The Sacred Cosmos (Written by and old earther.) I'm in the chapter where he is talking about the different Big Bang theories and the different ways of accounting for the origins of the Universe.
Well, I just placed an interlibrary loan request for it, so we'll see how great this chaper is.
However, it was written by a Christian for Christians, so we already know it's not objective.
Quote:
You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- even your own Big Bang theories must break the known laws of Science.
Big bang doesn't break down 'laws of science.' I still don't understand why creationists somehow think that the unanswered questions make the whole theory worthless. That's just stupid. According to your approach, we should never have adopted the Copernican heliocentric model, a model confirmed by observation, because we couldn't describe all of the mechanisms by which it operated.
I proclaim that those who would promote the exclusivity of either idea is only promoting their own personal or political agenda.
Many of those in high regard in the fields of faith and science would attest that neither idea is exclusive of the other. Those of high regard, in either field, that would proclaim the exclusivity of either are damn fools, and only trying to advance themselves through the politics of faith and science.
The lay persons that would attest to the exclusivity of either idea (creationism and evolution) is a victim of the propaganda perpetuated by the persons politicing in the arenas of faith and science.
Besides both ideas are just that, ideas, neither verifibly to 100% certainty. If either camps wish to further proclaim that it is, then I'd like for you to show me your time machine.
Science requires faith in its systems, Faith requires reason to maintain morality.
Ok, where to begin...
Science is not a religion, it is a logical method to gain understanding of the Universe around us.
My "faith" in science is based on my faith in my senses and my ability to reason. I assume the conclusions reached by science are most likely true because I assume this world we live in is not some dream within a dream spinning around an atom in whosville.
Science has painted a rough picture of how life evolved on this planet. There is a ton of evidence for this rough picture and there are a ton of questions left to be answered. None of the evidence has suggested that evolution without the intervention of God, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is impossible. If you want to complicate the story by adding God to it you are welcome to, but it can't be proven or tested by any methods I know. Your going to have to have faith to beleive that, and sure ytou'll find your share of scientists that do beleive in some sort of divine power. But not me.
Now if your going to add God to the story and toss out some specifics, like the world was created 10,000 years ago. Well, then I can blow your arguement out of the water quite convincingly. However, if you are willing to say you beleive most everything that research has uncovered, but you think God wiggled his pinky and helped things along, then I have to say we are at an impasse. My only comment is that adding unknowns to explain something without evidence, or a way of obtaining the evidience, is not base on reason. It is based on imagination and is supported by faith in things we can't reach with our senses or with our intellect.
Both Darwinists and the religious right are extremists. ...Any honest mathematician will tell you that statistically the possibility of everything happening by chance without any intelligent design are as close to impossible as anything can get. ....
WRONG. Any honest mathematician will tell you that they can't calculate the odds without knowing the varibles. We don't know how, when or where life started. More importantly, we don't know how simple the first things were that we may call life. Without more knowledge, you can't calculate any odds.
This goes to the silly estimates I've seen over and over again for the possiblity of life somewhere else in the Universe. All we know about is the life on this planet. Can life survive in much other conditions? Waht exactly are all the extreme conditions that life is living in here on our own planet? Hint, they keep getting more extreme all the time. Again to many assumptions go in to the equation to give such calculations any credance.
As for my statement on science needing faith, it needs the faith that it's systems are fundamentally sound and that these systems will produce repeatable results. If you have no faith in it's systems, then it fails. Scientists also work with the premises of many unverifible theories that were developed by their predecessors. Yes, these theories are supported by other verifible phenomena, but often we lack the tools to measure these behaviors that should hold true to other phenomena. So, it takes faith of the current observer that the previous observations a. were correct in the first place and b. hold true to the currently observed phenomena.
The scientific method is logical and has proven itself to work. The human race is much smarter since we began using scientific method compared to time spent telling stories without getting evidince. I have absolute faith in the system.
What unverifible theories? It is not easy to become a theory, there had to be a lot of verifying to get to that status in the first place.
Scientists don't take it on faith that everything their predecssors did was true. Actually, it great when we can prove them wrong. When you prove them wrong on some big ideas it is usually called a paradigm shift and will probably get you a paper in Science or Nature, as well as a bigger office.
Onje of the first things i try to teach people in the lab is don't beleive everything they read in a research article. I'm not saying that the authors are making stuff up, I'm just saying that everything has to be viewed in context and with a sceptical eye. Spend a year doing research and you'll know what I mean.
Well, I just placed an interlibrary loan request for it, so we'll see how great this chaper is.
However, it was written by a Christian for Christians, so we already know it's not objective.
Big bang doesn't break down 'laws of science.' I still don't understand why creationists somehow think that the unanswered questions make the whole theory worthless. That's just stupid. According to your approach, we should never have adopted the Copernican heliocentric model, a model confirmed by observation, because we couldn't describe all of the mechanisms by which it operated.
I think it's fairly "objective", he takes the Big Bang as fact. (and even some [directed] evolution) -- but then I'm not done. I would probably have time to finish it if I WASN'T POSTING 20 TIMES A FRELLING DAY.
I think you should reconsider --- apparently from 10^-43 seconds and before the laws that we know of don't apply in those theories. There are several different accounts some of which have the universe expanding faster-than-light, (although for a very short time). If the number of different accounts he gives are correct there are quite a few theories floating about -- all of which terminate in a great many unkowns.
My point with this is that at SOME point, you have to let go of the laws you know and put your trust in forces that you believe in but can't account for. I don't go for slapping cosmology on Genesis since it's inconclusive -- in any event I'm not certain it matters a great deal other than in we have a historical Adam in time to make the 'First/Second Adam original sin' thing work. In any event you can't take materialism and account for people evolving souls, so......
I think it's fairly "objective", he takes the Big Bang as fact.
Well, I don't know if it's 'fact,' but observations point to a universe that was once much much smaller, denser and hotter.
Quote:
I think you should reconsider --- apparently from 10^-43 seconds and before the laws that we know of don't apply in those theories.
But the real issue is why that is. It's not like no one knows what to look for. There are a number of frameworks and they all are pointing in the same direction, we just haven't gotten to the intersection yet. There's nothing wrong with having an incomplete picture of something as complex as the universe, and it's far more in depth than the pseudoscientific mantra of 'all laws break down in the big bang.' They 'break down' because we aren't quite sure how to apply what, since, as noted famously in Elegant Universe, we don't know how to treat something that is simultaneously infinitely small and infinitely massive.
Quote:
There are several different accounts some of which have the universe expanding faster-than-light, (although for a very short time).
Inflation theory, which postulates that the fabric of space time itself expanded faster, something that could very nicely explain a number of features of the universe, including its apparent flatness and the apparent CMB fluctuations as well as the isotropy of the CMB.
I actually looked at that page of Guth's notebook in person a week ago friday.
I wonder how many folks realize that the practive of science actually originated from Christians...and from a Christian worldview...as a means of understanding and discovering and appreciating the world that "God had created" better?
(NOTE: I do not quote "God had created" to imply that the statement is untrue...merely to point out that it is questioned by some.)
Not only was the proverbial antagonism between 'science' and religion non-existent, but during this period scientific research itself was conceived (by scientists) as a religious task, a means of understanding the wisdom of God manifest in Creation and as a way to worship Him.
I wonder how many folks realize that the practive of science actually originated from Christians...and from a Christian worldview...as a means of understanding and discovering and appreciating the world that "God had created" better?
(NOTE: I do not quote "God had created" to imply that the statement is untrue...merely to point out that it is questioned by some.)
Not only was the proverbial antagonism between 'science' and religion non-existent, but during this period scientific research itself was conceived (by scientists) as a religious task, a means of understanding the wisdom of God manifest in Creation and as a way to worship Him.
Just some interesting fuel for the fire perhaps.
Have fun.
like the ancient Egyptians didn't have any Science then, nor the Babylonians, or the Chinese, or the Greeks, hurrah for Catholics, saved the world once from the perversions of paganism and invented science to boot.
Seems he wasn't to fond of the Church either and had an alchemistic/occult outlook as his core belief.
He seemed quite an interesting chap actually. Good chat about religion, seems he was a bit of a pagan.....
What the heck are you talking about? Sir Isaac Newton? He was not only a Christian, but also a Bible scholar and a Creationist.
BTW...Galileo also appeared to have some recognition of God himself as he once said (as a single example): As to the human mind Galileo most emphatically stated that it was a "work of God's and one of the most excellent".
Galileo's conflict with the (Roman Catholic) church is overblown...first, let us not assume that the "Roman Catholic Church" is "THE" church. Many people, over time have fought the Roman Catholic Church (you've heard of Martin Luther I assume) but not against God, the Bible and Christian faith and beliefs. Second Galileo's problem was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
Ok, I'm going to have to say it: as laudable as investigations into angels dancing on pinheads undoubtedly is, the Church actively kept back science and almost single handedly fostered and certainly perpetuated the entire dark ages in Europe.
Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the foundation of western science, civilization and the Renaissance was being painstakingly assembled by a coalition of Islamic scientists alongside the Jewish and Christian scholars who had found protection in Islamic lands from persecution at the hands of the Church's death squads.
like the ancient Egyptians didn't have any Science then, nor the Babylonians, or the Chinese, or the Greeks, hurrah for Catholics, saved the world once from the perversions of paganism and invented science to boot.
I never said they didn't...only that Christian faith and science are not only not incompatible...but can be, in fact (and in history have been) complimentary.
You have to be very careful in claiming Newton as a Christian. You would need to define it first - if you mean following the original teaching of Christ before the Church's tampered texts? then yes, he was a Christian. If you mean a follower of the Church then, no.
Well, I don't know anything about this tampered texts? stuff...but to be clear I never define someone as being Christian because they follow "the church"...and certainly not the "Roman Catholic Church".
First, a "Christian" (to me) would be someone that profresses a belief in Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord.
Second, I would make a clear distinction (as I have tried to say in my other posts) between "The Roman Catholic Church" and "The Church". They are different (sometimes divergent, sometimes convergent) things.
Quite obviously I am not a Catholic. I do not believe "being a Catholic" means "being a Christian" any more than "going to church" means "being a Christian". I believe that there are Catholics who are Christians and Christians who are not Catholic (and "Christians" who are NOT Christians).
But...I digress (well, actually I think you did...but neither here nor there)...my real point was that science and Christian faith do not have to be incompatible at all...and that some of the early (and key scientists) held strong Christian beliefs...and felt that their scientific work was compatible and complimentary to their belief in God (and the Bible).
Whew...so I guess this was fuel for the fire (I was kind of joking). I certainly did not intend to get dragged into thsi debate. My own foolishness I guess. I'm out.
Ok, I'm going to have to say it: as laudable as investigations into angels dancing on pinheads undoubtedly is, the Church actively kept back science and almost single handedly fostered and certainly perpetuated the entire dark ages in Europe.
I think it's fair to say they had a very mixed relationship with science, but not all bad. I believe the Church funded many of the great early scientists, but then had second thoughts and came down clearly against them. Perhaps they were shocked that the scientists didn't confirm what they believed, and that's what provoked their change of heart.
Quote:
Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the foundation of western science, civilization and the Renaissance was being painstakingly assembled by a coalition of Islamic scientists alongside the Jewish and Christian scholars who had found protection in Islamic lands from persecution at the hands of the Church's death squads.
Yeah that's an amazing story. Isn't it true that while Roman civilization was being Visigoth-ed, the Islamic world kept philosophy and science and culture alive? I heard that most of our knowledge of Plato et al. comes our way via the Islamic world, probably in Spain, which kept those works when Rome's and Constantinople's holdings were lost.
As this is an evolution/creation thread it is interesting to note that Rumi, a Muslim philosopher taught a theory of evolution in the thirteenth century. This is a translation of one of his statements:
He is speaking to humankind rather than an individual and he denies elsewhere reincarnation so he is clearly referring to a biological process.
The scientific method is logical and has proven itself to work. The human race is much smarter since we began using scientific method compared to time spent telling stories without getting evidince. I have absolute faith in the system.
What unverifible theories? It is not easy to become a theory, there had to be a lot of verifying to get to that status in the first place.
Scientists don't take it on faith that everything their predecssors did was true. Actually, it great when we can prove them wrong. When you prove them wrong on some big ideas it is usually called a paradigm shift and will probably get you a paper in Science or Nature, as well as a bigger office.
Onje of the first things i try to teach people in the lab is don't beleive everything they read in a research article. I'm not saying that the authors are making stuff up, I'm just saying that everything has to be viewed in context and with a sceptical eye. Spend a year doing research and you'll know what I mean.
This what I get for letting my better mind to take over this handle. Well, luckily for me I tend to agree with myself. Unfortunately, for you I'm the biggest jackass I know.
Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
As for the processes I spoke of, I did not question the "Scientific Process". I believe it to be quite sound. I do however question the intent, the methods, and the accuracy of the observers. I did mention that ,if the process is repeatable, then you must have faith that the same observations will hold true to similar phenomena that we as of yet lack the tools to observe.
As for your opinion as a scientist??? As a biased journalist I put little stock into what is obviously a biased opinion. You have already closed the door onto something which you will not observe. It would have been sad if Hawking would have treated black holes in the same manner.
1)Unfortunately, for you I'm the biggest jackass I know.
2)Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. 3) IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. 4) A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
1) Arrogant self delusion. A clear statement that you do not understand the message Jesus wanted you to hear.
2) We already had the thread so we're all well aware of the deliberate lie of the Creationist to redefine the Scientific meaning of the word theory into its more popular common usage.
3) Getoutahere. You just demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
4) Quite a remarkable statement from someone deluded, stupid, ignorant and with a clear intent to lie.
Hello, Im MarcUK, and somethimes I'm not very nice, and seeing as your occupation is "Dictator", I guess you're not here for a discussion anyway. Troll.
Now if you think that the scientific way of thinking is crap, watch out a little around you. Without sciences and the scientific way of thinking, you will not tape on any computer, will not have water, fridge, car, TV, phone ....
You will have nothing. Sciences have proved to work. You are surrounded by evidences of this. Feel free to ignore it
That's perfect Powerdoc. Ironic isn't it, that these "Creationist" Fundamentalists argue with us on Apple computers. You Bible blokes have any idea how much "science" is crammed in that little case? Thousands of years' worth my boy!
Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
Thank you MarkUK <tag> I'll take over from here.
When we talk of the theory of evolution, we do impart the scientific meaning of the word 'theory.' In short: Scientists use the word 'hypothesis' for our daily work. Some hypotheses amount to a good idea based on reading the liturature, others have just a little evididence and some have a tone of evidence. The there are theories. They have so much evidence for them that most scientists will never actually give birth to one in their entire lives. We just work around the edges of them. Then there are the laws, these tend to be simple truths that have been verified beyond any reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Originally posted by pig
As for the processes I spoke of, I did not question the "Scientific Process". I believe it to be quite sound. I do however question the intent, the methods, and the accuracy of the observers.
This statement makes no sense. You beleive the process, but somehow we (the scientific community) are all in a giant conspiracy to perform our research as poorly as possible. WTF??
Quote:
Originally posted by pig
I did mention that ,if the process is repeatable, then you must have faith that the same observations will hold true to similar phenomena that we as of yet lack the tools to observe.
I live my life beleiving in reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by pig
As for your opinion as a scientist??? As a biased journalist I put little stock into what is obviously a biased opinion. You have already closed the door onto something which you will not observe. It would have been sad if Hawking would have treated black holes in the same manner.
I guess all opinions are biased. If God wants to play hard to get then why should I beleive?
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
The Sacred Cosmos (Written by and old earther.) I'm in the chapter where he is talking about the different Big Bang theories and the different ways of accounting for the origins of the Universe.
Well, I just placed an interlibrary loan request for it, so we'll see how great this chaper is.
However, it was written by a Christian for Christians, so we already know it's not objective.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- even your own Big Bang theories must break the known laws of Science.
Big bang doesn't break down 'laws of science.' I still don't understand why creationists somehow think that the unanswered questions make the whole theory worthless. That's just stupid. According to your approach, we should never have adopted the Copernican heliocentric model, a model confirmed by observation, because we couldn't describe all of the mechanisms by which it operated.
Originally posted by pig
I proclaim that those who would promote the exclusivity of either idea is only promoting their own personal or political agenda.
Many of those in high regard in the fields of faith and science would attest that neither idea is exclusive of the other. Those of high regard, in either field, that would proclaim the exclusivity of either are damn fools, and only trying to advance themselves through the politics of faith and science.
The lay persons that would attest to the exclusivity of either idea (creationism and evolution) is a victim of the propaganda perpetuated by the persons politicing in the arenas of faith and science.
Besides both ideas are just that, ideas, neither verifibly to 100% certainty. If either camps wish to further proclaim that it is, then I'd like for you to show me your time machine.
Science requires faith in its systems, Faith requires reason to maintain morality.
Ok, where to begin...
Science is not a religion, it is a logical method to gain understanding of the Universe around us.
My "faith" in science is based on my faith in my senses and my ability to reason. I assume the conclusions reached by science are most likely true because I assume this world we live in is not some dream within a dream spinning around an atom in whosville.
Science has painted a rough picture of how life evolved on this planet. There is a ton of evidence for this rough picture and there are a ton of questions left to be answered. None of the evidence has suggested that evolution without the intervention of God, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is impossible. If you want to complicate the story by adding God to it you are welcome to, but it can't be proven or tested by any methods I know. Your going to have to have faith to beleive that, and sure ytou'll find your share of scientists that do beleive in some sort of divine power. But not me.
Now if your going to add God to the story and toss out some specifics, like the world was created 10,000 years ago. Well, then I can blow your arguement out of the water quite convincingly. However, if you are willing to say you beleive most everything that research has uncovered, but you think God wiggled his pinky and helped things along, then I have to say we are at an impasse. My only comment is that adding unknowns to explain something without evidence, or a way of obtaining the evidience, is not base on reason. It is based on imagination and is supported by faith in things we can't reach with our senses or with our intellect.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Both Darwinists and the religious right are extremists. ...Any honest mathematician will tell you that statistically the possibility of everything happening by chance without any intelligent design are as close to impossible as anything can get. ....
WRONG. Any honest mathematician will tell you that they can't calculate the odds without knowing the varibles. We don't know how, when or where life started. More importantly, we don't know how simple the first things were that we may call life. Without more knowledge, you can't calculate any odds.
This goes to the silly estimates I've seen over and over again for the possiblity of life somewhere else in the Universe. All we know about is the life on this planet. Can life survive in much other conditions? Waht exactly are all the extreme conditions that life is living in here on our own planet? Hint, they keep getting more extreme all the time. Again to many assumptions go in to the equation to give such calculations any credance.
Originally posted by pig
As for my statement on science needing faith, it needs the faith that it's systems are fundamentally sound and that these systems will produce repeatable results. If you have no faith in it's systems, then it fails. Scientists also work with the premises of many unverifible theories that were developed by their predecessors. Yes, these theories are supported by other verifible phenomena, but often we lack the tools to measure these behaviors that should hold true to other phenomena. So, it takes faith of the current observer that the previous observations a. were correct in the first place and b. hold true to the currently observed phenomena.
The scientific method is logical and has proven itself to work. The human race is much smarter since we began using scientific method compared to time spent telling stories without getting evidince. I have absolute faith in the system.
What unverifible theories? It is not easy to become a theory, there had to be a lot of verifying to get to that status in the first place.
Scientists don't take it on faith that everything their predecssors did was true. Actually, it great when we can prove them wrong. When you prove them wrong on some big ideas it is usually called a paradigm shift and will probably get you a paper in Science or Nature, as well as a bigger office.
Onje of the first things i try to teach people in the lab is don't beleive everything they read in a research article. I'm not saying that the authors are making stuff up, I'm just saying that everything has to be viewed in context and with a sceptical eye. Spend a year doing research and you'll know what I mean.
Originally posted by giant
Well, I just placed an interlibrary loan request for it, so we'll see how great this chaper is.
However, it was written by a Christian for Christians, so we already know it's not objective.
Big bang doesn't break down 'laws of science.' I still don't understand why creationists somehow think that the unanswered questions make the whole theory worthless. That's just stupid. According to your approach, we should never have adopted the Copernican heliocentric model, a model confirmed by observation, because we couldn't describe all of the mechanisms by which it operated.
I think it's fairly "objective", he takes the Big Bang as fact. (and even some [directed] evolution) -- but then I'm not done. I would probably have time to finish it if I WASN'T POSTING 20 TIMES A FRELLING DAY.
I think you should reconsider --- apparently from 10^-43 seconds and before the laws that we know of don't apply in those theories. There are several different accounts some of which have the universe expanding faster-than-light, (although for a very short time). If the number of different accounts he gives are correct there are quite a few theories floating about -- all of which terminate in a great many unkowns.
My point with this is that at SOME point, you have to let go of the laws you know and put your trust in forces that you believe in but can't account for. I don't go for slapping cosmology on Genesis since it's inconclusive -- in any event I'm not certain it matters a great deal other than in we have a historical Adam in time to make the 'First/Second Adam original sin' thing work. In any event you can't take materialism and account for people evolving souls, so......
Don Quixote:
Through the woodland, through the valley
Comes a horseman wild and free
Tilting at the windmills passing
Who can the brave young horseman be
He is wild but he is mellow
He is strong but he is weak
He is cruel but he is gentle
He is wise but he is meek
Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a battered book into his hand
Standing like a prophet bold
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Till he can shout no more
I have come o'er moor and mountain
Like the hawk upon the wing
I was once a shining knight
Who was the guardian of a king
I have searched the whole world over
Looking for a place to sleep
I have seen the strong survive
And I have seen the lean grown weak
See the children of the earth
Who wake to find the table bare
See the gentry in the country
Riding off to take the air
Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a rusty sword into his hand
Then striking up a knightly pose
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Till he can shout no more
See the jailor with his key
Who locks away all trace of sin
See the judge upon the bench
Who tries the case as best he can
See the wise and wicked ones
Who feed upon life's sacred fire
See the soldier with his gun
Who must be dead to be admired
See the man who tips the needle
See the man who buys and sells
See the man who puts the collar
On the ones who dare not tell
See the drunkard in the tavern
Stemming gold to make ends meet
See the youth in ghetto black
Condemned to life upon the street
Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a tarnished cross into his hand
Then standing like a preacher now
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Then in a blaze of tangled hooves
He gallops off across the dusty plain
In vain to search again
Where no one will hear
Through the woodland, through the valley
Comes a horseman wild and free
Tilting at the windmills passing
Who can the brave young horseman be
He is wild but he is mellow
He is strong but he is weak
He is cruel but he is gentle
He is wise but he is meek
--G. Lightfoot
.....anyway, Merry Christmas!
I really must stop until after new years.
Originally posted by dmz
I think it's fairly "objective", he takes the Big Bang as fact.
Well, I don't know if it's 'fact,' but observations point to a universe that was once much much smaller, denser and hotter.
I think you should reconsider --- apparently from 10^-43 seconds and before the laws that we know of don't apply in those theories.
But the real issue is why that is. It's not like no one knows what to look for. There are a number of frameworks and they all are pointing in the same direction, we just haven't gotten to the intersection yet. There's nothing wrong with having an incomplete picture of something as complex as the universe, and it's far more in depth than the pseudoscientific mantra of 'all laws break down in the big bang.' They 'break down' because we aren't quite sure how to apply what, since, as noted famously in Elegant Universe, we don't know how to treat something that is simultaneously infinitely small and infinitely massive.
There are several different accounts some of which have the universe expanding faster-than-light, (although for a very short time).
Inflation theory, which postulates that the fabric of space time itself expanded faster, something that could very nicely explain a number of features of the universe, including its apparent flatness and the apparent CMB fluctuations as well as the isotropy of the CMB.
I actually looked at that page of Guth's notebook in person a week ago friday.
(NOTE: I do not quote "God had created" to imply that the statement is untrue...merely to point out that it is questioned by some.)
Not only was the proverbial antagonism between 'science' and religion non-existent, but during this period scientific research itself was conceived (by scientists) as a religious task, a means of understanding the wisdom of God manifest in Creation and as a way to worship Him.
Just some interesting fuel for the fire perhaps.
Have fun.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wonder how many folks realize that the practive of science actually originated from Christians...and from a Christian worldview...as a means of understanding and discovering and appreciating the world that "God had created" better?
(NOTE: I do not quote "God had created" to imply that the statement is untrue...merely to point out that it is questioned by some.)
Not only was the proverbial antagonism between 'science' and religion non-existent, but during this period scientific research itself was conceived (by scientists) as a religious task, a means of understanding the wisdom of God manifest in Creation and as a way to worship Him.
Just some interesting fuel for the fire perhaps.
Have fun.
like the ancient Egyptians didn't have any Science then, nor the Babylonians, or the Chinese, or the Greeks, hurrah for Catholics, saved the world once from the perversions of paganism and invented science to boot.
Originally posted by segovius
Tell it to Galileo.
Tell it to Newton.
Originally posted by segovius
I did - he agreed.
Seems he wasn't to fond of the Church either and had an alchemistic/occult outlook as his core belief.
He seemed quite an interesting chap actually. Good chat about religion, seems he was a bit of a pagan.....
What the heck are you talking about? Sir Isaac Newton? He was not only a Christian, but also a Bible scholar and a Creationist.
BTW...Galileo also appeared to have some recognition of God himself as he once said (as a single example): As to the human mind Galileo most emphatically stated that it was a "work of God's and one of the most excellent".
Galileo's conflict with the (Roman Catholic) church is overblown...first, let us not assume that the "Roman Catholic Church" is "THE" church. Many people, over time have fought the Roman Catholic Church (you've heard of Martin Luther I assume) but not against God, the Bible and Christian faith and beliefs. Second Galileo's problem was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
Originally posted by segovius
Ok, I'm going to have to say it: as laudable as investigations into angels dancing on pinheads undoubtedly is, the Church actively kept back science and almost single handedly fostered and certainly perpetuated the entire dark ages in Europe.
Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the foundation of western science, civilization and the Renaissance was being painstakingly assembled by a coalition of Islamic scientists alongside the Jewish and Christian scholars who had found protection in Islamic lands from persecution at the hands of the Church's death squads.
you do realise I was being sarcastic don't you?
Meanwhile... have a
Originally posted by MarcUK
like the ancient Egyptians didn't have any Science then, nor the Babylonians, or the Chinese, or the Greeks, hurrah for Catholics, saved the world once from the perversions of paganism and invented science to boot.
I never said they didn't...only that Christian faith and science are not only not incompatible...but can be, in fact (and in history have been) complimentary.
Originally posted by segovius
You have to be very careful in claiming Newton as a Christian. You would need to define it first - if you mean following the original teaching of Christ before the Church's tampered texts? then yes, he was a Christian. If you mean a follower of the Church then, no.
Well, I don't know anything about this tampered texts? stuff...but to be clear I never define someone as being Christian because they follow "the church"...and certainly not the "Roman Catholic Church".
First, a "Christian" (to me) would be someone that profresses a belief in Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord.
Second, I would make a clear distinction (as I have tried to say in my other posts) between "The Roman Catholic Church" and "The Church". They are different (sometimes divergent, sometimes convergent) things.
Quite obviously I am not a Catholic. I do not believe "being a Catholic" means "being a Christian" any more than "going to church" means "being a Christian". I believe that there are Catholics who are Christians and Christians who are not Catholic (and "Christians" who are NOT Christians).
But...I digress (well, actually I think you did...but neither here nor there)...my real point was that science and Christian faith do not have to be incompatible at all...and that some of the early (and key scientists) held strong Christian beliefs...and felt that their scientific work was compatible and complimentary to their belief in God (and the Bible).
Whew...so I guess this was fuel for the fire (I was kind of joking). I certainly did not intend to get dragged into thsi debate. My own foolishness I guess. I'm out.
Originally posted by segovius
Ok, I'm going to have to say it: as laudable as investigations into angels dancing on pinheads undoubtedly is, the Church actively kept back science and almost single handedly fostered and certainly perpetuated the entire dark ages in Europe.
I think it's fair to say they had a very mixed relationship with science, but not all bad. I believe the Church funded many of the great early scientists, but then had second thoughts and came down clearly against them. Perhaps they were shocked that the scientists didn't confirm what they believed, and that's what provoked their change of heart.
Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the foundation of western science, civilization and the Renaissance was being painstakingly assembled by a coalition of Islamic scientists alongside the Jewish and Christian scholars who had found protection in Islamic lands from persecution at the hands of the Church's death squads.
Yeah that's an amazing story. Isn't it true that while Roman civilization was being Visigoth-ed, the Islamic world kept philosophy and science and culture alive? I heard that most of our knowledge of Plato et al. comes our way via the Islamic world, probably in Spain, which kept those works when Rome's and Constantinople's holdings were lost.
Originally posted by segovius
As this is an evolution/creation thread it is interesting to note that Rumi, a Muslim philosopher taught a theory of evolution in the thirteenth century. This is a translation of one of his statements:
He is speaking to humankind rather than an individual and he denies elsewhere reincarnation so he is clearly referring to a biological process.
Right that's it, consider me a mithraic sufi.
Originally posted by segovius
Hehe - it suits you
I want my own religion
The scientific method is logical and has proven itself to work. The human race is much smarter since we began using scientific method compared to time spent telling stories without getting evidince. I have absolute faith in the system.
What unverifible theories? It is not easy to become a theory, there had to be a lot of verifying to get to that status in the first place.
Scientists don't take it on faith that everything their predecssors did was true. Actually, it great when we can prove them wrong. When you prove them wrong on some big ideas it is usually called a paradigm shift and will probably get you a paper in Science or Nature, as well as a bigger office.
Onje of the first things i try to teach people in the lab is don't beleive everything they read in a research article. I'm not saying that the authors are making stuff up, I'm just saying that everything has to be viewed in context and with a sceptical eye. Spend a year doing research and you'll know what I mean.
This what I get for letting my better mind to take over this handle. Well, luckily for me I tend to agree with myself. Unfortunately, for you I'm the biggest jackass I know.
Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
As for the processes I spoke of, I did not question the "Scientific Process". I believe it to be quite sound. I do however question the intent, the methods, and the accuracy of the observers. I did mention that ,if the process is repeatable, then you must have faith that the same observations will hold true to similar phenomena that we as of yet lack the tools to observe.
As for your opinion as a scientist??? As a biased journalist I put little stock into what is obviously a biased opinion. You have already closed the door onto something which you will not observe. It would have been sad if Hawking would have treated black holes in the same manner.
Originally posted by pig
originally posted by cancer-boy
1)Unfortunately, for you I'm the biggest jackass I know.
2)Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. 3) IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. 4) A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
1) Arrogant self delusion. A clear statement that you do not understand the message Jesus wanted you to hear.
2) We already had the thread so we're all well aware of the deliberate lie of the Creationist to redefine the Scientific meaning of the word theory into its more popular common usage.
3) Getoutahere. You just demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
4) Quite a remarkable statement from someone deluded, stupid, ignorant and with a clear intent to lie.
Hello, Im MarcUK, and somethimes I'm not very nice, and seeing as your occupation is "Dictator", I guess you're not here for a discussion anyway. Troll.
Now if you think that the scientific way of thinking is crap, watch out a little around you. Without sciences and the scientific way of thinking, you will not tape on any computer, will not have water, fridge, car, TV, phone ....
You will have nothing. Sciences have proved to work. You are surrounded by evidences of this. Feel free to ignore it
That's perfect Powerdoc. Ironic isn't it, that these "Creationist" Fundamentalists argue with us on Apple computers. You Bible blokes have any idea how much "science" is crammed in that little case? Thousands of years' worth my boy!
Originally posted by pig
Theory, is conjecture, a well educated guess that is more than likely to be correct due to past experience, but is just conjecture until proven mostly correct. IF if were verifible, then it would no longer be theory. A scientist you may claim to be. A fount of knowledge when it comes to the denotative and conotative meanings of words? I think not.
Thank you MarkUK <tag> I'll take over from here.
When we talk of the theory of evolution, we do impart the scientific meaning of the word 'theory.' In short: Scientists use the word 'hypothesis' for our daily work. Some hypotheses amount to a good idea based on reading the liturature, others have just a little evididence and some have a tone of evidence. The there are theories. They have so much evidence for them that most scientists will never actually give birth to one in their entire lives. We just work around the edges of them. Then there are the laws, these tend to be simple truths that have been verified beyond any reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by pig
As for the processes I spoke of, I did not question the "Scientific Process". I believe it to be quite sound. I do however question the intent, the methods, and the accuracy of the observers.
This statement makes no sense. You beleive the process, but somehow we (the scientific community) are all in a giant conspiracy to perform our research as poorly as possible. WTF??
Originally posted by pig
I did mention that ,if the process is repeatable, then you must have faith that the same observations will hold true to similar phenomena that we as of yet lack the tools to observe.
I live my life beleiving in reality.
Originally posted by pig
As for your opinion as a scientist??? As a biased journalist I put little stock into what is obviously a biased opinion. You have already closed the door onto something which you will not observe. It would have been sad if Hawking would have treated black holes in the same manner.
I guess all opinions are biased. If God wants to play hard to get then why should I beleive?