Science << vs >> Religion

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122 Jan 29, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking snakes?
Yeah, you've been following one.

Revelation 12:9 (NKJV)
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world;
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#123 Jan 30, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Proofs only exist in mathematics & no fallible human beings have absolute certainty about anything except their existence. That means you have neither proof nor absolute certainty about the past before humans or any moment in the future. You confuse inference with proof or absolute certainty. You do not know that any laws have always been the same, you think & believe they have. May be you are right, but this does not mean you *know.*
I happen to think you are wrong. Barry Setterfield showed a few decades ago that the velocity of light is not a constant.
Don't start me on the physics of stars. Stars are NOT nuclear powered!![This is a subject for elsewhere.]
Again you show that you think "proof" and "absolute certainty"are synonymous. In the real world there is no "absolute certainty" but there is "proof" beyond a reasonble doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is determined by the repeatedly consistant results of experiments and observations with no contrary experimental results or observations. That's the highest standard of proof you can expect in the real world. An inference does not have to be supported by repeatedly consistant experimental results and observations with absense of contrary results and obervations.

Barry Setterfield is not a physicist or astronomer and neither are you and neither am I. There is no scientific evidence to support Setterfield's speculation that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now. Physicists, astronmers and even other creationists realize that a faster speed of light in the past would have produced many phenomena which would be observable today that have not been observed.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#124 Jan 30, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! Such irony. Your vs you're. As if you haven't already demonstrated your utter STUPIDITY.
Thank you kind sir for you're chickenshit. Now, any time you'd like to address your failed theology noted above I'll thoughtfully consider your comments.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#125 Jan 30, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>And still you are ashamed to say who your god is. He/she/it must be really proud of your IGNORANCE.
His God is probably a loving God, rather than a sick, psychotic torturer like your God.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#126 Jan 30, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
His God is probably a loving God, rather than a sick, psychotic torturer like your God.
There is one commandment in the Bible that in my mind overshadows all the others:

Love one another as I have loved you.

I freely admit I'm just a work in progress. Being constantly condemned to everlasting torment by a bunch of illiterate yokels makes this a good place for that work.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#127 Jan 30, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you kind sir for you're chickenshit. Now, any time you'd like to address your failed theology noted above I'll thoughtfully consider your comments.
I'm here to debate Christianity. You're the COWARD. Who is your god? Or are you just STUPID?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128 Jan 30, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
His God is probably a loving God, rather than a sick, psychotic torturer like your God.
No doubt he makes up his god to please himself.

Yes, my God is indeed a torturer, as you have chosen to soon find out.

THE FURNACE OF FIRE

Mark 9:43-44 (NKJV)
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
44 where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129 Jan 30, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
There is one commandment in the Bible that in my mind overshadows all the others:
Love one another as I have loved you.
I freely admit I'm just a work in progress. Being constantly condemned to everlasting torment by a bunch of illiterate yokels makes this a good place for that work.
See above.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#130 Jan 30, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>I'm here to debate Christianity. You're the COWARD. Who is your god? Or are you just STUPID?
Your inference that I am without religion is incorrect and I am actually torn between two faiths; while your god's promise of eternal life is indeed persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwok, is promising a fat little pig and all the coconuts I can carry.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#131 Jan 30, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>See above.
I always have.
LGK

Chester, UK

#132 Jan 30, 2014
Anynomious Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it reversed..The evidence is the lack of evidence you, or anyone else can provide showing the laws of physics have been breached. Please give me your evidence..
In 1998 the US National Institute of Standards & Technology showed that the gravitational constant G varied by 1.3%. In 2002 MIT showed that G varies diurnally. Between 1973 & 2010 G varied 40x greater than the margin of error (as expressed by std deviations).

In 2010 data from different telescopes confirmed that the fine structure constant, alpha varies. This had earlier been described by John Webb but thought to have been in error. The new data confirmed that the original results were in fact correct.

Between 1928 to 1945 the velocity of light decreased.

Now, it only takes demonstration of one constant variation to show that they change. Thus far, at least 3 have been shown to change. Given this, the belief that they don't change flies in the face of evidence.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#133 Jan 30, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inference that I am without religion is incorrect and I am actually torn between two faiths; while your god's promise of eternal life is indeed persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwok, is promising a fat little pig and all the coconuts I can carry.
So you choose STUPID? And you call Christians stupid. LOL!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#134 Jan 30, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I always have.
Your father the Devil has blinded you. He wants your eternal company.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (NKJV)
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe,
LGK

Chester, UK

#135 Jan 30, 2014
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you show that you think "proof" and "absolute certainty"are synonymous. In the real world there is no "absolute certainty" but there is "proof" beyond a reasonble doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is determined by the repeatedly consistant results of experiments and observations with no contrary experimental results or observations. That's the highest standard of proof you can expect in the real world. An inference does not have to be supported by repeatedly consistant experimental results and observations with absense of contrary results and obervations.
Barry Setterfield is not a physicist or astronomer and neither are you and neither am I. There is no scientific evidence to support Setterfield's speculation that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now. Physicists, astronmers and even other creationists realize that a faster speed of light in the past would have produced many phenomena which would be observable today that have not been observed.
You might want to read this http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

The authors conclude that the evidence for change in the velocity of light constant, c is "very strong."
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#136 Jan 30, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to read this http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html
The authors conclude that the evidence for change in the velocity of light constant, c is "very strong."
So-called "paper' published in the journal Galilean Electrodynamics.

Wait, WHAT?

Galilean Electrodynamics
http://timeblimp.com/...

Quote:

"So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why Einstein was wrong.(In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? For one thing, it’d be nice if you could get it published in a well-respected physics journal, like Physics Review Letters, or Nature, or Science. But for some reason, they won’t accept your paper. What do you do? Eureka! Found your own scientific journal!

Print out and leave lying around the office, for maximum impressiveness
Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Beckmann

"Petr Beckmann was also a frequent and colorful participant in Usenet debates. In them, he claimed to have debunked Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in his book Einstein Plus Two as well as in a disputatious journal, Galilean Electrodynamics, which he also founded. The History of &#960; also expresses his intense and colorful opposition to Catholicism, Naziism, and Communism."

In good company, as always, eh, LGK? LOL
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#137 Jan 30, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1998 the US National Institute of Standards & Technology showed that the gravitational constant G varied by 1.3%. In 2002 MIT showed that G varies diurnally. Between 1973 & 2010 G varied 40x greater than the margin of error (as expressed by std deviations).
The gravitational constant was not measured until seventy-one years after Newton's death. The measurements of G, the gravitational constant, vary because it is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies.

“The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure to high accuracy.”- George T. Gillies Ph.D., Engineering Physics, University of Virginia

“Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G [the gravitational constant]. We know the strength of gravity hasn’t been fluctuating over the past 200 years, for example, because if so, the orbits of the planets around the sun would have changed…”- Terry Quinn of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, quoted in Scientific American by Clara Moskowitz, Sep 18, 2013

Your claim that…

“the gravitational constant G varied by 1.3%” and that “G varies diurnally” and that “Between 1973 & 2010 G varied 40x greater than the margin of error…”

…are due to anything more than the difficulty of measurement comes from the book “Science Set Free” written by Rupert Sheldrake, a pharmacist, lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology.
LGK wrote:
In 2010 data from different telescopes confirmed that the fine structure constant, alpha varies. This had earlier been described by John Webb but thought to have been in error. The new data confirmed that the original results were in fact correct.
“Most physicists didn't really buy their [Webb et al] original result since the constraints were pretty weak and the effect quite small. The biggest criticisms that most people have made is that it's possible that Webb and his collaborators haven't correctly analyzed the errors in their measurements and his ‘signal’ is really ‘noise.’ This is a totally fair criticism, and if you ask me, it's one most likely to shake out of all of this.”– Dr. Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University
LGK wrote:
Between 1928 to 1945 the velocity of light decreased.
The speed of light didn't change. What changed was technology and our ability to measure and to define the speed of light.

Again Rupert Sheldrake a pharmacist, parapsychologist (ghost buster).
LGK wrote:
Now, it only takes demonstration of one constant variation to show that they change. Thus far, at least 3 have been shown to change. Given this, the belief that they don't change flies in the face of evidence.
It takes only one "verified" demonstration of a variation of a constant. That hasn't happened yet.
LGK

West Felton, UK

#138 Jan 30, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
So-called "paper' published in the journal Galilean Electrodynamics.
Wait, WHAT?
Galilean Electrodynamics
http://timeblimp.com/...
Quote:
"So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why Einstein was wrong.(In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? For one thing, it’d be nice if you could get it published in a well-respected physics journal, like Physics Review Letters, or Nature, or Science. But for some reason, they won’t accept your paper. What do you do? Eureka! Found your own scientific journal!
Print out and leave lying around the office, for maximum impressiveness
Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Beckmann
"Petr Beckmann was also a frequent and colorful participant in Usenet debates. In them, he claimed to have debunked Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in his book Einstein Plus Two as well as in a disputatious journal, Galilean Electrodynamics, which he also founded. The History of &#960; also expresses his intense and colorful opposition to Catholicism, Naziism, and Communism."
In good company, as always, eh, LGK? LOL
If you can't deal with the information, you could always attack the source, it's much much easier. Please try another one, that's old trick & too easy to see through.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#139 Jan 30, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't deal with the information, you could always attack the source, it's much much easier. Please try another one, that's old trick & too easy to see through.
If you can't defend the integrity of the whackjob nonsense you post and you can't justify why this supposed brilliant paper could not be published in a respected scientific journal rather than the author's OWN VANITY JOURNAL, you could always attack the source of the information about these kooks' deceptive practices.

That's very much an old trick of YOURS, & too easy to see through.
LGK

West Felton, UK

#140 Jan 30, 2014
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The gravitational constant was not measured until seventy-one years after Newton's death. The measurements of G, the gravitational constant, vary because it is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies.
“The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure to high accuracy.”- George T. Gillies Ph.D., Engineering Physics, University of Virginia
“Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G [the gravitational constant]. We know the strength of gravity hasn’t been fluctuating over the past 200 years, for example, because if so, the orbits of the planets around the sun would have changed…”- Terry Quinn of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, quoted in Scientific American by Clara Moskowitz, Sep 18, 2013
Your claim that…
“the gravitational constant G varied by 1.3%” and that “G varies diurnally” and that “Between 1973 & 2010 G varied 40x greater than the margin of error…”
…are due to anything more than the difficulty of measurement comes from the book “Science Set Free” written by Rupert Sheldrake, a pharmacist, lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology.
<quoted text>
“Most physicists didn't really buy their [Webb et al] original result since the constraints were pretty weak and the effect quite small. The biggest criticisms that most people have made is that it's possible that Webb and his collaborators haven't correctly analyzed the errors in their measurements and his ‘signal’ is really ‘noise.’ This is a totally fair criticism, and if you ask me, it's one most likely to shake out of all of this.”– Dr. Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University
<quoted text>
The speed of light didn't change. What changed was technology and our ability to measure and to define the speed of light.
Again Rupert Sheldrake a pharmacist, parapsychologist (ghost buster).
<quoted text>
It takes only one "verified" demonstration of a variation of a constant. That hasn't happened yet.
Sheldrake is a biochemist & philosopher of science. Philosophers of science are trained to identify errors in reasoning by scientists. They specialize in HOW, not WHAT to think. Here are a few very basic errors of reason by scientists in their field:

(1) Hawking wrote a chapter saying there's no free-will using his free-will!

(2) Sagan said the Cosmos is all the ever will be. How could he know that?

(3) Kraus says the quantum vacuum i.e. something proves the universe can come from nothing!

(4) Einstein invented i.e. made it up, a cosmological constant

(5) Dawkins says because the eye is badly designed therefore it's not designed.(say what? Indeed). He saw the bad design with his own eye by the way.

(6) Francis Crick said all thoughts are nothing but neurones firings. But that includes HIS own thoughts so they can't be taken seriously either!!

The list is endless.

Pascal said that people believe things not because of evidence but how the evidence makes them feel. So (I say) if you assert that constants don't change & you get results that show they do what do you think you'll do with those results? Reject them of course!!! There'll be 101 reasons for that & you've just trotted out some of them. No data can change such positions.

I'll deal with one more fallacy. If G can't be measured accurately, how do you know it's fixed!!!?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#141 Jan 30, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to read this http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html
The authors conclude that the evidence for change in the velocity of light constant, c is "very strong."
Well, gee, LGK, your article lists 'Lambert Dolphin - Physicist' as an author of your reference but when I googled 'Lambert Dolphin - Physicist' to determine his actual credentials I found this:

"The Bible is the very Word of God, is inerrant in its original autographs, and is fully and totally and uniquely reliable as the primary guide to all actions and commitments";

so I guess we can throw that article into the crappile where it belongs.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evidence Against God 10 min Atheistgirl 3,923
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 29 min Knowledge- 8,357
Spirit bodies. 41 min little lamb 57
Christians made Jesus God, turnaround and call ... 55 min little lamb 7
Evidence that Christianity is a fraud 1 hr jesushasrisen 2
Let's have a discussion, HG. (Oct '12) 2 hr GodSmacked 182
GS, defend this defamation of my character with... (Oct '12) 2 hr GodSmacked 973
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 12 hr KAB 1,373
More from around the web