Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Evolved Wookie]

...you mean we're back to the 'because current maths doesn't define it, is is fundamentally undefinable' fallacy? I'd rather hoped we'd got past that by now...naiive, perhaps.

 

[Marcus]

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding fruit, whose seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divede the day fron the night;and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years.

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.


There is no way you can stretch this to be in any kind of agreement with cosmology.

 

[FireGarden]

To clear up that other issue, I don't think anyone is claiming Einstein didn't make an error when he changed his calculations. We're claiming the error wasn't algebraic.

Yup, that is the opperative word. It's clear that the error Einstein made was, like you said, one of not trusting his math. It had nothing to do with the algebra.

There are two different errors.
There is the error of judgement, when Einstein decided to look for a solution which would fit with the dogma of the time: a static universe.

Then there is the error quoted by Doc, where Friedmann corrects Einstein's maths. This error was not made by Einstein while he was writing up GR. He made the error while criticising Friedmann's solution. I suppose it is possible that Einstein made a similar error when rejecting his own non-static solution -- but I've not heard of that.

I have found no quote of Friedmann saying that a static universe is mathematically wrong.

 

[DOC]

If the bible is not to be taken literally then your statement that the big bang theory is science's way of describing the biblical truth falls flat.

If the biblical order of events can not be taken literally it calls into question the posts you made suggesting that the events in the bible matched the scientific view.

Not so. For example the site, "Genesis and Science are Compatible", talks of how the author of Genesis used the 7 day week to describe creation and how this could have been a way for God to satisfy the curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people before they were capable of understanding the true specifics of His creation and its time frame. So when I say I'm "currently" not a literalist, that doesn't mean that I think the underlying essence of some of the the things in the Bible aren't true.

 

[Nogbad]

Not so. For example the site, "Genesis and Science are Compatible", talks of how Moses used the 7 day week to describe creation and how this could have been a way for God to satisfy the curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people before they were capable of understanding the true specifics of His creation and its time frame. So when I say I'm "currently" not a literalist, that doesn't mean that I think the underling essence of some of the the things in the Bible aren't true.

I appreciate it is a typo but I am rather taken by the notion of underling essences.

Can it be a female underling in skimpy attire....please

 

[DOC]

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding fruit, whose seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divede the day fron the night;and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years.

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.


There is no way you can stretch this to be in any kind of agreement with cosmology.

Are you saying the earth's atmosphere in its early history is the same as we now experience 5 billion years later. Remember there wasn't even oxygen in the atmosphere in the early stages of the earth.

Gen. 1:14-18 - . . . to separate day from night, etc.
These clearly refer to the Sun and Moon. But the earlier reference regarding the Sun's existence (Gen. 1:4) seems to make it clear that these Scriptures are not referring to the original existence of the Sun and Moon. A possible scientific explanation is that, early on, the Earth's atmosphere held a very large amount of water vapor or other translucent gases, which would have contributed to much more cloudiness than we experience today. It is quite possible that the sky everywhere had been permanently covered by a thick layer of clouds, obscuring the Sun and Moon from being visible from the Earth's surface. In addition, science is pretty sure that a lot of volcanic activity was still occurring, which would have kept large amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Those things being true, it might have been that the atmosphere had been forever cloudy. Day and night would be recognizably different, but actually being able to see the Sun or Moon from the Earth would have been impossible. This Scripture might be referring to the cloudiness becoming less, as volcanic dust settled and as a lot of the water vapor in the clouds condensed as rain, so that the Sun and Moon could finally be seen from the Earth. There is even more logical support for this. As the plants were removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and replacing it with (transparent) oxygen, they were reducing the "greenhouse effect" and allowing the atmosphere to become cooler, adding to the condensation of raindrops, and further clearing the sky of clouds.

This might even offer a suggestion to science regarding extreme cloudiness in that era, which I have not heard proposed before within the scientific community. The Bible providing evidence on which science can grow, imagine that!


Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

 

[DOC]

In other words, If science agrees with the bible, the bible is proven true. If science disagrees with the bible, science if false.


Heads I win....

non sequitur, my conjecture of what might have happened when God created the world has nothing to do with science it was an unproven conjecture.

And how come nobody complains when science uses the word Bang to describe the beginning of the known universe but they complain when I use the word to describe the beginning of the known universe.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

And this old cloud of dust and water vapour that obscured the sun, do you have an approximate timeline "according to science?"

 

[Marcus]

Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

Absolutely and completely wrong. The amazing amount of twisting required to shoehorn this fable into a scientific framework is evidence only of yours(and others) desire to make it fit.

I will give you a bit of credit for not being a literalist. However, this means you can interpet it any way you like to make it fit your beleifs. Obviously false information can be explained away as allegory. The book is a fable, get over it.

 

[joobz]

non sequitur,

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -inigo montoya

my conjecture of what might have happened when God created the world has nothing to do with science it was an unproven conjecture.

Your "conjecture" is merely a attempt at shoe horning the bible to agree with science. But the problem with that is you need to apply so much flexibility in the interpretation of the biblical text that it becomes rather meaningless. Using the same degree of flexibility, one could have last week's TV guide be interpreted as a genesis story which agrees with science.


Simple and plain questions:
What happened to this firmament?
Why did god, if the stars were already created, need to set them into the firmament of the heaven after he had already created the earth and the plants and seeds.

And how come nobody complains when science uses the word Bang to describe the beginning of the known universe but they complain when I use the word to describe the beginning of the known universe.

Now, you see, THAT's a Non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with your conjectures and I had not complained about your use of Bang. As such, it does not logically follow the argument at all.

 

[FireGarden]

As the plants were removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and replacing it with (transparent) oxygen, they were reducing the "greenhouse effect" and allowing the atmosphere to become cooler, adding to the condensation of raindrops, and further clearing the sky of clouds.

This might even offer a suggestion to science regarding extreme cloudiness in that era, which I have not heard proposed before within the scientific community. The Bible providing evidence on which science can grow, imagine that!


Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Gen 1:11 --- fruit bearing trees.
Gen 1:20 --- sea-creatures and birds.
Gen 1:24 --- land critters.

Do you believe that trees came before sea/land critters? Do you believe that birds came before land animals?

previous post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3978759&postcount=699

 

[drkitten]

Are you saying the earth's atmosphere in its early history is the same as we now experience 5 billion years later. Remember there wasn't even oxygen in the atmosphere in the early stages of the earth.

If there wasn't oxygen, then what kept the "grass, and herb yielding fruit, whose seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind" from asphyxiating due to lack of oxygen?

A possible scientific explanation is that, early on, the Earth's atmosphere held a very large amount of water vapor or other translucent gases, which would have contributed to much more cloudiness than we experience today. It is quite possible that the sky everywhere had been permanently covered by a thick layer of clouds, obscuring the Sun and Moon from being visible from the Earth's surface.

... in which case, how did the "grass, and herb yielding fruit, whose seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind" perform photosynthesis (which requires light)? Without light, plants die, as you can confirm for yourself by leaving a piece of plywood out on your lawn for a few weeks.

This might even offer a suggestion to science regarding extreme cloudiness in that era, which I have not heard proposed before within the scientific community.

Well, yes. The reason that it's not been proposed (seriously) is because it's out of the box wrong. Aside from the biochemical impossibility, there's also the problem that the timing is wrong. We know, for example, when we first see grass and fruit-bearing plant fossils, and it's well after the establishment of photosynthetic bacteria, which in turn has to be well after the establishment of a transparent atmosphere.

The Bible providing evidence on which science can grow, imagine that!

I can easily imagine it. I can also imagine unicorns delivering pizza. The real question is whether or not it has ever happened. In this case, the "evidence" can be shown to be nothing of the sort in a few paragraphs.

Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

Not so far, they aren't.

 

[wollery]

3 days ago;

Here are some things a little meatier from someone with a degree in physics from the University of Chicago.

The title of the article is "Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!"

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

2 days ago;

...snip...

I tell you what DOC, you find a well published serious researcher who can offer a coherent cosmological framework which is consistent with the biblical creation myth, and I'll take the time to address it properly. Until then you're just picking unqualified apologists, who have no idea what they're talking about, and you're doing it for the simple fact that they say what you want to hear.

Yesterday;

Gen 1:1 can be considered an introductory statement. This site talks about that:

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Today;

Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

I guess you're not going with the well constructed argument made by a qualified cosmologist option.

Oh well.

 

[DOC]

Absolutely and completely wrong. The amazing amount of twisting required to shoehorn this fable into a scientific framework is evidence only of yours(and others) desire to make it fit.

I will give you a bit of credit for not being a literalist. However, this means you can interpet it any way you like to make it fit your beleifs. Obviously false information can be explained away as allegory. The book is a fable, get over it.

This renowned physicist has basically said the same thing about scientists that advocate string theory.

From the book, (yes, I know, now its time to make fun of the source, but if it's wrong prove it.) "The Complete Idiot's guide to "String Theory" by George Musser.

["The renowned physicist Richard Feynman said in a 1987 BBC interview,

"I think all this superstring stuff is crazy." He elaborated, "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with experiment, they cook up an explanation."]

 

[Mark Felt]

This renowned physicist has basically said the same thing about scientists that advocate string theory.

From the book, (yes, I know, now its time to make fun of the source, but if it's wrong prove it.) "The Complete Idiot's guide to "String Theory" by George Musser.

["The renowned physicist Richard Feynman said in a 1987 BBC interview,

"I think all this superstring stuff is crazy." He elaborated, "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with experiment, they cook up an explanation."]

..

In the early 1980s, Edward Witten discovered that most theories of quantum gravity could not accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino. This led him, in collaboration with Luiz Alvarez-Gaume to study violations of the conservation laws in gravity theories with anomalies, concluding that type I string theories were inconsistent. Green and Schwarz discovered a contribution to the anomaly that Witten and Alvarez-Gaume had missed, which restricted the gauge group of the type I string theory to be SO(32). In coming to understand this calculation, Edward Witten became convinced that string theory was truly a consistent theory of gravity, and he became a high-profile advocate. Following Witten's lead, between 1984 and 1986, hundreds of physicists started to work in this field, and this is sometimes called the first superstring revolution.

 

[DOC]

Today;I guess you're not going with the well constructed argument made by a qualified cosmologist option.

If his argument is not well constructed then explain where.

 

[Hokulele]

If his argument is not well constructed then explain where.

Way to miss the point, DOC.

 

[Mark Felt]

If his argument is not well constructed then explain where.

As mentioned above, the critical matter is that the SEQUENCE of events be the same. The following presentation of Genesis 1, with comments regarding current scientific thoughts regarding the times of those events, is meant to make the case for this. There appears to be AMAZING compatibility between the two! Statistically, it represents staggering scientific proof that the Bible MUST BE true and accurate. There IS the one item that does NOT match up (the appearance of birds is one position different), but the matching of the sequences is otherwise quite striking. A mathematical statistical analysis of the comparison of the two sequences implies that there is far less than one chance in a billion that Genesis 1 could have been written with the sequence it has, without God's knowledge of the correct sequence. (the statistical reasoning.) Since science has only been able to determine the times of these events within the past few decades, the question arises to scientists: "How can you explain the writing of Genesis 1 over 3,000 years ago?" No one (except God) knew the correct sequence! How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals, or that Light came before everything else?

..

 

[joobz]

["The renowned physicist Richard Feynman said in a 1987 BBC interview,

"I think all this superstring stuff is crazy." He elaborated, "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with experiment, they cook up an explanation."]

Well, Richard Feyman is correct! If you have experimental evidence which contradicts a theory, that proves the theory is wrong(or at least needs adjustment). Feyman's point is that EXPERIMENT (observation of reality and the way the world IS) trumps theory.

The scientific evidence is that land animals occured before birds.

The genesis account (or Genesis theory if you will)
says birds occured before land animals.

Since, the theory disagrees with the evidence, that means the theory is wrong.



Your quote by Richard Feyman actually weakens your case.

 

[schlitt]

Your quote by Richard Feyman actually weakens your case.

Not possible.

First he would have to have a case.