Science and Religion. Zeus and Thor versus The God of Abraham
One of my favorite claims to God being a myth is the one comparing him to Zeus or Thor. Sam Harris predictably makes this comparison.
While trying to say that the God of Abraham is comparable to the Greek Myths of the past is like trying to compare the “Sears Tower” to a three story apartment building….
Consider:
While there appears to be concensus that Jesus actually existed, is there any agreement that the “Son of Zues or Son of Thor” actually existed?
Did anyone ever have a “Son of Zeus” cause so much attention as to have the very calendar we observe honor him?
While over a Billion people, (Jews, Christians, and Muslims), believe in the same God of Abraham, (they might understand him differently, but they all claim he is the God of Abraham), is there any comparison to those who believe that there might be a God named Zeus?
For the past 2300 years or so up to the 1960’s, the scientific community has believed that the Universe was Eternal. Einstein even thought he had proven it, but the Bible has always claimed that the Universe had a beginning. “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen 1:1
Now if time did not exist until after the Big Bang and since cause and effect requires a “before and after sequence”, then therefore there could not have been a “cause” to precede the “effect.” Or, in scientific terms, without the existence of the “Laws of Nature” prior to the Big Bang, there could not have been a “Quantum Fluxuation” to cause the Big Bang.
The reason we have had such a divide between Science and Religion is the fact that the Scientist goes into depth in his field and only has a superficial understanding of Religion, and vice versa. For example, in the Book of Genesis we read two statements that to the untrained and unscholarly seem to be an inconsistency…first God tells Adam that if he eats the fruit, he will die that very day, but then Adam eats, yet lives to be 930 years old.
The Scholar knows that the Bible is full of passages that talk about different time frames, (sometimes a day means a year, and sometimes it means a thousand years and then somethimes it means 24 hours). For example, right after the Big Bang there were two time frames to consider, the Cosmic Time measured in Billions of years and God’s time measured in a day being a thousand years, (see 2 Peter 3:8), and therefore Adam lived less than one of God’s days. So in Cosmic time the “six” days are in Billions of years, but in God’s days it is in 6 thousand of our years. Time is relative based upon the position of the observer.
So, now that the scientific community has come around to the correct position on the Universe having a beginning, most Scientists that have a Scholarly understanding of the Bible, such as Gerald L. Schroeder, have very few differences between the two different areas left.
Science and Religion both want to be based upon truth and Wisdom. My definition of Wisdom might be stated as “the sum of scholarly learning through the ages, or the proper understanding of what is true.” Facts have a way of changing over time because they can be wrong as well as be improperly interpreted, so that is why I am saying wisdom.
For example in the sixties, I was told that it was a “closed case” that we were in a new “Ice Age.” Most scientists had come to that consensus. I was also told that we would run out of oil by the year 2000, and that was also a “closed case.”
Not to mention that in the past the earth was thought to be flat, and the Sun revolved around the earth and both were treated as if they were fact.
True facts are true regardless of whether they are scientific truths or religious truths, and they cannot disagree or one is not true by definition.
Some of the theory of Evolution is true, while other parts of it may or may not be true since we are not able to produce the fossils that might “prove” the missing links in those very fossil records.
But regardless, even Darwin in his Origin of Species says that God had a hand in evolution. “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
It is quite easy for many of the religious to believe that “animal species” are evolving, while it may be possible that the “human” is one species that has not been part of that evolution. (I am not saying that it is so, but merely saying that there are possible scenario's that could allow for what appear to be differences.)
Now, if some say that it is “impossible” for the human to be outside the Theory of evolution, then they are guilty of having a closed mind if for no other reason than the fact that they themselves believe in something so mathematically improbable that it defies logic, (the universe and life beginning by random chance), while not allowing the same probability on the above statement.
The old saying…”If you can think it, it is probably possible”….makes those who react to any challenge to their worldview with the knee-jerk statement of…”That’s impossible!”...seem to be intolerant and close-minded.
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 3:03 PM
38 comments
38 Comments:
Hey FAR,
Nice to have you back.
While there appears to be concensus that Jesus actually existed, is there any agreement that the “Son of Zues or Son of Thor” actually existed?
You are comparing apples and oranges. The only way to make this comparison is to go back in time when there were people who believed in Zeus and Thor. Then you can see if there was any agreement that they actually existed. Otherwise, this is a false comparison.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Peter 3:8
I think you are overstating the meaning of this passage in order to reconcile science and religion. "Is like" is not the same thing as "Is". And I do not understand where you got this distinction between cosmic time and God's time.
And I do not understand where you got this distinction between cosmic time and God's time.
From the book "The Science of God" by Gerald R. Schroeder, PHD from MIT and a very distinguished Jewish Theologian and physicist.
He explains that time viewed from the earth at the beginning of the Big Bang would be measured by the cosmic time to an observer on earth which would be related to its entropy, which would put the first day of creation at 4 Billion years, the 2nd day at 2 Billion years, etc, if I remember what I read correctly.
We are saing that Jesus existed 2000 years ago, why can't we then compare that to the beliefs of only 400 - 750 years earlier, (If I remember my Greek Mythology dates from college correctly?)
I am not just using that one passage to state that God's days are a thousand years, it comes from intense study and many references, such as the 1000 years between each of the 7 seals, and a thousand years of the 7 trumpets and the fact that God will rest on the his "Sabbath Day", and it is called the Milleneum just to mention a few.
And also you are quoting the "english" translation and it is easy to infer that "like a day" could very easily mean "just like a day has 24 hours, that is why it is like one of our days." Is it not possible for that meaning to be derived, or is it impossible to get that meaning?
FAR.
FAR.
P.S.
Also, you are correct, I am comparing Apples and Oranges. You are making my point.
Zeus and Thor are like apples compared to the oranges. They are both fruit and and that is where the comparison ends.
There is no comparison other than the minor similarity of all three being called Gods.
You may be correct in that a God's day might not be "exactly" a thousand years, it may only be 999 years.
When it says it is "like a thousand years" it is probably closer to a thousand years than it is to 24 hours.
365 days is "like a year" because a year has 365 and a quarter therefore it can't be said that it "is" a year.
FAR.
Not to be insulting, but it seems like you are doing a lot of intellectual gymnastics to reconcile the inherent contradictions of the Bible. If it's supposed to be the literal word of God, then you don't get to pick and choose what's literal and what's metaphorical/calculated according to a different construct of time.
If Noah didn't really live for 900 years, or if it's thou shall not murder instead of thou shall not kill, then maybe God didn't really say that homosexuality between men is an abomination.
I don't disagree that there are limitations with the English translation but, then again, that only further proves that there is not way to verify the veracity of anything taught in the church.
ii,
Good comments as usual. :)
"supposed to be the literal word of God..."
I don't think it is literal, there are plenty of metaphores, (we are sheep), and I don't try to reconcile something that to me is already reconciled. I merely point out that I don't find that many contradictions and that I don't pick single passages to prove anything.
The Bible is not provable which is the way it should be. If it were provable then there would be no need for faith.
And even the Atheist has to believe in something...(his own worldview.)
My point is that until people can study either side of the issues with "in depth" analysis, there will be no possible way of having a "correct" understanding.
A scientist does not pick a fact and then base his belief (theory) on that one fact, he studies the "whole" set of data and then has a "correct" understanding of his view. Same with someone who wants a correct view of what the Bible actually says.
A person should not just accept what their religion teaches, they must study and find their own beliefs, which is what I did.
But then I am not a "mainstream" christian, if there is such a thing with hundreds of different denomonations.
I for one, do not hold that if you do not believe in Jesus that you are doomed to hell.
I find that idea to be inconsistant with a loving God who cares for all of us. What about all those born before Jesus?
Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
FAR.
Got it. If you don't think the Bible is literal, then there is a lot of room for philosophy, reason and plain old common sense. There is a great deal of wisdom in there, but literalists will never find it. It is a shame that most "religious" people do not approach religion the way you do. It would be far more palatable for those of us who don't buy into fairy tales about ghosts and goblins.
The reason I picked the Zeus example is because it has more weight as an argument than the "flying teapot" example that Sam Harris brought up on a debate with Dennis Prager here in which Sam Harris quoted what he thought was the best example of the argument against God that was postulated by Bertrand Russell….
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics [sic] to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
The reason that the above is a horrible argument that is the worst argument against the God of Abraham is the simple fact that in order for it to be a good “myth” it must be three things….
1. It must above all be believable by a large number of people.
2. I must stand the test of time.
3. It must make some sense to a fair number of intelligent people.
I don’t know of any silly “God” such as a “flying teapot” that would satisfy the above three criteria.
A good “lie” or “myth” is only good if it works. You could substitute a “flying turd” and it would not sound much more silly that a flying teapot.
Zeus and Thor at least were somewhat believable when they were contemporary, but in time almost everyone has agreed they were a myth. How long would a “flying teapot” last? About as long as a “flying turd.”
FAR.
That link did not work, let's try again....
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/11-17/day_2_harris_why_are_atheists_so_angry
There that seems to work.
FAR.
FAR -There you go again:)
You are making conclusion based on faith not facts, confusing religion and politics by saying conservatives do not believe in evolution when in fact it is religious people (mostly people literalistic about the Bible) that do not believe in evolution not political parties, although the hijacking of religion for political gain by the republican party is well known.
As for Gods time, You again use the bible in a literal way. Time is not constant and moves at different speeds in different places.
You are using the same lines you used in your last post. Have you learned nothing. Keep the mind open FAR. I will be back when I have more time.
TorC,
Said: "Time is not constant and moves at different speeds in different places.
Imagine that, I said in my post: "Time is relative based upon the position of the observer."
Did you actually read my post?
I also said in my comments to ii that I don't take individual passages to prove a point, because you can't prove anything in the Bible.
Anti-Bible people will often take individual passages out of context and try to make their point, but I have said that I read the entire Bible, form my "own" opinion and belief and then if there are questions about how I came to that conclusion, ( and since most often I can't pour out my entire understanding in "25 words or less"), I usually will offer one or two of many references that show "partly" how I came to that conclusion and not with the intent to “prove” anything. I blog to inform, and encourage pondering, not to convert or prove anything.
TorC said: "saying conservatives do not believe in evolution.."
Please quote me on saying, "do not believe" anywhere in my latest post since you claim I am still saying the same incorrect things.
I said: "Some of the theory of Evolution is true, while other parts of it may or may not be true..
TorC Said: "confusing religion and politics by saying conservatives do not believe in evolution..
Please stop misquoting me and mischaracterizing my statements. Please show me a quote where I said even the word "conservative" in this latest post. I have taken a look at my previous posts and agree that religious and non-religious is a better choice of words.
If we are going to be able to have a good conversation, you must quote me instead of continually putting words in my comments/posts.
I challenge you to quote any of the things you wrote that I said in my latest post.
Again, I don't see how you read my post or you have a horrible retention problem, or you just love to accuse me of things that are not true because you "assume" that I am some cookie-cutter person and don’t have a different worldview than others you have disagreed with.
FAR.
P.S.
Welcome back!
I love to have my beliefs and opinions challenged as I have changed them often over the years by listening to people like you.
"Preaching or listening just to the choir does not expand your mind."
I think I can learn from people on all different worldviews.
Only an idiot says "All Conservatives, (plug in your adjective here), are always wrong!
I am sure you feel that there is truth on all sides of the spectrum, including right and left, Yes?
FAR.
The religious and conservative was from other posts my apologies.
The point on gods time was how could you possible know what gods time is like unless you use the bible?
TC
TorC,
"how could you possible know what gods time is like unless you use the bible?
You can't.
My point was that it takes more of an open mind to believe that there might be some interesting "true" things in the Bible, (including the age of the universe), than what a closed mind would refuse to consider.
For example, "when one asks if six days or fifteen billion years passed before the appeaarance of humankind, the correct answer is 'yes.'"
And science can be used to show it is so. Time is relative. We have a view of time from our perspective based upon our speed, mass and weight and our orbit around the sun, but prior to the earth being in this orbit, you could measure time by CBR and you would get 6 earth days to equal 15 and 3/4 Billion years. So says peer reviewed Science per Gerald L. Schroeder, PHD Physics, MIT.
Please understand, I am not saying he is correct or incorrect, just that I find this information to be worthy of consideration until something else comes along to have me consider it.
FAR.
FAR no offense but you prove the saying "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."
You pick and choose which parts of a book you want to believe. Then use a LITTLE scientific knowledge "wrongly" to back up the part you want to believe is literal.
Yes time is relative and MAYBE god is sitting in a black hole where time nearly stands still. Maybe maybe maybe if if if.
Like the previous post and comments you are going down a road that dead ends my friend.
TorC,
said:FAR no offense but you prove the saying "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."
I think you can say that same thing about almost anyone including you if one likes to attack the person instead of his ideas.
Pick out some specifics. I don't think I ever said, "God may be in some black hole somewhere", did I?
Are you misquoting me again?
Forget about God’s Time, I think we both agree that it is not worth discussing because it can't be discussed scientifically.
I used to speculate that perhaps there were parts of the Earth that had creatures on them that may have been from other planets. I have since found someone with a scientific viewpoint that is much better than my just speculationg. I also did not say that the idea was "proof" of anything, only thoughts for others to ponder.
Anyway, here is someone else’s thoughts who happens to be causing me to ponder.... perhaps you will summarily dismiss his whole presentation because it might not sit well with your worldview, but then I may be surprised and you may actually open your mind.
===============================
From Gerald L. Schroeder book “The Science of God” page 58.
To measure the age of the universe, we look back in time. From our perspective using Earth-based clocks running at a rate determined by the conditions of today’s Earth, we measure a fifteen+ Billion-year age. And that is correct for our local view. The Bible adopts this Earthly perspective, but only after Adam. The Bible’s clock before Adam is not a clock tied to any one location. It is a clock that looks forward in time from the creation, encompassing the entire universe, a universal clock tuned to the cosmic radiation at the moment when matter formed. That cosmic time-piece, as observed today, ticks a million million times more slowly than at its inception. The million millionfold stretching of radiation since bohu caused that million-million-to-one ratio in this perception of time.
This cosmic clock records the passage of one minute while we on Earth experience a million million minutes. The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 120 million years, as measured by our perception of time. Those clocks are set by the decay of radioactive nuclides here on Earth and they are correct for our Earthly system. But to know the cosmic time we must divide earth time by a million million. At this million-million-to-one ratio those 120 million Earth years lasted a mere hour.
That’s the peer-reviewed physics and the biblical tradition of this discussion. Now for the modern theology.
What does all this mean for the age of the universe?
In terms of days and years and millennia, this stretching of the cosmic perception of time by a factor of a million million, the division of fifteen billion years by a million million, reduces those fifteen billion years to six days!
If the universe had been any other size, temperature, or mass, or the threshold temperature of matter (protons and neutrons) had been different, this relationship would not exist. Cosmologists are in awe that the mass and the energy of expansion of the universe are matched with the “incredible fine-tuning” of one part in 10^120. It is almost as if the values had been selected. Perhaps the have.
Genesis and science are both correct. When one asks if six days or fifteen billion years passed before the appearance of humankind, the correct answer is “yes.”
===============================
Note by FAR: My understanding of the Hebrew word above “bohu” means “emptiness” as opposed to “tohu” which means “formlessness.”
FAR.
Pick out some specifics. I don't think I ever said, "God may be in some black hole somewhere", did I?
No you did not say that I was being a little sarcastic. A black hole is the ultimate gravity source and therefore time may come to a stop in one therefore allowing gods time to be endless.
I am happy you have found a way to use science to explain the basic and glaring problem with the bible in that it is incorrect about the age of the earth and the more educated we become the harder it is to deny the earth being Billions not thousands of years old.
While it certainly does not prove anything about the bible you are using science to try and explain your predetermined conclusions. You have already concluded the bible to be correct without any shred of proof.
Regardless how Gods time runs the bible is about earth and people on it so why does the bible omit dinosaurs, other humanoids, moon formation(chunk of earth) etc.
Just a little reading
How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach
"You have already concluded the bible to be correct without any shred of proof."
I read in the book "How to win any argument" that the key is to understanding why people have a hard time convincing others of a new position is because....
People have a worldview. They will blindly accept anything that supports that worldview and summarily dismiss anything that differs without any "real" invistigation.
This is where you and I are. You have a worldview that has contempt and disrespect for anyone who might think that there is a higher power and will therefore not open your world to new ideas.
I show you a scientist who is well versed in both science and religion and you accuse me of finding "a way to use science to explain the basic and glaring problem with the bible in that it is incorrect about the age of the earth..."
But in reality, it is your way of saying that "even though a peer-reviewed answer that shows the bible to be correct about Cosmic time being the equilivant to 16 Billion years, you will not allow yourself to see that there is something really interesting going on here.
First the Bible has said for thousands of years that the Universe had a beginning and the scientists "proved" it wrong. Even when in 1917 Einstein developed a series of equations that showed that the Universe was not static, but instead it was dynamic, (and suggested to him that the Universe did indeed have a beginning), because it did not fit his worldview, Einstein decided to "force" his equations to say the Universe was indeed static.
Everyone has a tendency to look for things that fit their worldview all the while accusing others of doing the same thing.
FAR.
.S.
Einstien later admitted it was his "greatest blunder" of his life.
Also I used to have 3 major problems with the Bible that gave me doubt.
First the Bible said the Universe had a beginning, but science said it didn't. Bible later proved correct.
Second, the Bible said the Universe was created in 6 days, but Science said 16 Billion Years, now it appears the it may not be just coincidence that 16 Billion Cosmic Years equals 6 Earth Days.
My third problem still exists.
FAR.
FAR-You have a worldview that has contempt and disrespect for anyone who might think that there is a higher power....
I show you A scientist who is
The first statement is just a lie since I do believe in a higher power the second speaks for itself.
You have your worldview set for you by a book that is inaccurate and contradicting. We discussed in your post "Facts, Conclusions, and Lies" and now you find A scientist.
Kudos
TorC,
"you find A scientist."
So, you don't even attempt to address his "science", but instead offer that the only scientific facts that are true, are only true by majority rule, by vote.
Answer the "idea" that "relativity" could offer a very good reason for the duality of time between 16.7 billion years of cosmic time and the 6 days of earth time.
I am not trying to "prove" anything, only saying that the following "facts" are very interesting:
1. Bible Scholars said for thousands of years that the Universe had a beginning, the majority of Scientists until recently said the opposite...Now both Scholars and Scientits ageee.
2. Bible Scholars said for thousands of years that the earth was created in 6 earth days...Now Relitivity has been studied to offer that in cosmic time, it is equal to 16.7 Billion years, and now both agree.
3. Bible Scholars have said for thousands of years the order of creation...earth, water, then fish, then animals, then man.....the same order as evolution says and in the same cosmic time frames.
You on the other hand find none of the above worthy of pondering....
A closed mind, or will you only accept it when the "majority" of scientists agree? Remember the majority until recently held the Universe to be eternal?
It doesn't fit your worldview so you summarily dismiss it.
Remembered his "study" is peer-reviewed, which means that other scientists agree with the "facts" of his findings. That means more than "A" scientist.
Is fact only fact because of "majority rule", or should we consider opposing scientific views to be clearly open-minded?
FAR.
TorC,
"The first statement is just a lie..."
Do you know the definition of a lie?
A lie is a person saying something that they "know" to be false.
If they incorrectly state something they believe to be true, then they are merely saying something that is "incorrect or worng."
You do know the difference between being "mistaken" and telling a "lie", I hope? You seem to be intelligent enough to know the difference, so did you just forget the difference or are you trying to incorrrectly put words in my mouth again?
If you believe in a "higher power" such as a God, then I was mistaken and I will say so.
FAR.
Yes his study is reviewed. Is it accepted? You state the Universe is 16.7 Billion years old while the current scientific consensus holds this to be about 13.7 billion years. Did he add three billion to make it work? 13-16 is most quoted.
He only states what has been known for a hundred years (Einstein) and applies the fact that time runs at different speeds to the Bible to explain a glaring problem with the bible, the age of the earth. fine
Everything else you either misstate or add to it is false.
FAR says You on the other hand find none of the above worthy of pondering.
We have been over and over but one more time. heh
FAR says2. Bible Scholars said for thousands of years that the earth was created in 6 earth days...Now Relitivity has been studied to offer that in cosmic time, it is equal to 16.7 Billion years, and now both agree.
That is misstated unknowingly no doubt. I cant explain it to you because you do not understand the basics (theories, hypothesis etc) let alone the fact that time runs at different speed in different places. Quickly the higher the gravity the slower time. the higher the velocity the slower time.
It is inaccurate to say 6 earth days is equal to 16 billion years in cosmic time. Where in the cosmos? Time next to a black hole is nearly at a standstill while between galaxies is running faster than here on earth.
maybe this will help a bit but you will need years of study to comprehend it. This is basic though
FAR says3. Bible Scholars have said for thousands of years the order of creation...earth, water, then fish, then animals, then man.....the same order as evolution says and in the same cosmic time frames.
No credible scientist says the Earth was created first. You are KNOWINGLINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY misstating the science. The earth was created about 10 billion years after the big bang.
You must believe the in the big bang since that is your beginning you talk about and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe about 14 billion. No amount of spinning of space-time can make the Earth older than the universe.
Please SHOW me A credible scientist that will say the Earth is the oldest object in the universe and what science there is to back it up.
The link was picked for a reason others give the same info.
Tell you later.
I will look into this peer reviewed article. Your scientist has a set worldview that he is trying to prove like you. You criticizes me for doing that when in reality it is you and anyone that believes without any proof. (blind faith)
The Science of God by Gerald L Schroeder
by review by Frank Sonleitner
Schroeder accepts the standard geologic and paleontologic history of the earth but he balks at evolution (although he admits some sort of genetic continuity as suggested by the evidence of comparative anatomy, biochemistry and embryonic recapitulation). He rejects all transitional forms among higher categories such as classes and phyla, but later admits that there might be transitional forms within classes. (He does discuss the recently discovered intermediate forms of whales.) ...
Schroeder admits that there were "pre-Adamites" (Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals) living for 40 000 years prior to Adam, but questions the existence of earlier hominid species because of the fragmentary nature of their fossils. Again he uses a mathematical model to show that the evolution of humans from an ape ancestor is impossible. This model also assumes that (1) evolution would occur by pure chance and (2) one million mutations would be necessary to produce the ape-human transition! ....
But then he says that the biblical Creator could have made stars that didn't produce those lethal rays but "they would not be natural" and would offer absolute testimony of the Creator's existence! And still later he contradicts this principle (that the universe is organized "naturally" to hide the existence of the Creator) by saying that the earth is at an "unnatural" distance from the sun and hints that this may be miraculous! (According to Schroeder some exponential law determines the distance of the planets, and the earth's distance does not fit the pattern.)
TorC,
Says: "It is inaccurate to say 6 earth days is equal to 16 billion years in cosmic time. Where in the cosmos? Time next to a black hole is nearly at a standstill while between galaxies is running faster than here on earth."
Of course it is! If you read the book you will see that cosmic time means looking backward from the earth and measuring the CBR…As he states in his book that of the several methods of measuring the age of the Universe, (red-shift, Blue-shift, etc), using the cooling rate of the Universe (CBR measured in Kelvin’s) might be the best. (He lists the pros and cons of each.)
Also he makes it clear that the age of the Universe is in the range of approximately 16 Billion years.
TorC Said: "No credible scientist says the Earth was created first. You are KNOWINGLINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY misstating the science. The earth was created about 10 billion years after the big bang."
Of Course it was. I knew after I posted my statement about what happened after the earth was created that you would take it wrong. I should have said "First God created the heavens and then the earth" as the Bible says. I never intended to say that the earth was created first, you "assumed" that I said that because I was not clear enough.
I have a real sadness that you will accept reviews on a really wonderful book and not read it for yourself. You assume that the reviewer is not biased and did not take anything out of context. If you read it with an open mind you might just come to a different conclusion, but your worldview wants to blindly accept someone’s review that agrees with your worldview..
TorC Said: "You state the Universe is 16.7 Billion years old"...
No, I said that that was what the math said. And I fat-fingered the actual figure, he says the math says 15.7 Billion not 16.7 and again he talks about CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) being used to measure the age of the Universe from the Big Bang until the time of Adam.
Said: "It is inaccurate to say 6 earth days is equal to 16 billion years in cosmic time. Where in the cosmos?"
Maybe you missed my quote in these comments from page 58 in his book where he says it is about the "background radiation" that determines what he calls "Cosmic Time?"
You said: "I cant explain it to you because you do not understand the basics (theories, hypothesis etc) let alone the fact that time runs at different speed in different places."
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending that sounds? Especially when in my post I already once pointed out to you that I said in my post.."Time is relative based upon the position of the observer.", and then you say again that time runs at different speed in different places. And that I don’t understand it."
In the tenth post down I said: “Imagine that, I said in my post: Time is relative based upon the position of the observer."
Do you read anything that I post?
I am a big fan of Physics and have read a few more books and studied more than you might suppose or assume, and you accuse me of "do not understand the basics..."
Please do not "assume" that I don't understand EVEN the BASICS!
I read "Relativity for the Laymen" by James A. Coleman back in the early 1960's and was able to understand the "basics."
It is very presumptuous of you to state that you think I don't understand the basics....why, because only someone as educated as you can, and I am not capable?
Or do you "assume" that I have not had as much science as you and only the elite like you can understand the sciences. Do you have some capacity for understanding that others lack?
Again for the record, I never intended to say that the Earth came before the creation of the Universe. If I did, then I did not pay attention to any of the many books that I have read. You sure do “assume” a lot about me. Instead of asking me what I meant by your ridiculous assumption that I started with the earth because it was the first thing in the Big Bang. But rather, I started with the earth because I was relating the events of Evolution as it applies to Earth related events. (GET IT?)
It has always been clear to me the from the fist day I found out about neutrinos, and quarks what order the events of the Big Bang occurred.
I have also read Steven Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time”, perhaps you have heard of it? (Tongue-in-cheek) : )
Just maybe I understand the basics, ya think? But then again, Maybe I don’t know as much about Science or Physics as you, but do you know that for a fact?
FAR.
===================================
This comment was not posted by FAR!
===================================
"I will look into this peer reviewed article. Your scientist has a set worldview that he is trying to prove like you. You criticizes me for doing that when in reality it is you and anyone that believes without any proof. (blind faith)"
I thought id join in because I thought this was funny.
Here’s a thought for you all.. Does "proof" even exist?
You find me a guy that says 1+1=2 and ill find you a guy that believes 1+1=27
How can we believe in a guy with a white beard who brings joy to millions of people, a man who we all remember 1 day a year in late December.
Am I talking about GOD?
Am I talking about Jesus?
Am I talking about Santa Claus?
(Prove to me that I was talking about 1 of them)
Maybe they are all the same guy... maybe this Santa clause guy is a spirit that swoops down your chimney once a year and whispers in your ears to believe in god.
"prove" to me that he’s not.
Oh btw... right now.. this very post im now trying to "prove" my point with examples... ill say this again...
Oh btw... right now.. this very post im now trying to "prove" my point with examples...
Of course no one else on this planet has ever done that...it pleases me greatly to be the first.
So what do we do?
Well... its best to take the information at face value.. Decide if it seems plausible, and then come back with counter points to validate its truth..
The only reason we know what’s true is because false exists.
You know what’s the best argument ever? One that applies to every situation?
"your just trying to prove your point."
What’s also great about it is that it shoots down every argument.
What’s even better is when you have a conversation with someone who doesn’t listen.
Or have a blog with someone who doesn’t read your posts.
Its really productive and you can learn a lot from the other guy.
Plus what I do too is, before I read a book, I instantly know everything about the author, and every single point he’s trying to make.
Not only that, I even understand when he makes a statement, what he’s actually inferring when he makes them..
As a matter of fact, i don’t.. ever read books.. I don’t need to.. ive already read them all in my mind because im awesome that way.
_nope im not being sarcastic.. not even a little, tiny bit.
Btw... im FAR's son and live in his home.
Therefore im automatically his clone and must believe in the exact same things as he does… after all nothing in this post would suggest otherwise.
Just like all Germans believe in genocide and world domination.. after all they live in the same place where Hitler lived… they would automatically have to.
Or maybe im even the same guy, posing as another guy to “prove” his point.
Prove to me that Im not the same guy….
Maybe Im actually the ghost of Santa Christ.
Ooooooooooo
TorC,
My youngest Son Jeff just replied and he thought you were very condesending in that your replies seem to come from a teacher-student perspective, so perhaps a little of my background is in order so you'll know when to "talk down" to me and when not to.
After I got out of the Air Force in 1970, I enrolled at Oregon State University in the School of Engineering to become an Electronics Engineer.
I also then started working part time as an Electronic Technician and Electronics Engineer, and later other things, for a Metal Detector Company. The field of Engineering requires just a little Science and Physics. (sarcasm here) :)
I later got interested in Computers and changed my major to Computer "Science" and then finally Information Technology. Which is what my Bachelor of "SCIENCE" degree is in.
College was both easy and fun for me and I wound up taking a lot of additional courses (about 200 credits - 3.83 GPA) because I love knowledge and especailly Economics and Science.
So, please assume that I know "something" about Science and Physics and stop commenting like your the teacher and I'm the student and you know all and I know nothing.
I, on the other hand, assume you know something about it. But I don't assume that you are a Physicist either. Fair enough?
Am I wrong? Do you have a PHD in Physics and have the position of teacher to my status of student?
FAR.
Was not trying to be condescending just going off past statements.
I said you do not understand the basics because in the previous post you showed no understanding of what a theory was and that is basic stuff.
you said
Notice that a Theory is a "Belief."
Religion is a Belief that is based upon Conclusions, of the facts of life.
I replied-
A scientific theory is NOT a belief. Religion is a belief that has no basis in fact only a book that is inaccurate as a history or science book. Trying to make the earth only thousands of years old by saying the creatures (human and animal) came from other worlds is impossible.
A theory used in science is different than the common usage by non scientists.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Even when you returned you never explained your lack of knowledge on that and since I know for a fact that last year this exact link and discussion was given to you the only conclusion is you did not want to believe the facts given back then or that you simply forgot what what a theory was.
That is basic stuff so I am sorry if you feel I was condescending it was not my intent but we have been over basic scientific theory in the past so you cant say you did not know that a theory is more of a fact than a belief.
The book reviewer was from NASA's site and reviewed it from a scientific perspective. There are others that hold the same view when looking at the science of his books.
It is very obvious he is trying to make science fit his world view and the bible rather than letting scientific facts shape your worldview which is what I try to do.
TorC,
Said: "A scientific theory is NOT a belief."
When I said that I was not trying to say that the two words "theory" and "Belief" were synonymous, but rather if you say..."We believe thus-and-so is the current correct theory", that having the word "believe" in the statement means that it is in effect a current "belief" we hold until a better theory comes along.
Of course they are not identical. I choose before not to argue semantics but since I see that you want an explanation of why I said that, then perhaps you can see where my statement came from.
Theories change over time. For thousands of years the "Theroies" on our Universe said that it was "static" or "eternal." Even Einstien said it was.
Since then we now have a "new" theory called "The Big Bang."
We now "believe" that the current theory is correct, as of today.
Do you not see why I can logically, (not necessarily technically maybe), say that a Scientific Theory could be viewed as a belief? Is not the word "believe" a kin to the word "Belief?"
Said: "The book reviewer was from NASA's site and reviewed it from a scientific perspective. There are others that hold the same view when looking at the science of his books."
I'll ask again, Is it possible the reviewer(s) could be biased and take things out of context?
For example, from the reviews comments you posted, one would think that Schroder does not believe in evolution, "but he balks at evolution" and yet I got just the opposite conclusion from reading his book.
Just because he finds some things in evolution to be perplexing, does not necessarily mean he does not believe in it.
If you readily accept his conclusions and summary/review without reading the book, then you and I live in different worlds.
All my life I read the anti-books as much as the pro-books so I can draw my own conclusions and not rely on others conclusions and reviews. I am getting the impression that you, on the other hand, do not read anything that might disagree with your worldview and leave that up to others to do and to then spoon feed you "their" conclusions and bias's.
Remember theories can only lead you to where the assumptions lead.
The latest age of the universe as of 2003 dates the Universe to be between 11.2 and 20 Billion years old with the latest "guess", (based upon Hubble), to 13 - 14 Billion and using the CNO cycle at 15 Billion years, while Schroder using the CBR and math comes up with 15.7 Billion years. Why do you mislead by trying to say he added "3 Billion years?"
FAR.
You are dancing around your own words just like you did when trying to explain fossils older than 6000 years
FAR said The Theory of "Organic" Evolution is full of Assumptions, Conjecture, Speculation and Conclusions.
Assumptions, Conclusions? True or False?
Notice that a Theory is a "Belief."
Religion is a Belief that is based upon Conclusions, of the facts of life
In you world religion is based on the facts of life and evolution is a belief.
You use the word theory and say it is a belief now you want to parse words to show why you are right to say it. In science a theory is closer to a FACT than a belief. Anyone can believe in anything that does not make it true or even logical.
Such as-
FAR-said I believe that during that time many collisions and upheavals occured for millions of years and some bodies, not necessarily planets, had life forms on them, including Dinosaurs and perhaps Neanderthals.
Now, before the current orbits and planets came into being, some of these "bodies" were not trapped in an orbit and were colliding with each other, thus depositing older strata that can sometimes be closer to the surface of the Earth than those below them, (I believe I read in some scientific books about this quandry), thus allowing for fossils that may not have been from here.
Impossible but you believed it about 6 months ago.
FAR says
I'll ask again, Is it possible the reviewer(s) could be biased and take things out of context?
Yes the reviewer and most scientist COULD be biased. Probably just jealous(tongue in cheek). Remember the review was based on the science and his conclusions not on how much a non scientist might enjoy it. Especially when it confirms preconceived notions in scientific terms that most people do not fully understand.
While I have not read the whole book I have read enough excerpts from various places to see exactly what his goal is. To use science to prove his preconceived conclusions.
I try to let the scientific facts determine my conclusions will be, not the other way around.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
An analogy can be made using an automobile.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.
You like to show your grades and degrees and have brought them up many times in the past. Do you think your GPA or degrees proves your intellect? Are you intellectually superior than people that only have a high school diploma?
Are you intellectually inferior to those who have a PHD or multiple?
TorC,
Let me make my “beliefs” clear.
I believe in many things and among them the following:
1. God,
2. Science
3. Evolution
4. Global Temperature Changes
I have questions about all four because there are still some missing links/information in all four areas, and all of them depend upon assumptions.
At one time, (previous posts from last year), I had, (and still do have), some conflicting information. I believed the Universe was Billions of Years old, but thought that perhaps there was something missing as to why the six days of Creation in the Bible and the Science that I also loved seemed to conflict.
So, I left my mind open to think that perhaps an explanation would eventually show itself that would make both true.
You want to say that I am trying to “force” the two to agree, while I say I have been open-minded about it and was merely speculating on some possibilities that “might” explain the conflict, all the while hoping someone or some theory would come along and make sense between the two.
I did not know or even believe that my speculation was true, only as a possible explanation until a better explanation came along. (An open mind does not say they have all the answers, but may try to speculate with assumptions until something else changes their mind.)
I also thought that perhaps Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were separate species from humans and that the only way that evolution makes any sense is that God would help it along in order to make it happen in the time allotted. The Cambrian “explosion” makes the “slow evolution” idea seem problematic.
Again, I believe in all four and will continue to do so, but until I know all there is to know about all four areas, I will remain open minded about all of them. Will you, or do you always go with the majority rule and ignore the dissidents?
FAR.
Said: "In you world religion is based on the facts of life and evolution is a belief."
Incorrect. I am saying that I believe in both.
Said: “You use the word theory and say it is a belief now you want to parse words to show why you are right to say it. In science a theory is closer to a FACT than a belief. Anyone can believe in anything that does not make it true or even logical.”
I am not arguing what the “technical definition” of a “Theory” is, merely saying that people who say they “believe” in a theory, are stating a belief when they say that.
Again when I said last year that “I believe that during that time many collisions and upheavals occurred for millions of years and some bodies, not necessarily planets, had life forms on them, including Dinosaurs and perhaps Neanderthals”, I was speculating and saying that I believed that perhaps something like that was happening to cause the conflict.
In retrospect I should have made it more clear that I was saying "perhaps something like this", but I didn't and now I can see that it made me not clear as to what was a belief and what was a speculation that I thought about.
I have no problem in saying that my belief in my speculation was wrong because I have an open mind and can let go of something and grasp onto something else if it makes more sense.
So, I was wrong. Have you ever said those words? (Tongue in cheek)
Said: “While I have not read the whole book I have read enough excerpts from various places to see exactly what his goal is.”
So, as my Son pointed out, you “know” what is in the book without reading it. The excerpts revel “all” that is needed. There is nothing that he could have said that was not in the excerpts that could possibly change your “preconceived notions”, as you admit in the above comment.
Again I understand the “definition” and concept of a Theory, as I am anything but dense, I wonder if my ability to tell you that I am not talking about the definition of a Theory, when I say that people “believe” in a theory, just as they believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Neither is a given, but both are more than a “religious” belief, but both are a “belief” none the less, unless you can say, “I believe in the Theory of Evolution” all the while leaving out the word “believe.” Can You?
Maybe you don’t see that I was/am talking about belief in the conceptual area of a worldview as opposed to the technical definition. Is it to hard to grasp, because you cannot let go of what you perceive to be a "gotcha", or am I just not getting through because I am not a good enough orator?
And please don’t come back by quoting the definition of a Theory again. Just say you don’t “believe” in anything because that connotes a religious expression.
Said: “You like to show your grades and degrees and have brought them up many times in the past. Do you think your GPA or degrees proves your intellect? Are you intellectually superior than people that only have a high school diploma?
Are you intellectually inferior to those who have a PHD or multiple?”
When I am presenting my views to people I get the response of “Where are your studies”, or “What qualifies you to talk about this subject or that subject” and “what degree do you have that qualifies you to tell me anything?” So, sometimes I think many people rely on academia for their “proofs”, as you point to your sources that are degreed, and therefore they are looking for me to give my qualifications just because otherwise they will say things like “you don’t understand the theories, or even the basics.”
GPA and Degrees only prove that I am well read and that I have been able to present clear and well-documented answers to the professors who will grade me for being able to comprehend and express those answers.
It says nothing about intellectual superiority because all it takes for anyone to have intellect is to be “able to learn and reason” as the dictionary says, and who is not able to do that?
Again my degree just shows that my professors thought that I was able to comprehend and express the material that they gave me to learn, and the GPA just shows that it was not that hard as I am sure it isn’t for most people who just apply themselves.
So, to sum up, intellect has most to do with “ability” and not how many skins I have on the wall, which means again that I can learn what I am taught and I can think for myself.
I don’t rely on others to tell me what to think by relying on the “majority” opinion and then never questioning it. I love to think outside the box and for myself.
FAR.
Let me try to be succinct.
I am saying that a "belief in a Theory is a belief" by definition.
I am not saying that a Theory is a belief. A Theory is closer to Fact than a belief, just as you said.
When I said "a Theory is a belief" I was not clear and the statement as is stands is incorrect and wrong.
All I can say is that I did not choose my words correctly, but you may want to believe that it was a Freudian slip, or that I meant it the way that you took it, But niether is correct.
I just plainly mis-spoke and put words down without realizing how they would be interpreted.
Have you ever said something that was taken incorrectly?
FAR.
You can spin the theory and belief all you want and I do "believe" that is your current view which is good. In the past I and another debated this point to death and it was clear you thought a theory was no more than a guess.
About 6 months ago you even gave the "definition" of a theory to prove your point. Nothing about scientific theory- you gave A layman's definition but know you want to say you meant something else.
About 6 months ago-
FAR said -Theory - 1. a system of assumptions...... 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. 4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Notice that a Theory is a "Belief."
Now you say you meant something else. I am glad you have learned.
FAR said-When I am presenting my views to people I get the response of “Where are your studies”, or “What qualifies you to talk about this subject or that subject” and “what degree do you have that qualifies you to tell me anything?”
I have never seen anyone ask you for your degrees or education in all the times you have brought it up. So maybe you can show me where some one asked you for that. Keep in mind we have debated many times and have agreed more times than you know. Whats in a name right:)
FAR said-My speculation on "Worlds in Collision" and others is just that, speculation but with the basis that if the basic concepts of the bible are true, (notice I did not say that it is perfect in every way, but rather considering it as a history book for the moment), then there must be a way for those things to be explained that don't have to be caused by "random chance" that is so far fetched in terms of the law of probability that it becomes almost impossible.
There must be another way? Why must there be? Only because the bible does not agree. Evolution is anything but far fetched.
FAR said-I don’t rely on others to tell me what to think by relying on the “majority” opinion and then never questioning it. I love to think outside the box and for myself.
Good talking point but not true.
You just use the bible and anyone that believes it to be true.
You seem to be the one who's mind is closed, all of your "conclusions" are merely speculation that has to fit a book that relies on others to interpret for you.
Nobody has all the answers and humans learn and will continue to learn. I do not just follow the majority of scientists but rely on the proven theories and laws to help me come to conclusions as to what is possible not just probable.
My mind is open and I love to learn new facts. You on the other hand have your conclusions set (by the bible and those that interpret it) before the facts will back them up, and just look to those that prove your point. That is called Cherry picking and you know where cherry picking information gets you?
It is hard to debate someone that parses their own words rather than say they were wrong.
I hope in another six months you will be on to your next view as you edge a little closer to the truth.
Hopefully you will learn I know I do everyday just not here.
Debating with you is like debating how many grains of sand there are. I say 7 quintillion and you say 100 million.
I say my number is more reasonable and you counter with the fact that I nor anyone else has actually counted every grain of sand therefore there is no way to PROVE I am right so you stick to your point and find others to back you up.
The evidence and majority of mathematicians would say I am right but you would say I am not giving equal time to those that say there are 100 million grains of sand.
FOR FUN-
More stars in the universe or sand on earth?
7,500,000,000,000,000,000, or seven quintillion five quadrillion grains of sand.
How many galaxies in the Universe?
How many stars, galaxies, clusters, QSO's etc. in the Universe?
If we accept even the lower end of these Hubble figures, and if our
Milky Way has a typical number of stars in it, that puts the number of stars in the universe to be at least (2 x 10^11) x (8 x 10^10) = 16 x 10^ 21
So if we round the number of sand grains to, say, 10^20 and round the number of stars to, say 10^22 then there are at least 100 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on earth.
TorC
Said: "The evidence and majority of mathematicians would say I am right but you would say I am not giving equal time to those that say there are 100 million grains of sand."
That was very good. But the analogy is not even close.
You could have made the same argument about the "majority" of scientists who believed the Universe was eternal, and the few who said it was not.
Which group turned out to be right, the majority or the minority?
You continue to stick to your story that really giving the minority opinion a "fair shake" is not wourth your time.
Am I not correct on the above point about "fair shake?"
You'll stick to your "might makes right" position until others prove it right without ever trying it on for size for yourself. You will take the "Majority" review of any dissenting view and call it a day.
FAR.
TorC
Said: "The evidence and majority of mathematicians would say I am right but you would say I am not giving equal time to those that say there are 100 million grains of sand."
That was very good. But the analogy is not even close.
You could have made the same argument about the "majority" of scientists who believed the Universe was eternal, and the few who said it was not.
Which group turned out to be right, the majority or the minority?
You continue to stick to your story that really giving the minority opinion a "fair shake" is not wourth your time.
Am I not correct on the above point about "fair shake?"
You'll stick to your "might makes right" position until others prove it wrong without ever trying it on for size for yourself. You will take the "Majority" review of any dissenting view and call it a day.
FAR.
You completely miss the point. I am always looking for new facts that will change my conclusions but they are always based on facts were you stick to your preset conclusions and go looking for facts to support it.
Problem is it is not new those facts (time Difference) have been around almost a century.
You are scientifically working backwards which is why you have to change you view every six months or so when you "learn" something new.
Try the using the facts first instead of blindly going with preset conclusions and any minority voice that backs it up.
You stick with what may be possible and I will stick to what is probable and work from there.
FAR-said
You could have made the same argument about the "majority" of scientists who believed the Universe was eternal, and the few who said it was not.
No I could not because no one knows if the universe is infinite or a finite universe or an infinite universe in a finite space.
SO if you know the universe is or isn't eternal(infinite) then you are far beyond modern science. The universe could have a beginning and still be infinite (I do not personally believe it) unless you are strictly speaking of the observable universe. "The universe may be infinite, but we can only see a finite section of it due to the finite speed of light."
How do you know we have a finite universe ?
BTW-Words matter using eternal rather than infinite makes a difference in the type of info you will get. One will usually be scientific in nature and one will be religious.
Said: "I am always looking for new facts that will change my conclusions but they are always based on facts were you stick to your preset conclusions and go looking for facts to support it."
Wow! Now I see the clarity we both are missing.
We each percieve the other incorrectly.
I see myself very similar to the way you state your position and see you the way you see me.
This is really an interesting "problem of perception."
People in general look for things to support their worldview and automatically dismiss things that don't.
I read anti-position books to look for things to change my position, where you appear to refuse to read the books and just accept someone else's review. That just doesn't seem to fit your perception of yourself.
In other words, you are stuck with agreeing with the majority and do not read contrary books, while if someone who I respect says, "this is a very good book, but it is not mainstream", then I investigate because I don't want to be a sheep and just follow the majority.
Said: "SO if you know the universe is or isn't eternal(infinite)..."
You are so right about words having meaning and being important in a discussion.
People have used the word "eternal" in the sense that it means that it has "always existed", not with the meaning that it was thought to be infinite.
The dictionary for "eternal:" Being without beginning or end.
Meaning it has always existed not that it is infinite in size. Einstien thought it did not have a beginning.
So, with that in mind, do you now have a different paridigm with regards to the question of the majority who said the "Universe has always existed?"
You have enlightened me on something that I can see needs to be discussed /blogged and I will call it, "A confluence of views that conflict." and how that gives you the false perception of my position of trying to "...scientifically working backwards..."
I can see how you might reach that false conclusion without understanding how I base my core worldview and I thank you for causing me to see your position on my views.
Maybe I don't show it as well as I should, but I respect your opinion.
I don't agree with it all of the time, but that doesn't mean I don't see it or respect it.
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home