For Ye Christian Ones...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
The fossils on Everest most certainly DO NOT show that water could have covered ALL LAND at one point. It only shows that water covered the land that is now Mt. Everest.

Again it shows changing land levels. The amount of land above water has varied over time independent of the state of the polar ice caps and it is geolgically possible for all of the land to have been below sea level for some brief period. If the earth had been a perfect ball or near perfect relative to today it would have been completely under water. [/quote]

I’ll admit it is ‘possible’. If the Earth was a PERFECT ball like you said, it could be under water. However, it is not and has never been a perfect ball. The way our planet is made does not allow for that, with shifting plates and hot magma underneath.

Even if at one point in time that had occured, it would be far before the existence of man. Primates that could be classified under homo didn’t come into being until roughly 3 million years ago. I assure you there were parts of the Earth that were raise well above the water then, or there wouldn’t be fossils of land dwelling creatures, including ourselves.

242

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And by the way, the ancient Egyptians had record of the plagues which followed a Volcanic eruption a few hundred miles away. Now I guess that’s not a miracle because instead of sending plagues magically, he just ordained the laws of physics so that a volcano would erupt. Hey God, we all see your little trick! That’s not a miracle!
[/quote]

Do the Egyptians have in their texts/records that the Nile actually turned into blood?

Some of those plagues could have occured under natural circumstances very concievably.

Volcanoes eruptions have been happening all over the world for as long as any human has been here. There’s nothing special about the one you’re refering to.

243

Mert- in response to your quantum physics post:

To be honest with you, the theory as a whole sounds like a ton of hogwash. I consider it no more viable than the Big Bang theory, string theory, or Creationism for that matter. Sounds more like philosophy than science.

244

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
(long post about quantum physics snipped)

A few points…

What you describe is known as the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum theory. That’s the one that states “nothing is real until someone measures it.” While it is the interpretation used by most physicists, it still does have flaws and it’s share of problems. There’s the “measurement problem” (Google for details) and there’s also the paradox of Schrodinger’s half-dead cat (who’s both dead and alive at the same time until someone observes it…)

As for collapsing the wave only with an mind that’s advanced enough, I’ve not read anything that would indicate that we know where to draw the line. Humans, yes. Animals? Probably. Amoeba? We don’t know. That in itself leads to problems as you can get a universe with different realities that aren’t properly connected to one another. “Wigner’s Friend” is the name given to that particular line of questioning.

It is important to remember that while quantum mechanics is probably the greatest achievement of 20th century physics, it is far from being a complete and finished theory. The math itself is pretty extensive and complete and quite usable as is; but there is still much fudging going on. When QED tries to solve Schrodinger’s wave equation, it gets a bunch of infinities (infinite mass, infinite charge, etc) and gets rid of those by dividing the infinities by one another and basically “plugging” whatever value one wants in there.

Remarkably, that seemingly shoddy math works very well for pratical applications.

I’d just be vary careful of taking all of that as gospel (ha!) because it is certain that physicists of the future will improve, revise and change those theories. Personally, I think that the current “fad” of superstring theory has veered off in a profound dead end. The sooner physicist abandon that theory and start looking elsewhere, the better we’ll be.[/quote]

I agree with all. Thanks for the objectivity here. I have always told my physicist friends and others that I thought superstring theory was off track, a dead end, and yet 90% of upcoming physicists want to study it!

Also, just an addition. The alternates to the Copenhagen interpretation at least currently ALL end up with some form of the multiple simultaneous reality postulate. This model also raises some interesting issues of free will such as whether there is something “special” about our reality. It also almost outright allows for backwards time travel with a clear mechanism that would allow it, and not even a conjecture as to what would prevent it. Even Hawking’s “Chronology protection conjecture” is based on there being 1 true universe, and is simply a conjecture. His suggestion that we should expect backwards time travel to not be possible because it seems to go against human intuition is no more scientific than the conjecture that our reality is special because it seems absurd that there are oh, at least 10^180 different solutions for the universe’s wave function-AT LEAST. (although a possible revision of the meaning of the planck length may decrease that number).

Off track, I am currently trying to model fundamental particles as “quantum wormholes and or pockets” which are brought about by quantum scale black holes (not being in the black holes themselves, but created by their “dents” so to speak. These would most probably connect at least slightly different times as well as places. Just wondering if you have any insight about that.

245

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
I’ll admit it is ‘possible’. If the Earth was a PERFECT ball like you said, it could be under water. However, it is not and has never been a perfect ball. The way our planet is made does not allow for that, with shifting plates and hot magma underneath.

Even if at one point in time that had occured, it would be far before the existence of man. Primates that could be classified under homo didn’t come into being until roughly 3 million years ago. I assure you there were parts of the Earth that were raise well above the water then, or there wouldn’t be fossils of land dwelling creatures, including ourselves.[/quote]

Don’t assume Haney’s trying to prove Noah’s flood with this argument. He knows he can’t. I think he likes to answer questions logically 1 small and independent step at a time. Not speaking for him. Objective questions deserve the assumption of objectivity.

246

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
Do the Egyptians have in their texts/records that the Nile actually turned into blood?

Some of those plagues could have occured under natural circumstances very concievably.

Volcanoes eruptions have been happening all over the world for as long as any human has been here. There’s nothing special about the one you’re refering to.
[/quote]

My recallection is that real scientists (not “creation anti-scientists”)modeled the effects of such a volcano and concluded that within a comparable timetable to that described, the river would have turned red, frogs would have evacuated the water and died, then their decomposing bodies would have brought flyes, gnats etc. Glass balls possibly hot, maybe molten would have fallen, the sky would have become dark, and then people would have died of infections.

Pharoah pouring water and having it changed into blood is a hollywood invention.

247

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
Mert- in response to your quantum physics post:

To be honest with you, the theory as a whole sounds like a ton of hogwash. I consider it no more viable than the Big Bang theory, string theory, or Creationism for that matter. Sounds more like philosophy than science.[/quote]

A truly unified theory should unite science and philosophy.

248

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
No, I’m definately not asking you to defend every one of them. I wanted to make the point that those stories exist, and that many of them cannot be defended in a way that could be considered ‘successful’.
[/quote]

Then you will understand why I only addressed the ones in your original post.

Well I have investigated the theories that relate to what could of happened, and I have not been satisfied with any of them outside of the Gospels explanation.

First of all it is ascend to (descend would mean to go down). He ascended upwards. Heaven it more of a descriptive term for His ascension upwards more than an actual physical place that ended at. Outside a a literalist I don’t know of any Christian that thinks of Heaven as a physical place. From what I gather mert descrides is there being a 4th dimension that would satisfy the Christian explination.

If I mis understood what you wrote mert I would really like a dumb down explination. If I am correct in my interpretation than disregard.

It could be argued, but it does not necessarily mean it would carry huge weight. Take me for instance. If a few things would be different I would be a dramatically differnt person. Faith for me is a great way for me to have balance. If I believed I was just matter, well lets just say I would see no point in common respect for other people. After all this is all I would have, and I would not see a reason to think of others. I know atheist can have “morals” with out religion, but if I was an atheist I would really have a hard time seeing what the point would be.

There is a frame work argument for theistc evolution that says God ceated templates and that is why everything is similiar.

What could make us different could be the ability to reason what is “right and wrong” Which in affect could be an argument for free will.

I have not decided how I interpret the science and first part of Genesis. I am always listening to the arguments.

If you want more info on TE I would look up G.R. Morton or Glen R. Morton.

There is a guy on theologyweb.com named George Murphy and he has a strong case for Frame work TE.

249

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
Mert- in response to your quantum physics post:

To be honest with you, the theory as a whole sounds like a ton of hogwash. I consider it no more viable than the Big Bang theory, string theory, or Creationism for that matter. Sounds more like philosophy than science.[/quote]

Well that hogwash theory has permitted the development of computers, lasers, electron microscopes and countless other devices that permeate our modern world.

It is one of the most used and tested theory in the world today, probably the one with the most practical applications. Electronics, molecular biology, genetics, etc. There’s probably not a branch of modern science that hasn’t been affected by quantum mechanics… maybe pure mathematics, but little else. Of course, I’m refering to “hard” sciences, not sociology or psychology.

The only theory that’s been more tested than QM would be Einstein’s Relativity, but has less immediatly practical applications.

And what’s most interesting is that as valid as each theory appears to be on its own, they don’t agree with each other. So one or the other, or both will have to be revised eventually if we’re to ever reach that fabled “Theory of Everything”, ie a theory that would explain physical phenomena from the microscopic world all the way up to the macroscopic “cosmic” scale, while including and explaining gravity.

250

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
Well you did call me a fool in your first post to me.

I asked if you were a fool. I didn’t outright say you were one. I don’t think you are, for the record.
[/quote]

The language was strong enough in the beginning to certainly carry an implication, even if it was not intended.

It would not be that uncommon. The first part of Genesis is attributed to Oral tradition.

Then again though Saying that it is uncommon is what would give a YEC strength in their argument. After all so many stories that have so many similiarites would give the stories their strength. In historical accounts it is the equiv. of having several witness who didn’t know each other but all say they saw basically the same thing.

251

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
I’ll admit it is ‘possible’. If the Earth was a PERFECT ball like you said, it could be under water. However, it is not and has never been a perfect ball. The way our planet is made does not allow for that, with shifting plates and hot magma underneath.

Even if at one point in time that had occured, it would be far before the existence of man. Primates that could be classified under homo didn’t come into being until roughly 3 million years ago. I assure you there were parts of the Earth that were raise well above the water then, or there wouldn’t be fossils of land dwelling creatures, including ourselves.

Don’t assume Haney’s trying to prove Noah’s flood with this argument. He knows he can’t. I think he likes to answer questions logically 1 small and independent step at a time. Not speaking for him. Objective questions deserve the assumption of objectivity.[/quote]

When explaining the Bible there is no other way than to take Baby steps. Especially with an Atheist since you never know what their take on doctrine could be. You have to have a common understanding before you can have a good disagreement.

You are on the mark mert.

252

[quote]haney wrote:
First of all it is ascend to (descend would mean to go down). He ascended upwards. Heaven it more of a descriptive term for His ascension upwards more than an actual physical place that ended at. Outside a a literalist I don’t know of any Christian that thinks of Heaven as a physical place. From what I gather mert descrides is there being a 4th dimension that would satisfy the Christian explination.

If I mis understood what you wrote mert I would really like a dumb down explination. If I am correct in my interpretation than disregard.
[/quote]

No, in this case, I meant that the quote “problem of evil” that has been brought up by some kind of just goes away if you see all of the universe-including time-at “once”-yet dynamic and changing.

253

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
haney wrote:
First of all it is ascend to (descend would mean to go down). He ascended upwards. Heaven it more of a descriptive term for His ascension upwards more than an actual physical place that ended at. Outside a a literalist I don’t know of any Christian that thinks of Heaven as a physical place. From what I gather mert descrides is there being a 4th dimension that would satisfy the Christian explination.

If I mis understood what you wrote mert I would really like a dumb down explination. If I am correct in my interpretation than disregard.

No, in this case, I meant that the quote “problem of evil” that has been brought up by some kind of just goes away if you see all of the universe-including time-at “once”-yet dynamic and changing.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification

254

[quote]pookie wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
And what’s most interesting is that as valid as each theory appears to be on its own, they don’t agree with each other. So one or the other, or both will have to be revised eventually if we’re to ever reach that fabled “Theory of Everything”, ie a theory that would explain physical phenomena from the microscopic world all the way up to the macroscopic “cosmic” scale, while including and explaining gravity.[/quote]

Funny, but to me, deriving the planck length is an act of uniting gravity and electromagnetism. It seems to me that the two are joined. Now granted, the continuous versus discrete contrast between quantum and general ralativity is still there.

I found a few years back by working out a couple of equations that the (2 pi) planck length could be described as:

a wavelength of the em spectrum that would have a mass equivalent that would gravitationally create a photon sphere at that particular wavelength. Its the only wavelength that does that, and in fact shows that at that wavelength, the mass of a photon makes the photon a self-entraping black hole.

255

In response to “if the earth was a sphere, water might have totally covered the surface” - at no time has the earth been a perfect shpere. Even 4.5Billion-odd yrs ago when the earth was a molten ball of impure iron, it rotated as it cooled - the rotation making the eqatorial regions fatter, and it is a similar shape now - ellipsoid, not spherical.
Additionally the crust cooled and moved about on the sea of magma before water formed. Edges were pushed up/down creating mountains and valleys. Volcanoe broke out, etc. Thus we can be reasonably confident that the world has never been 100% innundated.

Haney - you said “Faith for me is a great way for me to have balance. If I believed I was just matter, well lets just say I would see no point in common respect for other people. After all this is all I would have, and I would not see a reason to think of others. I know atheist can have “morals” with out religion, but if I was an atheist I would really have a hard time seeing what the point would be.”

So you are saying that only faith in a mental construct ‘allows’ you to have respect for another person? So someone who has no regard for your construct thus has no regard for you as a person?
Quite ridiculus.
This truly is an example of the arrogance inherent in religious dogma. “if he doesn’t believe what i believe, he’s less than a dog, not a real person, thus i can do what i want to him.”
Any idea how many wars have been intitiated due to this line of thinking?

Can you not think - if this body is all i have, if these emotions are all i feel - I better go and make the best damn go of this life, as there ain’t no encore, and experience as much as i can with as many people as i can find, coz we’re all in this together?

Lets just sit and think for one minute what amazements could have been accomplished over say the last 2000yrs if all the lifetimes worth of the hate, anger, fear, passion, love and sheer sweat that has been built into religion, were directed into more positive purposes.
This thought is sad to me.
ShaunW

256

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I agree with all. Thanks for the objectivity here. I have always told my physicist friends and others that I thought superstring theory was off track, a dead end, and yet 90% of upcoming physicists want to study it![/quote]

A whole “branch” of physics has emerged around superstring theory. But in something like 30 years, nearly no experiments have been proposed or done that would indicate its validity (or I missed them if there was). As far as I can see, it’s all math, extremely complex and intricate mathematics that produce a large amount of interesting results, but seemingly little that can be objectively tested. As far as I can tell, it seems to be going on mostly because many scientist have devoted most of their adult life to its pursuit and keep hoping for some results.

We know that QM is not finished because of all the mathematical tricks we need to use to make it work. But even “as is”, it works extremely well. It also doesn’t “mesh” well with Relativity, but Relativity is also very accurate on its own, with much less (AFAIK) math tricks required (the cosmological constant being one that springs to mind, but seems to be now validated by dark matter and dark energy…). And of course, we still can’t fit gravity in there correctly. My guess is that many improvements remain to be made, but at the same time I worry that the field is now so complex that physicist have to “specialize” their entire career to some very specific fields of QM. It might preclude or delay some “big picture” breaktroughs. Maybe we’re just not smart enough to figure it all out…

And the pragmatic answer for the impossibility of time travel is, of course, that we’re not visited from travelers from the future. :slight_smile:

A bit like the Von Neumann Machine argument against other intelligent life in the universe (or at least, our galaxy)… Philosophical games, basically.

Not really. I’m not a physicist, although I find QM a fascinating subject and have read a lot on the subject. I find many of those counter-intuitive notions to be very interesting and stimulating. I like it when I’m forced to think differently or to question basic assumptions. My interest has waned somewhat in the past few years; one reason being that superstring theory gets way too complicated for the layman to follow; the other being my kids, who’ve shown me a thing or two about Chaos Theory. :slight_smile:

257

[quote]pookie wrote:
And the pragmatic answer for the impossibility of time travel is, of course, that we’re not visited from travelers from the future. :slight_smile:

A bit like the Von Neumann Machine argument against other intelligent life in the universe (or at least, our galaxy)… Philosophical games, basically.
[/quote]

OK, I guess another philisophical game but if the wave function collapses at the speed of light (in four dimensions) then we are the furthest in the future its collapsed to so far.

258

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Haney - you said “Faith for me is a great way for me to have balance. If I believed I was just matter, well lets just say I would see no point in common respect for other people. After all this is all I would have, and I would not see a reason to think of others. I know atheist can have “morals” with out religion, but if I was an atheist I would really have a hard time seeing what the point would be.”

So you are saying that only faith in a mental construct ‘allows’ you to have respect for another person? So someone who has no regard for your construct thus has no regard for you as a person?[/quote]

I find that notion scary as well. It does tend to come up often in theist/atheist debates. I simply cannot understand how someone can say that without fear of divine retribution or judgement, they’d simply rampage thru their fellow men; killing and pillaging to their heart’s content.

259

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Funny, but to me, deriving the planck length is an act of uniting gravity and electromagnetism. It seems to me that the two are joined. Now granted, the continuous versus discrete contrast between quantum and general ralativity is still there.
[/quote]

I’m not current with the absolute latest developments, but I’m pretty sure that whoever manages to unify gravity with the rest of the forces will be getting his Nobel Prize.

Last time I checked, the unification of gravity was still mired in 10 dimensional superstring theory. The elementary particles (graviton, gravitino, et al.) where still MIA; possibly from the problem of building colliders with enough energy (for experimental verification) but also possibly pointing to some basic flaw in our theories.

If you’ve got links to recent advances concerning QM and gravity, I’d be interested.

260

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
So you are saying that only faith in a mental construct ‘allows’ you to have respect for another person? So someone who has no regard for your construct thus has no regard for you as a person?
Quite ridiculus.
This truly is an example of the arrogance inherent in religious dogma. “if he doesn’t believe what i believe, he’s less than a dog, not a real person, thus i can do what i want to him.”
Any idea how many wars have been intitiated due to this line of thinking?

Can you not think - if this body is all i have, if these emotions are all i feel - I better go and make the best damn go of this life, as there ain’t no encore, and experience as much as i can with as many people as i can find, coz we’re all in this together?

Lets just sit and think for one minute what amazements could have been accomplished over say the last 2000yrs if all the lifetimes worth of the hate, anger, fear, passion, love and sheer sweat that has been built into religion, were directed into more positive purposes.
This thought is sad to me.
ShaunW

[/quote]

I don’t think you understood what I was saying.

I was saying if we I was not a person of faith if I was an atheist my personalty type would be one that would not really care about anybody but myself.

It is my faith that God has changed me that keeps me from doing that.

I clearly stated there are many atheist who believe you can have morals with out God. That is great. I am happy for them. If I were an athiest I would not prescribe to that. As I said faith for me as helped me to not hate, to not think of my self only. No where did I say that faith is the standard for these attributes. I only said that it is the standard for me. I am not impossing it on anyone else.

I agree it is sad. That is what I would be with out my faith a very sad site by common standards.

Your point of “this is all there is” falls right into my statements that I would not care for others. The key word is “I”.

You really should try to comprehend what I write before you spout off about how religion is what has caused hate, and that I am setting a standard blah blah blah…

It was a personal explination for who I would be if I did not have faith. Not a broad standard of right and wrong for all people.