ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal
-
And for the record the ancient Greeks believed the earth was round well before the birth of Jesus. Also around Earth is mentioned in Isaiah.
WSS
-
So when exactly was a flat earth an accepted scientific reality?
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
Yes, because we have proven what causes those diseases isn't bad blood. We're not guessing at what causes cholera, we know.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
Alright, so thousands of years ago, before the concept of science and the scientific method, back when we fought for survival and believed in sun gods, thats when there was a flat earth consensus. After that point, when science and scientists were a thing, we scrapped the idea.
I wasnt bithcing and whining about your example, it was just wrong.
No one is saying we are right now at the pinnacle of scientific enticement... but we are not going to throw out everything we know now. Instead, it will be added on to, and fit into our larer understanding of the world around us.
What point are you trying to make here? That it is ok to dismiss scientific consensuses now because the overall idea may change in the future?
-
In a way.
Mostly that it's just as ignorant to blatherr on about something you don't know for sure and don't really understand than to call it intelligent design.
WSS
-
It is ignorant to equate the big bang theory to a man in the sky because it doesnt have 100% of the answers. It is ignorant to completely dismiss science as some popularity contest between money hungry scientists because you A) Dont understand what they are doing or
Disagree with their result. In the first video i posted where the writer/producer of Cosmos was interviewed, she said we were coming out of a period of great antagonism towards science. This board is a great example of that. The big bang theory will eventually become part of a larger theory that encompasses more and gives us more answers. At no point do I see us throwing it all away for a magic man in the clouds.
(DieHard, still waiting for the defense of your position)
-
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
There is no anatagonism toward science. There is just different opinions
on certain results of certain scientists by regular folks, AND OTHER SCIENTISTS.
The attempt to scientifically explain all matters, doesn't exclude human beings'
failings. The political, self serving concurrence of a theory, because the grants
won't keep you open if you don't concur.
There are scientists who believe mmgw has not been proven at all. Now that "virtually all"
is gone, what's left is theory. And to belligerently claim that we have to pay exhorbitant taxes,
and take huge, expensive measures as a society, and be licensed, taxed, and regulated for
nearly anything we do (cows farting reference)...
over a freakin theory, is what is IGNORANT. I read where Steven Hawking now says there are no
black holes.
Thought most scientists believed they exist. Fancy that. True science fact - no scientists disagree. Plain and simple.
-
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
Lol no. No its not. If you don't agree then idk where else to go from here
-
Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. No one is stating that scientific theories are constant. But, they aren't thrown out. They are added to or tweaked and become part of a larger theory. Again, a scientific theory isn't just "some idea". It is researched, tested, experimented on, peer reviewed, etc.
So climate scientists that agree with man made climate change are just politically charged. They are doing it just to keep the grant money coming...
... but those going against the vast majority of qualified scientists, they're the truth. They are good people just trying to fight Big Science...
Yeah OK cal.
For the one millionth time, no one is saying you can't find scientists that are on your side. The vast majority though aren't. And no, you can't completely disregard these scientists results for being impure while trumpeting around the a study funded by people with their own motivations...
Please, let's not turn this into ANOTHER "mmgw" thread. Jesus.
I still want to hear from diehard, or anyone, defending the ID/creationism side
-
By the way yes, I believe that many many scientists are being paid through government grants from organizations that want them to expose the dangers of man made global warming so they can adjust their tax structures accordingly. I also believe that the gas and oil companies hire scientists hoping to find data that disproves the other ones. I think both sets of scientists could be completely conscientious yet still quite aware where the funding is coming from and what goal is expected.
-
So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out?
Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then?
-
So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out?
Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then?
So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out?
Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then?
That's a fair question. These guys are all real scientists and I will give them all the benefit of the doubt. Yes the people who are paying them are paying them to find results they like but I don't assume they are paying them to lie. There are probably more than one ways to look at the situations. That being said my mistrust comes in when there's a fiduciary responsibility on my part. I'll give you an example... I plan to buy a new car so I go to see the Ford dealer and the Chevrolet dealer. Both of their sales people insist that their product is the best Joyce for me and they give me example after example. All these examples are probably true but they are tailored to sell me one product or the other. As chris said let's leave global warming to its own thread so in the case of the Big Bang Theory, seriously, I don't care. I haven't seen any evidence that I you or anyone else truly understands. If tomorrow The News Channel said that we used to believe the earth was 4.7 billion years old and just found out it is closer to 8. Great. So what? If, on the other hand somebody says it's twice as old as we thought so we need all fat guys with red hair to pay an extra 50 bucks a week in taxes then I'm suspicious. Otherwise if they just want to jerk themselves off wondering about things that human beings can't really fathom fine...
WSS
-
Well that isn't the mindset of a scientist. Just saying "we'll never understand that" and calling it a day is lame. We will never learn anything like that. We wouldn't be where we are today thinking like that
-
Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. woody
********************************
Okay, I'll rephrase, he theorizes that as defined by so many other scientists, said definition is incorrect.
So, as defined, he says they don't exist as defined. The point is, he disagrees with a lot of other scientists.
Doesn't that mean that both definitions are more theoretical? Like both sides of the mmgw debate?
-
The difference in not as large as is or is not happening.
If anything it is a tweak, like I've talked about before.
And still, this will have to be researched and studied by other scientists and they can see how well it fits. Just like how many, many climatologists have been investigating, experimenting and peer reviewing the proposed climate change theory. Through this a large majority have come to an agreement
-
That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it.
We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang?
It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like.
How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker
That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it.
We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang?
It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like.
How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker
No. I've seen it plenty of times before. I was waiting for someone to post it, actually. I love NDT. I still think he gets waaay to many internet hand jobs because he "pwns noobs."
I'm not debating what has happened since the big bang (or whatever WE are calling it). Don't be ridiculous. And that's exactly my point, it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We still don't know "what?" "how?" or "why?"
Continuing with the football analogy, it's very easy to presume you know why the seahawks won the Super Bowl after you watched the game. Nobody was making that prediction beforehand (go look at Vegas if you have any doubts). And though he does it very well, and is extremely intelligent and well- studied, that's all our boy Neil is doing in the video.
-
So you will never accept any "origin" theory, no matter how well it fits, how well the math works, how accepted it is among scientists, unless we are actually there during the creation of a universe and taking measurements. Until then you will say every belief is equally ignorant, which in itself is ignorant, and you just won't care. Got it.
Earlier in this thread you were crapping (poorly) on the big bang theory. Are you now saying it is correct all the way up until right before the bang?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson "pwns noobs"? Alright. In an attempt to explain why he is popular on the internet did you just grab a random internet phrase that makes no sense here?
-
Big bang is not an origin theory. You are mistaken. it's a development theory. There is a significant difference between the two.
I'm talking about initial conditions of the ____ before the big bang began developing our universe. Again, the big bang an explanation (theory) of observed events. I'm referring to the unobserved.
Sorry if my "random internet phrase" seems stale and tired. It's appropriate given the vastness of his publications prior to his internet fame. It's aggravating.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login