Surprise: The Bible is scientifically ahead of secular scientists!

http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm ^ | Uknown | Whoever ( atheismforum@yahoo.com )is

[OneVike]

Few people might be aware of this: There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't discovered by scientists until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written. Here are some examples:

[LeGrande]

For me to refer to "sidereal tracking in telescopes" seems to me to be the correct way to describe it - What's your point?

My point is that you have to continually adjust the direction of the telescope to compensate for the movement of the earth.

I found it was much quicker to sit in a rocking chair and measure the Sun's angle then rock it back 2.1 degrees and measure it again - and sure enough the sun was moved about 2.1 degrees. What do you know about that. Duuuuuuh. But the sun's gravitational and actual direction still lined up

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated. What were you actually measuring in your rocking chair?

Sorry, I wasn't too clear. I'm saying that your idea is the hybrid crippled idea - trying to somehow combine some of the ideas relating to mechanokinetic waves and EM waves. But I agree - this should indeed be fun!

Except that I never mentioned mechanokinetic or sound waves. I assure you I am not confused, at least on this topic : (

This is the crippled hybrid idea I'm talking about "Waves of nothing" almost as if you think that EM waves are actual mechanokinetic motions in the substance of nothing just like sound is mechanokinetic motions of a massy medium such as a liquid, gas, or solid. But sound waves don't carry magnetic or electric properties, EM waves do. sound waves require a massy medium, EM waves do not. Sound waves are induced by mechanical movement and not(directly) by electrical movement, while EM wave are just the opposite.

So you are claiming that EM waves do the opposite of sound waves? That they create mechanical movement? I think you would be better off not trying to combine sound waves and light waves together in your explanations. They just sound nonsensical. You do seem to understand that light waves don't require a medium. Since that medium doesn't exist what is your problem with my statement of Waves of Nothing?

It's sort of hard to believe some of the stuff you say. For example, you said that if the earth rotated 180 degrees in 8.5 minutes, the sun's apparent optical position would be 180 degrees off from its real (and gravitational) direction.

Hmm, I thought we were finally in agreement by your admission at the top : ( Let me put it another way. Let's put you on this hypothetical planet with a sun that turns on for 8.3 minutes and turns off for 8.3 minutes. Now at your dawn (when you are facing the sun) the sun turns on, will you ever see the light of the Sun? No? Why not? Because you are 180 degrees out of sync with the light from the sun.

I am truly mystified as to why this is so hard to understand. I must not be explaining myself very well : (

Let me give you another thought experiment, at dawn on this planet the sun turns on. The suns true position is due east, but you can't see it. 8.3 minutes later when you see the sun, the sun appears to be due West. It is off by exactly 180 degrees in your frame of reference.

If the speed of light was instantaneous you would have seen the suns position due east at dawn, a 180 degrees difference from your observed direction with the real speed of light.

I just had a thought, do you understand what a frame of reference means? Because that is critical to our discussion and to much of science. I have a suspicion that your frame of reference seems to be the sun and not the earth.

[ravensandricks]

I see your point, and fair enough, but I can’t help but wonder how many people have a “sincere interest in these issues” in the sense that they want to do anything but stick to their guns and ignore the evidence.

I commend you for what you’re trying to do. I don’t have the patience. I just think of the Creationists as a cult that’s largely limited to the U.S. South and Midwest and try to ignore them.

[Dog Gone]

Creationists are not a cult, nor are they limted to the Bible Belt.

They are people who willingly ignore evidence because they want to believe a particular conclusion. All of us are prone to do that, if not about creation, but perhaps regarding other matters.

However, minds can be changed. Many won’t, but some will. It’s tempting to simply shrug one’s shoulders and say, “People can believe whatever they want. No skin off my nose.”

But truth has its own agenda, which is to win out in the end. It’s a battle between facts and faith, and facts are harder to change. But faith is a pretty dang strong thing, too.

[js1138]

If you were much of a Bible reader, you would know that the first copy was written on stone by the finger of God.

Stone is so ephemeral. You'd think the creator of the universe would write on something that would last and could be checked, like golden plates.

[Dog Gone]

And writing with your finger. When is the last time you did that, kindergarten art class?

[ravensandricks]

Good points all, but how people find the time and energy to try to persuade people with cement between their ears is beyond me. I just don’t have the time of day to fight with creationists.

I disagree that they’re not a cult, however. What else could they possibly be called?

[mrjesse]

Even if you ignore the entire fossil record that clearly shows a progression from single cell organisms to complex critters like us, you still would have to explain the genetic record. The genetic record makes all of the old Darwin arguments moot.

Where is this entire fossil record? Don't I have to study evolutionary biology for four years in college in order to see all this evidence? Like I said, at most I would only be able to take it as a faith.

“Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”

That's a nice little phrase you've been posting around. But a link to the full text it references would be really nice. I couldn't find it. It's just elephant hurling if that's all you can provide. It doesn't prove a thing.

Which brings me back to my original point: People who don't have a clue about the evidence for ASBE (All Species By Evolution) take it by faith and argue for it as true saying that it is science and is true. And they ought to know that they don't know what they are talking about! Furthermore, I well know that people have a vested moral interest in ASBE being true. My experience has been that people making these claims also have no logical moral reason to always tell the truth. And unfortunately the people writing these things fall into this category as do the people reviewing it and putting their stamp of approval on it.

which brings me right back to where I started - The evidence is not available to me to see for myself, and I have to trust the word of people I don't know about things I've never seen -- and that's faith! What's worse, I would have to trust the word of people who have no moral logical reason to always tell the truth! An atheist's only reason to tell the truth is if he thinks it will accomplish for him what he wants accomplished. And I've already seen how people want ASBE to be true and have faith in it even without knowledge of the evidence.

And to make matters worse, right now I'm in the middle of a conversation with LeGrande who's claiming that the sun's apparent position is ~2.1 degrees different from its actual (and gravitational) position due to the fact that the earth rotates ~2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light from the sun to reach the earth. If the sun orbited the earth, sure. But it doesn't. By his theory, Pluto would be about 60 degrees offset, and a heavenly body 12 light hours away would actually appear in the night sky when it was on the exact opposite side of the world. (But he has so far, in spite of my repeated requests, refused to answer my question as to how far lagged Pluto would be.)

Furthermore, he refuses to provide any references which also describe the same thing. So my reasons for not just taking as gospel a claim by an evolutionist are well founded and quite reasonable. People do make unsubstantiated claims and argue for them until the cows come home. How much more easy it will be for one to do such when thousands of his peers are also doing the same thing and everybody feels comfortable because everybody's doing it.

In any case, I would be interested in reading the article you talked about.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Soliton]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131

[editor-surveyor]

Well, you’ve made up your own god anyway, so add those things to your list.

[editor-surveyor]

In Exodus

[MARTIAL MONK]

There are few enough of us left that it stands out, doesn't it?

...and is very much appreciated.

[mrjesse]

I just had a thought, do you understand what a frame of reference means? Because that is critical to our discussion and to much of science. I have a suspicion that your frame of reference seems to be the sun and not the earth.

Yes, I understand what a frame of reference is. I also know that if I change my angle by 2.1 degrees, everything around me will also appear to change angle by 2.1 degrees as a result. But I also know that changing my angle doesn't actually move anything around me even though everything appears to move - and I'm smart enough to know that its apparent motion was due to my own motion, and that be sitting in a rocking chair won't cause a lag between the suns gravitational and optical position.

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

Let's just get to the bottom of this one thing for now:

How much angular separation is between Pluto's actual (and gravitational) position and its apparent optical position, for an observer on earth?

To save you time, here is the info you need to calculate it:

>Pluto's eccentric orbit takes it from 30AU to 49AU from the sun. For fun, let's use the 49AU this time. Furthermore, let's make it 6 o-clock with Pluto overheard, and the sun at 90 degrees from overhead (i.e. just coming up or going down.)

>49AU takes 6.8 hours.

>The earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours.

> pluto's orbital period is 248.09 years. That is 0.0009 degrees in 5.4 hours. I don't mind if you ignore this factor for this calculation.

So I ask you: How many degrees difference will be between Pluto's actual (and gravitational) position and its apparent position?

What about a heavenly body which is 12 light hours away from the earth?

There's no use in trying to figure out anything more complicated if we can't make sense of this simple geometry. Please answer these two questions!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131

Thanks -- but I had already found that webpage in my earlier search. But what I am evidently not smart enough to find is the alleged draft. It says "Here we present" or whatever -- but who is "We"? where is the draft they are presenting?! That little blurb doesn't mean a thing by itself (Unless one has great faith in its authors, then one can take it as gospel - but that's religion not science!)

Remember anyone can write anything - and probably there are at least a few people who will chime in and agree with it. Can you please help a poor dumb person (me) figure out how to read the actual draft that you're talking about?

Thanks!

-Jesse

[Soliton]

The paper is on a subscription site.

[Soliton]

Remember anyone can write anything - and probably there are at least a few people who will chime in and agree with it. Can you please help a poor dumb person (me) figure out how to read the actual draft that you're talking about?

It was published in Nature, a peer reviewed publication

[mrjesse]

The paper is on a subscription site.

Ahh, so that's why I couldn't find it. Could you PM me a copy? I'm assuming you subscribe and actually read the draft.

(I hope you didn't just take the blurb as gospel and use it as evidence without ever reading the article. That'd be very unscientific.)

It's looking more and more like elephant hurling to me!

"There's this great article that proves everything, but you can't read it without paying." Science isn't going to go very well if all the good evidence is only available to paying subscribers.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So I ask you: How many degrees difference will be between Pluto's actual (and gravitational) position and its apparent position?

Which frame of reference do you want me to use? Be specific so that we can be clear. You seem to like to switch around.

[Dog Gone]

In Exodus

Nowhere in Exodus does it say God wrote Genesis, which is what you attacked me about in the first place.

Chapter and verse in Exodus please, where it says God wrote Genesis in stone.

What, you can't do that? You told me that if I was much of a bible reader I'd know that.

So who exactly doesn't know their bible?

I'd say it is you. You just proved it.

[mrjesse]

Said mejesse: Remember anyone can write anything - and probably there are at least a few people who will chime in and agree with it. Can you please help a poor dumb person (me) figure out how to read the actual draft that you're talking about?

It was published in Nature, a peer reviewed publication

Ahh, maybe I can barrow it from my library?

As to peer reviewed, it was reviewed by peers in the same camp. I know how that works. There well may have been other scientists who would have disagreed and disallowed publishing but were not allowed to review it. (probably because they aren't allowed to be hired to do so.) But that doesn't make it true, accurate, or honest.

Peer review only means that "a bunch of other people that agree with it read it and agree with it." But that doesn't mean that it is true! I'll bet that if you went and looked, you'd find that the peers who reviewed it are probably quite of the mind of P.Z. Myers - who seems to be quite a staunch atheist and taglines himself as a "godless liberal." Of course the peers agreed with it. They wouldn't be peers if they didn't. But it is clear that just because more then one person is saying it I still cannot rest assured that they are correct.

In any case, do you know what publication and what issue I might find the article you reference in? Or is this just elephant hurling?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Soliton]

I can’t believe you are doubting that the human genome has been mapped or that the chimpanzee’s has been mapped too. I may not be likeable, but I never lie about this.

Scientists Have Mapped the Human Genome
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/11/sm.06.html

Entire article from Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html;jsessionid=3E37583566B3F39DA0ECFE581A3387E0