Why Creation Remains Nothing Lie We Once Believed

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2014

Manny said:
Science is being constantly revised. That shows, we don't know everything and the deeper we look, we come to realize there are things we thought before that are wrong. Or in some cases, only right within a given boundary. There are some things which we might never know, by the very nature of scientific laws themselves. So you answered your own question.

But this only scratches the surface of why I said I think life is a great mystery.

Like I said, who is claiming we know everything? That's the great thing about science, Manny, it is self-revising and editing. And which things may we never know? To know that we will never know them seems to be a claim on absolute knowledge - the very thing you are decrying.

Perhaps your interpretation of what these stories say, and what they mean to us is the swing and a miss.

Well words do have meanings, so go ahead. Are you going to tell me you how you interpret a death and then resurrection in a direct act against known physical laws?

No, they do not. Most scientists would agree with me about the great mystery part. You it seems however don't, as it appears you believe it's a mystery. By that you claim all is knowable. I am religious, and don't claim that all is known or even knowable. I can back that up with science, but you probably won't like it. Not sure what your position is at this point.

I do not claim all is knowable. I do not know whether all is knowable as, if I did, then it would all be knowable, no? You are religious but you don't claim all is knowble or correct? So is your deity neither omnipotent or omniscient? And please present your science.

Slartibartfast · Feb 7, 2014

When did this thread turn from an interesting discussion on cosmology to an atheist and Christian bitching at each other?

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2014

Manny said:
This is philosophy. But regardless, it's no lie.

Gravity falls off with distance, and so there is a difference in the gravitational force experienced in different elevations on Earth. A person standing on the surface of the Earth feels less gravity when the elevation is higher.

If you have other pseudo-scientific claims, I would be happy to assist you here.

Oh for Pete's sake. Does that negate the feeling of gravity? No. It's not open to interpretation. There's a reason no one is floating, etc.

Let's use the equation: g = GM / (R + h)[SUP]2[/SUP] where G = gravitational constant, r = Earth's radius, and h = height involved.

For Mt. Everest - the highest point on Earth at ~8850m - then, g = 9.77 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] = 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].
For Chimbarazo - the farther point from Earth's center at ~6385m - then, g = 9.78 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] = 9.8m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]
For Challenger Deep (in the Trench) - the lowest natural point on Earth at 10911m - then g = 9.83 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] = 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]

It is fair to say they experience the same 9.8m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] gravitational attraction to Earth. Statistical significance?

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2014

tacomancer said:
When did this thread turn from an interesting discussion on cosmology to an atheist and Christian bitching at each other?

Well this is DP, when does it not? :2razz:

Slartibartfast · Feb 7, 2014

Fair enough z ...

Manny · Feb 7, 2014

tacomancer said:
When did this thread turn from an interesting discussion on cosmology to an atheist and Christian bitching at each other?

I don't consider my posts 'bitching'. I try to maintain a civil level of discourse, even when people throw out comments that are irrelevant to the thread. Even when people insult me, calling me dumb or a liar, I try to answer politely.

My previous reply, #124 is about science and what we think we know. This is by no means off topic. If you feel this thread is out of place in this forum, you'll have to take that up with the OP.

Manny · Feb 7, 2014

zgoldsmith23 said:
Oh for Pete's sake. Does that negate the feeling of gravity?

I thought you wanted to talk about science, what is empirical evidence, numbers like 9.8m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].
I didn't know we were talking about feelings. Feelings are subjective, after all.

But if you want to make empirical statements, you have to back them up with evidence. And you'd better be right.

Manny · Feb 7, 2014

zgoldsmith23 said:
Like I said, who is claiming we know everything?

You asked why I think life is a mystery, as though you don't think so. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Please re-phrase it.

zgoldsmith23 said:
And which things may we never know? To know that we will never know them seems to be a claim on absolute knowledge - the very thing you are decrying.

I said, there are things which we MIGHT never know. As a debater, you should learn to use expressions like this when discussing topics where there is considerable uncertainty.

The uncertainty principle implies we may never know what happened between the moment the big bang occurred and the first increment of planck time, which is 10[SUP]-43[/SUP] seconds. That's one example. This may change of course but if you understand the implications of quantum mechanics as it stands now, this is what it means.

When I say certain "laws" only work within a boundary condition, there are many examples of that. Simplest one is Newtonian physics vs. Einstein.

zgoldsmith23 said:
Well words do have meanings, so go ahead. Are you going to tell me you how you interpret a death and then resurrection in a direct act against known physical laws?

I do not claim all is knowable. I do not know whether all is knowable as, if I did, then it would all be knowable, no? You are religious but you don't claim all is knowble or correct? So is your deity neither omnipotent or omniscient?

Your interpretation of the bible appears to be only from a purely rational, by-the-numbers approach, which is fundamentalism. I posit, you are a fundamentalist. You suffer from fundamentalist disease as does the OP.

I don't view it that way at all. And another thing, I don't need to assure myself that it's "real". That question for me is entirely non-sequitur to what the bible represents. I am perfectly happy to accept things within it in the way that I do. Note that last part, "in the way that I do". I can do this without knowing all the answers to all the questions about the minutia. Those things are not of value to me.

And may I point out that all of us accept things on this level, daily, without knowing the underlying framework of things. Even pseudo scientists.

Slartibartfast · Feb 7, 2014

Manny said:
I don't consider my posts 'bitching'. I try to maintain a civil level of discourse, even when people throw out comments that are irrelevant to the thread. Even when people insult me, calling me dumb or a liar, I try to answer politely.

My previous reply, #124 is about science and what we think we know. This is by no means off topic. If you feel this thread is out of place in this forum, you'll have to take that up with the OP.

Good reply. I amend my previous statement.

Manny · Feb 8, 2014

tacomancer said:
Good reply. I amend my previous statement.

I agree that sometimes the back-and-forth gets boring. Even, silly. We want useful arguments, not merely contradiction.

An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes...

Slartibartfast · Feb 8, 2014

Manny said:
I agree that sometimes the back-and-forth gets boring. Even, silly. We want useful arguments, not merely contradiction.

An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes...

Well, I will admit, it was an emotional reaction due to seeing the same old statements over and over. Not necessarily made by you.

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 9, 2014

Manny said:
I thought you wanted to talk about science, what is empirical evidence, numbers like 9.8m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].
I didn't know we were talking about feelings. Feelings are subjective, after all.

But if you want to make empirical statements, you have to back them up with evidence. And you'd better be right.

No, you don't have to be right immediately. Again, science is self correcting. That which is considered scientifically true emerges from not only experiments that demonstrate that hypothesis, but those that negate others. Think of phlogiston.

Manny said:
You asked why I think life is a mystery, as though you don't think so. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Please re-phrase it.

How is life a mystery?

I said, there are things which we MIGHT never know. As a debater, you should learn to use expressions like this when discussing topics where there is considerable uncertainty.

"We might never know" - sounds agnostic, borderline atheistic, not theistic.

The uncertainty principle implies we may never know what happened between the moment the big bang occurred and the first increment of planck time, which is 10[SUP]-43[/SUP] seconds. That's one example. This may change of course but if you understand the implications of quantum mechanics as it stands now, this is what it means.

That is not what Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle states. It has to do with position and momentum, not the BBT and the Planck epoch. The Planck epoch is a different ball of wax. Yes, there is little understand during that very key time in the universal development. It is possible we may never know. It is possible that we will know, too - especially as quantum gravitation hypotheses and theories keep emerging, things like string theory, loop quantum gravity, M theory, etc.

When I say certain "laws" only work within a boundary condition, there are many examples of that. Simplest one is Newtonian physics vs. Einstein.

Did I say otherwise? If I did, that is my mistake.

Your interpretation of the bible appears to be only from a purely rational, by-the-numbers approach, which is fundamentalism. I posit, you are a fundamentalist. You suffer from fundamentalist disease as does the OP.

I'm reading the text. If you open things to interpretation, then the entire structure can collapse.

I don't view it that way at all. And another thing, I don't need to assure myself that it's "real". That question for me is entirely non-sequitur to what the bible represents. I am perfectly happy to accept things within it in the way that I do. Note that last part, "in the way that I do". I can do this without knowing all the answers to all the questions about the minutia. Those things are not of value to me.

In other words, further investigation is not what you're interested in?

And may I point out that all of us accept things on this level, daily, without knowing the underlying framework of things. Even pseudo scientists.

Such as?

Tim the plumber · Feb 10, 2014

Manny said:
None of us are the same. We all have different experiences.And, some are "wired" differently than others meaning we interpret reality and events in different ways. There's no way around this, it's human nature. Shouldn't be a problem in any case.

The problem occurs when one person tries to force their views on another. You seem compelled to do that.
Why does religion disturb you so much?

Because of the huge problems it is causing in the world.

If you saw a woman being mugged on the street would you intervene to stop it?

If a person is mugged they will lose their wallet, get a few bruises and be a bit scared. If a person is converted to Scientology they will lose a huge amount of money and have their whole ability to think straight thrown into confusion. they will no longer be fully adult. They will rely on others for moral/ethical guidance.

That's a lot worse than losing the contents of your wallet. All religions are equally wrong.

Tim the plumber · Feb 10, 2014

Manny said:
I said, there are things which we MIGHT never know. As a debater, you should learn to use expressions like this when discussing topics where there is considerable uncertainty.

The uncertainty principle implies we may never know what happened between the moment the big bang occurred and the first increment of planck time, which is 10[SUP]-43[/SUP] seconds. That's one example. This may change of course but if you understand the implications of quantum mechanics as it stands now, this is what it means.

I don't see how the uncertainty principal says that about the start of the universe. There is a lot we can say about it. There are some things we will not know. The uncertainty principal says that we can know what a particle is. That knowing one effects the other.

When I say certain "laws" only work within a boundary condition, there are many examples of that. Simplest one is Newtonian physics vs. Einstein.

Eh? Special relativity is sort of an add on to Newtonian physics. It is fully consistent with Newtonian physics.

Your interpretation of the bible appears to be only from a purely rational, by-the-numbers approach, which is fundamentalism. I posit, you are a fundamentalist. You suffer from fundamentalist disease as does the OP.

I don't view it that way at all. And another thing, I don't need to assure myself that it's "real". That question for me is entirely non-sequitur to what the bible represents. I am perfectly happy to accept things within it in the way that I do. Note that last part, "in the way that I do". I can do this without knowing all the answers to all the questions about the minutia. Those things are not of value to me.

And may I point out that all of us accept things on this level, daily, without knowing the underlying framework of things. Even pseudo scientists.

OK, so was there ever a world flood?

If the origin of the universe is wrong or a fable in the Bible did Jesus die and then get better or is that to be viewed in the same way?

Can you tell us what it is that you do believe?

Lethargic Aptitude · Feb 10, 2014

tacomancer said:
When did this thread turn from an interesting discussion on cosmology to an atheist and Christian bitching at each other?

You did read the first post right? http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...hing-lie-we-once-believed.html#post1062825703

Manny · Feb 10, 2014

Tim the plumber said:
Because of the huge problems it is causing in the world.

I understand. There are plenty of radical religious types who cause problems, obviously. Given what's happened, islamic terrorism is one example. And there are others. Still, these problems are caused by only a relatively few people, compared to thousands who keep their belief to themselves, and quietly go about their business. A lot of bad things happen in the world due to greed and exploitation. The depth of corruption in our world is staggering in fact. Much of this has nothing to do with religion at all.
There are religious people like me who see that those corrupt forces make use of religion as a tool to manipulate the naive. They pose in the guise of religious to control people, sway the opinion of ignorant, deceived masses. Governments use propaganda in much the same way. I see these people as having hijacked religion for their own purpose, and the fallout is that people like you believe them for what they appear to be.

Manny · Feb 10, 2014

zgoldsmith23 said:
No, you don't have to be right immediately. Again, science is self correcting. That which is considered scientifically true emerges from not only experiments that demonstrate that hypothesis, but those that negate others. Think of phlogiston.

How is life a mystery?

"We might never know" - sounds agnostic, borderline atheistic, not theistic.

Did I say otherwise? If I did, that is my mistake.

Semantics. We're saying more or less the same things over and over.

Manny · Feb 10, 2014

Tim the plumber said:
I don't see how the uncertainty principal says that about the start of the universe. There is a lot we can say about it. There are some things we will not know. The uncertainty principal says that we can know what a particle is. That knowing one effects the other.

It's complicated. I do not pretend to be an expert on these things but I have read some papers, etc.

Heisenberg uncertainty is closely related to planck time in quantum mechanics. I looked it up for you, a general explanation is here: Planck Time
Note opening sentence:
The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

A more detailed explanation is here:Planck Time

Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change.

Tim the plumber said:
Special relativity is sort of an add on to Newtonian physics. It is fully consistent with Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics does not account for the relationship between mass, energy and velocity. At normal, earthly velocities Newtonian physics provides an acceptable answer. All was well and it is still used for most situations. But people never knew that it was incorrect until experiments took place at near relativistic velocities.

"The inconsistency of classical mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity, which corrects classical mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light. As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, classical mechanics is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light."

Tim the plumber said:
OK, so was there ever a world flood?

If the origin of the universe is wrong or a fable in the Bible did Jesus die and then get better or is that to be viewed in the same way?

Can you tell us what it is that you do believe?

1) Perhaps. The world was apparently once covered in water. I think I read somewhere that if all ice melts, all land will be covered in several meters of water. So, it is at least possible.

2) These questions are only relevant to a fundamentalist. It's not the reason I am religious. The question is poorly phrased, I don't get the relation between the origin of the universe and Jesus resurrection. But if you mean should it be viewed as a fable, I don't know. There are a lot of mysteries, and how the universe began is but one of them. I try not to lose sleep over it...

3) I believe we should live a moral life, and we need to learn how to do it. We are for the most part immoral, but every day is an opportunity to learn and improve. I believe one should live according to the 10 commandments in the old testament, and according to the Christian tenets: Mercy, Love and Forgiveness. But even a person who is wise can still make mistakes.

Tim the plumber · Feb 11, 2014

Manny said:
I understand. There are plenty of radical religious types who cause problems, obviously. Given what's happened, islamic terrorism is one example. And there are others. Still, these problems are caused by only a relatively few people, compared to thousands who keep their belief to themselves, and quietly go about their business. A lot of bad things happen in the world due to greed and exploitation. The depth of corruption in our world is staggering in fact. Much of this has nothing to do with religion at all.
There are religious people like me who see that those corrupt forces make use of religion as a tool to manipulate the naive. They pose in the guise of religious to control people, sway the opinion of ignorant, deceived masses. Governments use propaganda in much the same way. I see these people as having hijacked religion for their own purpose, and the fallout is that people like you believe them for what they appear to be.

In the UK the church of England has opposed the use of vaccinations against cervical cancer. In it's state funded C of E schools teenage girls have to opt in to have the vaccination. They are in the position of having to say that they are now or are likely to become promiscuous to get the life saving injection.

The research needed to solve lots of diseases using stem cells is much more difficult to do due to the ridiculous intervention of the churches. In the US it is banned.

It is not a small fringe minority which causes harm. It is all of it.

Tim the plumber · Feb 11, 2014

Newtonian physics does not account for the relationship between mass, energy and velocity. At normal, earthly velocities Newtonian physics provides an acceptable answer. All was well and it is still used for most situations. But people never knew that it was incorrect until experiments took place at near relativistic velocities.

"The inconsistency of classical mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity, which corrects classical mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light. As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, classical mechanics is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light."

Yes, as I said, special relativity is a sort of add on to Newtonian physics.

1) Perhaps. The world was apparently once covered in water. I think I read somewhere that if all ice melts, all land will be covered in several meters of water. So, it is at least possible.

No. If all the ice melted the sea level would rise by 200 or so feet. That cannot happen. The world has never been covered with water.

2) These questions are only relevant to a fundamentalist. It's not the reason I am religious. The question is poorly phrased, I don't get the relation between the origin of the universe and Jesus resurrection. But if you mean should it be viewed as a fable, I don't know. There are a lot of mysteries, and how the universe began is but one of them. I try not to lose sleep over it...

If you believe that the world flood and the story of creation are fables rather than fact then why would you think that Jesus got better after death? If you think that is also fable then why bother with Christianity at all?

3) I believe we should live a moral life, and we need to learn how to do it. We are for the most part immoral, but every day is an opportunity to learn and improve. I believe one should live according to the 10 commandments in the old testament, and according to the Christian tenets: Mercy, Love and Forgiveness. But even a person who is wise can still make mistakes.

You don't have to profess some sort of following of rehashed ancient myths from the middle east to be a good decent person.

Manny · Feb 11, 2014

Tim the plumber said:
In the UK the church of England has opposed the use of vaccinations against cervical cancer. In it's state funded C of E schools teenage girls have to opt in to have the vaccination. They are in the position of having to say that they are now or are likely to become promiscuous to get the life saving injection.

The research needed to solve lots of diseases using stem cells is much more difficult to do due to the ridiculous intervention of the churches. In the US it is banned.

It is not a small fringe minority which causes harm. It is all of it.

Both of the issues you mention here are contentious issues, where the "facts" being given out by certain groups are biased, one-sided in some cases half-truths. There's also a risk of exploitation. So there needs to be a counter against the propaganda being catapulted by those groups.

These issues you specifically mentioned are important to people. They go beyond the boundaries of religion per se. n the latter example, there needs to be safeguards against creating a "fetus industry" for the harvesting of stem cells. I am in favour of that. Stem cells can be acquired by other means, such as umbilical cord blood, and elsewhere too I believe. I am in favour of that.

Someone needs to protect the vulnerable from being steam-rollered over by the greedy. With there Guardisil, what we're getting is a dose of propaganda from the pharmaceutical industry. It's already understood that the risk of getting cancer from HPV is extremely low. If you have HPV, you have a better than 95% chance it won't become cancer. The low risk and questionable value of vaccinating every school kid was already raised by the head researcher who tested the vaccine.

People should have a choice and be able to make an informed decision. When this business about Guardasil started, some extreme wingers were screaming for mandatory vaccination of all girls. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to that.

Manny · Feb 11, 2014

Tim the plumber said:
Yes, as I said, special relativity is a sort of add on to Newtonian physics.

Not sort of an add on. Newtonian physics in regard to motion, acceleration, mass is wrong. It's an approximation.

"special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed."
But the fact is that within a certain boundary, Newtonian is close enough. That's what I mean by a boundary condition.
We can describe more complex physical behaviour using mathematical functions. They will work, but again only within a certain range of numbers.

Tim the plumber · Feb 11, 2014

Manny said:
Both of the issues you mention here are contentious issues, where the "facts" being given out by certain groups are biased, one-sided in some cases half-truths. There's also a risk of exploitation. So there needs to be a counter against the propaganda being catapulted by those groups.

These issues you specifically mentioned are important to people. They go beyond the boundaries of religion per se. n the latter example, there needs to be safeguards against creating a "fetus industry" for the harvesting of stem cells. I am in favour of that. Stem cells can be acquired by other means, such as umbilical cord blood, and elsewhere too I believe. I am in favour of that.

Someone needs to protect the vulnerable from being steam-rollered over by the greedy. With there Guardisil, what we're getting is a dose of propaganda from the pharmaceutical industry. It's already understood that the risk of getting cancer from HPV is extremely low. If you have HPV, you have a better than 95% chance it won't become cancer. The low risk and questionable value of vaccinating every school kid was already raised by the head researcher who tested the vaccine.

People should have a choice and be able to make an informed decision. When this business about Guardasil started, some extreme wingers were screaming for mandatory vaccination of all girls. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to that.

That "God" is the inspiration for harm is obvious. The harm being done is in the form of women who will get cervical cancer due to the opposition of the church and of the slowing of research into medical science.

The religious groups opposed test tube babies.

The churches often opposed the use of lightening conductors on large buildings (such as churches) because lightening was an act of God.

Idiocy and harm. Evil.

Why Creation Remains Nothing Lie We Once Believed

Antichrist

Jesus loves you.

Antichrist

Antichrist

Jesus loves you.

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

Jesus loves you.

Nay Sayer

Jesus loves you.

Antichrist

Political Parties = Corruption

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer