Christians of T-Nation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
328

[quote]AndyG wrote:
What, god put light in the moon? He fucked that up didn’t he!

I’m glad that the rest of the bible is historically verified, like the Nicene Council deciding to unify the few gods they had ended up with. You’re all a tad deluded if you think whatever did happen 2000 years ago is unaffected by the passage of time.

The gospels were picked from amongst others and were written by humans with god knows what motivations.[/quote]

Yes AndyG, God knows the motivations - Himself. Good enough for me.

The moon reflects light, we know that now. Did ancient man? Nope. Could be that the concept was “simplified” to the level of understanding that existed at that time. I still think that DD has it right - you have to study the Texts in relation to the times and culture. But the basic truths are still there and still relevant today.

329

[quote]jbumgarner wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What, god put light in the moon? He fucked that up didn’t he!

I’m glad that the rest of the bible is historically verified, like the Nicene Council deciding to unify the few gods they had ended up with. You’re all a tad deluded if you think whatever did happen 2000 years ago is unaffected by the passage of time.

The gospels were picked from amongst others and were written by humans with god knows what motivations.

Yes AndyG, God knows the motivations - Himself. Good enough for me.

The moon reflects light, we know that now. Did ancient man? Nope. Could be that the concept was “simplified” to the level of understanding that existed at that time. I still think that DD has it right - you have to study the Texts in relation to the times and culture. But the basic truths are still there and still relevant today.

[/quote]

Well, obviously ancient man knew enough to say that god created the moon on the 3rd or 4th or whatever day. When god told them that, why didn’t he say, “look boys, the moon only reflects light”?

330

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What a load of crap. Give me one example of something axiomatic which is not obviously true. The whole point of axioms is that they are self evident.

Science doesn’t rule out the existence of a god, it also doesn’t rule out aliens coming to take us back to Thetan 9 or whatever it’s called.

Science bases its assertions on evidence. Religion bases its assertions on rubbish evidence.

The existence of length, the pull of gravity, the passage of time, even things like parallelism, most of science.

All of those are observable. Heard of apples?

Ever heard of black holes, photons, or electrons? Because all of these observably break the laws of gravity.

Even laws formerly though absolute and common sense, like conservation of mass, have today been violated.[/quote]

Ever heard of black holes, photons, or electrons? Yep, I do a photonics degree at uni. Never heard of them breaking the ‘laws’ of gravity. Please explain how they do. What are the ‘laws’ of gravity anyway?

If you are talking about Newtonian laws they are only approximations as speeds and mass get relatively close to zero.

331

[quote]AndyG wrote:
jbumgarner wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What, god put light in the moon? He fucked that up didn’t he!

I’m glad that the rest of the bible is historically verified, like the Nicene Council deciding to unify the few gods they had ended up with. You’re all a tad deluded if you think whatever did happen 2000 years ago is unaffected by the passage of time.

The gospels were picked from amongst others and were written by humans with god knows what motivations.

Yes AndyG, God knows the motivations - Himself. Good enough for me.

The moon reflects light, we know that now. Did ancient man? Nope. Could be that the concept was “simplified” to the level of understanding that existed at that time.

I still think that DD has it right - you have to study the Texts in relation to the times and culture. But the basic truths are still there and still relevant today.

Well, obviously ancient man knew enough to say that god created the moon on the 3rd or 4th or whatever day. When god told them that, why didn’t he say, “look boys, the moon only reflects light”?
[/quote]

Because it robs us of discovery?

332

So he lied to enable us to disover the moon only reflects light. I thought telling lies was naughty?

333

[quote]AndyG wrote:
So he lied to enable us to disover the moon only reflects light. I thought telling lies was naughty?[/quote]

It’s the way to test faith.

I was once told fossils were put there to test our faith too (seriously).

334

Since abortion is, at minimum, possible murder…then a Christian cannot vote for any politician who supports abortion.

I agree that there may be circumstances where abortion is the only alternative. This though doesn’t make access to abortion a ‘right’. Any candidate who accepts abortion as a ‘right’ can’t get a Christian’s vote — unless one doesn’t care about possibly supporting murder.

335

[quote]AndyG wrote:
So he lied to enable us to disover the moon only reflects light. I thought telling lies was naughty?[/quote]

Not at all what I suggested. As a Christian, I believe the imagery we’re discussing was never meant to be taken literally. This imagery was enough to get a point across to ancient man (compared to ourselves), while not turning into a science lecture. Our own publically educated citizens today, probably couldn’t follow a lecture on the beginning of the universe, our planet, and life.

336

[quote]AndyG wrote:
So he lied to enable us to disover the moon only reflects light. I thought telling lies was naughty?[/quote]

Not a lie, but the truth presented in a context that the audience at the time could understand.

Similar to any grade school or junior high/ middle school classes as opposed to advanced classes in college - they left out a bunch of stuff just so that the amount of information wouldn’t be overwhelming. Learn as you progress. Not a lie, stepped knowledge.

[quote]RSGZ wrote:
It’s the way to test faith.

I was once told fossils were put there to test our faith too (seriously).[/quote]

I’ve heard that same argument about fossils. I’ve also heard the argument that the Earth is only 13,000 years old. Until someone can come up with evidence that cannot be contradicted (age of the earth - 13,000 vs. millions - Google it if you are curious), I will stay with the knowledge that we may never know for sure.

As for the faith test, not so sure about that one. See my answer above about stepped knowledge.

337

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since abortion is, at minimum, possible murder…then a Christian cannot vote for any politician who supports abortion.
[/quote]

So possible murder is out of the question, but going to war, aka genocide is OK - Jehova is really a cynical bastich.

338

[quote]AndyG wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What a load of crap. Give me one example of something axiomatic which is not obviously true. The whole point of axioms is that they are self evident.

Science doesn’t rule out the existence of a god, it also doesn’t rule out aliens coming to take us back to Thetan 9 or whatever it’s called.

Science bases its assertions on evidence. Religion bases its assertions on rubbish evidence.

The existence of length, the pull of gravity, the passage of time, even things like parallelism, most of science.

All of those are observable. Heard of apples?

Ever heard of black holes, photons, or electrons? Because all of these observably break the laws of gravity.

Even laws formerly though absolute and common sense, like conservation of mass, have today been violated.

Ever heard of black holes, photons, or electrons? Yep, I do a photonics degree at uni. Never heard of them breaking the ‘laws’ of gravity. Please explain how they do. What are the ‘laws’ of gravity anyway?

If you are talking about Newtonian laws they are only approximations as speeds and mass get relatively close to zero.

[/quote]

Electrons half the time under some circumstances behave as massed particle where their behavior resembles that predicted by classic physics. However, occasionally they behave as un-massed particles similar to photons.

If I have to explain how photons behave outside of gravity, you don’t know much about them.

We also observe accelerations around black holes unexplainable by our understanding of gravity.

339

You didn’t explain that very well at all. It’s funny that you can’t explain what you are saying and then tell me I don’t understand.

Here’s why you are a joke:

  1. You were almost on the right track, but the correct thing to say would have been there is a wave particle duality. Electrons behave as a wave and as a particle.

  2. Please tell me how photons behave outside of gravity. I hope your explanation is better than your last one.

  3. The assertion that you said science bases much of its theory on is that gravity pulls. What you have said doesn’t disprove this at all.

340

[quote]AndyG wrote:
You didn’t explain that very well at all. It’s funny that you can’t explain what you are saying and then tell me I don’t understand.

Here’s why you are a joke:

  1. You were almost on the right track, but the correct thing to say would have been there is a wave particle duality. Electrons behave as a wave and as a particle.

  2. Please tell me how photons behave outside of gravity. I hope your explanation is better than your last one.

  3. The assertion that you said science bases much of its theory on is that gravity pulls. What you have said doesn’t disprove this at all.[/quote]

I never said gravity doesn’t pull I just said that things don’t always behave as predicted by science and the fundamental theory of gravity. You’ve been watching too many bugs bunny cartoons.

So, as a photon approaches a planet and is “pulled” by gravity, does it accelerate towards that planet or stay at the same speed? After all, if it has momentum, gravity should accelerate it, not to mention they are effected by the “gravity” of black holes.

I didn’t say “wave particle duality” because I honestly didn’t think you’d understand it. I instead tried to describe it for you in layman’s terms. But yes, given the “duality” of electrons, they are not effected by gravity the same way ordinary matter is.

For example with the electron, remember this is a particle with a scientifically measurable mass, take the dual slit experiment.

Say the 2 slits are vertical in that one is above the other. When you shoot an electron through the apparatus it technically interferes with itself on the other side as it exits both slits. Since the electron technically goes through both slits simultaneously, calculate its�?? potential energy above the earth at that moment. This is a simple gravitational potential energy problem that is impossible to do because of the duality of the electron. It in fact exists at multiple heights simultaneously.

Things that travel in wave forms exist at least partially outside of gravity. Then again, in quantum mechanics, all things technically travel as wave forms.

341

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So possible murder is out of the question, but going to war, aka genocide is OK - Jehova is really a cynical bastich.[/quote]

Some people need to be killed. You know, like when we went to your country and stomped a mudhole in hitler’s ass. Thats right, the world is a better place having gone to war at that time. It’s just one example but you get the idea.

Babies, however, don’t fall into the category of needing to be killed.

342

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
You didn’t explain that very well at all. It’s funny that you can’t explain what you are saying and then tell me I don’t understand.

Here’s why you are a joke:

  1. You were almost on the right track, but the correct thing to say would have been there is a wave particle duality. Electrons behave as a wave and as a particle.

  2. Please tell me how photons behave outside of gravity. I hope your explanation is better than your last one.

  3. The assertion that you said science bases much of its theory on is that gravity pulls. What you have said doesn’t disprove this at all.

I never said gravity doesn’t pull I just said that things don’t always behave as predicted by science and the fundamental theory of gravity. You’ve been watching too many bugs bunny cartoons.

So, as a photon approaches a planet and is “pulled” by gravity, does it accelerate towards that planet or stay at the same speed? After all, if it has momentum, gravity should accelerate it, not to mention they are effected by the “gravity” of black holes.

I didn’t say “wave particle duality” because I honestly didn’t think you’d understand it. I instead tried to describe it for you in layman’s terms. But yes, given the “duality” of electrons, they are not effected by gravity the same way ordinary matter is.

For example with the electron, remember this is a particle with a scientifically measurable mass, take the dual slit experiment.

Say the 2 slits are vertical in that one is above the other. When you shoot an electron through the apparatus it technically interferes with itself on the other side as it exits both slits. Since the electron technically goes through both slits simultaneously, calculate its�?? potential energy above the earth at that moment. This is a simple gravitational potential energy problem that is impossible to do because of the duality of the electron. It in fact exists at multiple heights simultaneously.

Things that travel in wave forms exist at least partially outside of gravity. Then again, in quantum mechanics, all things technically travel as wave forms.
[/quote]

Photons aren’t pulled by gravity. Even though photons have momentum they don’t have a mass. They curve around planets because the gravitational field affects space time and the path of the photon reflects this.

Black holes affect space time so much that light bends around and goes back into the hole.

I don’t understand your double slit experiment example. I wasn’t aware that an electron could be in two places at the same time or are you talking about its history where it has different locations with certain probabilities of each one?

Anyway, I think we are getting sidetracked from the original issue which was whether science had more credibility than religion. Yes science doesn’t explain everything but its theories, explanations and conclusions are based on real, physical and persuasive evidence. If science isn’t certain of something it will usually admit it.

Religion on the other hand is based on stories handed down over generations combined with a fear of non-existance which our minds try to calm by manifesting a belief in a higher being/everlasting life.

343

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Photons aren’t pulled by gravity. Even though photons have momentum they don’t have a mass. They curve around planets because the gravitational field affects space time and the path of the photon reflects this.[/quote]

P = mv, remember 1st grade physics?

SO for momentum to exist there has to be mass and velocity. The basic or the integral mass of a particle such as the photon can’t be proven because humans don’t have the technology yet for super particle collision physics. Although through Einsteins and Schrodinger’s special relativity for a particle to exist, there has to be mass.

The LHC experiment is currently trying to collide particles therefore trying to find out whether super symmetry exists. Also the Higgs mechanism to find out the mass of theoretical particles.

[quote]Black holes affect space time so much that light bends around and goes back into the hole.

I don’t understand your double slit experiment example. I wasn’t aware that an electron could be in two places at the same time or are you talking about its history where it has different locations with certain probabilities of each one?[/quote]

Isn’t the double slit mechanism an illusion? It’s not an electron either, it’s a photon.

True. Religion tends to get uppity and aggressive when challenged.

Based mostly on mans fear of death. People get depressed when they think they’ll spend eternity as worm food.

344

Yeah sorry mate. p=mv doesn’t apply here. Note how DoubleDuce wrote ‘if a photon has momentum gravity should accelerate it’. He avoiding using the term mass. I think the physics lesson is getting off topic.

345

The dual slit experiment can be preformed with a photon or an electron. And yes, they technically exist multiple locations simultaneously. This is used as proof that massed particles travel as wave forms. meaning that when you throw a ball or walk down a hall, your location is not continuous, and “blurred” so to speak. Grant it the frequency is so high its entirely un-observable, as it is when you get to any matter much larger than an electron.

Yes, a photon’s momentum is based on it’s frequency, not mass and velocity, though it can collide with and move matter.

The black hole stuff you mentioned is guess work at best, but it is proven gravity has some effect on photons.

My real point is that observable “facts” in physics many times depends on the situation, scale, and accuracy desired.

Different rules and equations can be used to predict phenomenon, many times to the extent of observable accuracy, but they do not explain the phenomenon.

346

I’d agree with yo there DD. Fuck, it’s been a few years since I did Physics at Uni. This thread made my head spin.