The Mechanics of Gods Science

[rigney]

I was zipping through the internet this morning and came across an item explaining the Science of God. Must have been dozens of headings, but this guy lays it on the line and makes sense. As an agnostic, I am caught up in a virtual conundrum. While I am a firm believer in science, the presenter scares hell out of me. And since he doesn't come across as a Jim Swaggart or Jim Baker bible thumping type fornicator, I tend to lean toward his reasoning. The man has principal, an education, and delivers a compelling presentation with conviction. Watch it, rationalize and think. How many scientists of today think as he does, but are reluctant to confess it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538#docid=-4065080646891971315

Edited June 23, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

I listened to only part of this on another website, since it seems to go on rather long. I think his basic conceptual mistake is that it is possible to draw qualitative, loose, metaphoric analogies between some selected subset of statements in any document, whether scientific or imaginative, and any selected sub-sections of any other document, whether scientific or imaginative. The reason why this mapping is possible is because there is a considerable play in the connection rules: near misses, qualitative rather than just quantitative links, and metaphorical conenctions all count as valid congruences. So using these sorts of connection rules, I could make Brahm Stoker's novel 'Dracula' a correct anticipation of the theory of atomic decay, since Stoker's description of Dracula turning into a bat 'anticipates' Fermi's data on one type of atom being transformed into another type of atom by radioactive decay, at least as long as we regard them both as talking about the ability of one entity to transform spontaneously into another entity.

 

So to claim that the Bible anticipates the Big Bang theory by stating that the universe had a beginning is simply too loose a relation to count as a true prediction or anticipation.

[Moontanman]

I had never seen a Jewish creationist so i watched the entire video, it is rather long and wordy and he does come up with some stuff i had never heard from other creationists. Sadly his witches brew of lies, misrepresentations, half truths, fabrications, spiced with a few facts is no different than Christian, Muslim, or Hindu creationists. His shameless distortions of Einsteins work is new but the results are the same, he lied to support his religious convictions, his violations of the 9th commandment are rampant and his lack of knowledge about well known facts puts him in the same category as other creationists, he is simply a liar, a rather good one I admit but a liar none the less. it's sad that people need to lie to support their beliefs, why can't they simply believe? I'd rather hear them say God did it and I believe and that settles it, i can respect belief but lies are inexcusable. His claim of two PHD's makes his lies all the worse. Although a PHD doesn't make you all knowing I would think he should know the simple things that even an uneducated person like me knows and I suspect he does know but since the truth doesn't support his agenda that means he is knowingly lying, I have no idea why anyone would lie to support what is supposed to be the truth but creationists seem to think it's necessary. I guess the money they make from their books and speaking tours is the incentive, i doubt converting people to believe in god has anything to do with it.

 

Rigney, can you send me a link to that video?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

I had never seen a Jewish creationist so i watched the entire video, it is rather long and wordy and he does come up with some stuff i had never heard from other creationists. Sadly his witches brew of lies, misrepresentations, half truths, fabrications, spiced with a few facts is no different than Christian, Muslim, or Hindu creationists. His shameless distortions of Einsteins work is new but the results are the same, he lied to support his religious convictions, his violations of the 9th commandment are rampant and his lack of knowledge about well known facts puts him in the same category as other creationists, he is simply a liar, a rather good one I admit but a liar none the less. it's sad that people need to lie to support their beliefs, why can't they simply believe? I'd rather hear them say God did it and I believe and that settles it, i can respect belief but lies are inexcusable. His claim of two PHD's makes his lies all the worse. Although a PHD doesn't make you all knowing I would think he should know the simple things that even an uneducated person like me knows and I suspect he does know but since the truth doesn't support his agenda that means he is knowingly lying, I have no idea why anyone would lie to support what is supposed to be the truth but creationists seem to think it's necessary. I guess the money they make from their books and speaking tours is the incentive, i doubt converting people to believe in god has anything to do with it.

 

Rigney, can you send me a link to that video?

 

Had to look around for it since I didn't recall from where I got it. Was just skipping through the net today and found it. Thought it was a link when I posted it. Wrong! Nothing big though. Hell! I thought it was just something to make a good post. Didn't even look to see what faith the guy was. 'Jewish" and I'm Hill Billy! Damn. Who would have thunk it? You're very observent Pal. Sorry about that.

 

I listened to only part of this on another website, since it seems to go on rather long. I think his basic conceptual mistake is that it is possible to draw qualitative, loose, metaphoric analogies between some selected subset of statements in any document, whether scientific or imaginative, and any selected sub-sections of any other document, whether scientific or imaginative. The reason why this mapping is possible is because there is a considerable play in the connection rules: near misses, qualitative rather than just quantitative links, and metaphorical conenctions all count as valid congruences. So using these sorts of connection rules, I could make Brahm Stoker's novel 'Dracula' a correct anticipation of the theory of atomic decay, since Stoker's description of Dracula turning into a bat 'anticipates' Fermi's data on one type of atom being transformed into another type of atom by radioactive decay, at least as long as we regard them both as talking about the ability of one entity to transform spontaneously into another entity.

 

So to claim that the Bible anticipates the Big Bang theory by stating that the universe had a beginning is simply too loose a relation to count as a true prediction or anticipation.

 

Personally, no way could I relate to most of his commentary. Even with Moonman's visceral ambiguity, I never realized the guy was Jewish until I viewed the whole thing a second time and realized his hat was not a bald spot. Guess that's why I'm an agnostic. Not smart enough to be a card carrying atheist, or dumb enough to be a cross dragging religious nut. Edited June 23, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Personally, no way could I relate to most of his commentary. Even with Moonman's visceral ambiguity, I never realized the guy was Jewish until I viewed the whole thing a second time and realized his hat was not a bald spot. Guess that's why I'm an agnostic. Not smart enough to be a card carrying atheist, or dumb enough to be a cross dragging religious nut.

 

 

Do you really expect me to rehash a one hour and 17 minute video blow by blow? he starts out by claiming a plesiosaur is a dinosaur and goes down hill from there. The idea that gravity could account for the days of genesis being billions of years long was just silly, his made up times line of life had very little connection with reality and his assertion that trilobites were ancestral to insects was stupid. If you want to ask questions about anything he said specifically let me know, i assure you he claimed nothing that was in any way not trivially falsified.

[rigney]

Do you really expect me to rehash a one hour and 17 minute video blow by blow? he starts out by claiming a plesiosaur is a dinosaur and goes down hill from there. The idea that gravity could account for the days of genesis being billions of years long was just silly, his made up times line of life had very little connection with reality and his assertion that trilobites were ancestral to insects was stupid. If you want to ask questions about anything he said specifically let me know, i assure you he claimed nothing that was in any way not trivially falsified.

 

In no way do I want to be disagreeable Moon, and since I didn't follow his "sermon" at length, even when he started reading from the back of the book and speaking in unknown tongues, I simply thought he was 180 degrees dislexic and was holding the book upside down. After going back and reviewing that first bit of his dissertation, I saw your reason for calling him a charlatan. Let me ask one question though, which came first; The chicken or the egg? This was his mistake.

 

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/beforedinos.htm

Edited June 24, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

In no way do I want to be disagreeable Moon, and since I didn't follow his "sermon" at length, even when he started reading from the back of the book and speaking in unknown tongues, I simply thought he was 180 degrees dislexic and was holding the book upside down. After going back and reviewing that first bit of his dissertation, I saw your reason for calling him a charlatan. Let me ask one question though, which came first; The chicken or the egg? This was his mistake.

 

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/beforedinos.htm

 

 

A bird called the jungle fowl came first, we domesticated them into chickens....

[rigney]

A bird called the jungle fowl came first, we domesticated them into chickens....

 

You made that absolutely ridiculous statement without adding a thing to the post, and I just cant give you a gold star sticker for it. But why, since this guy doesen't have his hand in either of our pockets? I'd almost bet that some religious cult got a lot of your cash at one time or another, and that's what keeps you hoppin' mad at all of 'em. Edited June 26, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

You made that absolutely ridiculous statement without adding a thing to the post, and I just cant give you a gold star sticker for it. But why, since this guy doesen't have his hand in either of our pockets? I'd almost bet that some religious cult got a lot of your cash at one time or another, and that's what keeps you hoppin' mad at all of 'em.

 

Their hands were never concerned with my pockets Rigney, i happen to be intimately acquainted with the dirty little secrete of fundamentalists, metal, physical and sexual abuse of true believers, adults and children, spouses, read that as women and the cover up by inducing fear of going to hell if you say anything that might keep others from believing. The bending over backward of both male and female clergy and parishioners so far their heads come out of their own mouths to insure the sheep never know or never tell. The biblical literalists are nothing but self inflated bags of hot flatulence.

 

They are all jackasses who would cover up anything no matter how bad to keep the money flowing and the people mesmerized by their lies and bullshit. The instill fear of god into everyone and indulge themselves in every way on the backs of the people who fear god. As long as the sheep give their money to the shepherds the bullshit will continue to flow out from the sheep to the shepherds and the stench will fill the air and choke us all.

 

Right now the battle lines are being drawn, I just watched face the nation and the leading female republican tell how god tells her to run for president so she can protect the constitution and make sure Christians rule, Conservatives have aligned themselves with the fundamentalist Christian right. Again we will be be asked to choose between God and what is right and again i suspect we will choose God and the blame for all our woes will be laid at the feet of Progressives as the Conservatives do their best to ignore the mistakes of 8 years of Conservative rule and try to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and make sure the word of God and the fear of hell fire backs up their bullshit. If you love freedom and respect the founding fathers you will vote democrat, not because they are correct but because they will allow you to be wrong if you want but if you believe that God and government is the same thing and should be totally intrusive and unaccountable then vote Republican, they'll get around to screwing you in one way or another but if you play their game you might be allowed to enjoy it.

 

I want to know why the hell my spell checker always suggests Conservative be capitalized but not liberal or progressive??? Can anyone say conspiracy???!!!

 

You made that absolutely ridiculous statement without adding a thing to the post, and I just cant give you a gold star sticker for it.

 

 

So irony is totally lost on you? I thought it quite witty and that answer has confounded many a creationist over the years

[rigney]

Their hands were never concerned with my pockets Rigney, i happen to be intimately acquainted with the dirty little secrete of fundamentalists, metal, physical and sexual abuse of true believers, adults and children, spouses, read that as women and the cover up by inducing fear of going to hell if you say anything that might keep others from believing. The bending over backward of both male and female clergy and parishioners so far their heads come out of their own mouths to insure the sheep never know or never tell. The biblical literalists are nothing but self inflated bags of hot flatulence.

 

They are all jackasses who would cover up anything no matter how bad to keep the money flowing and the people mesmerized by their lies and bullshit. The instill fear of god into everyone and indulge themselves in every way on the backs of the people who fear god. As long as the sheep give their money to the shepherds the bullshit will continue to flow out from the sheep to the shepherds and the stench will fill the air and choke us all.

 

Right now the battle lines are being drawn, I just watched face the nation and the leading female republican tell how god tells her to run for president so she can protect the constitution and make sure Christians rule, Conservatives have aligned themselves with the fundamentalist Christian right. Again we will be be asked to choose between God and what is right and again i suspect we will choose God and the blame for all our woes will be laid at the feet of Progressives as the Conservatives do their best to ignore the mistakes of 8 years of Conservative rule and try to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and make sure the word of God and the fear of hell fire backs up their bullshit. If you love freedom and respect the founding fathers you will vote democrat, not because they are correct but because they will allow you to be wrong if you want but if you believe that God and government is the same thing and should be totally intrusive and unaccountable then vote Republican, they'll get around to screwing you in one way or another but if you play their game you might be allowed to enjoy it.

 

I want to know why the hell my spell checker always suggests Conservative be capitalized but not liberal or progressive??? Can anyone say conspiracy???!!!

 

 

 

 

So irony is totally lost on you? I thought it quite witty and that answer has confounded many a creationist over the years

 

Confounding the "sheeple" (creationist) is an easy task. They don't task, research; and most don't know the difference between a clone and a cold pork chop. I just thought your ambigious understanding of fools would allow you a more subtle approach. Edited June 26, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Confounding the "sheeple" (creationist) is an easy task. They don't task, research; and most don't know the difference between a clone and a cold pork chop. I just thought your ambigious understanding of fools would allow you a more subtle approach.

 

 

Why attempt to explain something in extreme detail to people who wouldn't understand evolution if it jumped up their ass and don't give a shit anyway?

 

I have drunk way too much coffee today

Edited June 26, 2011 by Moontanman

[ponderer]

I was zipping through the internet this morning and came across an item explaining the Science of God. Must have been dozens of headings, but this guy lays it on the line and makes sense. As an agnostic, I am caught up in a virtual conundrum. While I am a firm believer in science, the presenter scares hell out of me. And since he doesn't come across as a Jim Swaggart or Jim Baker bible thumping type fornicator, I tend to lean toward his reasoning. The man has principal, an education, and delivers a compelling presentation with conviction. Watch it, rationalize and think. How many scientists of today think as he does, but are reluctant to confess it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538#docid=-4065080646891971315

 

Interesting video. Some of the points seemed stimulating to consider. So, I had a look at both the english and hebrew genesis to see if the translation might be reconsidered, to find some sort of creation interpretation based on a brane type theory. I thought perhaps genesis might actually describe the creation of a spherical brane with a water like surface, and then the execution of some geometric creations in the brane.

 

It was a interesting exercise, but given the description that the earth and the plants are said to be created a "day" before the sun and the stars, and given that the "day" might be a few billion years long in his estimation, it is difficult to see how the plants could have survived and evolved without a sun in the sky. Plants could survive one regular day without a sun. That suggests that the author did not see a day as equivalent to a billion years or so. This also suggests an earth as the center of the universe mentality, with the sun and stars orbiting the earth. The sun and the stars are an afterthough, because that is how the author preceived them from a human perspective. God would have a different perspective me thinks, and so one is inclined to think that genesis was conceived and written by man, and not passed down from God.

 

If it was passed down from God, it would seem that one would have to conclude:

 

A: that God would have to be deliberately trying to deceive us

 

B: that God did not remember himself how he created the universe, recalled the best he could, and did not know about the greater universe until we learned ourselves and he was party to the learning.

 

C: The author got the days mixed up when taking dictation from God.

 

If you swap the two days and are very liberal with the translation, you can actually get a basic universe model out of it, but you have to be creative over and above what is described. It becomes jiggering genesis to fit a potential model. No credibility there as I see it. It would also be disrespectful of people's religious beliefs, and one must conclude that it follows disrespectful of God.

 

It seems that belief in the Bible means you have to take it as it is written.

Edited August 16, 2011 by ponderer