WWLabRat

I always thought that missiles have the wings to help stabilize it during flight. Being that they generally are not "fired" from a barrel and generate their own propulsion, they wouldn't have or need rifling, but would still need something to stabilize them. Also I thought that they needed this stabilization to keep navigational systems in check. I am more likely than not incorrect on one or both of these points. I'm far from being a munitions/explosive ordinance expert.

Sorry, that was poor phrasing on my part.

Perhaps... But at the same time, one doesn't worship a religion, they worship whatever it is at the religion's core. In most cases this is a deity. A more accurate way to say it then, in my opinion, would be that the religion is commerce and it's deity is the Almighty Dollar. The problem with just trading other things is that they don't have an agreed upon standard. Yes, I understand that even among currency we can't come to a consensus, but it's a lot smaller range than trading objects or services. Trading in this sense is more subjective, whereas when there's a standard for it to be measured it becomes a bit more objective. I may be lamenting, but it's not that we value objects over a spiritual nature. Rather my lement is for the lack of care for our fellow man (or woman, for P.C. sake). Just as we have fought wars over religion and one person claiming their deity is better than anothers' we fight wars that are based on the abundance or lack of monetary wealth. I hate to use such an example, but look at the US troops being in the Middle East. We are playing world police only to protect our oil investments. Rather than focus on creating an economical car that isn't reliant on fossil fuels, we are losing soldiers in a fruitless battle where the nation being occupied doesn't want help. ***FFS, please don't continue a discussion on the war(s) going on in the desert, that belongs in politics*** ---- I wouldn't go so far as to say that we have commerce due to evolution. It is a tool by which we place value on the goods and services that are provided by various job markets. I do agree though that it is in the interest of the individual to use and support commerce, if only for the sake of fitting in with the whole. Time and experience has taught us that going outside the norm and doing things in ways others aren't can be rather counter intuitive and, worse case scenario, quite disastrous. " Money is power in the same way as marrying into upward social mobility." This may have inadvertently made my point. Many times, people pursue their religious beliefs with such rigor and determination to try to achieve some (for lack of a better phrase) higher self. For Christians this is the hope that they will make it to heaven, for Hindus it's the hope of achieving Nirvana. For George Lucas it's to become one with the Force. The difference here being that with Money and commerce it's a bit more apparent and observable how close a person is to achieving their higher consumeristic self. This is why people, myself included, buy the bigger, better, more expensive TV's, iDevices, and WiiStation 360's. People grasp for every last dollar they can manage even if they are in a stable position financially.

To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center. Imagine a top spinning, only in this scenario, it stays in the exact same spot. In order for it to be unmoving, yet everything else move, it would have to be at the center of the spinning top. If it were anywhere else, then matter from the other heavenly bodies would collide or pass by the Earth. And as for the verses you quoted, context goes a long way. So does the proper translation. In each of these the word "fix(ed)" is said more in the way of being established, not hammered to the floor. So if you look at it with this translation, each of them show that Yahweh has set things as they are supposed to be and nothing will be able to change that. All of these verses also draw from dogmatic law that God is infallible. Because of that they can say with "certainty" that the Earth is unable to be changed.

There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe. That belief came about from the astronomer Ptolemy and his Geocentric model of the universe. The church then picked this up and started professing it because there were no other theories at the time and this fit the evidence. Later the aspect of Earth being special was brought about and finally, Galileo was forced to renounce his teachings of a Heliocentric model because the church wanted Earth to remain important. So please, by all means, present us with this nonexistent verse that says the Earth is. On another note, technically in the current model of an expanding universe, every point in space is the center of the universe. So at the same time it is justifiable in saying that the Earth is. But then again, so is the sun, the moon, Jupiter, Pluto (poor dwarf planet...), and even Alpha Centauri.

Done

This is inspired by a post made in the Theistic Scientists thread. There's been many threads in this forum that, although unique in their beginning, eventually devolve to a battle between factions of those wanting to debate for the existence of God/god/deity and those in opposition. This has caused a great degradation in the quality and continuity of intellectual debates. Many times these debates over the existence of god cause members to be banned (whether permanently or temporary) or cause the thread to be locked by the moderators. These debates generally come down to the lack of physical evidence of any such deity (to say nothing of mythical creatures). But in this regard is where I make my stand. Everyone debates about the conventional deities: the God of Abrahamic religions, the polytheistic gods and goddesses of pagan religions, and the gods of Eastern religions. What I propose is a more "universal" deity. It's something that nearly everyone, including Atheists, "worship" on a daily basis. I say that in modern day we all worship the same god: The Almighty Dollar. Bear in mind that in this context I mean Dollar to be any currency. I argue that Dollar is a god for many reasons. Majority of today's societies center around commerce and the global buying and selling of products. People work their entire lives to gain more money (knowing god) in order to buy things they believe will make them happy (reward for worship). Wars have been fought over resources that are valuable only because we use currency. Most people would agree that the world couldn't function as it does now without the continued use of some sort of financial exchange between people, companies, and countries. Third world countries could be seen as those that don't have a stable currency or don't know our "god" and so missions and collections are taken up through charity to help "spread the word of god". Companies (churches/temples) take the money from its customers (parishioners) to both pay for their needs and to recruit more followers. These employees are the clergy, the money they spend to buy resources are their sacrifice. They sacrifice so that they may gain more followers to help them attain more money (or faith) to be able to greater know Dollar. Unlike conventional gods, The Almighty Dollar is a universal deity. Every society has its currency which shares parallels with other societies. And with the exception of a few groups of people (the unsaved) it is used everywhere. Even among those who are supposed to be detached from consumerism, such as the Amish, still use currency and trade in commerce. The Amish use money to purchase land, sell their overstock, and purchase feed for their livestock. And just like big business, they try to improve their product to better satisfy their customers which in turn will cause them to continue their devotion.

How is it possible to consistently contradict yourself? You're accusing John of not reading through other people's posts when you yourself aren't even reading your own posts. You did claim in the post that he was replying to that Galileo was seeking to falsify religion.

This means that the intention of science was not to disprove, but to prove.

By your own admission, you said that those scientists were trying to prove their religious claims, not falsify. So you agreed with me.

I'm not sure what scientific body you are a part of, but science has never sought to falsify religion. The two don't even mix. Science only deals in matters of, well... Matter. Science can only handle that which is measurable, testable, and physical. Religion deals in matters of spirituality and the nonphysical world. The two don't mesh. Science is water and religion is oil. There's matters of science that religion falls back on at times, but only when it's point is needing to be made. However this isn't reciprocal. Science doesn't rely on religion for squat. Science has no need or desire to disprove anything about religion. It is stable enough just on its own.

A few things. First, the bible is not a book written directly by the hands of a deity. It was written by man after generations (many generations, in fact) of stories being passed down by the Hebrews by word of mouth. Thus, since it is fallible, it cannot be taken as absolute Truth in its form. Second, in regards to the burning bush... It is not said, in Exodus, whether the bush was alive or dead already. If it were alive, it's very much possible that an oil or other alcohol had been soaking in it's roots. As time went on, it would have made it possible, assuming the fumes from the oil hadn't dissipated, to burn the bush without the plant actually being consumed. Second, the only person who could attest to whether the bush had been consumed or not would have been Moses. He was the only one who climbed the mountain to observe it. Even his brother Aaron, who was his second in command, had not seen it. In fact, according to scripture, Moses wasn't even allowed to look at the bush per Yahweh's command. He was told to remove his sandals and hide his face. If he were to follow this command, he would not have seen it, so even this "eyewitness" account is inaccurate at best. Still further. it is said that one cannot see God and live. This is dogmatic law and as such, for it to be true, Moses would have died there on Mount Sinai. Also, the burning bush wasn't the start of contact. Contact was first established in the Garden of Eden where God first created the birds of the air, the beasts of the land and the fish of the sea. At this time He created man in his image, later to steal a rib to create woman. In Genesis, God is in constant contact with Adam (First man) and Eve (First woman) as well as Adam's descendants, even going so far as to say that God walked with Cain after he killed his brother Abel. There was a break in communication leading up to the burning bush, or at least this is what's assumed between all the "begat"-s between Adam and Moses.

Sorry, wrong word. I meant "omniscience".

What you're talking about isn't self aware, it's omnipotence.

Wouldn't it be a bit difficult for something that was Intelligent, to say nothing of "superintelligence" to not be self-aware or sentient?

The only "deity" that could possibly be real, in the physical, measurable since, is money. "The Almighty Dollar" as it were. If you don't believe me, look at how highly a single dollar is sought after. In this sense, by dollar I mean any monetary currency. Entire civilizations function because of the constant moving of currency. People worship money as they would any other deity. People go to casinos and sit in front of a slot machine (or confessional) to pay their dues and hope they come out of it in the positive with more than what they went in. Entire corporations seek to appease their wallets by gouging prices on things that most people find they cannot do without. Sacrifices are made to the dollar by having to buy up land and other assets so that the company can expand. Wars have been fought over money, it makes the world go round (not in the physical sense, mind you, but in the sense that it helps society to continue functioning in its current capacity), and, unlike any deity out there, it is physical. Money can be measured. Its influence is observable on any scale. Even Amish people (who could equate to Atheists in this scenario) trade money with locals to purchase seeds, land, and feed for livestock. Some Amish even will sell their goods to locals (which the ones I used to live down from had amazing strawberries).

A couple of points. When you say one is moving and the other is stationary, that is purely a relative statement. You could say the first is stationary and the second is moving. Also, the one who is considered to be moving will not experience time differently. Their time will be seen as different relative to the other observer. (And, because we can consider either as moving, the reverse is true: observer A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock running slow.) You do realize that both statements that you made are the exact same as what I had said. And the time experienced is going to be different. This is because he is moving. As AJB stated above, the moving observer's velocity is a non-zero number and therefore he will experience a time dilation. Being that this is a discussion on relativity, it's implied that everything said will be dealing with how everything is relative to which observer is being discussed.

I know it's an poorly phrased, or otherwise, question. It basically boils down to this: I have been wondering at what point there couldn't possibly be any time dilation. Obviously between two observers, one moving at a constant velocity, the other remaining stationary, the one in motion will experience time differently than that of the stationary observer. So we slow the velocity of the one in motion. And we keep slowing him. Mathematically, we could keep cutting his speed in half to an infinitesimally small amount to where as far as we could tell he would be stationary. By all measurements he would still be moving, so there must be some time dilation between the two. Am I right? However to the stationary observer, he would appear stationary as well, until a substantial amount of time had passed for him to have any noticeable movement.

This should be an easy question to answer... I'm curious. I know that time is relative between moving objects. I also understand that as an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, that difference in time is made more apparent proportionally. So my question is this: Is time relative between two stationary objects/people? For example, say there were two observers sitting in a room across from each other. Assuming neither is substantially closer to the center of a large mass than the other, would time still flow at a constant? Would they both experience time in the same way? Follow up: What if they were both moving at the speed of light (as if the room were part of a "faster than light shuttle"? Would it still be the same if they were in separate shuttles?

First and foremost, if you're going to challenge an established theory, such as the Big Bang Theory, the forum rules dictate that you need to provide evidence to show how it is incorrect. Same goes for the other two you mentioned. Also how are they flawed? The reason the constellations appear the same is two-fold. First is that all matter is expanding at a constant rate and relative to each other. This would mean that all the stars in each of the constellations would stay in the same position relative to each other. Think about looking at an object under a microscope at 10x. Now, without moving the slide, enhance the view to 100x. Nothing you are viewing actually changed its position, but it does appear larger. Second is that we are viewing those constellations as they were millenia ago and the light is just now reaching us. The bible is not a valid source. This is a science forum and as such, anything religious in nature belongs under the religion subforum. Also along that line, "As above, so below" is a pagan and alchemy belief, not a christian one. Check your sources when quoting. Mathematically it would be impossible for us to reach the "end of the universe" whether visible or not. The universe is not in any shape that we can conceive. It is expanding at the same rate from all points equally. In order for us to reach the present edge, even travelling at light speed, it would still take us 14 billion years to reach where the present "edge" is at which point it would already have expanded another 14 billion light years. If we can't put these things into a nice little package, why have you attempted to do so?

Well, unlike many in this thread, I know when to admit defeat. Being that I'm not a biologist, my "expertise" is limited in this argument. So, I'll throw in the towel. And I agree, we have gotten severely off topic on that one. Now if others could follow this example and drop it as well.

The point I was making with that paragraph was that much of what we do, as humans, is not necessary to our survival. An animal taking a large kill to impress a potential mate is not the same as us spending money to buy things that are not needed. In this example, that kill is still something that would be needed to feed the rest of the group. Buying that memory foam mattress may feel better, but it's not something that's essential. Also, bringing in a kill as a group is still essential for their survival, but is running a coffee shop going to make or break society as a whole? For that matter, almost any business isn't essential to humanity's survival. Animals may feast on fermented foods, but how does that scale with manufactured drugs that are bottled as prescriptions or worse? Things like Methamphetamine, cocaine, acid, PCP, etc all of which require a level of refinement to be created, that don't rely on natural means for their manufacture. And although locusts do destroy the land that they inhabit, they still do so in a moderation and the land grows back naturally when the locusts have died off. But they also don't pollute the air and sea. Yes, the red tide does increase the Oxygen Demand, this killing off other creatures in the bay, this again is something that cycles through the seasons (at least as much as I've read of it). I do agree though that other animals do pass down knowledge. Sometimes in observable ways, sometimes in a form that's not readily observable, like instincts. And I didn't mention levels of intelligence because again, that's up for debate among many circles dealing with other terrestrial life. All I said was that they don't communicate the same way that we do and so it is difficult for us to be able to understand what they may actually be "saying". And I do recognize that Koko is an exception to this, but an episode of Star Trek TNG that I recently saw (a couple hours ago) reminded me that when cultures are first starting to learn each other's language, what is said between the two may not be completely understood. In the episode, Counselor Troi holds up a clear glass of tea for Captain Picard to observe. She calls it a word in a foreign language and asks the Captain what she just said. He guesses at her having said "cup". She says in reply that she could just as easily have been saying "brown", "liquid", or "hot". So what Koko is able to sign to us may have been misunderstood when she was learning and is therefore being mistranslated when talking back to us.

Those unspoken rules that other species follow could be nothing more than an instinct based on survival. Imagine if a cub were to attack an alpha with actual intent. Many species would show that the alpha would then attack and kill that cub. So out of necessity for survival, it sticks with other cubs. The play fighting that they do also creates a basis for them to learn to hunt and defend territory. Being that these animals are not able to effectively communicate in the same range and degree that humans are, it's impossible to know if they have religion. This is a debate that has been going on for some time. At the same time, we are talking about humans. There are many behaviors within humans that are not present in the rest of the animal kingdom. Examples of this would be commerce. We trade something that is not essential to our survival (e.g. dollar bills, gold, credit) for something that we either want or need (e.g. food, clothing, shelter). We have jobs that do not directly influence our survival as a species. Animals create a symbiosis with their environment, whereas the human race has destroyed vasts portions of the Earth. Many people purposely poison themselves with various substances, whether legal or illegal. There are so many things that set the human race apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. With this being the case, why couldn't religion just be one more thing that's added to that list?

I understand what you're saying, but if that were true, why is there no evidence of a society that had no religious beliefs?