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:

[mrjesse]

Some people just don't have the search gene

It took me 0.27 seconds to find 7 references

I suspect that you had read at least part of the article before performing that search :-) so it may have taken google 0.27 seconds to perform that query once submitted, but I highly suspect it took far more then 0.27 seconds to get a query which found what you wanted.

Furthermore, of those 6 google results (at the time of this writing) only a few of them actually had the full text I was looking for.

By the way, Solitan did (a while ago now) find and provide a full text version of the article, so my request was eventually satisfied.

Thanks for the link, anyway. By the way, providing exact links is a lot more useful in cases like this then providing a google search which returns more irrelevant results then desired. (And there was one exact PDF link which looks to be the full text.)

-Jesse

[Oztrich Boy]

Right in the first google search item, which you claim you saw.

1: Nature. 2005 Sep 1;437(7055):69-87

You now know where it is, even if it's not immediately to hand.

[mrjesse]

Right in the first google search item, which you claim you saw.

1: Nature. 2005 Sep 1;437(7055):69-87

You now know where it is, even if it's not immediately to hand.

Huh? I did I had originally been able to only find the same short paragraph "Here we present a draft ....." but I could not find the full text. I ask solitan about it and he said "It's a subscription article" or some such. I didn't know that "Nature" was the publisher on nih.gov - I thought it was the category or something. But in any event, I now have the article and I'm all happy now and I'm not sure what your point is.

-Jesse

[Non-Sequitur]

2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:

Doesn't the whole Noah's ark tale completely invalidate the hydrologic cycle?

[muawiyah]

The genomes of several different people have now been mapped, not just one.

We do have some differences. I, for one, have at least one copy of all the smart genes. Many of my opponents in debate are missing several of those.

I would imagine you have had a similar experience.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: Does that answer your need for a frame of reference?

No. Which instant are you talking about? When the reflected light leaves Pluto or when the reflected light is seen by your observer on earth. Is your observer (observatory) compensating for all the motions of the earth and pluto or not?

Sorry for the delay - I didn't see your post show up in my pings!

You're the one that so readily claims that at any given instant a gravitational sundial and a regular sundial will read 2.1 degrees apart for an observer on the earth for the sun.

Now all we need is for you to calculate the same difference between gravitational and optical angles for Pluto at any given instant for and observer on earth!

What's so hard about that? It wasn't any trouble for you and the sun, now just do it for Jupiter as well!

We don't need to compensate for any of the motions because we're measuring an instantaneous difference using two measuring devices. Either the gravity is pulling in the direction of about 102 degrees ahead of Pluto's apparent optical position, or its not.

To barrow your original question/statement but I'll change it slightly for Pluto instead of the Sun:

In other words when you look at Pluto, you are seeing it about 6.8 hours behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the Pluto you see or 6.8 hours ahead of the Pluto you see?

So what's your answer to this question? Would Pluto's apparent optical position be 102 degrees (6.8 hours) behind its actual+gravitational position?

• Seriously, just apply the same math to Pluto which you applied to the Sun!
  
  Thanks,
  
  -Jesse

[LeGrande]

Ahh : ) You are afraid to answer my question, that shows progress.

We don't need to compensate for any of the motions because we're measuring an instantaneous difference using two measuring devices. Either the gravity is pulling in the direction of about 102 degrees ahead of Pluto's apparent optical position, or its not.

If light was instantaneous then you would be correct. The problem for you is that light is not instantaneous. It takes time for light to travel from objects to your eyes and things can and do move in that interval of time. Think of slowly rolling a marble across a table. I am able to start the marble and then walk around to the other side to catch it. Just like the marble, light takes time to travel. If the marble was light, I would see myself : )

Like I said before, I think you have a reasonable grasp of classical physics (with some holes, light is not instantaneous).

So what's your answer to this question? Would Pluto's apparent optical position be 102 degrees (6.8 hours) behind its actual+gravitational position?

Using the rotating earth as your frame of reference and recognizing that the light that you see originated 6.8 hours earlier from Plutos actual position, yes, from your perspective, Plutos apparent position is off by 102 degrees (close enough for government work anyway : ) ).

Seriously, the thought experiment that I proposed will help you visualize it. With a telescope pointed at Pluto when it lights up for an instant. How many degrees is the telescope operator going to have to turn the telescope to see the light when it finally gets to him 6.8 hours later? The operator will have to turn his telescope 102 degrees and hopefully he is high enough off the surface or lets start him at a 30 degree angle so that the surface of the earth won't block the light.

If the observer was stationary in relation to Pluto then the apparent position and actual position would be identical. Our earth though, is not a stationary platform it is spinning, orbiting and traveling through space all at the same time. Because of that fact and the fact that light is not instantaneous none of the objects that we see in the sky are where they appear to be, from our frame of reference, the rotating earth.

Let me summarize. Our frame of reference, the earth, is constantly moving and spinning. The speed of light is 300 million meters a second. As a result, everything that we observe is time shifted and nothing that we see is where it actually is (although the Moon is pretty darn close : ) ). Of course all the other objects in the Universe are moving too.

So what is a good astronomer to do? Well for one thing they don't really care : ) All they care about is the apparent position. There is no practical value at all to determining the actual position (well some, like NASA, like to know the actual position, but the math is easy).

[mrjesse]

Ahh : ) You are afraid to answer my question, that shows progress.

Not at all afraid - but rather your question is irrelevant filibustering :-) You're trying to introduce more aspects then needed in order to confuse the issue. "Go pound a stake in and wait 6 hours," I can already hear you thinking. But we don't need to pound any stakes in or wait 6 hours. Remember, for the use of this thought-experiment, we've got a sensitive gravity meter which we've agreed tells us exactly the current position of pluto, and a nice sundial that tells us the exact optical position of the sun. We can operate both instruments at the same time right next to eachother. We don't need to wait and we don't need to talk about the light's path from sun to Pluto to us -- all we need to do is measure the angular difference between the gravitational pull and optical angle! Just like we did for the sun, where you claim that the gravity is 2.1 degrees off from the optical position at any given instant, for a viewer on earth, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sun's light to reach the earth.

If light was instantaneous then you would be correct. The problem for you is that light is not instantaneous.

I well know that light is not instantaneous and travels at about 300MM/S. I also well know that by the time a given light wavefront reaches me from Pluto, the earth will have rotated 102 degrees and the apparent position of Pluto (along with the stars) will also have appeared to move by 102 degrees -- but the gravity will still be coming from about the same place as the light - because it's the earth that rotated, not Pluto that moved 102 degrees!

Using the rotating earth as your frame of reference and recognizing that the light that you see originated 6.8 hours earlier from Plutos actual position, yes, from your perspective, Plutos apparent position is off by 102 degrees (close enough for government work anyway : ) ).

Yeah yeah I well know that the earth rotates about 102 degrees in 6.8 hours! I also know that the light I would see from Pluto is 6.8 hours old. But that's not the issue here! You claimed that at a given instant, the gravitational(and actual) direction of the sun is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical/apparent direction for an observer on the earth.

You still didn't answer my question! I asked you how much was the angular seperation between the actual(gravitational) position and optical position! (I also asked about a heavenly body that was 12-light hours away.)

So are you saying that if I were to see Pluto in my telescope (granted my telescope is not good enough I'm sure) that at the instant I saw it, Pluto would actually be 102 degrees off and not even in the night sky, most likely?

You seem afraid to answer this question. Why is that? You answered it readily for the sun. Now for Pluto!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ron Jeremy]

Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late! In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses: "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

That's just retarded. Do you think that people living prior to 30 BC didn't know that water evaporated, and then didn't know that it fell out of the clouds?

[Ron Jeremy]

6. The Bible stated that stars differ from one another centuries before scientists reached the same conclusion: .

Also retarded. The eye tells you that they are different from each other.

[LeGrande]

I well know that light is not instantaneous and travels at about 300MM/S. I also well know that by the time a given light wavefront reaches me from Pluto, the earth will have rotated 102 degrees and the apparent position of Pluto (along with the stars) will also have appeared to move by 102 degrees

You have it right, my job is done. That wasn't so hard was it.

Yeah yeah I well know that the earth rotates about 102 degrees in 6.8 hours! I also know that the light I would see from Pluto is 6.8 hours old. But that's not the issue here!

It is precisely the issue.

[Cvengr]

Good post.

I was listening to Charles Clough’s Framework series recently and he brought up an outstanding point.

If those who argue against the 6-day creation revelation were indeed intellectually honest, they would consider the big bang theory presumes a continuity og being with an initial condition that the universe has no boundaries or edges. This assumption in and of itself begs the question, resulting in conclusions which merely reinforce the presumption of a continuity of being.

The Genesis account points quite differently, simply revealing the existence of God and He as the Creator controls all existence ex nihilo.

If one changes the initial conditions in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, to allow for the ‘edges’ of the universe, the consequence lies in the dilation of time and nicely explains why it may appear to those who assume continuity of being perceive outward expansion of the outlying heavenly bodies.

Then again, if we are indeed the center of the universe as He created things, so too might such perceptions be easily and soundly accounted as evidence of His Creation as it has been truthfully revealed in Scripture.

[mrjesse]

You have it right, my job is done. That wasn't so hard was it.

It is precisely the issue.

But you claimed that the angular displacement between the sun's gravitational pull and optical position is 2.1 degrees, at any given instant, without waiting 8.3 minutes!

And you have still heretofore refused to answer the same question about Pluto - At any given instant, is the gravitational pull of Pluto 102 degrees different then its optical position?

You have also heretofore refused to answer the question of "When look at Pluto in my telescope, at the instant see it, will it actually be 102 degrees away from where I see it at that instant?"

Such simple questions that you keep avoiding! Could it be you were wrong and you're not honest enough to say so? Because then everyone would ask themselves "What other stuff were you wrong about?" Is this constant avoiding of the issue and dishonesty just what I need to expect whenever dealing with an atheist scientist? Solitan was just explaining to me that it's okay to lie in order to keep society working. Does that also include in order to keep society believing in ASBE (All Species By Evolution?) or in other absurd ideas like "Everything is waves of nothing and therefore well may have come from nothing?" (I.E. the big bang.)

You've beat around the bush every which way - so please just answer these two questions! And to really show us how wrong I am (or whatever, [grin]) please tell me what the optical and gravitational angular displacement would be for a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

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.

You didn't qualify that with any fluff about frames of reference - you simply state that the gravitational/actual position is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position - I'm assuming at the same time without having to wait 8.3 minutes to measure.

So please tell tell me whether Pluto (as I described before) will have about 102 degrees of angular displacement between its actual+gravitational direction and its apparent optical position - at the same time - just like you did for the Sun! Please try to avoid this side-stepping of the question about Pluto which you so easily answered for the Sun!

You should write what you mean. If you didn't mean what you wrote that is OK we all make mistakes. Some of us are big enough to admit it though.

Are you big enough? (I hope so! You said it first.)

Thanks,

Some people seem to require public humiliation to learn.

Do You? (Again, you said it first. Last sentence on linked post)

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

You didn't qualify that with any fluff about frames of reference - you simply state that the gravitational/actual position is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position - I'm assuming at the same time without having to wait 8.3 minutes to measure.

I am sorry that you didn't understand the frame of reference. I just assumed that the frame of reference was a given, our position on a spinning earth.

If you have an observer floating motionless in space, relative to the earth and sun, from his point of view the sun and earths apparent positions are absolutely identical to their actual positions.

If your observer is on the sun, the earths actual position and apparent position is only off by a very tiny amount (I am making the false assumption that the sun doesn't rotate, it does and at different rates).

All of the observers are making correct observations from their frames of reference (points of view), even though they have come to different and correct conclusions. Everything is Relative. Relative to what, you may ask? Their frame of reference.

[mrjesse]

I am sorry that you didn't understand the frame of reference. I just assumed that the frame of reference was a given, our position on a spinning earth.

I have often specified "To an observer on the earth." thats has been a given throughout this whole conversation!

Okay let's try this again, and I'll make sure we're talking about the correct and same frames of references!

You said:

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. [From our position on a spinning earth.]

But what have I been indicating? I have been saying

You claimed that at a given instant, the gravitational(and actual) direction of the sun is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical/apparent direction for an observer on the earth."

So quite clearly we've been talking about an observer on the earth, and we've been talking about an angular difference between the light and gravity at any given instant.

That's why I was confused by your question of "what frame of reference" when I asked about Pluto -- because I've been so explicit that I'm talking about observing from earth that I thought you were talking about something other then time and place. Besides, my scenerio was based on an observer on earth! I mean really, all my calculations were based on the distance to the earth and its rotation rate! Did you think I was going through all the calculations specific to the earth in order to ask about what things would look like from Saturn?! Especially when I've been so repeatedly explicit about being an observer on the earth? Get real!

Now, let me ask you all proper: From our position on a spinning earth, and based on my previous specifications, will the gravitational angle of Pluto be about 102 degrees ahead of its apparent optical angle in the sky, at the same time? (In other words, we take the gravity angle measurement and light angle measurement at the same time from the same place on earth.)

This is a simple yes or no question. Either it is or it isn't about 102 degrees. Please be honest enough to answer yes or no.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

Well then, let's fire all the scientists and throw out all the scientific manuscripts and replace them all with theologians and Bibles.

I'm sure they'll do a much better job developing new materials, computer and robotics systems, power and energy technology, medical technology, weapons systems, and all the things we rely on scientists for now.

[LeGrande]

This is a simple yes or no question. Either it is or it isn't about 102 degrees. Please be honest enough to answer yes or no.

Sorry but it isn't a yes or no answer. Answer my question first about the time, which exact instant in time? When the light reflects off the planet or when the light arrives on earth? You seem to be saying that light is instantaneous, that is the only context where your question makes any sense.

Maybe you should go back and reread Zeno's paradox.

[mrjesse]

Sorry but it isn't a yes or no answer. Answer my question first about the time, which exact instant in time? When the light reflects off the planet or when the light arrives on earth? You seem to be saying that light is instantaneous, that is the only context where your question makes any sense.

I am not saying that light is instantaneous. All I'm asking is this: Lets assume for the sake of our discussion (as we did for the sun) that we have a special gravity "sundial" which indicates the actual current position of Pluto, and that we have a normal sundial which indicates the apparent optical position of Pluto. In a planetary configuration where the earth rotates 102 degrees in the time it takes light to reach earth from Pluto, will the two "sundials" read about 102 degrees apart or not? Either they will or they won't! If they are about 102 degrees apart, then the answer is yes. If they aren't about 102 degrees apart, then the answer is no.

Did you not readily claim that in the case of the Sun, the two sundials would read about 2.1 degrees apart? [at the same time in the same place for an observer on earth, as always.] Why not just answer for Pluto as well?

The incident angle of gravity and of light are two separate things and can each be measured independently of eachother, at the same time, and for all practical purposes, in the same location on the earth. Both are a steady constant thing and there is no reason whatsoever for you to ask me "which exact instant in time? when the light reflects off of..." when all I'm asking you is what the incident angle of the two will be at the same time at the same point to an observer on the earth.

Since gravity direction and light direction are two different things which can both exist at the same time and at different angles then it is perfectly appropriate for me to ask "What's the angle difference where they hit the earth?" without going into any detail of what path they took to get here.!

Either the angles are about 102 degrees different or they are not! It is indeed a yes or no question. And I know you would love to side track me indefinitely on other issues rather then just answering this question because this question shows the wrongness of your statement and your understanding of physics and maybe even simple geometry.

You are claiming that at any given instant to an observer on the earth, the "sundial" and "Gravity sundial" will read about 2.1 degrees apart due to the earth's rotation of about 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sun's light to reach the earth, right? (I've always thought you were, and have told you many times so, and you never disagreed, so I'm assuming that is your claim. If it's not, it's long past time you should speak up about it!)

Don't forget that you've made many claims which I've debunked with references, and you haven't made a single reference which supports your claim. Furthermore, you haven't provided a single reference to show that my understanding of physics or geometry or planetary movement is wrong! (Nor have provided any references that show any of my claims are wrong!)

If I didn't know any better, I'd have to look over our conversation and assume that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't honest enough to say so.

So how about it? Pluto? Yes or no?

Thanks

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Since gravity direction and light direction are two different things which can both exist at the same time and at different angles then it is perfectly appropriate for me to ask "What's the angle difference where they hit the earth?" without going into any detail of what path they took to get here.!

You are correct, "gravity direction and light direction are two different things which can both exist at the same time and at different angles". Figure it out yourself how they differ at different times : ) It isn't hard to do. I tire of repeating myself.

The bottom line is that you have acknowledged that apparent position (light direction) and absolute position (gravity direction) can be different. That was my point.

You can go on an calling me dishonest for saying something that you admit is true, but I tire of repeating myself. Don't you 'Christians' have a phrase, "casting your pearls before swine"? I have better uses of my time than trying to explain extremely simply concepts to someone who simply refuses to understand them.

Since you have stated that gravity direction and light direction are two different things which is all you were disagreeing with me about in the first place, I don't see the point in trying to explain anything further to you. You were obviously wrong as you now admit and I was right.

Because you haven't been honest, from now on I will simply consider you target practice : )