|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 1:32:37 GMT -5
Yesterday at 10:28pm, Richard wrote: Is it science fiction that powers nuclear reactors?
Steve answered; You are again confusing actual science with speculative theories.
You need to chill a little Steve - you could not be more wrong if you tried. E=mc2 that gave us the bomb and powers those reactors came 100% out of that speculative theorizing you say is just fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 2:40:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 31, 2013 10:53:34 GMT -5
Yesterday at 10:28pm, Richard wrote: Do you consider that the scientific statement that the hard thing of this world is built upon the invisible non-measurable thing of God to be science fiction?
Please rephrase this questionRead more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=257&page=1#ixzz2dYr7tFj0I guess you did misunderstand the question. I read your response over and over and I don't even understand your answer. You like to make it as complicated as possible to present that it is false. It is hard for me to believe in anything that has to be so complicated that no one can understand it. I was referring to the duality of matter. Maybe it is not the correct term. If it isn't then I admit my ignorance. Dave and I have been talking about the duality of matter for years. Everyone in my own fellowship is familiar with both the term and its meaning. I just googled duality of matter and see that the proper name is: wave-par·ti·cle duality The exhibition of both wavelike and particlelike properties by a single entity, as of both diffraction and linear propagation by light. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wave-particle+duality) Although first discovered in light, it is now true of all subatomic particles. Therefore true that the "thing" of matter" is built entirely upon the "non-thing" of a wave. I am not a scientist! I am just a guy, but I thought this is also apart of the light speed, Einstein, quantum physics, big bang theories you seem to want to call science fiction?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 11:03:31 GMT -5
Sorry Richard, the expression that the thing is built upon the non-thing is my expression. It comes out of one of my Sunday School lessons I used to teach. It was how I tried to simplify the science language for the older members of our group. You and I may have used it many times back and forth, but it is just my expression. Sunday School lesson The Riddle of Steel ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=multidimension
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 17:00:01 GMT -5
Today at 1:26am, Dave wrote: I am a super-string theory supporter. I don't know where you get the "Parallel Dimensions" term from string theory. You could not be more wrong here.
You are trying to create a red herring here with your definitions of Parallel Dimensions. American theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene discussed nine types of parallel universes, in The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Perhaps you need to write to him and tell him he is wrong to confuse Parallel Dimensions with String theory.
Today at 1:26am, Dave wrote: If you want the experiments, if you want the dates, if you want the math - I am more than happy to present it.
Just because you strongly believe in this doesn't make it so. These experiments are deeply criticized by particle physicists; which shows what constitutes as science these days is very sketchy.
Today at 1:26am, Dave wrote: You are a Christian. Don't you believe in other localities of existence? AND, if you just come back and say that heaven and hell are different, they are not dimensions of existence - then all you are choosing to do is argueing vocabulary and semantics.
If string theorists were arguing a case for heaven and hell, then that would be different. They are not. They are predicting that the evolutionary big bang would allow for many other dimensions apart from our own. This is deceptive language to seduce christians into their faulty worldviews. It is all science fiction. Do you also accept Hinduism because they also believed in heaven?
God Bless Steve
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 17:05:50 GMT -5
You need to chill a little Steve - you could not be more wrong if you tried. You are the one getting disturbed here, not me. Your adaptation of Einstein's equations will not save the big bang. If you have actual empirical evidence for the big bang, then supply it. Otherwise you must accept that many of your views are purely fictional. I'm sorry if you find this news-flash disturbing. God Bless Steve
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 17:16:06 GMT -5
I am not a scientist! I am just a guy, but I thought this is also apart of the light speed, Einstein, quantum physics, big bang theories you seem to want to call science fiction? Do you really think that all scientists are in agreement with other scientists? Do you actually think that particle physicists and string theorists are in agreement? Many are very confused on these subjects. You have swallowed into the bait of evolution scientists and their worldview. You confuse issues relating to theory and fact. You mix theory and fact together, and you cannot tell one from the other. I would suggest that this is the reason you find me complicated. I have been able to separate true science from an unproven hypothesis. You have not. You think that the i-phone, medicine, and the big bang are on the same level of scientific breakthroughs. This is not true, but as I said, you can believe in whatever makes you happy. These subjects are starting to make fireworks and get people's backs up, with the occasional ad hominem. Could everyone chill a bit please. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 20:46:07 GMT -5
I am a super-string theory supporter. I don't know where you get the "Parallel Dimensions" term from string theory. You could not be more wrong here. You are trying to create a red herring here with your definitions of Parallel Dimensions. American theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene discussed nine types of parallel universes, in The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Perhaps you need to write to him and tell him he is wrong to confuse Parallel Dimensions with String theory.
There are 1000 authors on the subject. Ya great, you find one that writes in vocabulary contrary to an author I support – so what? Does it invalidate the science? Super-string theory mathematically predicts seven other dimensions of space that occupy the exact same three dimensional space, as our own, only in different configurations and at different levels of energy. Most of these predicted dimensions are spherical bubbles, or some variation of spherical bubbles. Explain to me how two spheres, or two bubbles can be parallel? Except in only the mental imagery of a metaphor?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 21:01:13 GMT -5
I corrupted your original post Steve - unintentional - sorryToday at 1:26am, Dave wrote: If you want the experiments, if you want the dates, if you want the math - I am more than happy to present it.
Steve answered, Just because you strongly believe in this doesn't make it so. These experiments are deeply criticized by particle physicists; which shows what constitutes as science these days is very sketchy.] Particle physicists are unable to explain all of the observations with a super-collider. Some sub-atomic particles and their energies seem to disappear from space-time. This violates the First law of Thermodynamics. First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. (http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html) I learned in class as: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only translated or transmuted. It was a 17th century mathematical model that was rediscovered that answered these super-collider observations. These sub-atomic particles and their energies did not disappear, but simply entered another dimension of space. It is this mathematical model that predicts 10 D of space and one of time. The biggest critic to this theory is led by, Edward Witten, who authored the 11 D theory known as, M-Theory, in 1995. However, M-Theory speculates that this eleventh dimension is an infinitely long string, infinitely narrow, yet contains all the other dimensions within. For me, this just sounds like a simple restatement of the strictest definition of that first dimensional singularity, I support in the multidimensional board. These experiments are deeply criticized by particle physicists; which shows what constitutes as science these days is very sketchy.Each and every time the theoretical boundaries of science are pushed to its limit there are always scientists that deeply criticize experiments and results. This is how investigative science works, It is how it is supposed to work. Suggest a hypothesis, do an experiment, make public the observation and let the dogs rip it to shreds. Even during the Manhattan Project, when America was developing the atomic bomb, only about 50% of the scientist thought that the first test would even explode. Of those that were sure it would explode, a small percentage thought the blast would be so big that it would rip the earth apart. Even the first time the new super-collider in Europe was turned on, there were protest in many major cities in Europe, Russia, and the United States; because many believe that it would rip open a Black Hole and the Earth would be destroyed. Quote as many critics as you want. This is how science theory is tested – by fire. Even E=mc 2 did not have science’s full support until it accurately predicted the yield of the first atomic test blast. Just because you strongly believe in this doesn't make it so.Do I strongly believe in this? At this moment in history it does seem to be the best explanation from man that also best exemplifies scripture therefore I’ll support it for now, until someone can show me a science theory that better fits. “Therefore, I separate my belief system into two parts. First, there are those very few, but very important, things that I personally accept on faith alone and define who I am. These things are personal to each of us and are not open to debate. Everything else is Cosmology and commentary on reality, which I love to Ponder and is the intent of this exercise, which may, or may not, impact those things I take on faith alone.
The exploration of our cosmologies need to be conducted in an intelligent manner that takes into account our genetic memories, biological limitations, cultural and educational conditioning, as well as our attitudes. Additionally, and equally important, it must take into consideration as many different perspectives as possible to weed out the central truth.” ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=psychology
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 21:06:28 GMT -5
Today at 1:26am, Dave wrote: You are a Christian. Don't you believe in other localities of existence? AND, if you just come back and say that heaven and hell are different, they are not dimensions of existence - then all you are choosing to do is argueing vocabulary and semantics.
Steve answered, If string theorists were arguing a case for heaven and hell, then that would be different. They are not. They are predicting that the evolutionary big bang would allow for many other dimensions apart from our own. This is deceptive language to seduce christians into their faulty worldviews. It is all science fiction. Do you also accept Hinduism because they also believed in heaven?
You are correct - Sting theorists are not arguing a case for heaven or hell – they cannot or they will lose their funding! They are of the world system. They are not of the Church. This is also why my theory was denied formal publishing. Even Dr. Herndon advised me that I would have ZERO chance if I didn’t take the God and Bible card out. AND – because he is also trapped within the same world system he told me he could never lend his support, regardless of what he thought of my theory.
They are predicting that the evolutionary big bang would allow for many other dimensions apart from our own. This is deceptive language to seduce Christians into their faulty worldviews.
I doubt that the bulk of scientist are PREACHING or actively SEDUCING Christians to stray from the faith. The bulk of them are just so focused on the twigs and branches that they just cannot see the forest from all the trees.
The Beast, on the other hand, does perpetuate the false message that with science there is no need for God. At the same time the Church is as equally guilty by either saying nothing, or becoming defensive. People come to Church and ask harmless questions. “What this Evolution thing I learned in school today?” Instead of being counseled toward the truth, they are told to just believe. Leaving the public disenfranchised with the Church. The real problem with our current times is that as these disenfranchised people walk away from the church (small c intended) also throw their Bibles away.
Or they repeat over and over that, “It is just science fiction.” Well my friend, E=mc2 works well enough to destroy all life on this planet – that is not science fiction.
Even you stated “Science at times will agree with biblical statements.” It is the intent this ministry to maximize those agreements to bring the disenfranchised back to scripture. That is the intent of this ministry to make people see the agreement between some science and scripture.
I think FD-WEDT, a result of a science only WEDD does just that. Look the most literal biblical version of the Flood of Noah mated with science speak, It plays in Church on Sunday and around the coffee table by science indoctrinated church disenfranchised people.
Believe it or not my paper on “The Psychology of Understanding,” which you didn't care for, gets a lot of air-play, by both Church groups and classroom students. I have a stat counter that tracks utilization of my web-sites. I can track what is opened and what is downloaded, by IP address. Sometimes when I need an inspirational boost, I look and count the number of dot schools, dot universities, dot churches, and dot govs download my writings. Maybe they use it as butt wipe, I am sure I do not know.
The next most popular page is my paper on “Incremental Creation.” I am sure you will hate it, but I invite you again to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 22:33:14 GMT -5
Just because the title of the thread is Big Bang, does not mean that anyone here is promoting it as a belief system. No one here is suggesting that you should toss God over the FACT of science.
This is a discussion thread about the the creation process. Theology calls it creation. Secular science call it many different names, however, the best fit theory, that most closely approximates the Biblical creation is the theory of the Big Bang.
Theories that suggest that the earth is carried through the heavens on a turtles back, or that the earth is kept from falling into the abyss because the god Atlas carries the world on his shoulders - certainly wouldn't be an interesting discussion.
The fear some people here have of science, and/or vocabulary is interesting. Very reminiscent of the early Catholic Church trying to stamp out alternative and heretical ideas like the earth revolves around the sun, or that there are moons orbiting Jupiter.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 3, 2013 12:34:41 GMT -5
How does the science of the Big Bang relate to a Creationist?
Bible and science are just two different perspectives of the same event, to which, they both witness. Remember, any one perspective, even biblical, never contains the entire story, but all points to the same truth.
I was lying in bed last night thinking of this question instead of sleeping. How could I put it into terms that people would not find threatening, yet include enough science vocabulary to make a point. God did not only created the universe and everything in it – he also created the laws and mechanisms that define His creation. Clues left behind for man to rediscover so that we might rediscover the Lord’s “handiwork” and proof that reality is by design of the great designer.
The whole world plays soccer. So, for the sake of my metaphor, let’s us pretend that God kicks a soccer ball from mid field toward the goal. Science is completely on the other end of the field behind the goal net and is completely unaware that anything is happening until the ball appears in the net.
Science, is not stupid, science has made many wrong assumptions and made many wrong theories which have not stood up under close examination, but science can mathematically recreate the flight of that soccer ball in great detail and with much vocabulary.
Science can tell us that the very first indication that something happened was the compression wave of impact between foot and ball traveled omnidirectionally from the moment of impact. Science can tell us that the second measurable indication that something happened was the sound waves that traveled omnidirectionally from the moment of impact.
Science can describe the rotational harmonics and angular momentum that stabilized the ball as it flew through the air. Science can describe the air resistance on that ball, as it flew through the air, and even take into account the contributions to resistance of humidity and temperature of that air. Science can describe, and accurately predict the force of gravity upon that ball as it flies through the air. Science can describe the nature of impact and bounce upon the grown, as gravity returns the ball to earth. Science can even describe the nature of friction between the ball and the grass of the field as the ball bounced upon the ground. Science can even measure the potential kinetic energy of the kick that delivered the ball into the goal.
But science cannot tell us who kicked the ball, or why they kicked the ball.
STOP fearing all science as an anti-God belief system. Pure science is not! Pure science is only interested in what they can observe and measure with a ruler. That is different than the Beast using their work as a belief system. Even at the heart of the Big Bang theory resides the confession that, science does not know how or why it began.
Just listen to some of the scientific conclusions uttered by those scientists you fear so much.
Sir Isaac Newton; “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God controls all thins and knows all that is or can be done.”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Albert Einstein; “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
“The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
“There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.”
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science."
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”
“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”
“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”
Max Planck, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Ilya Prigogine - Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
Dr. Paul Davies - noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
Christian de Duve - Nobel laureate and organic chemist “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”
Alan Sandage - winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
John O’Keefe - astronomer at NASA “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
Frank Tipler - Professor of Mathematical Physics “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
Moses Maimonides - 12th century Jewish scientist “As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate… When you complete your study of the natural sciences and get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as [G-d the King].”
People can scream “science fiction” all they want. They can believe in propaganda either way. But you cannot deny that at the root of all these scientific theories is the conclusion that there had to be more. The detail of the design is too overwhelming to ignore. Even the scientist themselves, who better understand the true science, and the math, better than any public education of their theories conclude there must be something more.
It is that something more, that falls into the realm of scripture and faith – NOT religion, which is only the public education of the man-made religious dogma and propaganda of that scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Sept 3, 2013 14:09:49 GMT -5
Thank You!
There is a world of difference between making a point that just criticizing everything everybody says.
Is there a science theory on the books that even says, God did not do it?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 3, 2013 17:06:33 GMT -5
Well this is the point isn't it.
Little Jimmy comes to church on Sunday morning and asks a simple, well meaning, genuine question. What about this Evolution thing, or this Big Bang thing, I learned about in school?
If the fellowship just becomes defensive, and declares all this information to be wrong science is only science fiction - it does more to make the church appear ignorant and uninformed.
Children today are taught these science theories at school, in movies, in cartoons, and by their peers. If the church makes these children choose between the common accepted teaching and a centuries old tight fisted grip on a dogma they are not even willing to defend with today's vocabulary.
What are these children, new Christians, to think? The church has all the answers to save my soul, but cannot discuss questions from an eighth grade science class with confidence?
|
|