It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The origins of information vs. The origin of species

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Here's an actual scientific analysis of Schroeder's claims. The short version:


Can we assert that the above idea [ed: that God operated on a different inertial frame of reference until the creation of Adam, allowing an equivalence between six days and thirteen billion years] is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't.

So, yes, you can attempt to rationalize a literal interpretation of the Bible with scientific observation, but that just makes it an ad hoc rationalization. Not a scientific explanation.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
You didn't even watch the vid did you?


Of course not. I admitted it in my last response, which I'm guessing you didn't read. It's 45 minutes of creationist rhetoric, many of the arguments I've seen done to death on here. I only needed to watch a couple minutes to determine that. This is why I asked you to break it down for me or show me some scientific sources that confirm the claims made in the video. I'm not going to waste my time debunking something that has already been debunked. If you are familiar with this as you insinuate and aren't just searching youtube for the first video with a title to fit your agenda, this request should be easy for you. If you want me to dedicate 45 minutes of my life to watching a creationist video, I'd at least like a summary that shows it isn't just the same ol tireless arguments that show only misunderstandings of science rather than links to peer reviewed papers.

Have YOU watched the video? You didn't even give us a brief summary. You just posted it and expected it to answer all questions and concerns without even a single line written about it. That's downright lazy. If you have actually watched it, then surely you can break it down for us in your own words as we constantly do for folks in the creationist camp in regards to scientific matters. At the very least give us that same respect.

We nerdy folk prefer reading rather than listening to preachers that take 10 minutes to explain something that could be written out on a web page in a single bullet point. I'd rather see a document with the "facts" in the video outlined for me like any other scientific research paper or article. Youtube videos can say anything. There are youtube videos out there that advocate for flat earth. Show us it's not just the same ol' song and dance.

edit on 15-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iterationzero
a reply to: Xtrozero

But the thing is Barcs, I don't see how you're identifying
this as creationist. A dual doctorate from MIT in marine
biology and nuclear physics? It's a DEMONSTRATION that shows
how the age of the earth can be reconciled between
science and the Bible. As Iteration and the good Doctor
himself point out it isn't a scientific explanation. ( Thanks to
I T Z for taking the time to watch BTW appreciated much )

However, I posted it in response to you personally.

In retort to this.


One would have to assume ancient myths written by man are true in order to maintain that view. That is a LOT of faith to place in ancient humans that were barely literate.


And the thing you guys might be missing in all of this is?

Who ever inspired the writings the Bible there in. At least understood
relativity.

Before Einstien.

Whereby I attempt to defend my assertion that true science would not
discard the Bible.

NOT EVER!



Thereby silencing any ratioanalizations to do so in the
light of these possibilities. Highly unscientific to consider the Bible
out of the loop. And it shouldn't just be IMO.

Further more if it does come down to just a matter of opinion?
It is ample justification for me to say your opinion sucks. SCIENTIFICALLY
speaking

SCHROEDER WRITES:




“A common error in exploring the brief biblical age of the universe relative to the discoveries of cosmology is to view the universe from a specific location rather than choosing a reference frame that embraces the entire universe and retains that universal perspective for the entire six days.”

“This cosmic clock records the passage of one minute while we on Earth experience a million million minutes. …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!”


"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings". (Albert Einstein)

Again

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man". (Albert Einstein)
edit on Rpm61515v50201500000045 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs


Who ever inspired the writings the Bible there in. At least understood relativity.

No, that's Schroeder's (and, by extension, your) post hoc justification in an attempt to rationalize the observed scientific evidence with a literal interpretation of Genesis.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I've outlined in another thread (don't remember which one off the top of my head though) how there is no conceivable way you could define a day (regardless of the frame of reference) and come out with a correct line of events in Genesis. The time frames of the various days are all WILDLY unequal. The first day is long enough to contain the other 5 days (minus the day of the rest, because I can't determine the length of that day with the given information). You can't even say that the length of the day shrinks over time. One day is likely only a few hundred thousand years long; the very next day is another few million years long.

Then even IF you could reconcile the length of the day logically (somehow...), the events in Genesis aren't the same as how science has come to show things actually happened. Several things happen twice (the creation of the stars and the sun, the creation of man, the creation of plant life). Some happen out of order (the creation of stars, the creation of land and sea).

Sorry randy, but it is quite obvious that Genesis was a complete guess as to how the universe was created, and they guessed wrong. No big deal though, considering the amount of evidence those ancient goat herders who wrote the tale were working with.
edit on 16-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I summoned you guys back here to
hear your thoughts, so I obviously have
respect for your input. No need to be sorry
Shot. Someday the speculation will be no more.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

That's funny considering there isn't any speculation on if the Babylonian account of creation is real or not, or the Greek one, or any of the Native American ones. The only complete guesses for how creation happened that are still "speculated" are the Abrahamic ones (don't want to leave out your cousins the Jews and Muslims). All the scientific accounts are built up around actual observed evidence. Well one account, the Big Bang, but there are a bunch of other theories that come along afterwards that lead up to us here.

For me, there is no speculation left, the Bible account is just as wrong as any other religion's account. There may be one or two things they guessed correctly, but there are too many wrong answers to label it anything but a guess. No, my speculation is reserved for maybe one day seeing enough observed evidence compiled where we can adequately unify all the different fields of science into one universal theory of everything. But that is a LONG ways down the road (won't happen until well after I'm dead, if ever), and it remains to be seen if it is even possible.

Though keep in mind, I don't want this because I want to worship science or whatever it says. I just want to know to sate my curiosity. That's all. There really is no other point to understanding it all. It isn't necessary for survival, and it probably isn't needed for whatever comes after death. I'm just curious, but the only way I can reasonably sate my curiosity is to only accept the BEST evidence possible, and never say that I know everything. Thinking that you have all the answers or a book has all the answer isn't going to do the trick and is the easy way out.
edit on 17-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
A dual doctorate from MIT in marine
biology and nuclear physics?

That doesn't make his stance on the bible correct. Appeal to authority. Again, where is his research paper that backs up his claims?


It's a DEMONSTRATION that shows
how the age of the earth can be reconciled between
science and the Bible.

He's wrong. Krazyshot already outlined the reasons plus the bible clearly says night came and then morning came. So now you are interpretation Genesis as a metaphor? I thought you took it literally, you can't have it both ways.


Who ever inspired the writings the Bible there in. At least understood
relativity.

Before Einstien.


BS. This is why I ask you to summarize before wasting my time watching. If anybody actually believes the bible talked about relativity or that the writers understood it, they are off their rocker. There is nothing scientific about the bible AT ALL. Only crackpot "scientists" that are trying to promote faith as fact when there is no evidence of such.


Whereby I attempt to defend my assertion that true science would not
discard the Bible.


True science DOES NOT discard the bible. You guys are the ones trying to say that it's fact, not us. True science waits for evidence before commenting on it. Unless sufficient evidence can be shown that the bible is accurate then it is not going to be used or considered factual in science. It's that simple. Right now, there is nothing that can verify any claims about god in the bible and that's kind of important when talking science.


Thereby silencing any ratioanalizations to do so in the
light of these possibilities. Highly unscientific to consider the Bible
out of the loop. And it shouldn't just be IMO.


Name a single scientific fact in the bible as it relates to god or miraculous stories.


Further more if it does come down to just a matter of opinion?
It is ample justification for me to say your opinion sucks. SCIENTIFICALLY
speaking


This is the issue. You buy into any video salesman hook line and sinker as long as they support your personal view. What you just said is NOT scientifically speaking. It is your opinion and the opinion of Schroeder.



“A common error in exploring the brief biblical age of the universe relative to the discoveries of cosmology is to view the universe from a specific location rather than choosing a reference frame that embraces the entire universe and retains that universal perspective for the entire six days.”


No science in that statement. Now he's trying to rationalize what cannot be rationalized. Folks believe god created the entire universe, yet he claims it's an error to view the universe as a whole when referencing it.


“This cosmic clock records the passage of one minute while we on Earth experience a million million minutes. …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!”


He mentions peer reviewed physics. Please link me to the paper. What "cosmic" clock is he referring to? Again, there is the huge issue that the days in the bible are not all even periods. Anybody can make up numbers and start adding and multiplying with them, but it doesn't prove anything. You can't believe the bible is literal truth and then interpret the creation story as a metaphor. It doesn't work.

And you decide to end with 2 quote mines. Good job.

edit on 18-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Name a single scientific fact in the bible


Science agrees with the sabbatical year.

3'Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, 4but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard. 5'Your harvest's aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather; the land shall have a sabbatical year.…

Every seven years the land must rest.

And your conflicts all seem rational as I hope you can understand
why I bounce stuff off you guys. If I could just get you guys to tone
down the personal annotations due to irrelevance. We'd have a
much better working order. No?
edit on Rpm61815v32201500000010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs




Name a single scientific fact in the bible


Science agrees with the sabbatical year.


Show me some scientific sources (not religious websites, blogs and youtube videos) that support this.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Are there any? It sounds as if you know there are not.

But my parents and myself are from Missouri and concerning
the dust bowl. They owned a story of govt. scvientists coming
to the conclusion that the earth needs one in seven years to
rest. The farmers were pushed by economical demands to produce
every year for many years in a row. The dust bowl was said to be a
direct result. So if there are no papers on it. I find that " A little funny ".

I'll google dust bowl.
edit on Rpm61815v48201500000046 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

So far, I'm at least able to bring you this much as an
indicator of the truth. That being: That if proper
technics in planting were followed? The dust bowl would not
have occurred. Not even amidst such a severe drought.




Congress declares soil erosion "a national menace" in an act establishing the Soil Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture (formerly the Soil Erosion Service in the U.S. Department of Interior). Under the direction of Hugh H. Bennett, the SCS developed extensive conservation programs that retained topsoil and prevented irreparable damage to the land. Farming techniques such as strip cropping, terracing, crop rotation, contour plowing, and cover crops were advocated. Farmers were paid to practice soil-conserving farming techniques.


The land itself was so damaged that when the drought came,
it was devastating.

source



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Watched the vid ... well presented for lay persons such as I
I found it interesting how the speaker explained that the process known as "Evolution" is in fact a process of genetic information being passed on generationally ... and as such can lead to a loss of information or mutation through natural or indeed unatural selection of genetic information

Also regarding more lowly life forms such as an Amoeba the information required though complex is far simpler than that of a Human or animal
As such a more lowly life form can not gain information but only lose or mutate

The process of "Creation" being the same as "Evolution" the outcome being the evidence of the complexity of life we see "By design"

"The Big Elephant in the room" being the claim that a mind / Intelligence is behind that process or it's originator which you call God

I am non religious but do agree that there is a Creator/Intelligence behind all living things and would go as far as to say that ... There is an undetected other aspect called soul
As I say I am non religious but believe in the existence of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and Muhammad ... all being "Messengers" and enlightened beings ... However I can not agree with dogma nor trust the word of Men who purport to represent them


edit on 18-6-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

This has nothing to do with Shmita.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet




However I can not agree with dogma nor trust the word of Men who purport to represent them


We are definitely on the same page.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




This has nothing to do with Shmita.


What did I write? Why do you persist as such a relentless hardnose?
What does a peer reviewed paper say about anything really?

Man says it's okay and there is no need to persist in looking any further.

That's about it really.
And who is man without God?
edit on Rpm61815v19201500000013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You cited it as an example of scientific accuracy in the bible. You are wrong.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Okay I'm wrong, but if being like you is right?
I'll brag about being wrong all day long.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

That's funny considering there isn't any speculation on if the Babylonian account of creation is real or not, or the Greek one, or any of the Native American ones. The only complete guesses for how creation happened that are still "speculated" are the Abrahamic ones (don't want to leave out your cousins the Jews and Muslims). All the scientific accounts are built up around actual observed evidence. Well one account, the Big Bang, but there are a bunch of other theories that come along afterwards that lead up to us here.

For me, there is no speculation left, the Bible account is just as wrong as any other religion's account. There may be one or two things they guessed correctly, but there are too many wrong answers to label it anything but a guess. No, my speculation is reserved for maybe one day seeing enough observed evidence compiled where we can adequately unify all the different fields of science into one universal theory of everything. But that is a LONG ways down the road (won't happen until well after I'm dead, if ever), and it remains to be seen if it is even possible.

Though keep in mind, I don't want this because I want to worship science or whatever it says. I just want to know to sate my curiosity. That's all. There really is no other point to understanding it all. It isn't necessary for survival, and it probably isn't needed for whatever comes after death. I'm just curious, but the only way I can reasonably sate my curiosity is to only accept the BEST evidence possible, and never say that I know everything. Thinking that you have all the answers or a book has all the answer isn't going to do the trick and is the easy way out.


I'm with you on all of this.

Here's my question to you: do you think if some other species evolved; let's say dolphins. They became land dwellers and eventually a homosapien equivalent in terms of awareness, tool use, language, awareness of their mortality, etc... would they have come up with the god concept as well? Or would it only ever be us humans that come up with the concept because we're the perfect creation of god as the bible puts it?

I would think that maybe those factors may lead to the need for a creation of a religion and creator, because the fear of knowing you're going to die can be overwhelming for some. Coming together and holding each other up through community bonding and ceremony must be better than not doing so. Especially like when I said, we have this awareness condition.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: fabritecht




Here's my question to you: do you think if some other species evolved; let's say dolphins. They became land dwellers and eventually a homosapien equivalent in terms of awareness, tool use, language, awareness of their mortality, etc... would they have come up with the god concept as well? Or would it only ever be us humans that come up with the concept because we're the perfect creation of god as the bible puts it?


I would first have to assume they're not already that equivalent.
Do you know they are not?
Why would anything evolve and just come up with such a concept?
HEARS a much better concept for you to ponder.
When the river makes noise, it's because something is in it.
edit on Rpm61815v19201500000035 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join