The Co-existence of Science and Theology

11/19/2007 01:25:41 PM · #401

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Now... if you could get each of those men to describe their findings and plot their relative positions, they'd start to form a rough idea of the overall structure. Explore further and add more data points, and the picture eventually becomes clear enough to determine what it really is... an elephant. Tests are proposed and carried out to confirm or disprove what might be expected of that structure. As more and more people add information from different areas and specializations, the picture comes into focus with increasing resolution. Say hello to a scientific theory.

The overwhelming majority of results support the theory, but every once in a while we find something unexpected... hey, this elephant only has one tusk! That doesn't mean the whole theory is disproven (because every other test agrees), so we try to figure out why that test didn't match expectations. Maybe it was injured? We look for signs of injury. If we find a broken stump, then the anomalous discovery still agrees with the theory. If we don't, then we keep looking until another explanation is found- hey, there's a metal support here, maybe it's a Hollywood prop? No matter how many tests or how compelling the evidence, there will always be somebody in the blind group that says, "Yeah, but you haven't actually seen it, so there's really no proof, and, since it conflicts with this Egyptian heiroglyph that swears the largest existing animals are invisible flying unicorns, your evidence must be flawed in the first place." Absent any way to prove that invisible flying unicorns don't exist, all the researchers can do is encourage people to look at the first hand evidence themselves and correct any erroneous claims about the methods used to gather that evidence (no offense intended to invisible flying unicorn believers).

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/19/2007 01:28:00 PM · #402

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by scalvert:
A comparison to your neighbor's house is no more relevant to understanding a natural process than comparing a home renovation to the metamorphosis of a butterfly.

It is if the science is based on observation. And except for a few moon rocks that is all space science is. And most of what archeology and palientology is as well.

Ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/19/2007 01:29:25 PM · #403

Originally posted by scalvert:

(no offense intended to invisible flying unicorn believers).

Thanks I was about to go postal...

:-P

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/19/2007 02:22:49 PM · #404

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
As such, it is not unreasonable ( to my mind ) to ask for the proof to be provided.

Of course not. And it has, time and again, in the form of empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people.

With all due respect, the wave theory of light was an empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. So why is it not still the universally accepted theory??????

Wow.. you STILL don't understand how theoretical models and the scientific method work. The wave theory was insufficient in explaining certain discrepancies that existed when those repeatable experiments were made, and so had to be reexamined.

But even WITH those unexplained / unexplainable results, the theory was accepted by a large following in the scientific community for over a century. How long has Darwinian evolution been generally accepted?

Interestingly enough, the theory of evolution doesn't suffer from the types of issues that wave theory had:
a) the theory of evolution doesn't have repeatable experiments, and
b) those backing the theory of evolution won't admit to having any discrepancies

Originally posted by Louis:

Just like all true scientific theories, it was offered for peer review, as you have seen, and was modified. I don't see how the successful life-cycle of any particular theory you care to point to has anything to do with refuting the veracity of any other theory in a completely different discipline.

Because its not just about the theory; it's also about the theorists.
We know, from history, that some in the scientific community make hypotheses ( e.g. the "ether" ), and then elevate those hypotheses to the level of FACTS without the need for independent proof because such "facts" are implicit - implicit because they are required by the theory that requires them, and the theory that requires them is, of course, "proven". Therefore, THEY are proven by induction.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/19/2007 02:41:15 PM · #405

Originally posted by RonB:

a) the theory of evolution doesn't have repeatable experiments, and
b) those backing the theory of evolution won't admit to having any discrepancies

a) Several are demonstrated in the Nova documentary that you obviously still haven't watched.
b) Unless you're just making this up, you should be able to give us an example of a discrepancy in the theory.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/19/2007 02:59:28 PM · #406

WARNING!!!! Adult theme post.

Recently received email. Perhaps you have already seen it. Regardless it seems to prove the existence of God - scientifically.

HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

The following is an actual question given on a Washington Unilversity
chemistry mid-term.

The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives of heat) or endothermic (absorbs
heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changin in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rateat which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a sou get to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of those religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The coraollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, therby proving the existence of a devine being which explains why, last night Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/19/2007 03:24:21 PM · #407

Originally posted by Flash:

WARNING!!!! Adult theme post.

Recently received email. Perhaps you have already seen it. Regardless it seems to prove the existence of God - scientifically.

HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

That's hysterical! I've seen it before, and I love it. I think I remember reading that it was not *actually* a real answer in a real exam, but it's still utterly brilliant.

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/19/2007 03:36:08 PM · #408

Originally posted by RonB:

Because its not just about the theory; it's also about the theorists.

It seems to me that it's only ever about the theorists when non-scientists or pseudo-scientists cannot ideologically accept the best evidence in existence.

Originally posted by RonB:

We know, from history, that some in the scientific community make hypotheses (e.g. the "ether")

If you are referring to the Artistotelian element, this is pseudo-scientific, and was a proposition put forward a couple of millennia before the scientific method was established. If you refer to that unknown quality of the universe that was supposed to be some kind of medium of transport, again, you may point to any theory that has undergone dramatic revision until the hell has been revised out of it or it has been abandoned, but you still won't make a case for requiring the dismissal of a sound, universally accepted theory like that of evolution. It has been pointed out ad infinitum what theorizing is; simply because the model works, ie, theories are revised into better theories, does not indicate that any theory not yet dismissed out of hand is bad.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/19/2007 03:49:40 PM · #409

Originally posted by scalvert:

Furthermore, you don't have to wait for half the isotope's life to determine what its half-life is. Atomic decay is exponential, and you'd only have to measure over a comparatively tiny period of time to accurately plot the curve of even a very long half-life. With the sensitivity of current technology, a few days would suffice.

Yes, and it gives a very accurate measurement of the current decay rate.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Can scientists predict, using physics and mathematics alone, the half life of an unstable isotope? Yes or No? If so, produce evidence that it was done.

Yes....

No. There is no indication that the half-life was PREDICTED before it was measured... Nor does the extract say that the predictions were a 100% match - only that they were compared.

Those links were abstracts (not concentrated flavorings) describing the general content of the reports. I should have known you wouldn't look any farther than the headline- you want it spelled out clearly without actually having to dig. Fine. Another 8 second search: HERE ya go. "The half-life was calculated to be (1.9 +/- 0.2 ) x 1019 years, which is in good agreement with the theoretical prediction of 4.6 x 1019 years." Now personally, I consider a difference of less than 3 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be good agreement, but your mileage may vary.

My mileage varies considerably. The difference between their calculation and their theoretical prediction is between 270 to 290 quintillion years. That is 1.9 billion times the age of the universe ( if the universe is 13.7 billion years old ). If, as you maintain, they predicted the half life by using physics and mathematics alone ( which is nowhere stated in the article ), then I would say they must have used bad physics or bad mathematics, or relied to heavily on the accuracy of a solar-powered 5-function calculator in a dark room.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Isotopes in sedimentary rock are subject to all manner of external influences ( leaching, for one ). Such influences can significantly alter the parent/child relationship - thereby yielding erroneous dating results.

Isochron methods eliminate those errors. Multiple samples are measured using a method that doesn't require knowing the initial isotope concentrations, and any subsequent contamination becomes readily apparent in the results. The link explains the process in great detail if you care to wade through it.

Actually, isochron dating ... fails to take into account the possibility that ALL of the samples have been contaminated to the same degree - which could very well be the case for sedimentary rock. In fact, it would be quite unlikely if external influences ( leaching, for example ) in one part of a given sedimentary strata in a given locale did NOT affect nearby parts of that same strata in that same locale to the same degree. You'd end up with a straight line, but it would be a false dating.

In order for your suggestion to be true of the observed data, EVERY sample would have to be contaminated by leaching after lithification at exactly the same rate and at every point, with the same uniform concentrations of contaminants, everywhere in the world that the same types of fossils are found in rock of similar age... and you claim THEY make assumptions? :-O

Yeah, I claim that they make assumptions, as do you. They assume, for instance, that if a "good" isochron slope exists for a given sample set, but the indicated age doesn't fit their predictions, that it is NOT a "good" isochron, but rather is indicative of rocks that are not "good" samples.
For example: The buried peat deposits at Fili Park( see page 46, bottom left-top right ) where they discounted isochron dating because it only indicated about half of the expected age. They claimed that the strata had been impacted by "post deposition uranium uptake" that uniformly affected the isochron values. And guess why they had to look for an external cause? Because the spore pollen analysis "testified" that the buried peat was older than isochron dating indicated.
And how did they determine that there was a "post deposition uranium uptake"? Because that's the only explanation that supported their rationalization for discounting the isochrons.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/19/2007 04:18:17 PM · #410

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
a) the theory of evolution doesn't have repeatable experiments, and
b) those backing the theory of evolution won't admit to having any discrepancies

a) Several are demonstrated in the Nova documentary that you obviously still haven't watched.
b) Unless you're just making this up, you should be able to give us an example of a discrepancy in the theory.

I really wouldn't be interested in sitting thru a 2-hour PBS documentary written at the 4th grade level. But since you, obviously, have watched it, please zero in on, and cut/paste, the descriptions of one or two of the repeatable experiments for me( here's a link to the Transcript.
b) I have given several example of the discrepancies. Among them: failure to prove that decay rates are constant ( discrepancy: fossil age estimates may be inaccurate ); failure to reproduce "life", not just organic compounds ( discrepancy: no proof that life could have evolved by chance ); erroneous assumptions - perching toe, cold-blooded dinosaurs, etc. ( discrepancy: theory is insufficient to establish / maintain predicted evolutionary groupings - meaning that placement on the evolutionary chart requires frequent re-assignment to stay in line with the theory ).

11/19/2007 06:07:33 PM · #411

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Scalvert:
Atomic decay is exponential, and you'd only have to measure over a comparatively tiny period of time to accurately plot the curve of even a very long half-life. With the sensitivity of current technology, a few days would suffice.

Yes, and it gives a very accurate measurement of the current decay rate.

As noted before, we have multiple sources of evidence that demonstrate decay rates are constant, and zero evidence that they're not. You're not only making an assumption, but doing so against all available evidence.

Originally posted by RonB:

If, as you maintain, they predicted the half life by using physics and mathematics alone (which is nowhere stated in the article ), then I would say they must have used bad physics or bad mathematics...

What else would they have used- a ouija board? You're ignoring the orders of magnitude they're measuring. If they register more decay particles than predicted, or a half-life of 6 minutes or a thousand years, then they'd have a problem. What they measured agreed with the prediction, and additional measurements would be taken to confirm that particular test.

Originally posted by RonB:

...if a "good" isochron slope exists for a given sample set, but the indicated age doesn't fit their predictions, that it is NOT a "good" isochron, but rather is indicative of rocks that are not "good" samples.

Did you even read the article? If so, then we'll have to add another concept to the list you don't seem to grasp. Isochron dating is supposed to point out contamination, and they were using it in an open geochemical system where you would expect that. They used other methods, including pollen and results from closed systems to verify the data (basically demonstrating that it all adds up).

11/19/2007 06:23:52 PM · #412

Originally posted by RonB:

I really wouldn't be interested in sitting thru a 2-hour PBS documentary written at the 4th grade level.

See no evil, eh? Regarding whether anyone has demonstrated macroevolution:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sure they have, and dramatically so. You just choose not to look at it.

You've already spent days arguing this, and won't take two hours to see the evidence you claim doesn't exist? The presentation is geared toward the science layperson. Your posts put you squarely in that target audience.

Originally posted by RonB:

I have given several example of the discrepancies. Among them: failure to prove that decay rates are constant (discrepancy: fossil age estimates may be inaccurate ); failure to reproduce "life", not just organic compounds ( discrepancy: no proof that life could have evolved by chance ); erroneous assumptions - perching toe, cold-blooded dinosaurs, etc. ( discrepancy: theory is insufficient to establish / maintain predicted evolutionary groupings - meaning that placement on the evolutionary chart requires frequent re-assignment to stay in line with the theory ).

I offered a link with multiple reasons we know decay rates are constant. Your response consisted of a conjecture that maybe some day they'll find one contrary piece of evidence. Failure to spontaneously produce life is not a discrepancy in the theory of evolution, which makes no prediction about originating life. Likewise, WHICH animals descended from others does not change a theory that they do.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/19/2007 07:56:16 PM · #413

Originally posted by rox_rox:

Originally posted by zxaar:

that was not argument in favour of hinduism or any religion.
My point was that if we have to believe in holy books, the truth changes with the reference frame. The truth according to hindu books is different than bible.
And the truth will vary if you look through kuran.
But the truth being the truth should not vary.
Science is science whether we are hindu muslim or Christian.

This whole thing is missed in this discussion. Mainly because most of you are Chritstians.

I got it; but only because of your previous posts.

BTW, I'm dying to find out what you make of that theory of everything.

I have been through it lightly, as much as I could gather from the text.
Anyway my goal was not to understand this paper to its every letter and sentence, but i was more interested in the approach to explanation of gravity.

His idea (and i think is an accepted approach at the moment) to tie gravity to mass and spin of sub atomic particles.
These are my objections to it:
1. Tomorrow if we discover another sub-atomic particle, what role it should play in gravity. since he seems to find a definite formula explaining gravity. In other words this assumes that there are exactly these particles in existence as he suggests.

Further by this paper how do you explain the gravity pull between two galaxies (or it might explain, i may have missed it in deep mathematics).

And the last about gravity:
How do you explain a gravity pull between a black hole and light. Since in black hole these subatomic particles seems to lose their identity and light is not sub atomic particle.
(he ties gravity to spin :-D ).

My thoughts about gravity are different. I believe gravity has much more to do with energy than the matter. And since you do not understand energy (we could only measure it to our satisfaction), we could not explain the gravity.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/19/2007 08:44:08 PM · #414

Originally posted by zxaar:

1. Tomorrow if we discover another sub-atomic particle...

The God Particle

:-D

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/19/2007 08:58:20 PM · #415

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by zxaar:

1. Tomorrow if we discover another sub-atomic particle...

The God Particle

:-D

Interesting.
The main problem with dealing the smallest and the largest is that we humans find it enormously difficult to do (prove) it (if not impossible).
This opens up doors for faith and fear based ideologies to slip in.
The only thing in the end you could say is , OK if you want to believe in what you believe we will not stop you, life is so short that it does not make any impact on schemes of this mighty universe. We are so short lived as if we never happened when compared to time scales of this universe.
Those who believe in creationism may very well do so. No stopping them.
Those who believe in science and logic (me included) should understand this and leave our friends alone with their world. Anyway doomsday is looming.

Message edited by author 2007-11-19 20:59:02.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/19/2007 09:08:26 PM · #416

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by zxaar:

1. Tomorrow if we discover another sub-atomic particle...

The God Particle

:-D

Interesting.
The main problem with dealing the smallest and the largest is that we humans find it enormously difficult to do it (if not impossible).
This opens up doors for faith and fear based ideologies to slip in.
The only thing in the end you could say is , OK if you want to believe in what you believe we will not stop you, life is so short that it does not make any impact on schemes of this mighty universe. We are so short lived as if we never happened when compared to time scales of this universe.
Those who believe in creationism may very well do so. No stopping them.
Those who believe in science and logic (me included) should understand this and leave our friends alone with their world. Anyway doomsday is looming.

That's right! Listen to a cosmologist or read the teachings of Buddha or any other faith for that matter and they start to sound the same when talking about the Creation of the Universe and the Omega Point. One camp is just trying to do the math!! :-)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/19/2007 09:45:27 PM · #417

Just out of curiosity, what is it you guys are trying to accomplish at this point?

I mean, Ron's pretty well set with where he's at, and you guys are pretty much just flinging around links, and the meat of whatever last article you referenced, and it's really not swaying anyone's core stances.

There do seem to be a couple of religious moderates, I guess since I believe that God created all the evidence of evolution, and left out enough to keep us from totally being able to connect the dots, that I have strong religious beliefs, but I'd like to think that they're tempered by good sense.

Is there any way that you could chamge tacks, and just for sh*ts and giggles, establish where you can be that if we all ended up at a GTG at the same time, that we didn't have to separate everyone?

Personally, I'd be delighted to spend an afternoon with any of you over a pot of coffee and get you going just so that I could learn more.

I'd just like to see how far you guys would get in the same journey log before you'd have an untenable point of conflict.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/19/2007 10:10:10 PM · #418

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Just out of curiosity, what is it you guys are trying to accomplish at this point?

I think there is nothing to accomplice.
There is no point and arguing when one party dismiss other parties views just because this other party could not satisfy the whole thing to its 100percent. (due to any reason).
While on the same time does not prove its own things to even 1 percent.
If you dismiss other one's idea and say that my ideas are better, you better prove it by facts and by giving proofs.

Even if we have to base our idiologies based on faith or religion. This party (the creationists) smartly chose to ignore other competitors (like muslims and hindus) and never tells us why the creationism is the right way to go, while the others based on similar faith (like muslims) are wrong.
I have yet to see and argument telling us this.
(Christians are only 33percent, and assuming all of them agree with Bible, tells that more than 65 percent of this world does not have same faith as them).
So even if it is faith vs faith, the creationism does not stand up.

There is nothing to accomplice. There is no argument.

Message edited by author 2007-11-19 22:11:12.

jonnienye

Canon EOS-40D

11/19/2007 10:13:02 PM · #419

does this mean mabe this thread is done...(not that i mind shin-kicking but...) edited to say watching people engaged in shin kicking..lol

Message edited by author 2007-11-19 22:15:47.

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/19/2007 10:14:49 PM · #420

Originally posted by jonnienye:

does this mean mabe this thread is done...(not that i mind shin-kicking but...)

for me a long time ago.

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

11/19/2007 10:17:24 PM · #421

Personally, I'd like to see this go in a religious discussion direction rather than science. But maybe that's just because I'm a religious studies minor who doesn't understand anything scientific...

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/19/2007 11:13:26 PM · #422

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Just out of curiosity, what is it you guys are trying to accomplish at this point? I mean, Ron's pretty well set with where he's at...[etc]

There's nothing wrong with sparring. Like the boxing equivalent, it keeps one fit. I don't think anyone expects to "convert" anyone else. I suspect those continuing to participate simply enjoy it. As long as there aren't copious amounts of blood, what's the problem?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/19/2007 11:23:13 PM · #423

Originally posted by JBHale:

Personally, I'd like to see this go in a religious discussion direction rather than science. But maybe that's just because I'm a religious studies minor who doesn't understand anything scientific...

Well, as OP, I got the question answered a couple of pages ago for the most part, so what I'm curious about is how much God can the science guys stomach and how much science can the God guys take.

And what's different about me that I have room in my heart and my head for both?

I just don't see either side as being in anything but a constant state of change, and to me that's a good thing, 'cause what worked 20, 10, or 5000 years ago is not relevant today.

Both camps have at some point or another governed through fear and intimidation, and for the most part, those days are over.

A staunch advocate of either school of thought generally has had something happen to/with him/her that has entrenched a certain set of rules of what governs their beliefs and actions; hocus-pocus and sleight-of-hand doesn't much work any more.

So what do you believe, and what makes you lay awake at night and wonder?

I'll go.....8>)

I believe that there is a God and that he's done a lot of major stuff.....I also think that about the time that free will was doled out, he backed off and let us be.

I believe that there's some kind of method that works when we're what and who we're supposed to be, yet that doesn't really make sense......it should be one or t'other, right?

I also think that we're supposed to work out the basics of how to live, get along, and not destroy our home......and we aren't doing a very good job of it.

I think Jesus was sent here to try and teach us love and understanding, yet man, with all his agendas, f*cked that up royally. Whether he was the son of God or just an incredibly decent man, I don't know, but that's secondary to his message IMO, which we seem to have missed on all too many levels.

I've seen too much of the amazing things of natural science to not see the hand of God and evolution working side by side, yet nobody seems to want to buy into that.

I was adopted, so my daughter is my first blood relative, so I see how genetic malfeasance works; the poor little thing has some of my screwed up characteristics!!!!!

But I also see how she's perfect and beautiful in spite of how we lived befor she was born and I know that there is mercy in life......I believe that's God's hand.

The thing is, there are no concrete answers, life changes and grows just like we do, and today's rules etched in stone are tomorrow's amusing anecdotes.

That's my $0.02 US.....YMMV