(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

(12-15-2016 08:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:00 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power.

See I actually agree with this even though I don't believe in evolution. I believe God, for lack of a better term "reused code" so studying one animal and it's genetic makeup gives us information about ourselves.

Quote:The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

So did the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though it had no resemblance at all to reality. But as a model it worked, and it worked well for a good long time.

A geocentric model for the solar system is a scientific model. It's bad science today, but at least it could be tested and conclusions drawn from the model. Contrast that with trying to build a scientific model based on creationism. You can't do anything with that. You couldn't test it. It's not science.

I never said it was. It's faith... But that does not mean it's incorrect as sometimes science which even shows correct predictive outcome can be wrong... (Ptolemaic Model)

All I am saying is that one can accept God and still accept Science. The two are not at all incompatible.

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i mean i'm probably in the camp where I can firmly say I dont know the genesis of the earth. It could be some kind of alegory and creation was a long process that came together through natural processes, or if it happened 6,000 years ago. I wouldnt say young earth creation is impossible, nor evolution. Pretty interesting to see similar conclusions by very different people.

That's a trap that some people fall into. Their opinions are that the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are "just theories" - just like the creation theory that God made the world in 7 literal days 6000 years ago. The former has gobs of scientific data demonstrating the likelihood that the universe began this way and that life on earth progressed via evolution. The latter has none of that except a book telling us this is how it happened that was written by bronze age/iron age cultures.

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

(12-15-2016 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i mean i'm probably in the camp where I can firmly say I dont know the genesis of the earth. It could be some kind of alegory and creation was a long process that came together through natural processes, or if it happened 6,000 years ago. I wouldnt say young earth creation is impossible, nor evolution. Pretty interesting to see similar conclusions by very different people.

That's a trap that some people fall into. Their opinions are that the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are "just theories" - just like the creation theory that God made the world in 7 literal days 6000 years ago. The former has gobs of scientific data demonstrating the likelihood that the universe began this way and that life on earth progressed via evolution. The latter has none of that except a book telling us this is how it happened that was written by bronze age/iron age cultures.

You dont know what you dont know. That is the human limit. To ignore that, is to go around in life believing you know it all.

I can show you scientific beliefs over history that had gobs of scientific data proving their likelihood, only to fall on their face when what we previously did not know became known.

Plenty of things make sense, until they dont.

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

(12-15-2016 11:27 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

Since you took the time to find a face palm pic, maybe you can also take the time to quote me the bible verse that says the earth is 6000 years old. I mean, you did make an effort to post a retort, so you might as well take the same amount of time and make it an intelligent one.

(12-15-2016 11:34 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:27 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

Since you took the time to find a face palm pic, maybe you can also take the time to quote me the bible verse that says the earth is 6000 years old. I mean, you did make an effort to post a retort, so you might as well take the same amount of time and make it an intelligent one.

LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

Let me help you out. You know the number of days to make the earth, you know the age of Adam and all his descendents (those who factored into the geneology of Christ), the age of each male when each descendent was born, the date when Christ was born and the calendar dates from the birth of Christ thru today. The reason you cannot have an "age statement" is because the age of the world is always changing.

(12-15-2016 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:34 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:27 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  You need to be careful here and be specific about what creationism you are referring to.

The young earth creationist are claiming that the earth is 6000 years old. Yet science has presented much evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Current science is pretty clear on those questions.

Now if you are suggesting that a God set the process in motion 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang, then you have a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I personally accept the big bang and evolution. I also believe that a God set the whole process in motion, or to use an analogy, wrote the code and clicked on EXEC. The former is scientific while the latter is religious and never the twain shall meet.

Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

Since you took the time to find a face palm pic, maybe you can also take the time to quote me the bible verse that says the earth is 6000 years old. I mean, you did make an effort to post a retort, so you might as well take the same amount of time and make it an intelligent one.

LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

The explain your face palm. I mean, if you agree with me that the bible doesnt say that, then what exactly in my post was face-palmable to you?

(12-15-2016 11:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:34 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:27 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Yea, and I want to be clear on that. I'm referring directly to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old. It implies, to the contrary, that its older. I know some want to believe 6000 years, but the issue I have with that is that they are taking a belief NOT rooted in the bible, and clinging to it to the point their faith is shaken when it can be clearly proven not to be the case. The problem with that is that they are placing their faith in words and beliefs of man versus that of the bible. If God says the earth is 6000 years old, then it is 6000 years old. But, he never said that. So noone needs to put forward a belief that it is.

Since you took the time to find a face palm pic, maybe you can also take the time to quote me the bible verse that says the earth is 6000 years old. I mean, you did make an effort to post a retort, so you might as well take the same amount of time and make it an intelligent one.

LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

The explain your face palm. I mean, if you agree with me that the bible doesnt say that, then what exactly in my post was face-palmable to you?

Quote:LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

Let me help you out. You know the number of days to make the earth, you know the age of Adam and all his descendents (those who factored into the geneology of Christ), the age of each male when each descendent was born, the date when Christ was born and the calendar dates from the birth of Christ thru today. The reason you cannot have an "age statement" is because the age of the world is always changing.

(12-15-2016 11:42 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:34 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:27 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

Since you took the time to find a face palm pic, maybe you can also take the time to quote me the bible verse that says the earth is 6000 years old. I mean, you did make an effort to post a retort, so you might as well take the same amount of time and make it an intelligent one.

LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

The explain your face palm. I mean, if you agree with me that the bible doesnt say that, then what exactly in my post was face-palmable to you?

Quote:LOL! If there was a bible verse that stated "the earth is 6000 years old", then wouldn't that make it be in error for bible readers 1000 years in the past or for future generations?

Let me help you out. You know the number of days to make the earth, you know the age of Adam and all his descendents (those who factored into the geneology of Christ), the age of each male when each descendent was born, the date when Christ was born and the calendar dates from the birth of Christ thru today. The reason you cannot have an "age statement" is because the age of the world is always changing.

Now you are all over the place. Simplify, and simply state what about my original post you face palmed you had a problem with. Not some other post. Not what others have stated some time in the past. What was it about my post that has you so bothered.

Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

What ideas of his were wrong?

(12-15-2016 10:59 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:00 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power.

See I actually agree with this even though I don't believe in evolution. I believe God, for lack of a better term "reused code" so studying one animal and it's genetic makeup gives us information about ourselves.

Quote:The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

So did the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though it had no resemblance at all to reality. But as a model it worked, and it worked well for a good long time.

A geocentric model for the solar system is a scientific model. It's bad science today, but at least it could be tested and conclusions drawn from the model. Contrast that with trying to build a scientific model based on creationism. You can't do anything with that. You couldn't test it. It's not science.

I never said it was. It's faith... But that does not mean it's incorrect as sometimes science which even shows correct predictive outcome can be wrong... (Ptolemaic Model)

All I am saying is that one can accept God and still accept Science. The two are not at all incompatible.

You can do that if you take large portions of the bible and reinterpret the stories as allegory, myths or parables for moral instruction. A literal interpretation of all scripture is incompatible with science. If you allow scripture to be fluid and for meanings to change over time then you can accept both.

One thing you have to remember about science. Just because the math works out does not mean it happened or will happen.

The Big Bang is not proven beyond a shadow of doubt. The original theory took into account the speed of light that Einstein said is the universal speed limit. Then instruments became available to more accurately measure the size of the universe and they discovered the universe was much larger than first thought. Now they had a problem. The age and the size of the universe didn't match. So here comes inflation theory that states when the universe was created physics as we know it didn't exist so the universe expanded at a much faster rate than the speed of light. Well isn't that convenient.

What is gravity? We know that the more mass an object has the more gravity it has but what is gravity? It can be measured but science still doest not know what it is or what causes it.

Just food for thought.

Don't get me started on the physics that rule heavenly bodies and the physics that rule elements because they don't jive with each other. So they invented sting theory.

(12-15-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You can do that if you take large portions of the bible and reinterpret the stories as allegory, myths or parables for moral instruction. A literal interpretation of all scripture is incompatible with science.

Not at all. If I assume, for instance, that rather than God kicking off the universe at t=0 he kicked it off at t=13.772B all of the sudden I can both believe the creation narrative and not ignore the physical behavior of the universe.

The Bible teaches that God made Adam as a man, not an embyo. So I believe he did the same thing with the universe.

See... You can disagree with my base assumptions and you can right say they are not provable but even if they are wrong that would have no bearing on the physical universe or my study of it.

I always appreciate it when someone makes a statement like "we have compelling scientific data" for an event that is purported to have occurred 13,800,000,000 years ago. That is the epitome of human narcissism.

(12-15-2016 12:07 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  One thing you have to remember about science. Just because the math works out does not mean it happened or will happen.

The Big Bang is not proven beyond a shadow of doubt. The original theory took into account the speed of light that Einstein said is the universal speed limit. Then instruments became available to more accurately measure the size of the universe and they discovered the universe was much larger than first thought. Now they had a problem. The age and the size of the universe didn't match. So here comes inflation theory that states when the universe was created physics as we know it didn't exist so the universe expanded at a much faster rate than the speed of light. Well isn't that convenient.

What is gravity? We know that the more mass an object has the more gravity it has but what is gravity? It can be measured but science still doest not know what it is or what causes it.

Just food for thought.

Don't get me started on the physics that rule heavenly bodies and the physics that rule elements because they don't jive with each other. So they invented sting theory.

Everything you have written is correct but that is getting way out ahead of a political board. But certainly the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity has been captioned as the Holy Grail.

Nonetheless, I had a similar problem with inflation but now understand the currently accepted answer. The speed of light is a universal speed limit for mass/energy moving through space. But space itself can expand faster than the speed of light. This has been confirmed by astronomical observation. And this is part of the dark energy problem.

A separate problem exists in quantum entanglement, wherein information seems to travel at a speed faster than light to support the instantaneous observations of a quantum state of two particles separated by some distance, ie. Einstein's spooky effects.

This is all currently being studied but as the eminent theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind has said, everything we think we know, may be wrong.,

(12-15-2016 12:21 PM)banker Wrote:  I always appreciate it when someone makes a statement like "we have compelling scientific data" for an event that is purported to have occurred 13,800,000,000 years ago. That is the epitome of human narcissism.

Except that we can see it. Well almost, as we are about 380,000 years short of the 13.8 billion.

(12-15-2016 12:41 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:21 PM)banker Wrote:  I always appreciate it when someone makes a statement like "we have compelling scientific data" for an event that is purported to have occurred 13,800,000,000 years ago. That is the epitome of human narcissism.

Except that we can see it. Well almost, as we are about 380,000 years short of the 13.8 billion.

No, you simply have a theory of what you are seeing and when they theory hits a roadblock a new theory to explain the roadblock is developed and you keep right on going.

We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on. Given that level of scientific knowledge in today's society, I am to believe that we can definitively explain things that happened 13.8 billion years ago?

All we know about the age of things is based on tests that we have developed, such as carbon dating. Problem is that we don't have any clue what variables may or may not have occurred 10 billion years ago, or a million years ago, or 10,000 years ago, that would lead us to make adjustments to those processes if they were in fact known. It's all theory.