Bible science parallels

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Morbert wrote:

What is the scientific fact or theory that Maury discovered, that is parallel to what we already knew from the Bible?

oh dear...

Thought so.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

What is "good" science?

As you say god created humans who create science to learn about what he has revealed through nature.

I said God created science.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I said God created science.

I know. Which (again) is why your stance is some what off, you write as if God is some how playing a trick on scientists, as if the Bible is a magic show.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I know. Which (again) is why your stance is some what off, you write as if God is some how playing a trick on scientists, as if the Bible is a magic show.

no. only fools and liars

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

no. only fools and liars

Again, that is my point. Science, if God exists, is a revelation of God's creation. Putting in these "ah I told you so" passages (as you interpret them) in to the Bible seems an odd thing to do for God, it seems more like the cheap tricks cults and prophets use. Why do you think God would lower himself to those sort of parlor trick antics just for your amusement?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, that is my point. Science, if God exists, is a revelation of God's creation. Putting in these "ah I told you so" passages (as you interpret them) in to the Bible seems an odd thing to do for God, it seems more like the cheap tricks cults and prophets use. Why do you think God would lower himself to those sort of parlor trick antics just for your amusement?

Are you calling Judaeism and Christianity cults?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Are you calling Judaeism and Christianity cults?

No. Which is why I'm curious why you treat them as such.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

No. Which is why I'm curious why you treat them as such.

As you have moved off-topic to personal attack and cheap parlour tricks I take it you have conceded.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

As you have moved off-topic to personal attack and cheap parlour tricks I take it you have conceded.

Conceded what? I was responding to your question here

How do you know? God created science and science is in the Bible. Not all science but the good and important elements are there.

If you don't want an answer don't ask the question.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

As you have moved off-topic to personal attack and cheap parlour tricks I take it you have conceded.

You have repeatedly introduced digressions and have consistently failed to follow through on any of them (I am still waiting for the alleged maximising of entropy in the Bible. I am still waiting for the parallel between the ordering of the animals in genesis and natural history. I am still waiting on the scientific fact or theory that Maury got from the Bible.) You have shown a poor understanding of science, and have resorted to cheap parlour tricks like "God Bless you.". It is reasonable to infer that, while you have not conceded, you are unable to argue your case, but are not willing to admit this.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

I am still waiting for the parallel between the ordering of the animals in genesis and natural history.

Who brought that up and how is it relevant to the current discussions?

Yet another digression. I've answered your questions on water, the stars and the paths in the seas. If you don't like the answers that's your problem.

Morbert

You said "When scientifically testable statements are found in the Bible they have proven to be scientifically accurate."

Festus wrote: »

Who brought that up and how is it relevant to the current discussions?

Genesis is an example of a claim that contradicts scientific knowledge.

I've answered your questions on water

You have not shown that the Bible is scientifically accurate regarding water. Though I never discussed this in detail so I don't know what question you are referring to.

the stars

You have not shown that the Bible is scientifically accurate regarding the second law of thermodynamics. I have already explained that "perish" and "undergo an increase in entropy as described by thermodynamics" are not equivalent. Only the latter is scientifically accurate, and only the former is in the Bible.

and the paths in the seas. If you don't like the answers that's your problem.

You have not shown that the Biblical passage regarding "paths in the seas" is scientifically accurate. Maury was inspired by his faith, but when he was scientifically accurate, it was due to his careful and methodical study of log books etc. When he was not scientifically accurate, it was due to his faith in his interpretation of the Bible.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Genesis is an example of a claim that contradicts scientific knowledge.

Oh, do you mean evolution? Oh dear...
Well, I didn't bring up and it is entirely off topic as this is about parallels and analogies in the Bible not supposed conflicts or contradictions invented by those of an anti-God bent.
This is my answer. It works for me and if you don't like it you know what you can do.
Evolution can tell us about speciation. Genesis tells us about genera. Evolution has no testifiable, repeatable, observable, unfalsifiable theory on the rise of genera.
There is no contradiction.
There are Christians who accept evolution as a theory and or as a fact and there is no conflict because there is no scientific theory that completes with Genesis on abiogensesis or the generation of genera or the first of each major species. Likewise there are Christians who reject evolution and that is their won't. What harm is there in believing the Bible? The theory of evolution won't feed the hungry or cure cancer. It might produce a few good BBC wildlife shows but that's about it. A few fascinating fairy tales about the orgin of genera extrapulated or regressed from some clever work on the origin of species. Nothing provable, verifiable, ore repeatable so based on nothing of any substance. Beyond speciation it is all conjecture, magic and cultism.
The only "competing" theory with Genesis is that on speciation and that occured after creation therefore there is no contradiction.
The theory of evolution does not follow the scientific method - observe, postulate, predict, test, repeat. What is required is to generate a new species and all that would prove is speciation. To contradict the Bible would require the creation of a new genera. The only way that can be achieved is by following a shadow of God's method and enough money to bail out Ireland a hundred times over and them some. Money better spent feeding the poor rather than the lusts of atheists.
If anything science tries to contradict the Bible on this issue but fails miserably at every attempt.

Morbert wrote: »

You have not shown that the Bible is scientifically accurate regarding water. Though I never discussed this in detail so I don't know what question you are referring to.

The Bible states that water was on the earth from the begining. Science long held the theory that the earth was too hot at the begining for water to have remained therefore water on the earth must have arrived from outer space in large quantities when the earth cooled. What I presented was a scientific paper that states the contrary. That there are mechanisms whereby water could have remained on earth in sufficiently large quantities to account for the majority of or almost all the water on the earth with some small quantities arriving from outer space.

Morbert wrote: »

You have not shown that the Bible is scientifically accurate regarding the second law of thermodynamics. I have already explained that "perish" and "undergo an increase in entropy as described by thermodynamics" are not equivalent. Only the latter is scientifically accurate, and only the former is in the Bible.

We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the stars will die and indeed the universe will die. Even if you believe the cyclic universe theory of big-bang, expansion, collapse, big-bang because of the second law of thermodynamics even this, if true, will eventually stop when a point is reached when there is sufficient energy to allow for any more big-bangs, or a final big bang with insufficient energy to sustain the development of a universe similar to this one - one last cosmological cough and that's it.
As it is the evidence supports an expanding universe that will not collapse. The Bible states that the universe is fininte in accordance with this law.
The Bible states that stars will die in accordance with this law.

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." Wernher von Braun

Morbert wrote: »

You have not shown that the Biblical passage regarding "paths in the seas" is scientifically accurate. Maury was inspired by his faith, but when he was scientifically accurate, it was due to his careful and methodical study of log books etc. When he was not scientifically accurate, it was due to his faith in his interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible states that there are paths in the sea. Science confirms this. What part of scientifically accurate do you not understand?

The Bible does not contradict science and science does not contradict the Bible. Atheists contradict the Bible. Feel free to start a thread of your own if you want to discuss that further.


You know, for an intelligent person who knows the Bible to be true and who knows that God exists I find it remarkable that you see fit to reject God and deny His Bible. Your Master must have you either well trained or well indoctrinated. Ah but you do love him so like so many fools.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Oh, do you mean evolution? Oh dear...
Well, I didn't bring up and it is entirely off topic as this is about parallels and analogies in the Bible not supposed conflicts or contradictions invented by those of an anti-God bent.
This is my answer. It works for me and if you don't like it you know what you can do.
Evolution can tell us about speciation. Genesis tells us about genera. Evolution has no testifiable, repeatable, observable, unfalsifiable theory on the rise of genera.
There is no contradiction.
There are Christians who accept evolution as a theory and or as a fact and there is no conflict because there is no scientific theory that completes with Genesis on abiogensesis or the generation of genera or the first of each major species. Likewise there are Christians who reject evolution and that is their won't. What harm is there in believing the Bible? The theory of evolution won't feed the hungry or cure cancer. It might produce a few good BBC wildlife shows but that's about it. A few fascinating fairy tales about the orgin of genera extrapulated or regressed from some clever work on the origin of species. Nothing provable, verifiable, ore repeatable so based on nothing of any substance. Beyond speciation it is all conjecture, magic and cultism.
The only "competing" theory with Genesis is that on speciation and that occured after creation therefore there is no contradiction.
The theory of evolution does not follow the scientific method - observe, postulate, predict, test, repeat. What is required is to generate a new species and all that would prove is speciation. To contradict the Bible would require the creation of a new genera. The only way that can be achieved is by following a shadow of God's method and enough money to bail out Ireland a hundred times over and them some. Money better spent feeding the poor rather than the lusts of atheists.
If anything science tries to contradict the Bible on this issue but fails miserably at every attempt.

Evolution has been scientifically established. That is why it is accepted by the scientific community, whether they are atheist, christian, jewish, muslim, etc. I can go into this in great detail if you like. Though it would be better served over PM

And again, the ordering of the appearance of animals is all wrong in genesis.

The Bible states that water was on the earth from the begining. Science long held the theory that the earth was too hot at the begining for water to have remained therefore water on the earth must have arrived from outer space in large quantities when the earth cooled. What I presented was a scientific paper that states the contrary. That there are mechanisms whereby water could have remained on earth in sufficiently large quantities to account for the majority of or almost all the water on the earth with some small quantities arriving from outer space.

The Bible says water existed before light. This is contrary to established science. Light was there from the beginning (almost). Water was not.

We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the stars will die and indeed the universe will die. Even if you believe the cyclic universe theory of big-bang, expansion, collapse, big-bang because of the second law of thermodynamics even this, if true, will eventually stop when a point is reached when there is sufficient energy to allow for any more big-bangs, or a final big bang with insufficient energy to sustain the development of a universe similar to this one - one last cosmological cough and that's it.
As it is the evidence supports an expanding universe that will not collapse. The Bible states that the universe is fininte in accordance with this law.
The Bible states that stars will die in accordance with this law.

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." Wernher von Braun

The Bible does not state the universe is finite in accordance with any law, nor does it say the stars will perish in accordance with any law. If it mentioned any law then there would be no issue. Saying the Bible tells us about the second law of thermodynamics because it stays the stars will perish is as silly as saying the Qu'ran tells us about big-bang cosmology because it says the universe inflated, or that the Kabbalah tells us about String Theory because of its focus on the number 6.

The Bible states that there are paths in the sea. Science confirms this. What part of scientifically accurate do you not understand?

Paths in the sea was already known at the time. That is not an example of science reflecting what we already knew from the Bible. That is a case of the Bible reflecting what we already knew from what passed as science at the time. If the Bible contained the specific paths in the sea that Maury discovered, then you would have a point.

You know, for an intelligent person who knows the Bible to be true and who knows that God exists I find it remarkable that you see fit to reject God and deny His Bible. Your Master must have you either well trained or well indoctrinated. Ah but you do love him so like so many fools.

I am an atheist.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Festus wrote: »

You know, for an intelligent person who knows the Bible to be true and who knows that God exists I find it remarkable that you see fit to reject God and deny His Bible. Your Master must have you either well trained or well indoctrinated. Ah but you do love him so like so many fools.

I am an atheist.

Being an atheist does not mean you don't know that God exists or that the Bible is true. You know this.
Being an atheist simply means you have rejected God and His Truth just like your foolish master and you have devoted yourself to doing your masters work.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution has been scientifically established. That is why it is accepted by the scientific community, whether they are atheist, christian, jewish, muslim, etc. I can go into this in great detail if you like. Though it would be better served over PM

I'd prefered if you read what I wrote.

Morbert wrote: »

And again, the ordering of the appearance of animals is all wrong in genesis.

Again I'd prefered if you read what I wrote. Maybe try to understand it this time

Morbert wrote: »

The Bible says water existed before light. This is contrary to established science. Light was there from the beginning (almost). Water was not.

You are taking it literally.

Morbert wrote: »

The Bible does not state the universe is finite in accordance with any law, nor does it say the stars will perish in accordance with any law. If it mentioned any law then there would be no issue. Saying the Bible tells us about the second law of thermodynamics because it stays the stars will perish is as silly as saying the Qu'ran tells us about big-bang cosmology because it says the universe inflated, or that the Kabbalah tells us about String Theory because of its focus on the number 6.

The Koran has nothing to do with this discussion except as your diversionary strawman. The Bible says the universe is finite and stars will die. The second law of thermodynamics says the same thing.

Morbert wrote: »

Paths in the sea was already known at the time. That is not an example of science reflecting what we already knew from the Bible. That is a case of the Bible reflecting what we already knew from what passed as science at the time. If the Bible contained the specific paths in the sea that Maury discovered, then you would have a point.

I'm sure you have references and scientific papers from 3000 years ago detailing Jewish sailors using sea and ocean currents to support your assertion. If you do you may have a point

Morbert wrote: »

I am an atheist.

You are without God

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

The Koran has nothing to do with this discussion except as your diversionary strawman. The Bible says the universe is finite and stars will die. The second law of thermodynamics says the same thing.

This is the fundamental flaw in your thinking, assuming that because end conclusions are similar they are saying the same thing.

A childrens book may say things fall down.
A theory of quantum gravity says things fall down.

That doesn't mean the children's book is describing quantum gravity. This should be so obvious it hardly needs stating but apparently it is a principle you are missing.

That the Bible simply described a natural phenomena that the people of the time would have been aware of (things wear out), and later humans discovered a much more complex understanding of the principles behind that phenomena, doesn't mean the original writing was describing the more complex understanding.

Everyone seems to be able to see this but you. The use of the examples in the Koran and the books of Kaballa is Morbet trying to get you to see that you would have no trouble accepting this in other circumstances. It seems your desire to find confirmation for your faith in the Bible is blinding you to this when applied to your own religious book.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the fundamental flaw in your thinking, assuming that because end conclusions are similar they are saying the same thing.

A childrens book may say things fall down.
A theory of quantum gravity says things fall down.

That doesn't mean the children's book is describing quantum gravity. This should be so obvious it hardly needs stating but apparently it is a principle you are missing.

I understand that gravity is a force that acts between two bodies. it is measurable, its affects are observable and we can feel it. You can even get to the Moon and back by understanding it an correctly deploying the math involved.

Quantum gravity is a theory that does not say that things fall down and in fact there is every possiblility that quantum gravity does not exist.

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think there is a direct relationship between real and the imaginary science.

But do go on - I enjoy your little displays of ignorance.

In fact, I'm thinking of doing a thesis on quantum ignorance and it's involvement in tiny brains

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I understand that gravity is a force that acts between two bodies. it is measurable, its affects are observable and we can feel it. You can even get to the Moon and back by understanding it an correctly deploying the math involved.

Quantum gravity is a theory that does not say that things fall down and in fact there is every possiblility that quantum gravity does not exist.

Gravity is a natural phenomena. Quantum gravity is a theory attempting to explain gravity. It might be wrong, but it certainly "exists".

That things wear out is a natural phenomena. Stating this is not the same as stating a much more detailed scientific theory explaining why that happens.

It is the difference between what and why. Things wear out is what happens. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an attempt to explain why it happens, but as Morbet has consistently pointed out to you it explains much much much more than that.

Merely stating the natural phenomena does not demonstrate understand of any scientific theory that explains it. As has been pointed out to you from the near the very start of this thread no where does the Bible explain or attempt to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Festus wrote: »

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think there is a direct relationship between real and the imaginary science.

Ok, I'm going to assume from that statement you don't actually understand what science is. In science there is accurate and inaccurate theories, not "real and imaginary".

By imaginary do you actually mean inaccurate?

Festus wrote: »

In fact, I'm thinking of doing a thesis on quantum ignorance and it's involvement in tiny brains

Well I guess that would be more productive than praying for me, so it is a start.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I'd prefered if you read what I wrote.

Again I'd prefered if you read what I wrote. Maybe try to understand it this time

This is a non-answer. I clearly did read what you wrote. If you feel I didn't address some aspect of it then, unless you actually say which aspect, there is little I can do.

You are taking it literally.

So are you. You are claiming that water was literally there from the beginning.

The Koran has nothing to do with this discussion except as your diversionary strawman. The Bible says the universe is finite and stars will die. The second law of thermodynamics says the same thing.

I have explained this to you before. The Qur'an example, along with the Kabbalah example, demonstrates how easy it is to retroactively infer scientific theories from old texts. It is nothing special.

I'm sure you have references and scientific papers from 3000 years ago details Jewish sailors using sea currents to support your assertion. If you do you may have a point

We have records dating back to 4000 years ago, well before psalms was written.

Being an atheist does not mean you don't know that God exists or that the Bible is true. You know this.
Being an atheist simply means you have rejected God and His Truth just like your foolish master and you have devoted yourself to doing your masters work.

You are without God

This rhetoric is irrelevant (and a little childish).

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Quantum gravity is a theory attempting to explain gravity. It might be wrong, but it certainly "exists".

Wrong!!!

Quantum gravity is entirely theoretical and has nothing to do with explaining gravity. Look it up and you will find it is part of the effort to produce a working unified field theory\theory of everything.
If you persist in your lie I suggest you present your explanation of how quantum gravity explains gravity. Your presentation should include details of successful supporting experiments

Your ignorance of science is astounding. Your lies and misinformation regarding quantum theory negate all your arguments.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Wrong!!!

I'm pretty sure it exists Festus, I didn't just make it up. :rolleyes:

Festus wrote: »

Quantum gravity is entirely theoretical and has nothing to do with explaining gravity.

Ok, so it does exist. Then why did you claim it didn't?

Secondly what do you mean "entirely theoretical"? As opposed to what exactly, science is theories. A theory in science is just a model of a natural phenomena.

From Wikipedia

Quantum gravity (QG) is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity in a self-consistent manner, or more precisely, to formulate a self-consistent theory which reduces to ordinary quantum mechanics in the limit of weak gravity (potentials much less than c2) and which reduces to Einsteinian general relativity in the limit of large actions (action much larger than reduced Planck's constant).

Festus wrote: »

Look it up and you will find it is part of the effort to produce a working unified field theory.

And? Do you know what that actually means, and how gravity fits into it?

Festus wrote: »

If you persist in your lie I suggest you present your explanation of how quantum gravity explains gravity.

Through the graviton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Festus wrote: »

Your ignorance of science is astounding. Your lies and misinformation regarding quantum theory negate all your arguments.

Do they now. That is a rather sweeping statement. All my arguments are negated by this? What, including the arguments that you are avoiding that show your idea that the Bible is explaining entropy is unfouned. That is handy isn't it, it means you don't actually have to tackle these at all, something I imagine right now you are really hoping you won't have to. :rolleyes:

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so it does exist. Then why did you claim it didn't?

No it doesn't. The theory exists in theory. Quantum gravity outside of the theory does not exist unless you can prove that it exists beyond theory.

wiki wrote:

There are a number of proposed quantum gravity theories.[14] Currently, there is still no complete and consistent quantum theory of gravity, and the candidate models still need to overcome major formal and conceptual problems. They also face the common problem that, as yet, there is no way to put quantum gravity predictions to experimental tests, although there is hope for this to change as future data from cosmological observations and particle physics experiments becomes available.[15][16]

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly what do you mean "entirely theoretical"? As opposed to what exactly, science is theories. A theory in science is just a model of a natural phenomena.

yet more displays of your ignorance and lies.

Science is more than just theories. There are scientific facts and scientific laws. There are bodies of knowledge. Theories are but one small element of science.

Wicknight wrote: »

From Wikipedia

Quantum gravity (QG) is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity in a self-consistent manner, or more precisely, to formulate a self-consistent theory which reduces to ordinary quantum mechanics in the limit of weak gravity (potentials much less than c2) and which reduces to Einsteinian general relativity in the limit of large actions (action much larger than reduced Planck's constant).

And? Do you know what that actually means, and how gravity fits into it?

Yes I do. Do you? It is not an attempt to explain gravity - it is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity using theory.

Wicknight wrote: »

Through the graviton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

a particle that does not exist

wiki wrote:

In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.

Do you know what hypothetical means? It is assumption and most useful for making an ass of yourself.

I am quite happy to engage with a reasonable and intelligent person but I am not interested in discussing these concepts with a butchering liar who is prepared to present fiction as fact and hypothesis as proven.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

No it doesn't. The theory exists in theory.

That makes no sense. A theory in science is a mathematical or logical model of a natural phenomena that attempts to predict observed behavior. It exists in the same way any idea or concept exists.

Festus wrote: »

Quantum gravity outside of the theory does not exist unless you can prove that it exists beyond theory.

"Quantum gravity" is the name of a theory (more accurately a collection of theories, or a field of study) that attempts to explain, among other things, gravity in the context of quantum mechanics.

It is not a natural phenomena. The natural phenomena is gravity.

Festus wrote: »

yet more displays of your ignorance and lies.

Hit a nerve did I?

Festus wrote: »

Science is more than just theories. There are scientific facts and scientific laws.

Do you understand what either of those terms mean in a scientific context?

A fact in science is considered an observation that is regarded as accurate, ie a ball feel to the ground at a particular speed. It is the what, where as the theory is the attempt at the why.

A scientific law is simple a scientific fact stretched out to a universal based on repeated occurrence. Balls always fall to the ground at a particular speed.

Festus wrote: »

There are bodies of knowledge. Theories are but one small element of science.

One small element of science? Are you serious?

As Prof Martin Fischer put it (better than I could)

The establishment of theory is the very purpose of science.

and

Facts are not science — as the dictionary is not literature.

Thank you for confirming my suspecious about your ignorance of science.

Festus wrote: »

Yes I do. Do you? It is not an attempt to explain gravity - it is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity using theory.

And why pray tell are people interested in unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity? Because there is no gravity in quantum mechanics.

Festus wrote: »

a particle that does not exist

Whether it exists or not is irrelevant to my point. If I say things fall down I am not describing the theory of quantum gravity, any more than the Bible is describing thermodynamics by saying things wear out.

Festus wrote: »

Do you know what hypothetical means? It is assumption and most useful for making an ass of yourself.

Whether I'm making an ass out of myself or not is rather immaterial to the fact that you are avoiding the actual point.

Festus wrote: »

I am quite happy to engage with a reasonable and intelligent person but I am not interested in discussing these concepts with a butchering liar.

Fair enough, if you want to with draw go ahead. Though as I said I suspect all this sudden bravado was just a rather transparent attempt to skip out on this conversation without tackling the actual relevant points put to you by myself and Morbet.

Surely it would be easier to just say "Yeah I probably over stretched the correlation there between the Bible and modern science" I guess we do funny things to try and save face.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

"Quantum gravity" is the name of a theory (more accurately a collection of theories, or a field of study) that attempts to explain, among other things, gravity in the context of quantum mechanics.

as you are a quantum person I suppose you have a vested interest. The rest of us are real people and we deal with real gravity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Hit a nerve did I?

No. I just recognised you for what you are. Your masters slave.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thank you for confirming my suspecious about your ignorance of science.

No. Thank you for confirming who you worship. As Charter 2 says "posters with other beliefs" welcome. As you are here you have a belief and we know who you believe in.

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

yet more displays of your ignorance and lies.

Science is more than just theories. There are scientific facts and scientific laws. There are bodies of knowledge. Theories are but one small element of science.

Here, right here is when I realised that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Up until this point I was willing to go; "Ok, let's see where he is going with this." but no more.
You do not understand science.
Wick does and he has spent great amounts of time explaining it to people a lot smarter and a lot stupider than you and I, a wise man would listen to what he has to say.

Festus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Here, right here is when I realised that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Up until this point I was willing to go; "Ok, let's see where he is going with this." but no more.
You do not understand science.
Wick does and he has spent great amounts of time explaining it to people a lot smarter and a lot stupider than you and I, a wise man would listen to what he has to say.

If someone argues that evolution is nothing more than theory they get flak from those who believe it to be fact. This despite the fact that not everying evolution presents can ever be proven. It is a theory "accepted as fact". That does not make it a fact but this fact does not stop people presenting it as fact.

My point was that the use of quantum theory to argue a point that is irrelevant is nonesensical. Theories of quantum gravity may assist with a unified field theory but it will not exlain gravity. To say that quantum gravity has at it's heart the aim of explaining gravity is untrue.

Whatever that person knows of science is one thing but using obfuscated science to take a thread off topic is a different matter.

Science is science. The Bible is the Bible. Both authored by God. Both.

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

If someone argues that evolution is nothing more than theory they get flak from those who believe it to be fact. This despite the fact that not everying evolution presents can ever be proven. It is a theory "accepted as fact". That does not make it a fact but this fact does not stop people presenting it as fact.

My point was that the use of quantum theory to argue a point that is irrelevant is nonesensical. Theories of quantum gravity may assist with a unified field theory but it will not exlain gravity. To say that quantum gravity has at it's heart the aim of explaining gravity is untrue.

Whatever that person knows of science is one thing but using obfuscated science to take a thread off topic is a different matter.

Science is science. The Bible is the Bible. Both authored by God. Both.

You don't understand what a theory is.

Festus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Up until this point I was willing to go; "Ok, let's see where he is going with this." but no more.

Why didn't you row in before. I'm sure they could have used your assistance.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Why didn't you row in before. I'm sure they could have used your assistance.

This is more rhetoric. Your time would be better served responding to my latest post.

Festus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You don't understand what a theory is.

I know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.
I know that a scientific theory must be based on observable phenomena.
I know that if the predictions of a theory cannot be proven the theory is questionable. I have yet to see evolutionary theory predict a new species and then someone finds that species. I have however seen quantum theory predict a particle or phenomenon and then experimentation find it and prove the initial concept.
I may not be as well versed in quantum mechanics as others but I do know that what happens at the quantum level is very different to what happens at the macro level.

The premise of this thread is scientific phenomena. Observable. Testable. The kind of science that affects ordinary life. Gravity affects ordinary life. Quantum gravity does not. Gravity works to laws. Theory explains how.

arguing who knows what or what a quantum theory is has no bearing on the discussion and is little more than petty point scoring and chest thumping.

This thread is dead

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

Why didn't you row in before. I'm sure they could have used your assistance.

40% sure of troll...

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

arguing who knows what or what a quantum theory is has no bearing on the discussion and is little more than petty point scoring and chest thumping.

If you wish to assert that X, to take you seriously we need to see if you know what you are talking about. Apart from the deviation into Quantum Gravity, very relevant I say.

housetypeb

Festus wrote: »

You know, for an intelligent person who knows the Bible to be true and who knows that God exists I find it remarkable that you see fit to reject God and deny His Bible. Your Master must have you either well trained or well indoctrinated. Ah but you do love him so like so many fools.

Who is his master?

MrPudding

housetypeb wrote: »

Who is his master?

I am going with satan.

MrP

housetypeb

I think he means satan too, but i dont want assume anything.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

No. Thank you for confirming who you worship. As Charter 2 says "posters with other beliefs" welcome. As you are here you have a belief and we know who you believe in.

Santa?

Wait a minute, if I just move the "t" and move the "n" around ... oh .... my .....

PDN

Guys, please try to adhere to the Forum Charter.

Attack the post, not the poster. Accusing people of being servants of Satan is hardly conducive to adult discussion.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I know that if the predictions of a theory cannot be proven the theory is questionable.

Close, though nothing in science is proven in the strict sense. A theory just gets more and more accurate at predicting observation.

Festus wrote: »

I have yet to see evolutionary theory predict a new species and then someone finds that species.

That could be because you aren't looking very hard, since evolutionary theory has done this thousands of times, both with living species and in the fossil record.

Testable predictions from evolution theory go right back to Darwin himself who made a number of predictions based on his theory, most of which were accurate.

Festus wrote: »

I have however seen quantum theory predict a particle or phenomenon and then experimentation find it and prove the initial concept.

Again you must not be looking very hard.

Quantum theory has predicted tons of particles that were later found, the most famous of which being the prediction 12 years before its discovery of the neutron.

Festus wrote: »

I may not be as well versed in quantum mechanics as others but I do know that what happens at the quantum level is very different to what happens at the macro level.

It is all the same theory, the only difference is the scale at which you apply it. This is why people are trying to figure out a quantum theory of gravity, because you can't have a unified theory between quantum theory and general relativity without one.

Festus wrote: »

The premise of this thread is scientific phenomena. Observable. Testable. The kind of science that affects ordinary life. Gravity affects ordinary life. Quantum gravity does not.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Gravity is a phenomena. The explanation for why it happens explains this. The theory itself might not be that relevant to ordinary people outside of a science room but that doesn't have much to do with whether it explains it or not.

Festus wrote: »

arguing who knows what or what a quantum theory is has no bearing on the discussion and is little more than petty point scoring and chest thumping.

Didn't seem to stop you when you were calling me a liar and saying you were going to dismiss everything I said because you thought I was wrong about quantum gravity. :rolleyes:

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That makes no sense. A theory in science is a mathematical or logical model of a natural phenomena that attempts to predict observed behavior. It exists in the same way any idea or concept exists.

so God exists then since the concept exists?
WE seem to be constantly getting into the "map is not the territory" problem.
Are you saying wormholes parallell universes and all unproven theories which have no evidence to support them exist?
Are you saying they are part of science?

i think we might need to visit the ontology/epistemology distinction and the instrumentalist/realist one.

your discussion her is spiralling off into a long winded debate when the underlying thing is : the difference between
A a theory existing about something and
B the something itself existing.

If B exists A may exist but at a meta level. A may also exist and B not exist at all. Saying "i have a theory about god" does not prove god exists.

ISAW

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Here, right here is when I realised that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Up until this point I was willing to go; "Ok, let's see where he is going with this." but no more.
You do not understand science.
Wick does and he has spent great amounts of time explaining it to people a lot smarter and a lot stupider than you and I, a wise man would listen to what he has to say.

I do and he makes a lot of sense but saying "quantum gravity exists as a theory" aand claiming "quantum gravity exists as reality" are different things.

But underlying it all is a view of science as describing the real world or just used as an instrument for "preserving the appearance".

Realism/instrumnetalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_realism_and_instrumentalism

NB : Instrumentalists do not believe science has truth! It is just useful but not true and it leans towards relativism which Wicknight has I believe in the past said he is not.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

so God exists then since the concept exists?

No? The concept of God exists, as you just said.

Saying because we haven't proven that a natural phenomena exists that means the theory about it doesn't exist either is stupid, what were we discussing then?

ISAW wrote: »

WE seem to be constantly getting into the "map is not the territory" problem.

It is not a problem, the map is not the territory. The map is the thing you hold in your hand that describes the territory.

ISAW wrote: »

Are you saying wormholes parallell universes and all unproven theories which have no evidence to support them exist?

No. Why would you think that?

Perhaps you need read what I said to Festus again.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I do and he makes a lot of sense but saying "quantum gravity exists as a theory" aand claiming "quantum gravity exists as reality" are different things.

Quantum gravity exists as reality is some what nonsensical as "Quantum gravity" is the name of a theory. Gravity, the natural phenomena it is trying to explain, already exists, no one disputes that. Things fall down.

Enkidu

Actually, Quantum Gravity doesn't exist. There isn't a known fully functioning theory of quantum gravity.

Zombrex

Enkidu wrote: »

Actually, Quantum Gravity doesn't exist. There isn't a known fully functioning theory of quantum gravity.

Quantum gravity isn't a thing. Gravity is a thing, and it operates universally, whether we are looking at small things or big things. We just don't know how exactly it works. On a large scale general relativity explains gravity but that doesn't work at the quantum level. Which is what theories like quantum gravity are trying to explain.

Enkidu

Wicknight wrote: »

Quantum gravity isn't a thing. Gravity is a thing, and it operates universally, whether we are looking at small things or big things. We just don't know how exactly it works. On a large scale general relativity explains gravity but that doesn't work at the quantum level. Which is what theories like quantum gravity are trying to explain.

Oh you're not wrong, I was just nit picking really. Just wanted to point out that there is no solid theory you can point at in a book and say this is the theory of quantum gravity. None of the current quantum gravity theories are known to make mathematical sense either.

Also, final arsehole nitpick, in General Relativity gravity isn't a "thing". It's a prediction of the theory that gravity is a fictitious force.

Zombrex

Enkidu wrote: »

Oh you're not wrong, I was just nit picking really. Just wanted to point out that there is no solid theory you can point at in a book and say this is the theory of quantum gravity. None of the current quantum gravity theories are known to make mathematical sense either.

Also, final arsehole nitpick, in General Relativity gravity isn't a "thing". It's a prediction of the theory that gravity is a fictitious force.

True.

All this is really just highlighting a point that the Bible saying things fall down isn't giving some profound revelation as to the nature of gravity, just like it saying that things wear out wasn't giving an insight into the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

smokingman

Just reading the title for this thread made me laugh..."science" in the same sentence as "religion"??!!

To the historians (no bible quotes please); what eminent scientist was around at the time the bible was written and what did he give us?
What was known already at that time?

Then consider what has been discovered since and what science has done for us all compared to "religion".

The op seems to think there are parallels just like creationsts are doing to try to convince us all that psudo-science is real science.

Get in the ****in sack!

darjeeling

Festus wrote: »

Evolution has no testifiable, repeatable, observable, unfalsifiable theory on the rise of genera.
There is no contradiction.
There are Christians who accept evolution as a theory and or as a fact and there is no conflict because there is no scientific theory that completes with Genesis on abiogensesis or the generation of genera or the first of each major species. Likewise there are Christians who reject evolution and that is their won't. What harm is there in believing the Bible? The theory of evolution won't feed the hungry or cure cancer. It might produce a few good BBC wildlife shows but that's about it.

[and so on]

The underpinning of biology is the well-founded understanding that all living things share a common ancestor. This is based on the temporal and spatial distribution of fossils and of living species, and increasingly on DNA evidence. It is testable, becasuse we can predict the existence of yet unknown fossils and then search for them. These predictions have led us to find the famed Tiktaalik, fossil whale ancestors, feathered dinosaurs, early hominins and many others. We can also make predictions about the genes of species yet unsequenced, and then test these.

Common descent is exploited in a huge amount of research in biology. When we study model organisms such as mice, frogs, fruit flies, nematode worms and even yeast, we do so because we have a strong expectation that - due to common ancestry - biological systems are conserved across these very diverse species. We haven't spent huge amounts of time, effort and money developing mouse models of human disease in order to provide better healthcare for mice. So the theory of evolution provides the framework for research that hopefully will, to use the stock cliché, cure cancer.

Fanny Cradock

smokingman wrote: »

Just reading the title for this thread made me laugh..."science" in the same sentence as "religion"??!!

Get over it.

smokingman wrote: »

To the historians (no bible quotes please); what eminent scientist was around at the time the bible was written and what did he give us?

There was no science when "the Bible was written". I suggest you look at the history of science, including natural philosophy. You might also want to pay special attention to who was there at the forefront of modern science and what their religious beliefs were.

smokingman wrote: »

What was known already at that time?

Do you expect a list?

smokingman wrote: »

Then consider what has been discovered since and what science has done for us all compared to "religion".

Thankfully not all of us share your rather simplistic view that it must be either or. Still, I'll trade you the Crusades for Hiroshima or climate change.

smokingman wrote: »

Get in the ****in sack!

You seem like a charming fellow. And that's why I'm going to remind you to read the charter.