Space

[mooeypoo]

Well I think that we can all agree that the BB did have a cause...Right?

Hello?

Don't confuse "not knowing the cause" with "having no cause", yes?

 

While god is often claimed to not have a cause by definition, that's not the case with the big bang.

[Sisyphus]

Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

 

I think very often the thinking goes something like "I don't need to read it because I already know it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible." The religion itself forbids doubt or questioning, so honestly considering alternatives isn't an option. That's why very often you can't make any progress at all until you convince them that it's possible to be religious and believe in evolution. However, aside from giving examples of all the people who fit those criteria (like the Pope!), it's hard to do without having a theological discussion, which is against the rules here.

[Phi for All]

I think very often the thinking goes something like "I don't need to read it because I already know it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible." The religion itself forbids doubt or questioning, so honestly considering alternatives isn't an option. That's why very often you can't make any progress at all until you convince them that it's possible to be religious and believe in evolution. However, aside from giving examples of all the people who fit those criteria (like the Pope!), it's hard to do without having a theological discussion, which is against the rules here.

That's probably the main reason behind the lack of formal comparison. Those who profess young earth creationism can always question the faith of any followers who bring up objections. But I think there is also a lot of intellectual dishonesty involved when it's shown that creationist arguments have no merit, yet proponents keep ignoring the evidence they ask for and just flit off to some other place to make the same specious claims that were just refuted.

 

To be fair, the YEC arguments always sound plausible to those who haven't studied evolution as thoroughly as they have creationism, but that's part of the problem too, the partial information that is pushed on to the person who is searching for answers. How long has the YEC crowd pushed the garbage about Lucy's knee joint being found kilometers away from the rest of the body, even after it's been proven that Willis took Johanson's comments out of context, never admitting that, in fact, Johanson was talking about the knee joint of a totally different fossil find, in relation to the location of Lucy's partial fossilized remains? False, but they still use it, and they know it's false, but they still use it, and they'll use it as long as their students continue to fail to check it out for themselves (again to be fair, four major YEC proponents, Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, and Taylor, have agreed to stop using it as an argument, but none has offered a public retraction or their own explanation of the misconception).

[Syntho-sis]

Don't confuse "not knowing the cause" with "having no cause", yes?

 

While god is often claimed to not have a cause by definition, that's not the case with the big bang.

 

I never said anything about that. I just assumed that the universe has always operated on causality. You go back far enough (starting from what we know about the universe) you run into infinite regress.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

^ -no matter what

[blood_pardon]

1. Something that is existing in space completely isolated for trillions of years could not be dated back accurately.

The big bang happened 13 billion or so years ago. This was when time and space first came into existence as we know it. How would you date something older than time itself?

3. To say that Carbon-14 dating is based off just assumptions' date=' is wildly misleading.[/quote']

 

I agree it couldnt be dated accuratly but my point is it could be dated. It did exist in time.

I disagree, the BB theory has nothing to do with how time/space became existant.

I disagree Carbon dating is based off extreme assumptions.

[Mr Skeptic]

Then why not the big bang? If you say the big bang must have a cause, but God doesn't need to require a cause, then you are special pleading.

 

So you are saying the Big Bang never started? There has always been a Big Bang? If you read what I said, I specifically said the same is true of a universe with no start. Hence the attraction of a cyclical universe model, where there is a Big Bang right on schedule but the answer to what caused it would be the universe collapsing and bouncing.

 

No, it is exactly the same with God and the universe and numbers, there is no special pleading going on here as to causes -- they all must have, or must not have, causes based on exactly the same criteria. However, if you are a proponent to a non-cyclical universe than you require the universe to have a cause because you say it has one. Just because someone asks you what the cause you say it has is, does not mean that things required to be without a cause suddenly also need a cause.

[blood_pardon]

I recommend you have a look at that link to talkorigins. Here it is again: [url']http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html[/url]

 

Im familiar with talkorigins and I like your style, theres some good information and as far as I can tell un-bias. I may start a age of earth thread and pick at what this link has to say. There is just so many replies I have to make now on only 2 threads.

 

Fair enough, but remember, this is science we are talking about.

 

Yeah but remember the mod asked me my beliefs, i haven't talked about God since.

[toastywombel]

I agree it couldnt be dated accuratly but my point is it could be dated. It did exist in time.

I disagree, the BB theory has nothing to do with how time/space became existant.

I disagree Carbon dating is based off extreme assumptions.

 

Position, velocity, time is only measurable if there is mass moving in relation to other mass. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that space existed before the Big Bang. To even measure the curvature of a space, one needs mass and light.

 

Furthermore, time did come about after the Big Bang. Time progresses at a rate dependant on the velocity relative to an observer, that is one of the most fundamental understandings in physics. Photons and electrons came into existence after the big bang. There have been experiments proving relativity. If relativity is correct, time is determined by the speed of light and the velocity of the observer. Light or observers did not come into existence until after the Big Bang

 

Carbon dating is based off some assumptions, some of them you mentioned previously, but it is fairly accurate in dating things several thousand years old, not trillions of years old though. This is not the point of the post though so I'm going to refrain from commenting further on this.

Edited January 22, 2010 by toastywombel

[blood_pardon]

Position' date=' velocity, time is only measurable if there is mass moving in relation to other mass. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that space existed before the Big Bang. To even measure the curvature of a space, one needs mass and light.

 

Furthermore, time did come about after the Big Bang. Time progresses at a rate dependant on the velocity relative to an observer, that is one of the most fundamental understandings in physics. Photons and electrons came into existence after the big bang. There have been experiments proving relativity. If relativity is correct, time is determined by the speed of light and the velocity of the observer. Light or observers did not come into existence until after the Big Bang

 

Carbon dating is based off some assumptions, some of them you mentioned previously, but it is fairly accurate in dating things several thousand years old, not trillions of years old though. This is not the point of the post though so I'm going to refrain from commenting further on this.[/quote']

 

No mass is required for time. As long as there is space, it can be measured with time, I am 100% sure of this. I agree in order for a human to measure time there needs to be light and (probably) mass but we're not talking about a time in history when humans existed, we are just speculating. All im saying is technically as long as there is space there is time. You want to know when time began? Find out when space began.

 

Like I said the BB has nothing to do with the existance of space/time. There really isnt sufficient evidence for the BB either, so Im confused as to why almost everyone in the scientific community repeatedly brings BB into a conversation?

[Sisyphus]

No mass is required for time. As long as there is space, it can be measured with time, I am 100% sure of this. I agree in order for a human to measure time there needs to be light and (probably) mass but we're not talking about a time in history when humans existed, we are just speculating. All im saying is technically as long as there is space there is time. You want to know when time began? Find out when space began.

 

Like I said the BB has nothing to do with the existance of space/time. There really isnt sufficient evidence for the BB either, so Im confused as to why almost everyone in the scientific community repeatedly brings BB into a conversation?

 

It seems like you're thinking of space and time as an overarching, solid framework in which all the "stuff" there is is placed. However, it has been discovered that this is not the case. Space itself expands over time and bends in the presence of mass. The farther you go back in time, the less space there was. Time is not a constant clock ticking in the background, but different depending on where you are in the universe, and what your velocity is relative to everything else. It happens that more time can pass for one person than another, and that events that are simultaneous for one person are not so for another. And on and on.

 

It would be unreasonable to expect you to understand all of this right away, or even to take my word for it that these things are proven to be the case. In fact I encourage you to look into it yourself. All I ask is that you admit that the universe is more complicated and less intuitive than it seems, and that there are things you don't understand. And so comments like "I am 100% sure of this," or even "there isn't sufficient evidence for BB" (when it's clear you haven't really grasped what the BB is, let alone the evidence for it) are not warranted. Ok?

[mooeypoo]

I agree it couldnt be dated accuratly but my point is it could be dated. It did exist in time.

I disagree, the BB theory has nothing to do with how time/space became existant.

I disagree Carbon dating is based off extreme assumptions.

blood_pardon, consider this - what if I put up a claim to you "I disagree. God does not exist."

 

How do you respond to that? Presumably, you would put forth the evidence you know of as for the existence of god so I can see them and either be convinced or ask you more directed questions.

 

Why, then, are you refusing to relate to the evidence we put forth? The statement "I disagree with X" is moot when evidence was shown. Either tell us why you think the evidence is not sufficient (by relating to the actual evidence we posted to you, and not what you think is the general concept) or show us counter evidence that contradict the ones we give or, perhaps, be convinced (shriek!).

 

Are you afraid to even try reading the sources? If you're so certain you are correct, then it doesn't make much sense not to read the sources so you can answer on-point and refute our claims outright, does it?

[blood_pardon]

It seems like you're thinking of space and time as an overarching' date=' solid framework in which all the "stuff" there is is placed. However, it has been discovered that this is not the case. Space itself expands over time and bends in the presence of mass. The farther you go back in time, the less space there was. Time is not a constant clock ticking in the background, but different depending on where you are in the universe, and what your velocity is relative to everything else. It happens that more time can pass for one person than another, and that events that are simultaneous for one person are not so for another. And on and on.

 

It would be unreasonable to expect you to understand all of this right away, or even to take my word for it that these things are proven to be the case. In fact I encourage you to look into it yourself. All I ask is that you admit that the universe is more complicated and less intuitive than it seems, and that there are things you don't understand. And so comments like "I am 100% sure of this," or even "there isn't sufficient evidence for BB" (when it's clear you haven't really grasped what the BB is, let alone the evidence for it) are not warranted. Ok?[/quote']

 

I know that time does not bend, and the rate of it does not change. Time is just the measurement withing human beings to comprehend the sequence of events and the passing of moments,weeks, months, years, etc.

I'm not sure space would even be required for time to be used, but I am SURE that as long as space existed, our universe existed, and so therefore that was in "time."

In order for you to say that space expands over time accuratley you have to know how large the universe is correct? How do you know the farther you go back in time the less space there was if we don't know how large our universe is now?

When you say more time can pass for another, what are you basing this off of? Im assuming your talking about light speed travel, if thats the case thats only an idea that is impossible to test at this moment in our history.

As for the BB it only explains back to the "epoch" era when the universe was only a hot molten state, everything said before that is outright supertition with no evidence whatsoever.

Why do you sound 100% sure of your ideas when most of them are based off gross speculation?

[Sisyphus]

My ideas are not based off gross speculation. They aren't my ideas, and they're based on over a hundred years of theory and experimentation. But you're right, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not 100% sure about anything, nor could I imagine being so.

 

So, to clarify. Your claim is that the universe is not more complicated than it seems, and you still feel confident making absolute assertions about time and space without even studying? That seems like such a strange claim from someone who believes in an omnipotent god, that the universe is so small and simple and easy to understand. How can you possibly be SURE you understand Creation?

 

BTW, those rhetorical questions you ask all have answers, but they probably each require whole topics. No, you do not have to know how large the universe is to know that it expands. Yes, there is experimental proof of time dilation. (In fact, we use technologies that have to take it into account in order to even function.) I hope you appreciate the irony of this, though:

 

everything said before that is outright supertition with no evidence whatsoever.

 

vs.

 

I am SURE that as long as space existed, our universe existed

 

Eh?

[mooeypoo]

I know that time does not bend, and the rate of it does not change. Time is just the measurement withing human beings to comprehend the sequence of events and the passing of moments,weeks, months, years, etc.

I'm not sure space would even be required for time to be used, but I am SURE that as long as space existed, our universe existed, and so therefore that was in "time."

In order for you to say that space expands over time accuratley you have to know how large the universe is correct? How do you know the farther you go back in time the less space there was if we don't know how large our universe is now?

When you say more time can pass for another, what are you basing this off of? Im assuming your talking about light speed travel, if thats the case thats only an idea that is impossible to test at this moment in our history.

As for the BB it only explains back to the "epoch" era when the universe was only a hot molten state, everything said before that is outright supertition with no evidence whatsoever.

Why do you sound 100% sure of your ideas when most of them are based off gross speculation?

 

You still clearly haven't read the links we provided, since they put up some claims you might find interesting. Are you here to debate or lecture?

 

Again, why do you refuse to read a link? What are you so afraid of in reading ... a link... ? it would be so much easier talking about specific evidence that you disagree with rather than trying to explain to you that what you describe as the theory is *NOT* what the theory is about.

[Mr Skeptic]

When you say more time can pass for another, what are you basing this off of? Im assuming your talking about light speed travel, if thats the case thats only an idea that is impossible to test at this moment in our history.

 

Well, you know how they say, ass-u-me makes an ass out of you and me. Near light speed travel can be observed in a particle accelerator, and while we may not be able to throw a chronometer at .9999c, we certainly can throw radioactive particles at enormous speeds and measure the change in their half-life. And even though they do not travel at near light speed, the GPS satellites have extremely accurate clocks, so we can measure time dilation on large objects too. Turns out it is as predicted by special relativity. Pretty cool, huh?

 

Why do you sound 100% sure of your ideas when most of them are based off gross speculation?

 

Why do you sound 100% sure that they are based on speculation? Have you spent decades studying the various specialties of science and found them bunk?

 

Ideas in science are accepted because they give correct predictions under every circumstance that they have been tested. When testing is not possible, there is rife speculation, yes, and some theories may be more popular based on other aspects, but everyone knows that it will eventually have to make some solid predictions before it can be accepted.

 

Back in the day, people accepted theories based on how much "sense" they made. But that was centuries ago, and it really didn't work well. So now accurate predictions are required.

[blood_pardon]

My ideas are not based off gross speculation. They aren't my ideas, and they're based on over a hundred years of theory and experimentation. But you're right, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not 100% sure about anything, nor could I imagine being so.

I disagree, I think you are 100% sure about certain things. Do you have a heart? Do you require water to live? In the same way I am sure space and time are entwined.

So, to clarify. Your claim is that the universe is not more complicated than it seems, and you still feel confident making absolute assertions about time and space without even studying? That seems like such a strange claim from someone who believes in an omnipotent god, that the universe is so small and simple and easy to understand. How can you possibly be SURE you understand Creation?

It's quite foolish to assume I haven't studied and I never said the universe wasn't complicated I just stated a fact about it. I never said I believe the universe is small or simple. All I know about the "act of creation" is limited to what the bible says, so Im positive I dont understand it fully.

BTW, those rhetorical questions you ask all have answers, but they probably each require whole topics. No, you do not have to know how large the universe is to know that it expands. Yes, there is experimental proof of time dilation. (In fact, we use technologies that have to take it into account in order to even function.) I hope you appreciate the irony of this, though

 

How do we "know" it expands? Here you are doing exactly what you condemned me for.

 

It happens that more time can pass for one person than another, and that events that are simultaneous for one person are not so for another

What technology do we have that must take this into account?

[insane_alien]

blood_pardon, it isn't your place to dictate what sisyphus believes. nor to misspell his name.

[Syntho-sis]

How do we "know" it expands? Here you are doing exactly what you condemned me for.

 

That you are even asking this question shows how little you know about cosmology.

 

Please visit for more information:

 

Why is the sky dark at night?

 

Hubble's Law

 

Redshift

[mooeypoo]

It's quite foolish to assume I haven't studied ...

It's not foolish when you show us you don't know what you're talking about, and you insist on ignoring our resources.

 

I know it's scary to test your blind faith, but if you are so certain it's true, it will hold strong even in light of a few measly evidence.

 

You seem to be quite scared to test it, though, and then blame us for "assuming" you didn't study. We don't need to assume, you're giving us enough evidence for that assumption to hold true. It's time you start showing us evidence that you *do* know what you're talking about.

 

We're waiting.

How do we "know" it expands? Here you are doing exactly what you condemned me for.

We gave you a list of evidence. You are too scare to read them. Sisyphus is not doing what he condemned you for, you are just continuing to show you don't care to stop doing it.

 

What technology do we have that must take this into account?

If I give you a link, will you read it?

 

Short and sweet explanation for relativity: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/relativity.html

And we know because we took 2 synchronized atomic clocks. We put one on a fast plane and one on the ground. We kept the plane moving for a bit, then we compared the clocks and we saw that one measured more time than the other. We did it again, with different clocks, and got the same result. We did it again later, with even different different clocks, and got the same result. We changed the experiment a tiny bit and did it with different clocks, and go the expected result.

 

That's how we know.

 

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

What technology do we have that must take this into account?

 

You would benefit from reading about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and his thought experiment on simultaneous lightning strikes.

[Sisyphus]

I disagree, I think you are 100% sure about certain things. Do you have a heart? Do you require water to live? In the same way I am sure space and time are entwined.

 

Nope. I'm quite sure I have a heart and that I need water to live, but not 100%. Maybe 99.999%, enough that I don't seriously consider otherwise. However, it would be much lower than that if tens of thousands of smart people were claiming to have demonstrated otherwise using the scientific method, which obviously has given us so much in the past.

 

It's quite foolish to assume I haven't studied

 

The questions you ask and the statements you make reveal that you don't really know what the big bang, space expansion, or relativity are all about. I assumed you hadn't been taught these things. Have you?

 

and I never said the universe wasn't complicated I just stated a fact about it. I never said I believe the universe is small or simple.

 

Oh but you did. You are claiming that it has to be a certain way because that's the only way that immediately makes sense to you. Therefore, you believe that the universe must be simple enough to be immediately intuitive to you, and that whatever god or gods you believe in are limited to creating something at least that small and simple.

 

All I know about the "act of creation" is limited to what the bible says, so Im positive I dont understand it fully.

 

If you think you already know, then why did you open this topic?

 

Hypothetically, suppose I said that I know that you're wrong, because the holy texts of my religion disagree, and that I have personal experience of the supernatural backing me up. How would you respond?

 

How do we "know" it expands? Here you are doing exactly what you condemned me for.

 

We go by the evidence, because that's all we can do. When I say "know" I just mean that all of the MANY predictions made by the theory have come true, and nobody has yet come up with an alternative explanation that fits all our observations. If somebody does, then we would have to come up with an experiment where there would be one result if the old theory were true, and a different result if the new theory was true. If the experiment was repeatable, and its methods survived all the scrutiny that other scientists could throw at it, then the results would have to be accepted. This is how science works.

 

What technology do we have that must take this into account?

 

GPS satellites.

[toastywombel]

No mass is required for time. As long as there is space, it can be measured with time, I am 100% sure of this. I agree in order for a human to measure time there needs to be light and (probably) mass but we're not talking about a time in history when humans existed, we are just speculating. All im saying is technically as long as there is space there is time. You want to know when time began? Find out when space began.

 

Like I said the BB has nothing to do with the existance of space/time. There really isnt sufficient evidence for the BB either, so Im confused as to why almost everyone in the scientific community repeatedly brings BB into a conversation?

 

You are 100% wrong on space/time, and on the Big Bang having nothing to do with it. I wish I could explain this better, but Space can only be measured when mass occupies it. Space started expanding after the Big Bang and it is still expanding now. This is what is causing the galaxies to appear to be moving apart.

 

Time is a physical property of the Universe. It is dependent on the observer.

 

I think I mentioned previously about the experiment in which two atomic clocks were flown around the world opposite ways on a jet.

They were synchronised before take-off. Mind you these are the most accurate clocks in the world. After they landed both clocks were checked and they were a little off!

This is because of the clocks velocity relative to each other, and the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers. According to the equations behind relativity the time values of the clocks had to be different. And believe it or not it actually happened. These super-accurate atomic clocks that were synchronised before take-off were not synchronised after they landed. Furthermore the equations of relativity accurately predicted the time change on the clocks. This evidence greatly supports the idea that time is not eternal but a physical property of the universe determined by light and the speed of the observer. You can reference previous posts for information supporting the above.

 

You might also want to check out time dilation.

 

Observers or light did not exist in our universe before the big bang, therefore time did not exist, as we know it, before the Big Bang.

 

Interesting note: turn your radio station to a channel that is not occupied. A tiny part of the static you hear is leftover radiation from the big bang.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Blood Padron! You asked earlier how do we know that the universe is expanding?

 

We can calculate the velocity of the stars in the universe by how red-shifted they are. Let me explain:

 

Light travels in waves. Mathematically we know a lot about the properties of these waves.

 

One being the Light spectrum. By observing the color of light we can determine its wavelength.

 

This image is from here.

 

By knowing the wavelength we can determine the frequency by using the following equation:

 

F=c/Wavelength

where c=the speed of light

("F" equals the "speed of light" divided by the "wavelength")

Since we know the value for "c" and the value for the wavelength we can use simple arithmetic to solve the problem and find the frequency.

 

You can find more about the validity of these equations on the wikipedia page for Wavelength.

 

Now knowing the frequency we can determine the velocity of the star relative to the observer. I present the equations and descriptive picture:

 

 

 

where

v{s,r}, is the velocity of the source relative to the receiver: it is negative when the source is moving towards the receiver, positive when moving away

c, is the speed of wave

 

As you can see we already know the values for "F" the frequency from the previous equation.

 

We also know the speed of the wave (c= speed of light).

 

We can then use simple algebra to determine the v{s,r} or velocity of the source relative to the receiver.

 

Generally when the source is moving away from the receiver the wave-length is stretched making the frequency greater. When the source is moving towards the receiver the wavelength is compressed making the frequency smaller. This is known as the Doppler Effect. You can find out more about the Doppler Effect there. This science is fundamental to many applications we have today. One being radar.

 

This image is from here.

 

When we observer our universe through telescopes we can use the above math to determine the speed of the star relative to us. When we calculate this, we notice that generally all the galaxies are moving away from us, and the further they are the faster they are moving away. This is how we know the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

This is a bit of history on the discover of the expansion of the universe from here.

 

"The expansion of the universe was discovered in 1929, when American astronomer Edwin Hubble brought together many scientists' work. In 1915, Albert Einstein wrote the General Theory of Relativity, which explained how gravity works. When Einstein applied his new theory to the whole universe, he found that it predicted that space should not be stable; it should either be expanding or contracting. Einstein refused to believe his own equations - like all astronomers for thousands of years, he had assumed that the size of the universe was not changing.

The Sombrero Galaxy

 

Meanwhile, on another continent, Vesto Slipher, an astronomer at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, was finishing a detailed study of the night sky. Through his telescope, he examined several of faint, fuzzy objects called "nebulae," from the Greek word for "cloud." He discovered that light given off by the nebulae was redder than it should have been. Slipher knew that when an object's light looked too red, that meant it was moving away from Earth. He calculated the nebulae's speeds from the redness of their light, and found they were all moving away from us incredibly quickly: one, the Sombrero Nebula, moved away at 2.5 million miles per hour!"

 

I have attempted to explain the evidence that has already been presented to you in a simple way. Please take the time to read it before you attack it or reject it (saying just "I disagree" is a weak argument against the above mind you). Hopefully this will help you understand the workings of the Universe and how our civilisation has achieved knowledge of some of these workings through simple observations, mathematics and physics.

 

Whew!

 

I feel like listening to some creed after that.

Edited January 23, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[blood_pardon]

Nope. I'm quite sure I have a heart and that I need water to live, but not 100%. Maybe 99.999%, enough that I don't seriously consider otherwise. However, it would be much lower than that if tens of thousands of smart people were claiming to have demonstrated otherwise using the scientific method, which obviously has given us so much in the past.

 

I dont think it's reasonable to say there are NO cetainties in the universe. To be honest you have to admit that you exist and that there is no margin for error.

"Thousands of smart people claim" is perfect wording for why U.S. men, women, boys, and girls accept BB and mac-E claims. The reason for the controversy is believers around the world recognize that the "smart people" have forgotten to figure God in to there equations and so therefore fail as scientists.

 

The questions you ask and the statements you make reveal that you don't really know what the big bang, space expansion, or relativity are all about. I assumed you hadn't been taught these things. Have you?

 

After reading toastywombel's post I have to admit that skimming over wikipedia is not a proper education on the subject. this interest in how space and time are entwined sort of just sparked one day while reading a very long post from a philosopher/scientist in another sci-forum. Time is such an interesting subject and when I get down on learning from the web I do recieve treasures of knowledge.

 

To answer you ? no I have never been formally taught on the subject. I was but everyone was so mean to this science teacher that no one wanted to learn anything ever. I failed biology that year, my senior year the teacher was a Christian that out right refused to teach it and no one said anything.

 

 

 

 

If you think you already know' date=' then why did you open this topic?

Hypothetically, suppose I said that I know that you're wrong, because the holy texts of my religion disagree, and that I have personal experience of the supernatural backing me up. How would you respond?[/quote']

 

Im trying to reason with SF.net and lead them back in time to the very first state. Is there such a thing? In my logic either there is and its something supernatural or we are living in an infinite past "states" whether time is there or not. Is that reasonable?

 

Technically that is exactly what your telling me when you say you believe the scientific methods idea on how the universe became existant and how superintelligent/moral/speach enabled/scientific/artistic humans arose. I can't call it a religion per say but I can point out that alot of BB ideas and mac-E ideas are based on not only observations but speculations. Your holy texts would be peer-reviewed evidence presented by credible scientists. Holy means "seperate" so since you consider your articles "special" over the bible or any other idea this may be appropriate.

 

If you said that I would probably respond by asking you to tell me a summary of your religion.

 

Hubbles law

 

Thanx for the post, I will read all of it. I dont want to be lazy I need to hit some books and my college site.

[Klaynos]

blood_pardon this is a discussion site not a lecture site.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Klaynos

[Mr Skeptic]

The reason for the controversy is believers around the world recognize that the "smart people" have forgotten to figure God in to there equations and so therefore fail as scientists.

 

But, which god should they figure in? And why? What sort of accurate predictions do god-based theories make? Why say that god is responsible for the sun rising every day, the rain, and diseases, when we have perfectly good explanations for these, that even allow us to predict things instead of only feeling self-satisfied that we "understand" them?

 

Your holy texts would be peer-reviewed evidence presented by credible scientists. Holy means "seperate" so since you consider your articles "special" over the bible or any other idea this may be appropriate.

 

No, things don't need to be peer reviewed to be accepted by science, they need to have evidence for them. That, incidentally, is what peer review is for -- to make sure that claims are based on evidence and sound methodology. If there is a mistake, point it out and it will be corrected. If you have something to add, submit it and if it is sound it will be added. Nothing holy about it.

 

Can we please go correct the mistakes in the Bible now? It's only fair that if you can correct the mistakes in our "holy texts" that we can correct the mistakes in yours.