God existing outside of our universe/dimension/plane of existence?
Well, it has problems. No, it doesn't rule out anything existing somewhere else in the manifold that is not in our Universe.
However, nothing from outside the universe can interact with or observe anything inside the universe. If data can transfer between points A and B they are within the same universe or the data is passing through a wormhole (see Hawking and/or Coleman for explanations of the interconnectedness of universes in the manifold). Such wormholes, however, are on the order of the Planck length, though, making transit impossible. You might get data passing from universe to universe via quantum tunneling. In that case, however, only bits of information would get through, and the entire 'message' would be scattered across multiple universes, with most remaining in our universe.
The only way God is observing an event in our universe is if he is IN our universe. If He is not, he breaks physics pretty badly (breaking stuff that we know is not broken because of experimental data). Even if He is in our universe observing, his frame of reference cannot be absolute, because, yet again, he breaks physics badly (see above).
-
Originally posted by mikhael
The only way God is observing an event in our universe is if he is IN our universe.
How can you be sure? We know that nothing inside the universe can interact with stuff outside the universe*, but is the reverse true? Can we be sure that nothing outside the universe can interact with stuff inside the universe?
Take it this way. We're confined to the universe, so we can't escape it. But God, having created the universe and existing outside of and independent of it, can either choose to do stuff in his own continuum** or poke his finger into the universe and mess with something.
*Yes, I know interaction is a two-way process, but I'm simplifying the sentence here, since it's complicated enough already. Take "x interacts with y" to mean "x initiates interaction with y". If you want to be all formal about it, say "x transmits information to y with no assistance from y or any other agent, internal or external". :p
**This assumes God occupies and is bound by a continuum, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
How can you be sure? We know that nothing inside the universe can interact with stuff outside the universe*, but is the reverse true? Can we be sure that nothing outside the universe can interact with stuff inside the universe?
*Yes, I know interaction is a two-way process, but I'm simplifying the sentence here, since it's complicated enough already. Take "x interacts with y" to mean "x initiates interaction with y". If you want to be all formal about it, say "x transmits information to y with no
Exactly. interaction is a two way process. You cannot "simplify" things by seperating action from reaction. To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect
If something from outside the universe could act on things within the universe, there would be a net addition to our universe in terms of energy or matter (most likely energy). Thermodynamics (another one of those theories that has been shown continually to be correct experiment after experiment) doesn't allow for this. The law of conservation of energy and mass does not allow for this either.
For an outside entity to muck about inside the universe (even just observing) would break fundamental physics in ways that would completely break science, particularly physics.
Consider it this way: if such interaction were possible and physics were indeed broken, the theory that Sandwich and I are discussing is invalid. The physics it depends upon are broken by this extra-universal interaction, invalidating the very physics upon which Sandwich's theory is based.
Either way, the theory is invalid. Either the necessary reference frame is impossible, or having the reference frame breaks the theory.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect
You've been watching Matrix reloaded again, haven't you? :wtf: :p
And I'm far too tired to reply sensibly at the moment - it's 6:30am... BEFORE a "night's" sleep. :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Exactly. interaction is a two way process. You cannot "simplify" things by seperating action from reaction. To do so is to introduce a false dichotomy between action and reaction or cause and effect.
Bah - I knew that would confuddle the issue. I know very well what you mean here; the simplification was intended only for grammatical purposes and for clarity. Here's the section rewritten with the definition substituted in...
We know that no agent inside the universe can transmit or convey information outside the universe of its own accord. But is the reverse true? Can we be sure that no agent outside the universe can convey information inside the universe?
Think of the universe as a large bubble. It's a self-contained, self-sufficient, closed system. Any information from inside the bubble directed outward will be unable to escape the bubble's border. But anyone can come along and poke a hole in the bubble from outside - "open" the system, as it were.
Take the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18). The burning of the sacrifice clearly involved the addition of heat energy in a way not consistent with physical law. However, the law of conservation of energy was not violated per se because the energy was not created from within the universe - it was added into the universe by an external agent. To say that the law of conservation of energy was violated here doesn't make sense, since our physical laws have no control over what happens outside the universe. They are self-consistent, but they cannot prevent an external agent from interfering with them.
Compare this with the proverbial apple falling from a tree. Gravity dictates that the apple will fall to the ground. But if someone reaches out and catches the apple, this will not happen. That doesn't mean the law of gravity is violated. Some agent acted to interfere with it.
-
The definition of "closed system" is a system that doesn't transfer matter, but just energy. I think you mean "isolated system". Anyhow, in an isolated system no energy can be added.
In the case of the biblical story you referenced, let's put the sacrifice as the system, and the universe as its surroundings. Now, you can have energy transfer from the surroundings to the system, and out of the system to the surroundings. However you can't "magicallY" insert energy into the system without it coming from the surroundings. In other words divine intervention of this sort violates thermodynamics (the 1st law).