KJV

United States

#2271 Jan 14, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Consider it another level of accuracy.

"Suppose you have a length of wood and you want to measure it. First, you use a yard stick with markings only on the feet, and find that the wood is 7 feet long. Then you decide to use a better ruler and find the wood is 7 feet 2 inches long. Then you decide to use a better one and find it is 7 feet 2 1/4 inches long. You can never reach the truth (the exact size) because you don't have a prefect measuring device, but are all the measurements *false*? No, they are better and better approximations to the truth.

This is how science works: you figure things out at one level of accuracy and see how far you can understand things there. Then, after you get better instruments and better techniques, you look again and see if what you previously did works at the new level of accuracy. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, you have to modify your ideas, but the lower level of accuracy still works! So rather than being completely wrong, the older scientific ideas are actually just good approximations and have been refined by new abilities.

This has happened multiple times in science. Newtonian physics gives a very good description of how planets move, how buildings stand, and many phenomena at the ordinary level of human existence. But, as we probed deeper, we found that it doesn't work for very small things (like atoms and smaller) or very fast things (close to the speed of light) or very strong gravitational fields (like around black holes). So, it had to be refined to account for these new observations. This lead to relativity and quantum mechanics. Did this make Newton's theories *false*? In one sense, yes, but in a practical sense not. We still use Newtonian physics to send probes to the moon, to design cars, etc, because it is an extremely good *approximation*.

This is the strength of science: it can adjust to new and more refined observations while preserving the work previously done. We can realize that we *never* have the exact truth, but can find better and better approximations as we study more.
Religion, on the other hand, claims an absolute truth at the beginning. It either ignores new evidence, or modifies its beliefs (silently!) while claiming nothing has changed. By refusing to acknowledge ignorance and adapt to new information, it becomes dogmatic and dangerous. By insisting that all those who believe other things are evil, it, itself, becomes evil. By claiming certain knowledge, it gives up on the path of wisdom all together."

Anon

There, don't you think that's much better than magic?

Lol
Really a bad argument as the date of the universe was given at 13.7 billion years. Notice the decimal point seven now the new date given my one of your gods 15 billion years old. This is not a improved yard stick with better markings. This is simple adding 1.3 billion years to the age of the universe. There was no explanation as to why he was changing the age of the universe.(like he found a better yard stick)
KJV

United States

#2272 Jan 14, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>I'm only quoting what it says.

Perhaps you should take it up with the author.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--(Romans 5:12)

Original Sin as you (hopefully) know is that first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-7). It is clearly a sin that involved both of them. And yet, both in Scripture and Tradition when this sin is referred to formally by name it is called the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” It is also described as coming to us “through one man” not “through Adam and Eve” or “through a man and a woman.” Consider the following quotes from Scripture and then from the Catechism

Like Adam, they [Israel] have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there.(Hosea 6:7)

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam….(Rom 5:12, 14)

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor15:22)

All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms:“By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”:“sin came into the world through one man….

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin….

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2273 Jan 14, 2013
Why?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
They used the measurement "inches"
back then did they?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2274 Jan 14, 2013
To misspell belief is juvenile.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain your believe in spontaneous life.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2275 Jan 14, 2013
Wrong.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did Stephen Hawking just add over a billion years to the age of the universe? He added 1.3 billion years just at the drop of a hat. Like it was no big thing. But that's how science works isn't it, when things start not making sense they just add a billion or more years for their slower magic to work.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2276 Jan 14, 2013
Rev 22:22 This was a work of fiction.
Yellowknightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
rev 18:21 Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again.+ 22 And the sound of singers who accompany themselves on the harp and of musicians and of flutists and of trumpeters will never be heard in you again,+ and no craftsman of any trade* will ever be found in you again, and no sound of a millstone will ever be heard in you again, 23 and no light of a lamp will ever shine in you again, and no voice of a bridegroom and of a bride will ever be heard in you again;+ because your traveling merchants+ were the top-ranking men+ of the earth, for by your spiritistic+ practice* all the nations were misled. 24 Yes, in her was found the blood+ of prophets+ and of holy ones+ and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.+
rev 17 : 15 And he says to me:The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting, mean peoples and crowds* and nations and tongues.+ 16 And the ten horns+ that you saw, and the wild beast,+ these will hate the harlot+ and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire
if yu read revelation chapter 16,17,18 and 19 or even just the scriptures i have quoted, The only organziation it could be talking about that sits on many waters no matter what nation orlanguage is religion.
it is evident it is talking about religion. Religion is very rich and nations do have weddings and marriages inside of the them and they do live in shameless luxuary look at the pope
and leaders of islam christendom,islam buddhism,jews the religions leaders are ussually always involved with goverments and kings of the earth,
I can send you the whole chapters of revelation 16,17 18 and 19
or you can read it yourself.
based on these pro[hecies it made me believe the bible is definetl not a story.
KJV

United States

#2277 Jan 14, 2013
"
IS THE GRAND CANYON PROOF OF NOAH’S FLOOD?
Written by: Creation TodayTags: Flood & GeologyDifficulty: Beginner

Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah’s Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.
Evidence of Noah’s Flood
The evidence does, however, point to Noah’s Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah’s Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Canyon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.
So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don’t flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah’s Flood."

http://www.creationtoday.org/grand-canyon-pro...
KJV

United States

#2279 Jan 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>To misspell belief is juvenile.
Yup. I'm bad.
KJV

United States

#2278 Jan 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Nine inch nails, allegedly
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2280 Jan 14, 2013
No.

Next!
KJV wrote:
"
IS THE GRAND CANYON PROOF OF NOAH’S FLOOD?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#2281 Jan 14, 2013
Why?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Nine inch nails, allegedly

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#2282 Jan 14, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did Stephen Hawking just add over a billion years to the age of the universe? He added 1.3 billion years just at the drop of a hat. Like it was no big thing. But that's how science works isn't it, when things start not making sense they just add a billion or more years for their slower magic to work.
Time wrought change is hardly magic, but if you have questions maybe you should take it up with the author.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2283 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--(Romans 5:12)
Original Sin as you (hopefully) know is that first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-7). It is clearly a sin that involved both of them. And yet, both in Scripture and Tradition when this sin is referred to formally by name it is called the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” It is also described as coming to us “through one man” not “through Adam and Eve” or “through a man and a woman.” Consider the following quotes from Scripture and then from the Catechism
Like Adam, they [Israel] have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there.(Hosea 6:7)
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam….(Rom 5:12, 14)
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor15:22)
All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms:“By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”:“sin came into the world through one man….
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin….
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.
Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions.

I already knew that, you don't have to give examples.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2284 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did Stephen Hawking just add over a billion years to the age of the universe? He added 1.3 billion years just at the drop of a hat. Like it was no big thing. But that's how science works isn't it, when things start not making sense they just add a billion or more years for their slower magic to work.
No, he did not. The estimates of the age of the universe at the time he wrote that paper were 15+-3 billion. Now, they are 13.7+-.059 billion. The difference? The error bars got smaller.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2285 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Really a bad argument as the date of the universe was given at 13.7 billion years. Notice the decimal point seven now the new date given my one of your gods 15 billion years old. This is not a improved yard stick with better markings. This is simple adding 1.3 billion years to the age of the universe. There was no explanation as to why he was changing the age of the universe.(like he found a better yard stick)
Hawking wrote the 15 billion year estimate when the error bars were about 3 billion years. Now the error bars are about 59 million years. So, yes, IANS explanation is *exactly* what happened.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2286 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention failed theory's
The theory of Relativity
The theory of Quantum Mechanics
String Theory.
Wrong. General relativity and Quantum mechanics are the most successful theories we have *by far* when applied to their areas of applicability.
To list a few.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
This is a simplistic description, but it fails miserably in practice. For example, Newton's laws are *known* to be wrong. We know of a great number of situations where they simply fail.

BUT, they are an incredibly accurate approximation in every-day life and are simpler to use that the improvements. So they are NOT 'thrown out'. Instead, we keep attention of the situations where they are known to fail and avoid them when using newton's laws.

In the same way, we have *never* had any observations that contradict either GR or QM. General Relativity applies to high velocities and large masses and gives very good predictions of the results in its realm. Quantum mechanics deals with the atomic level and below and does incredibly well at that level.

Now, we *know* that the two need to be merged into a more general theory. That has been known for the last 70+ years and much work has been done towards this goal.

But, in their areas of applicability, both GR and QM are incredibly good theories. Even if a more general theory is found, they will be used as very good approximations (much better than Newton's). They are most certainly NOT 'failed theories'.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
It is hardly a 'little known secret'. It has been a HUGE question at the center of physics for the last 70+ years. I knew about it when I was 13. Einstein spent the last days of his life attempting to solve this question.

Furthermore, the whole reason string theory is considered is because it *does* merge GR and QM into one consistent theory. And Brian Greene was simply setting up for an introduction to string theory (which he was one of the first investigators of).

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2287 Jan 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry.
It's a load of superstitious mumbo jumbo.
No its fact.
Because the bible says that her rivers will dry upmeanimg her ingluence on people will be falling
You see that today.

People are not as religious as they once were and the power of religious has fallen tremendously.

Its going to happen rather we believe it or not .

The bible even notes that its defense will be little but over all its going to happen out of nowhere.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2289 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Point: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Until you prove your god, your armchair critique of proven science is a waste of your time.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2290 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Point: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Quick! An area where science doesn't quite have an answer - throw God into there!!!

It's your last, best hope!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2291 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have that wrong. Eve was deceived but Adam knowing full well what he was doing choose to disobey God and ate the fruit. It was Adam who brought sin and death into the world.
No, you have that all wrong. The Shinto kamisama found the earth as it is and decided to tend it.

What you "know" is actually just a story. Shintoism is correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 12 min Eman 22,548
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 58 min Attention 228,046
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 527
Here's a place for Patrick's off-topic articles 2 hr Thinking 2
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 2 hr Liam R 17
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 3 hr BeHereNow 365
Glorify God, our Heavenly Father 5 hr nOgOd 2
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••