A question about possibility

Originally posted by serigado
What a charlatan...
You can bend whatever you want to fit what suits you... that's what that Dr. GS did.
It's good science fiction, though.

Don't take any Big Bang for granted. It's a lousy theory. But it's incredible how so many try to validate their beliefs by trying to adapt them to science. But in doing so they are bending both their beliefs and s ...[text shortened]... make sense. Now you can deny science, or religion. Your choice. They are not compatible.

To counter such arguements Dr. Schroeder insisted on using Rabbitical sages who lived well before the advent of modern science who complimented all of his ideas in order to show that he was not pulling this stuff out of his butt, so to speak.

Originally posted by Mexico
Thats many things but it ain't science........ If you have belief keep it, but stop trying to justify it by using the bits of science that suit it.....

I hate when people take theories and quotes of great men, pull them out of context and use them to prove the unprovable

You sound either angry or scared to me. Why not make scientific counter arguements rather than simply not liking what I have to say or what GS has to say? I simply pointed out that time is effected by such things as gravity and speed, and rightly so. Therefore, assuming the Big Bang did occur, which seems to be the scientific consensus, how could time keeping not be altered immediatly after the Big Bang in comparison to where we are now?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

Have a look at whodeys response and you will find one answer: by any means possible. Many Christians know that parts or all of their faith is in conflict with both science and daily experience so they are often forced to go with one of two strategies (or both).
1. Try to justify it with increasingly complex 'justifications' including interpreting the Bible in different ways, disavowing certain parts of science, listening to and promoting any conflicting voices etc.
2. Simply accept that there is a conflict but refuse to address it.

I think that for an uneducated person, especially if they do not have a good grounding in the sciences, it should really not be that hard to believe in a 6,000 year old earth because they have no personal experience or knowledge to lead them to any other conclusion. Their only sources of information on the subject are scientists who say one thing and their religious leaders who say another. Who do you think they would believe?

Originally posted by serigado
.

Don't take any Big Bang for granted. It's a lousy theory. But it's incredible how so many try to validate their beliefs by trying to adapt them to science. But in doing so they are bending both their beliefs and science itself.
To the common people, it sounds great "science and religion complement each other", they shout.

So what is your theory if you don't accept the Big Bang theory? As for supporting it, I think I am in pretty good company. Who do you know that does not support it?

Originally posted by whodey
To counter such arguements Dr. Schroeder insisted on using Rabbitical sages who lived well before the advent of modern science who complimented all of his ideas in order to show that he was not pulling this stuff out of his butt, so to speak.

Do why do you read Dr.Schroeders work and not that of those Rabbitical sages? Are you honestly telling me that you truly believe that or do you simply take it as one possible explanation? If Dr. Schroeder admitted he made it all up would you find another explanation or would you change your views on the subject?
Why is it important to you that the Genesis account be taken literally?

Originally posted by whodey
You sound either angry or scared to me. Why not make scientific counter arguments rather than simply not liking what I have to say or what GS has to say? Oh and I fixed your spelling too "arguments"

Don't try and goad me, I rarely rise to the bait.
So to answer you; To use scientific arguments against this would be to recognize it as having a valid scientific basis. Which it doesn't, it has never been subjected to peer review, it has never faced the wrath of a scientific community who are harsh on even the best scientists out there, I'd love to see how they'd respond to this nonsense. And it uses only the bits of Einsteins relativity which suit its argument not the theory in its entirety.

To paraphrase myself from another thread
Nobody has the right to call themselves scientists, or scientific organizations, unless they follow established scientific methodology and submit any research or conclusions they generate to a review by a recognized body of reviewers.
This is to prevent lunatics coming across as plausible to those who don't fully understand the subject at hand with big words and half truths.
This is exactly the case with Creationism in nearly all it's forms Quote Mining, half truths, big words and lack of peer reviews have lead to people believing there is a scientific grounding for the story. There isn't, the scientific community accepts evolution, the big bang (somewhat anyway, certainly it fits current data) and various other theories. Creationism, young earth, the flood and intelligent design have no grounding in science.

As I've said many times I have no problem with your beliefs, just stop trying to call them science using Half truths, big words and Arm waving.

for example that Darwin quote about the complexity a of the eye that "intelligent design" advocates used to quote all the time..... Until the full context of the statement became widely know..... Then suddenly it was someone else's half quote.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have a look at whodeys response and you will find one answer: by any means possible. Many Christians know that parts or all of their faith is in conflict with both science and daily experience so they are often forced to go with one of two strategies (or both).
1. Try to justify it with increasingly complex 'justifications' including interpreting the Bib ...[text shortened]... ay one thing and their religious leaders who say another. Who do you think they would believe?

Forgive me if I ask questions about "what if". I see nothing wrong in addressing such interesting speculations that may or may not back my beliefs. So I will ask the same quesiton to you, what have I said that is scientifically flawed? Is anyone going to address my observations scientifically or is everyone just going to mindlessly say repeatidly that I am merely trying to justify my beliefs?

BTW: I am in no way suggesting that GS or myself have all the answers, however, neither does any one of us. God forbid GS and myself have some valid points to address.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do why do you read Dr.Schroeders work and not that of those Rabbitical sages? Are you honestly telling me that you truly believe that or do you simply take it as one possible explanation? If Dr. Schroeder admitted he made it all up would you find another explanation or would you change your views on the subject?
Why is it important to you that the Genesis account be taken literally?

I do not take all of his claims about the Rabbitical sages as being true. In fact, I bought a book called, "The guide for the Perplexed" by Maimanides that he quotes and it all matches thus far.


I am not making this stuff up, it is of historical fact. I am merely pointing out sages who did take Genesis literally well before the advent of modern science and guess what, it is strikingly similar in terms of how they intepreted Genesis and what modern day science is saying about our origins. Of course they were not using the KJV for their intepretations of Genesis and they seemed to have a better working knowledge of the original Hebrew language and traditions than of people of the modern age.

Originally posted by Mexico
Don't try and goad me, I rarely rise to the bait.
So to answer you; To use scientific arguments against this would be to recognize it as having a valid scientific basis. Which it doesn't, it has never been subjected to peer review, it has never faced the wrath of a scientific community who are harsh on even the best scientists out there, I'd love to see how ...[text shortened]... the statement became widely know..... Then suddenly it was someone else's half quote.

You know it is funny how people are eager to use science to bash me over the head in order to contradict my beliefs but then object when I use it to show that my beliefs may have some validity scientifically. Granted, it is hypocritical, but I guess that is the way it is on these forums.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

The same people who believe that "God" flies around in giant wheels turned on their side with an altar inside (Ezekiel). Wasn't Ezekiel the one who went "up to God in a flaming chariot with the face of a lion"?

I'm not bashing you with science.... I have never tried to contradict your beliefs either, so don't get sulky and defensive on me... The only point I have on all this is that you have your beliefs and I hope your happy, I really do, it must be nice not having to second guess reality all the time. And then there's science, they're unrelated and will always be so because one will always contradict the other.....
Has GS's work been submitted for peer review? No.... then its not science...

Stop trying to use science to justify your beliefs and just believe and I have no argument with you. Keep doing so and as a scientist I will argue at every turn......

Originally posted by Mexico
I'm not bashing you with science.... I have never tried to contradict your beliefs either, so don't get sulky and defensive on me... The only point I have on all this is that you have your beliefs and I hope your happy, I really do, it must be nice not having to second guess reality all the time. And then there's science, they're unrelated and will always be ave no argument with you. Keep doing so and as a scientist I will argue at every turn......

How is this for peer reviewed science? GS writes:

"How about a real clock and human observers traveling with the clock to measure the effects of time dilation directly? THat should be convincing. And that is just what is reported in the prestigious journal of Science by scientists Hafele and Keating of Washington Universtiy and the U.S. Naval Observatory. They sent four cesium-beam clocks on aroun-the-world trips aboard commercial, scheduled TWA and Pan Am flights using Boeing 707 and Concorde aircraft. Cesium-beam clocks were used because of their extreme precision. The Earth rotates from west to east. Viewing the Earth from space high above the north pole, we see that on the eastward flight, the speed of the plane added to the speed of the Earth. As predicted by relativity, the flying clocks lost time relative to cesium-based clocks stationed in the US Naval Observatory in Washington DC. On the westward flight, the speed of the plane subtracted from the earths rotation and the clocks, as predicted, gained time. In the words of Hafele and Keating, "In science, relevant experimental facts supersede theoretical arguements. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution to the famous clok paradox."

So tell me, has the speed of the rotation of the earth or the speed of the tragectory into space changed since the Big Bang? If so, time has been altered in terms of real earth time of the past and present. If not, I will shut up. All I am saying is that time can and is manipulated by varying factors. Therefore, you should take the "real time" measurement of time passage on earth with a grain of salt.

I'm not arguing that time doesn't dilate, or alter relative to the conditions of observations for a minute..... What I am arguing is that it's an awful big jump from this to creation.... Everything is possible however Ockam's razor and such states that it certainly isn't as likely as the alternative. Tell me do you accept evolution?

Originally posted by Mexico
I'm not arguing that time doesn't dilate, or alter relative to the conditions of observations for a minute..... What I am arguing is that it's an awful big jump from this to creation.... Everything is possible however Ockam's razor and such states that it certainly isn't as likely as the alternative. Tell me do you accept evolution?

I don't aruge the science behind evolution. However, that does not necessarily mean I accept all the intepretations of what the science means. You see, we have raw data and then from there interpretations of the raw data. Without the interpretations, however, the raw data is useless even though it is accurate. All I am providing is a possible interpretation. Get it?

Your providing a possible interpretation, but a valid interpretation? based on ALL available data is something different..... Parsimony my friend parsimony. The simplest solution fitting all observed data is most likely to be the correct. This is the scientific method. You don't argue evolution, So the earth must be older than 6'000 years....... It can't have happened in the last 6000 years, its just to rapid..... What your saying is that time is different depending on your point of reference, however from our point of reference, which is the only one of relevance to us. The earth is most certainly older than 6000 years