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:

[editor-surveyor]

"Aleph Null"

No beginning.

[editor-surveyor]

"How Darwinists have openly declared that they will destroy the careers of professors and students who criticize them or defend intelligent design — and they’re doing it"

Irrefutable!

[GodGunsGuts]

Good find, ES. I think I will commit these verses to memory. Thanks!

As usual, Wiley doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Deny, deny, deny seems to be his only tactic.

[Soliton]

Ignore the facts.

[Fichori]

“Ignore the facts.”

Look Soliton....

Just because it might work for you does not mean it will work for everyone else too.

I cannot speak for editor-surveyor, but I can say with great certainty that it wont work for me.

[Soliton]

I understand having differing opinions, but how does someone ignore mountains of scientific evidence?

[Fichori]

“I understand having differing opinions, but how does someone ignore mountains of scientific evidence?”

Your the one who said “Ignore the facts.”

What that has to do with evidence, I have yet to discover.

[Soliton]

I said it in response to “The fossil record is perfectly devoid of transitional forms.”

It simply isn’t true.

[mrjesse]

LOL and this from someone who thinks that for a telescope to take a time lapse photograph it needs to compensate for sidereal motion : )

I perceive that you don't know too much about astronomy or photography either. First of all, I never said anything about time lapse. I only talked about the exposure time of single photos. I think you're confused. For your information, time laps is a technique of making movie sequences by running many separate photos together one after the other to form a movie that plays many times faster then real time of the recorded images. I never said anything about that nor did I use the words 'time lapse' - so either you're confused or lying - I don't know which.

Second, In the manual for my telescope it says:

ALIGNMENT
As the Earth rotates beneath the night sky, the stars appear to move from East to West. The speed at which the stars move is called the sidereal rate.

If the telescope is aligned, the motor drive is designed to move the telescope at the sidereal rate so that it automatically tracks the stars. Tracking keeps an object centered in the telescope's eyepiece and makes it easier to locate other objects. (Instruction Manual for Autostar #494 Computer Controller, Page 14, Meade Instruments Corporation.)

You can also read lots more about sidereal time on the web, but basically it's based on what I guess you could call a stellar day - the time it takes a star other then the Sun to go from over head to overhead - and it's not exactly the same as the time it takes the Sun to go from overhead to overhead, due to the earth's orbiting the sun.

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

Have you done the simple experiment I asked you to? It neatly demonstrates the time difference in apparent position.

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 (at least within light time correction and stellar aberration - NOT 2.1 degrees)! Remember, you're claiming that the sun's gravitational pull and optical apparent position are 2.1 degrees apart at any given moment due to the fact that it takes ~8.3 minutes for the sun's light to reach the earth and that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in that time.

So please explain your hybrid crippled idea : ) This should be fun.

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!

Correct, but there is a field. What is the field made of? I claim that the field is made of nothing, hence waves of nothing.

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.

But this may not make sense to someone who believes in a theory which states that Pluto's gravitational and actual position will be about 60 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position due to the time of flight from Pluto to earth of light and the rotational speed of the earth.

Good! Skepticism is the beginning of wisdom : ) You might learn something, even if I have to drag you screaming and crying : )

No, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom! (Pro 9:10) And that is your problem! With no fear of the Lord, you have no reason whatsoever to stick to the truth and no reason to admit it when you've been wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be holding onto this theory that says Pluto's gravitational and actual position is ~60 degrees ahead of its apparent optical position.

I need you to do a little research on the electromagnetic spectrum, because I know that you won't believe anything that I tell you.

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.

And you said that the sun's optical angle will be about 2.1 degrees off from its actual and gravitational angle, due to the time of flight from sun to earth of light of 8.3, and the earth's rotation of 2.1 degrees therein. But that only works if the sun is orbiting the earth much much more then it is.

And you have continued for some time now to refuse to answer the simple question "How far will Pluto's gravitational direction be displaced from its optical position."

Anyway, you've said a number of strange things none of which you seem willing or able to back up. It looks like you're making them up. I mean it's possible that you're the single smartest scientist in the universe and you're the only one who knows about these things - but if that was the case you ought to say so in order that I won't be trying to find support for your unique arguments among other scientific material.

In the upper frequency ranges 10 to the 18th oscillations per second and above, does the chart describe waves or particles?

Why don't we get to the bottom of this gravitational/optical displacement issue first. At least one of two things is true: I don't understand simple geometry, or you don't. Either way, if we can't figure that out, we're almost certain to go awry trying to tackle more complicated topics. I have provided many references supporting my viewpoint and debunking yours and you haven't provided a single reference which debunks mine OR which supports yours, so I tend toward saying that you're the one that doesn't understand simple geometry - but I'm always willing to learn, and also willing to admit that I've been wrong when I can see that I indeed have been.

In a little while (or maybe longer in your case) you are going to be thanking me for opening your eyes. But I can't take the credit, I have just decided to walk you through "The Feynman Lectures on Physics." Some people seem to require public humiliation to learn.

And some people drink up public humiliation and still don't learn :-)

But before we get into Feynman's Lectures on Physics, we really ought to solve this one simple geometry question:

How far lagged is the optical position of Pluto as measured against its actual and gravitational position at a single point in time to an observer on the earth? What about a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I understand having differing opinions, but how does someone ignore mountains of scientific evidence?

"Mountains of evidence." "93000 links and citations." Etc.

The fact is that from what I can tell, the transitional fossils we have are in the range and scale which could easily have been caused by "microevolution." See this quick lineup here

The fact is that the evidence available to the general public is just really skinny. The nicest I've seen so far is a photo with a bunch of bone fragments stuck on balls of fixall [grin.] being passed around. But the variation there could well be explained by variation within a kind. (or even within multiple kinds - for example, notice that the biggest dog is bigger then the smallest horse, and the smallest dog is smaller then the biggest frog, and the smallest frog is smaller then the biggest bumblebee, and so on. The variation within kinds is huge and causes overlapping in size scale of completely different (and similar) kinds.)

The other fact is that the general public does have to take it by faith - they cannot know because they haven't majored in evolutionary history and yet they believe it with all their hearts - to them it is a faith, a religion. I suspect it is to the professors as well -- I mean I've seen first hand that people who don't have a clue about the evidence of ASBE (All Species By Evolution) still believe it and argue for it as being scientific. And I have no reason to believe that the professors don't do exactly the same thing.

So while we talk about these mountains of evidence, we need to remember that for the majority of people, it is nothing more then a faith which has been dishonestly indoctrinated under the name "science." -- and I have no evidence that this isn't true for all believers in ASBE, including the professors.

But why go to such great lengths? I think Thomas Nagel (Professor of law and philosophy, Ph.D) is very close when he says:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. (The Last Word, page 130)

And indeed, my own efforts some months ago to get to the bottom of it and find out just what was the greatest proofs for ASBE (All Species By Evolution) in a thread here on FR was actually quite disappointing. I had expected that with all the people who fervently fight for ASBE, I would be presented with at least one great irrefutable evidence - but that was not to be. I found that there is no great or even good evidence. It's just a lot of little tidbits that by themselves couldn't stand, but only as a group which cover many areas do they point in a general direction. But most of these little evidence could each also indicate just the opposite, or at least something entirely different!

And remember, until I can see something myself, I can at best accept it by faith. I'm sorry but for most (and maybe all) people, "All life from a single life form" is a matter of pure faith and is held on to vigorously because of its moral implications of moral freedom, or more specifically the freedom from the restrictions of such a thing existing as wrong.

And as an added bonus, once one decides that no such thing exists as wrong, then it's no longer important to tell the truth for the sheer sake thereof. If the truth is the best tool to use, then the atheist uses it. If it's not the best tool in a certain case, then it's not used.

How does one atheist try to logically argue to another that he must always tell the truth? That would be a very interesting discussion. What force or moral rule causes you to always tell the truth? or do you only tell it when that's the best way to accomplish your goal?

Regards,

-Jesse

[Soliton]

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.

“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.”

[js1138]

The fossil record and the genetic record comprise what is known as the dual nested hierarchy. Common descent will have some competition just as soon as someone comes up with an alternative explanation for the nested hierarchy.

[Soliton]

If I had never heard of creationism or evolution, genetics would be enough to convince me of evolution. We have measured the difference between us and chimps. It is genes. Which gene is the gene for a soul?

[js1138]

That would be the Noam Chomsky gene.

[LeGrande]

Okay, you’re getting jumped on for the waves of nothing. That’s not fair, there’s an element of non-corporeality about energy/light. Most of an atom is nothing.

I am just using the phrase to tweak them : ) I just borrowed the phrase from Laughlin.

Since I believe that space is a hypersolid, then a transverse wave moving through a solid makes sense. I believe we only see the tip of the iceberg when it comes to light in 4 dimensions. In fact, Maxwell’s equations predict a solid ether.

Then we have Michelson-Morely who proved the nonexistence of the ether and then we have Einstein who confirmed the nonexistence of it and and who then recreated it as space-time : ) Isn't science fun : )

[LeGrande]

Aleph Null

No beginning.

Or end.

[Dog Gone]

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

Really? Where does it say that?

[Dog Gone]

 No results found for "Genesis written by God".

[ravensandricks]

Sir,

I think I’ve asked you this once before, but I don’t remember if you answered - why do you even try? Do you think you’re going to get the fundies to understand science, much less persuade them of their errors? Just curious.

[Coyoteman]

I think I’ve asked you this once before, but I don’t remember if you answered - why do you even try? Do you think you’re going to get the fundies to understand science, much less persuade them of their errors? Just curious.

No, the TRVE believers will never see the facts, no matter how obvious they are, nor how many times they are presented.

But for those with a sincere interest in exploring these issues, the other side should be presented. Of late, this site has become a YECho chamber, driving away (or banning) a lot of science-oriented posters. I'm holding on as long as I can to present the science side. There are few enough of us left that it stands out, doesn't it?