Don't dictate beliefs

There are 20 comments on the Sep 5, 2012, The Star Press story titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7158 Nov 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit of both. Dark matter keeps its density upon expansion. When you put that property into the laws of gravity, you get accelerating expansion.
Thanks, I'll remember that.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7159 Nov 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the goal is to find laws that *do* apply. What we know is that general relativity has to be modified to encompass the quantum aspects and we don't know how to do that.
I wonder whether CERN will come up with some new explanations.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7160 Nov 28, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an unknown dark matter that repels science believes. Because they can't find any reason for the universe to be expanding at an increasing rate.
That dark matter is not fact it is a guess and science in now in search of that dark matter. However even if that dark matter exist ( I think it does ) it cannot break apart a singularity in the middle of a black hole.
Can't it? How do you know this?

I'd say that dark matter/energy are provisional hypotheses to explain real phenomena. Unlike your failed god hypothesis, no-one is required to believe them.

If someone comes up with a better hypothesis based on further observations, they could be heaved out of the door. When does anything analogous ever happen in religion?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7161 Nov 28, 2012
London train is arriving - be back later!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#7162 Nov 28, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The glossary of my college introductory biology text,...
That's a couple of massive posts for you to just display your complete and total lack of comprehension on the topic of linguistic patterns used within the scientific community.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#7163 Nov 28, 2012
KJV, Oxford:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engl...

Added just a few years ago, I remember the day fondly, I love that word. When a word is used, by anyone, it gets added to the dictionaries eventually, because that's what they do.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#7164 Nov 29, 2012
No matter how much fundamentalists might protest to the contrary, there is a world of difference between “faith” in scientific theories (produced using the scientific method, and subject to near-continual testing and scrutiny) and faith in the entirely unsupported myths recorded 3000 years ago by slave-holding goat herders.
derek4 wrote:
From Wikipedia:
“Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,(April 23, 1858 – October 4, 1947) was a German theoretical physicist who ORIGINATED QUANTUM THEORY, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame rests primarily on his role as ORIGINATOR OF QUANTUM THEORY.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck
[Max] Planck “is recognised as the ORIGINATOR OF THE QUANTUM THEORY, while Heisenberg formulated one of the most eminent laws of quantum theory, the Uncertainty Principle, which is occasionally also referred to as the principle of indeterminacy.”
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/quantumth...
“Who is the ORIGINATOR OF THE QUANTUM THEORY?
Answer:“Max Planck 'discovered' Quantum theory in 1900. The theory basically describes energy being emitted in quanta each of which has an energy equal to h&#957;, where h is the Planck constant (named after its discoverer) and &#957; is the frequency of the radiation.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_originat...
“Max Planck:”- ORIGINATOR OF QUANTUM THEORY
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM4XRL26WD_index_0....
Max Planck
AKA Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck
Born: 23-Apr-1858
Birthplace: Kiel, Germany
Died: 4-Oct-1947
Executive summary: ORIGINATOR OF QUANTUM THEORY
http://www.nndb.com/people/229/000058055/
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7165 Nov 29, 2012
swerty wrote:
No matter how much fundamentalists might protest to the contrary, there is a world of difference between “faith” in scientific theories (produced using the scientific method, and subject to near-continual testing and scrutiny) and faith in the entirely unsupported myths recorded 3000 years ago by slave-holding goat herders.<quoted text>
Agreed. These fundies can drive you crazy.

These goat herders from 3000 years ago, just made up a history for themselves hundreds or thousands of years after the events were supposed to have happened. Any sane and rational person today knows this. But of course with creationist Christians we are not dealing with people who are sane or rational.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7166 Nov 29, 2012
swerty wrote:
No matter how much fundamentalists might protest to the contrary, there is a world of difference between “faith” in scientific theories (produced using the scientific method, and subject to near-continual testing and scrutiny) and faith in the entirely unsupported myths recorded 3000 years ago by slave-holding goat herders.<quoted text>
All faith belongs in the fiction section of the library. Unless its proven its to be regarded as fantasy & fraud.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7167 Nov 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
The free will God gave you was to accept him and go to heaven or choose Satan and go to hell..
But how do you know you have the right religion?

According to Muslims, Christians are polytheists, the Trinity is false, and "Shirk" associating partners with Allah is a grave sin. So according to them you may end up in hell.

According to some Catholics, Protestant theology is full of errors. You are saved by works and faith, the intercession of Mary as Mediatrix, and going to weekly Mass. So they may think your place in heaven in doubtful too.

Same goes with the rest of the world's religions, and gods past and present.

Can you see the problem here? All the religions and denominations within them teach contradictory things.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7168 Nov 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
neutrinos, which are light, fast, and plentiful
Not really matter is it?
Why would you say that? I would consider them to be matter. In fact, they have some of the characteristics of dark matter: they don't interact strongly with ordinary matter or light, for example. For a while, it was thought that neutrinos could *be* dark matter, but it turns out they don't have enough mass.
Last I heard light was energy although its not the dark energy we are talking about. they do deal with dark energy as part of dark matter.
Last I head they were expanding to dark energy also.
OK, I was not aware they had started dark energy probes yet. No, light is not the same as dark energy. Once again, dark energy keeps its density upon expansion (one reason it is called the energy of a vacuum). Light actually decreases density faster than matter does.

<nice description of the parts of Soudan omitted>

And none of those are about dark energy. WIMPS, for example, are a good candidate for dark matter.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7169 Nov 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
Dark matter some of which is light is not matter at all.
None of the dark matter is light. As to whether you want to call it matter or not is a question of definitions. What is your definition of matter?
Dark matter attracts and works on an individual bases while Dark matter repels but only seems to work as a whole (entire universe all at once) entity
Once again, this is wrong. Dark matter attracts, dark energy repels.
Sudan does deal in some dark energy experiment. And I was told was expanding to run 2 or 3 labs for dark energy.
Most of the proposals I have seen for dark energy have been astronomical--attempting to map out distribution, etc. Since they don't have any proposals (that I have seen) for what dark energy is made from, it seems strange for Soudan to be doing dark energy. On the other hand, I know it has been doing dark *matter* probes for a while.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7170 Nov 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832)
“French naturalist and zoologist. Cuvier was a major figure in natural sciences research in the early 19th century, and was instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils.”
Opposition to evolution
“He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form (see below). It is because of this fact and his understanding of animal anatomy and physiology, that Cuvier strongly objected to any notion of evolution. According to the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), "Cuvier did not believe in organic evolution, for any change in an organism's anatomy would have rendered it unable to survive. He studied the mummified cats and ibises that Geoffroy had brought back from Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and showed that they were no different from their living counterparts; Cuvier used this to support his claim that life forms did not evolve over time."
He also observed that Napoleon's expedition to Egypt had retrieved animals mummified thousands of years previously that seemed no different from their modern counterparts. "Certainly", Cuvier wrote, "one cannot detect any greater difference between these creatures and those we see, than between the human mummies and the skeletons of present-day men." Lamarck dismissed this conclusion, arguing that evolution happened much too slowly to be observed over just a few thousand years. Cuvier, however, in turn criticized how Lamarck and other naturalists conveniently introduced hundreds of thousands of years "with a stroke of a pen" to uphold their theory. Instead, he argued that one can judge what a long time would produce only by multiplying what a lesser time produces. Since a lesser time produced no organic changes, neither, probably, would a much longer time.
Cuvier was critical of the evolutionary theories proposed by his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another. He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier
[“Cuvier strongly objected to any notion of evolution.”]
Notice that Cuvier died before Darwin did his stuff. So, when Cuvier was alive, no mechanism for evolution that was feasible had been proposed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7171 Nov 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“James Clerk Maxwell (1831 – 1879) was a Scottish physicist who formulated Electromagnetic Theory.”
“Almighty God, Who has created man in Thine own image, and made him a living soul that he might seek after Thee, and have dominion over Thy creatures, teach us to study the works of Thy hands, that we may subdue the earth to our use, and strengthen the reason for Thy service; so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him Who Thou has sent, to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins. All of which we ask in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord.”
... James Clerk Maxwell, a prayer of his found among his papers as cited by E.L. Williams and G. Mulfinger in their work, Physical Science for Christian Schools (1974)
“No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change … The exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it … the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.”
... James Clerk Maxwell, Discourse on Molecules, a paper presented to the British Association at Bradford (1873)
http://www.christianevidences.org/relevant-pi...
Maxwell was a physicist, not a biologist. Evolution is a theory about biology. And no, molecules do not evolve in the sense of biological evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7172 Nov 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes, I know. I already acknowledged that.
<quoted text>
Yes, thank you. I am aware of that as well. I'm not sure what your point is.
<quoted text>
Yes, I also know that, and noted as much.
I'm not sure why you're telling me, though. Is your comment related to Dim's claim that Planck was the father of modern physics, or to my rebuttal to it naming Einstein instead?
I think the debate about who is the father is slightly silly. Both contributed. Planck was first, but Einstein did more substantial work. But it was really Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger that made the quantum thoery.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7173 Nov 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder whether CERN will come up with some new explanations.
There are possibilities that some aspects of quantum gravity will show up at the LHC, but the main energy levels for QG are way beyond what we can do now with our technology. The LHC is operating at about 7000 GeV and quantum gravity kicks in at about 10^19 GeV.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7174 Nov 29, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the dark matter is light. As to whether you want to call it matter or not is a question of definitions.
Dark matter is what exists between the ears of these young earth creationists. Just dumbing it down for our native YECs :)
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7175 Nov 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
[from Tuesday]
Adam
How did the universe start?
And why?
To be honest, I dont have the answers. All I have figured out is Christianity has the wrong answers.

When you look at things rationally, we dont know a great deal. But the scientific models best fit the reality.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7176 Nov 29, 2012
It has not gone unnoticed that atheists distort, lie, and change words that I've posted to try to cover their tracks. That's an old atheist tactic – one of their favorites.

For example, sources I posted stated that Max Planck was founder of quantum theory, an undeniable fact.

I personally attributed nothing else to Max Planck, even though he has many other high achievements.

Nevertheless, according to other posts I've seen, the fact that Planck was founder or quantum theory was falsely disputed by at least one ignorant (but arrogant) atheist in the forum, who now tries to wiggle out unsuccessfully from the hole he dug for himself.

My post was correct as written, and validated with reputable sources; therefore it stands.

Three are others:

“Max Planck introduced the element of discontinuity we call the quantum a century ago.”
http://www.google.com/url...

Max Planck – founder of quantum theory:
(from Indian Academy of Sciences)
http://www.google.com/url...

Should their be any further disputes, take them up with the publishers of the several web pages I posted yesterday and the two links above. I place no value on the unsolicited opinions about Max Planck's accomplishments from unknown atheists in the forum who have no established credibility.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7177 Nov 29, 2012
swerty wrote:
No matter how much fundamentalists might protest to the contrary, there is a world of difference between “faith” in scientific theories (produced using the scientific method, and subject to near-continual testing and scrutiny) and faith in the entirely unsupported myths recorded 3000 years ago by slave-holding goat herders.<quoted text>
Your unsubstantiated opinion wins you no points, but thanks for confirming that atheists live by faith in scientific “theories”

If you look back into the forum, you will find that most atheists say science has nothing to do with atheism, and certainly most atheists deny that they have any faith. At least you and I agree that is not true.

Where we disagree is that you have put your faith in the wrong place - fraudulent science.

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min Uncle Sam 238,233
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 6,111
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr ChristineM 2,066
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr EdmondWA 14,613
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 5 hr thetruth 9,344
News Confessions of a black atheist 5 hr TrueLogic 424
News The Consequences of Atheism 8 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 1,321
More from around the web