Physics is Wrong

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs.

102

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

[/quote]

The most profound observation I’ve ever read in PWI. Ever. Truth. [/quote]
I have come to agreements with people here before. Maybe yall are just hardheaded. I know what’s coming next…“That’s rich coming from you…”
But the fact is, I have had agreements with people here before.[/quote]

LOL at myself for writing that, then actrually sort of agreeing with Pat in my next post…

103

[quote]kamui wrote:
The software need a patch.
Maybe a major one.
But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

[/quote]

I would say that yes the software needs a patch, and they have known of the bug for a while. This may not solve the problems with this software though. This software is good for what it does within it’s limits but a new, different kind of software may be require to address the new info.

Like I said ‘time’ is the most interesting thing about this. According to GR, these particles not not just going faster than the speed of light, but they are going back in time…Or are they? In terms of GR, I think that is the biggest effect on it.

104

good article about it that proposes other possible explanations

105

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.

106

If anyone is interested in discussion and information regarding this event.

Edit: New results from OPERA on neutrino properties - CERN Document Server

Never thought i’d post a link to a neutrino seminar, lol

To clarify: the cdsweb link is a webcast from CERN that tries to explain what’s going on.

Edit again: for the conclusion skip to 1 hour.

107

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

good article about it that proposes other possible explanations [/quote]

Or the particles really did travel faster than the speed of light and it’s not an absolute threshold…The fact that they have reviewed it for 3 years and eliminated every possible variable, and wlecome others to replicate it and welcome others, to scrutinize it all they want lead me to believe it is not an issue with the current running through the computer cables. If they weren’t confident in the result they would not have published it and welcome the world to scrutinize and replicate it.

108

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

Exactly, it disproves them as being historical events. Getting away from the Old Testament, the Greek Bible is not historically factual as well. How does one come to the conclusion that those event occurred, knowing it is not based of facts.

I do not see how a person can except certain things in the Bible as being true, and other things as not. If one thing is not true, than the rest must also not be true.

I do not think science can definitively say there is or isn’t a God, but neither can religion.

109

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. >>>[/quote]I am as conservative a plenary verbal, fundamentalist whacko as anyone will ever meet and I do not believe that every word of the bible is literal. Not every word is intended to be literal.

110

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

Exactly, it disproves them as being historical events. Getting away from the Old Testament, the Greek Bible is not historically factual as well. How does one come to the conclusion that those event occurred, knowing it is not based of facts.
[/quote]
Well first it’s not a history book. That’s a common misconception. That doesn’t mean there are not historical facts in it, but they are used to support the religious aspect of it not the other way around. So it’s not necessary that the historical events necessarily be balls, spot on to support what is trying to be communicated. Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff, chances are that things may be a hair off. Now that’s not to say that every fact in the Bible is off. Just because some are doesn’t mean they all are. You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for and it makes a lot more sense. Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique. And where you get the ‘Greek Bible’ is not historically factual I have no idea. Which one?

[quote]
I do not see how a person can except certain things in the Bible as being true, and other things as not. If one thing is not true, than the rest must also not be true.

I do not think science can definitively say there is or isn’t a God, but neither can religion. [/quote]

Science at it’s core isn’t really concerned with God. That’s like saying you can run very fast in a dress shoe. You’re not using it for it’s intended purpose. And religion is based on the assumption that God exists, otherwise what’s the point?

Anyhow, this discussion can easily lead to yet another long drawn out discussion on cosmology. Cosmology is a philosophical argument form so to speak. And religion and science can intersect there as both say something very similar at that realm, but it is a philosophical stance. Rather than discuss it yet again here (and I really, really don’t want to) I am going to a rather good discussion we had a short while ago.
It gets good around page 4:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife?id=4694416&pageNo=3

If you have any questions on it, or counter arguments, or whatever, post it there or PM me. I don’t want to pollute this thread with that.

111

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

But science cant. You miss the point that any creation or belief in the supernatural violates the laws of physics by nature. You can’t use laws to disprove a belief that those laws were violated.

It’s a really poor attempt when you think about it.

You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in. And there is no logical reason for that assumption. In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god.

112

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

good article about it that proposes other possible explanations [/quote]

Or the particles really did travel faster than the speed of light and it’s not an absolute threshold…The fact that they have reviewed it for 3 years and eliminated every possible variable, and wlecome others to replicate it and welcome others, to scrutinize it all they want lead me to believe it is not an issue with the current running through the computer cables. If they weren’t confident in the result they would not have published it and welcome the world to scrutinize and replicate it.[/quote]

Did you miss all the posts where I said I didn’t have reason to think they were incorrect?
Do you not think results need to be replicated on other equipment?
Are you already confident you know the whole story?

113

Throughout all of human history, into the depths of human mind, it has always been an incessant effort to map empirical “evidence” to symbols/conventions as a means to communicate, express and propagate; and on the other route there has also been the use of symbols/conventions to predict, back calculate to gather, focus and conclude on “empirical” evidence. The deeper we go in our minds, we can feel the dynamics and co-habitation of the “tool” & the “trade”. The longer we think about it, dynamics as we see it transform into another set of symbols/conventions we seek to use, to predict and conclude on an empirical evidence.
Crazy but I love this thread and the conversation between the posters and especially OP’s bent of mind :slight_smile: Finally time to check out the link (thread got me hooked, what can I do :)).

114

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

Exactly, it disproves them as being historical events. Getting away from the Old Testament, the Greek Bible is not historically factual as well. How does one come to the conclusion that those event occurred, knowing it is not based of facts.
[/quote]
Well first it’s not a history book. That’s a common misconception. That doesn’t mean there are not historical facts in it, but they are used to support the religious aspect of it not the other way around. So it’s not necessary that the historical events necessarily be balls, spot on to support what is trying to be communicated. Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff, chances are that things may be a hair off. Now that’s not to say that every fact in the Bible is off. Just because some are doesn’t mean they all are. You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for and it makes a lot more sense. Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique. And where you get the ‘Greek Bible’ is not historically factual I have no idea. Which one?

[quote]
I do not see how a person can except certain things in the Bible as being true, and other things as not. If one thing is not true, than the rest must also not be true.

I do not think science can definitively say there is or isn’t a God, but neither can religion. [/quote]

Science at it’s core isn’t really concerned with God. That’s like saying you can run very fast in a dress shoe. You’re not using it for it’s intended purpose. And religion is based on the assumption that God exists, otherwise what’s the point?

Anyhow, this discussion can easily lead to yet another long drawn out discussion on cosmology. Cosmology is a philosophical argument form so to speak. And religion and science can intersect there as both say something very similar at that realm, but it is a philosophical stance. Rather than discuss it yet again here (and I really, really don’t want to) I am going to a rather good discussion we had a short while ago.
It gets good around page 4:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife?id=4694416&pageNo=3

If you have any questions on it, or counter arguments, or whatever, post it there or PM me. I don’t want to pollute this thread with that.[/quote]

Ill pm you this weekend…

115

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No. Not what I’m getting at, at all. I myself am a science guy. [/quote]

No, you are an engineer doubled with a douche (doubledouche).

116

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

good article about it that proposes other possible explanations [/quote]

Or the particles really did travel faster than the speed of light and it’s not an absolute threshold…The fact that they have reviewed it for 3 years and eliminated every possible variable, and wlecome others to replicate it and welcome others, to scrutinize it all they want lead me to believe it is not an issue with the current running through the computer cables. If they weren’t confident in the result they would not have published it and welcome the world to scrutinize and replicate it.[/quote]

Did you miss all the posts where I said I didn’t have reason to think they were incorrect?
Do you not think results need to be replicated on other equipment?
Are you already confident you know the whole story?

[/quote]

I was picking on the article, not you. But I did miss your post. But I was making fun of this:

"Susan Cartwright, senior lecturer in particle astrophysics at Sheffield University, said there were many potential sources of error in the Opera experiment. “The sort of thing you might worry about is have they correctly accounted for the time delay of actually reading out the signals? Whatever you are using as a timing signal, that has to travel down the cables to your computer and when you are talking about nanoseconds, you have to know exactly how quickly the current travels, and it is not instantaneous.”

Not anything about what you said. I just thought this comment from Ms. Cartwright was really, really dumb.
Besides this is a really big deal so I agree it needs to be scrutinized and needled relentlessly because the implications are huge. But I do think they found just what they said and I do think it’s a game changer.
I hope they are right, we haven’t had many amazing scientific breakthroughs in quite a long time.

117

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

Exactly, it disproves them as being historical events. Getting away from the Old Testament, the Greek Bible is not historically factual as well. How does one come to the conclusion that those event occurred, knowing it is not based of facts.
[/quote]
Well first it’s not a history book. That’s a common misconception. That doesn’t mean there are not historical facts in it, but they are used to support the religious aspect of it not the other way around. So it’s not necessary that the historical events necessarily be balls, spot on to support what is trying to be communicated. Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff, chances are that things may be a hair off. Now that’s not to say that every fact in the Bible is off. Just because some are doesn’t mean they all are. You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for and it makes a lot more sense. Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique. And where you get the ‘Greek Bible’ is not historically factual I have no idea. Which one?

Cool, don’t know how much I’ll be on this weekend but I will answer.

118

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

good article about it that proposes other possible explanations [/quote]

Or the particles really did travel faster than the speed of light and it’s not an absolute threshold…The fact that they have reviewed it for 3 years and eliminated every possible variable, and wlecome others to replicate it and welcome others, to scrutinize it all they want lead me to believe it is not an issue with the current running through the computer cables. If they weren’t confident in the result they would not have published it and welcome the world to scrutinize and replicate it.[/quote]

Did you miss all the posts where I said I didn’t have reason to think they were incorrect?
Do you not think results need to be replicated on other equipment?
Are you already confident you know the whole story?

[/quote]

I was picking on the article, not you. But I did miss your post. But I was making fun of this:

"Susan Cartwright, senior lecturer in particle astrophysics at Sheffield University, said there were many potential sources of error in the Opera experiment. “The sort of thing you might worry about is have they correctly accounted for the time delay of actually reading out the signals? Whatever you are using as a timing signal, that has to travel down the cables to your computer and when you are talking about nanoseconds, you have to know exactly how quickly the current travels, and it is not instantaneous.”

Not anything about what you said. I just thought this comment from Ms. Cartwright was really, really dumb.
Besides this is a really big deal so I agree it needs to be scrutinized and needled relentlessly because the implications are huge. But I do think they found just what they said and I do think it’s a game changer.
I hope they are right, we haven’t had many amazing scientific breakthroughs in quite a long time.
[/quote]

Granted that’s a long shot of a theory (although prestigious researchers are not immune to overlooking something very simple), I was more interested in the quantum tunneling stuff. I mean it’s just cool.

119

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in.
[/quote]
True.

Well, I think it’s a possibility that should be given it’s just due, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to rely on that and slam the door shut. God certainly could have done such a thing, hell it could have happened 20 seconds ago for all we know, but if we want to understand this existence we are participating in,we have to accept the possibility but continue to try an learn and dig in with the evidence we were given. It begs the question, why would God have done such a thing? Does it make sense? Maybe, maybe not, but the science is interesting and the journey often yeilds a lot of unexpected knowledge even if the journey is not completed or even completable.

[quote]
In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god. [/quote]
Not sure what you mean here, but with what I think you mean I disagree. Like I said, God blowing the universe as we know it into existence yesterday complete with all knowledge and history is always a possibility. It’s not a probability though.
Studying, learning, seeking, information about the universe we know, is every bit a study of God as it is us and I think not studying it as hard as possible is a dishonor to Him.

120

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No. Not what I’m getting at, at all. I myself am a science guy. [/quote]

No, you are an engineer doubled with a douche (doubledouche).[/quote]

By science guy, I didn’t mean occupation, though engineering is applied science. I mean I grew up watching mr wizard and doing experiments in my free time. I actually read science and math text books and papers for fun.

I greatly value science in my life. It is a joy. I keep notebooks with ideas I have about things.

But I also understand it for what it is. It doesn’t add any real understanding.

Let me see if I can better illustrate what I mean. The ancient druids (or whoever it was that built Stonehenge) figured out a way to map and PREDICT the movement of planetary bodies. Does that mean they understood planetary motion? Not in the least. They didn’t understand gravity and orbits and really much of anything. They just figured out how to predict it.

When you really look deep into it, that’s all any science is. It just gets to finer and more accurate systems of predictions. Figuring out equations that can be used to predict planetary motion is philosophically equivalent to marking alignments with rocks. It is a more accurate system, but neither gets to the heart of understand the nature of things.

The ability to predict (which is what science pursues) is not equivalent to understanding something. The fact that it’s a complex equation and is more accurate, doesn’t mean you understand it better than the druids did. You just have more accurate rocks.