Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1304 of 1482 (844631)
12-03-2018 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1301 by ICANT
12-02-2018 10:36 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
No I am no cosmologist but I quoted one, Alan Guth.
And I quoted another couple that said the universe could have always existed.
If you care to refute that the universe would be in equilibrium if it was eternal please do so.
Those aruments can only take place between the very few people that understand the physics, neither you nor I do. All we can do is honestly report on the work as it proceeds.
You have no business picking a side that you think supports your religious argument whilst pretending that it's settled science and that no other position exists it isn't and it doesn't.
The Big Bang Theory requires a beginning to exist some 13.7 billion years ago.
You haven't the first idea what the Big Bang is, never mind whether anything existed before it. You're miles out of your depth arguing dishonestly.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2018 10:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 7:56 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1311 of 1482 (844761)
12-05-2018 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1308 by ICANT
12-04-2018 7:56 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
I thought I picked the majority side.
Why are you picking sides? The fact that there are sides tells you that there is not yet a settled scientific concensus yet you picked a side that you thought would help you.
You're also confused about what the scientists are saying - not surprising because you're not a scientist, so you post stuff that you don't understand imagining that it supports your position.
The scientists are not saying that the big bang didn't happen, they're saying that a universe existed before it. ie it's eternal.
If so why don't you try to present the correct side.
Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 7:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 11:43 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1323 of 1482 (844865)
12-07-2018 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1321 by ICANT
12-06-2018 11:43 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.
Why are *all* creationists intellectually dishonest?
I have no idea where your 99.9% comes from - or rather I do, but it would be rude to say - but I suspect that what you mean is that most physicists accept the big bang hypothesis.
Fine, and so does the group that also hypothesise that the universe existed before it. No one yet knows what was before the big bang.
There is no scientific evidence of anything existing prior to the singularity at T=0.
There are mathematically explained hypotheses. One of which - the one I showed you - is that the universe existed before but in a different state.
Quote me one published scientist that can support with evidence of any thing existing prior to the singularity that existed at T=0).
Huh? I already did.
It had to be created by something or someone, that had all power, required to produce all the matter in the universe.
No it doesn't, Hawking believed that it could be a spontaneous birth.
But no one knows yet.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1321 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 11:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1327 by Son of Man, posted 12-07-2018 6:32 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 1330 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 1:59 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1334 of 1482 (844910)
12-07-2018 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1330 by ICANT
12-07-2018 1:59 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
I got the 99.9% figure from a physics web site.
Which you can't now source.
But even if you could it would be irrelevant because my point has nothing to do with the big bang. The issue being discussed is what was before the big bang.
The Big Bang Theory is a theory not a hypothesis.
It's a hypothesis but never mind, it's irrelevant to the point being made.
It has consensus of the majority of scientist. That is what it takes to reach the point a hypothesis becomes a theory. That still does not make it a fact.
It's still irrelevant to the point being made. (And a theory is stronger than fact, because it is an explanation of facts; but that is also irrelevant.)
Mathematics is not evidence.
That's why it's a hypothesis. A hypotheis supported by validated mathematics.
If no one knows what existed before T=0 how can anyone write giving evidence for anything that existed prior to T=0?
It's what science does, creates hypothesise about things that are not known yet.
I believe the universe is much older than anyone on this website as I believe it has always existed being eternal in the past just not in the form we see it today. I have mentioned trillions of years and quadrillion years but I believe the universe has existed eternally in the past
Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.
But there was non existence prior to the universe.
Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.
There had to be existence prior to the Big Bang, Hawking/Hartley instanton, any string theory and branes banging together, as all require existence for them to take place in. Hawking even borrowed imaginary time and inserted it in a vertical position so he could do away with the singularity. So he posits the universe beginning to exist in imaginary time.
So just what is your problem? You agree that there are scientists that hypothesise that the universe existed before the big bang.
So you now agree that you're wrong. Weird.
God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that "I AM THAT I AM" has sent me. The Hebrew word היה means exist. Exodus 3:14.
Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1330 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 1:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1337 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 9:58 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1340 of 1482 (844920)
12-08-2018 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1337 by ICANT
12-07-2018 9:58 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
How can a theory which can be disproven be stronger than a fact that never changes?
Because a theory explains the facts and forms a conclusion. Which can change if new facts are found. But this is irrelevant.
As long as the math is all that supports the hypothesis it will remain a hypothesis. It will never become a theory until there is evidence to support it.
Correct but irrelevant
Now if you can tell me when the beginning was I will give you a definite time. But until then I will just say "the universe has always existed in some form."
You don't seem to be able to understand that my point is that there are scientifically valid hypothesises that DO say that the the universe has existed forever.
Just because there are scientist that don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and have tried to come up with something else does not make me wrong.
As far as this argument goes, yes it does. You said this way back in post 1285:
ICANT writes:
Scientist believe the universe began to exist. Because it exists today. According to General relativity it could not have existed eternally in the past.
And I showed you a mathematically validated hypothesis by scientists that shows that it coud be.
Exodus 3:14
You blather on about difficult physics that you don't understand and it not being enough to form a theory then quote a chunk of ancient mythology as though that was enough? Really?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1337 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 9:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1345 by ICANT, posted 12-08-2018 12:33 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1348 of 1482 (844932)
12-08-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1345 by ICANT
12-08-2018 12:33 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
Can you explain one of the hypothesis that is valid?
Of course I can't ICANT, but if I could you wouldn't understand it.
Luckily I don't have to because it's a published peer reviewed paper. (Which means that those who do understand have checked for both of us.). But you know, you could always check for yourself
quote:
In this article, we show that one may be able to get a better understanding of some of the above problems by studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation, derived from the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE), which in turn was obtained by replacing geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories [5] (this formulation of quantum mechanics gives rise to identical predictions as those of ordinary quantum mechanics). In particular, while one correction term can be interpretable as dark energy, with the right density, and providing a possible explanation of the coincidence problem, the other term can be interpreted as a radiation term in the early universe, preventing the formation of a big-bang type singularity, and predicting an infinite age of our universe. One naturally assumes a quantum mechanical description of the fluid or condensate filling our universe, described by a wavefunction
(assumed normalizable and single valued. Some well-studied examples in curved spacetimes, including in cosmology, include Refs. [6], [7], [8], [9].
), associated with the four-velocity field
, and expansion
,
(with vanishing shear and twist, for simplicity. The constant
for conformally invariant scalar fluid, but left arbitrary here). We will see later in this article that a condensate composed of gravitons with a tiny mass is a natural candidate for this fluid. Then the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation follows [10]1
(1)
Note that Eq. (1) follows directly the Klein—Gordon or Dirac
But after that it gets a bit trickier.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0370269314009381
Then give me the evidence that makes it valid. Using the scientific definition of validity found here
That made me laugh out loud.
If the Bible is a book of myth how would it be able to record information 2800 years before it was discovered?
This is just a wild guess but I'd say they knew that blood was necessary for life because every time they cut a goat's throat it died.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1345 by ICANT, posted 12-08-2018 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1419 of 1482 (845564)
12-17-2018 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1416 by Phat
12-17-2018 10:54 AM


Re: Creation
Phat writes:
Good point, though some will argue that there was no time in the Beginning.
And some argue that there was no beginning.
They eliminate God as a factor in the equation because they cannot prove Him to their satisfaction.
God can't be in the equation because he's not a mathematical value. Universal variable constants are not allowed
A case can be made biblically that belief leads to proof.
Uh? Really? Do tell.
Scientifically, this cannot be grasped and in fact is either in the scientist or not. Regardless, belief should not affect scientific results.
Belief cannot affect results unless the scientist is doing it wrong and if he is, others will correct him.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1416 by Phat, posted 12-17-2018 10:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1439 of 1482 (845885)
12-21-2018 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1437 by ICANT
12-21-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
He just knew he bleed to death. He did not know why the loss of the blood caused him to stop breathing.
George Washington was bleed to death over 10 hours by taking over 80 oz of blood which was over 1/2 of his blood. While treating him for a closing throat and pneumonia they had all kinds of fancy names to blame his death on. But with over 50% of his blood gone over half the cells of his body was getting no energy, oxygen or removal of waste. Making it impossible for his body to combat his problems.
The operation of the cardiovascular system was discovered between 1578-1657 it was improved upon in the early 1900's and blood letting was stopped as medical treatment. The blood provides means for the white corpuscle to fight against infections, and the red corpuscle to carry energy and oxygen to the cells of the body and remove the carbon dioxide waste to the lungs.
Yet it was stated or predicted if you prefer that the life of the flesh was in the blood. Without energy and oxygen and removal of the carbon dioxide waste from the body the cells could not survive. So Moses recorded a scientific fact 2800 years before it was discovered. How did he have that knowledge then to be able to write it down? Nobody had that knowledge at that time but somebody that knew had to tell him.
Moses - like everyone on the planet before him and after him - knew that if you slit an animal's throat, its blood drains out and it dies. If you don't do that it doesn't die. He did not declare a scientific fact, he was saying something that everyone knew. Had Moses explained *why* the goat dies as you quoted...
quote:
The blood provides means for the white corpuscle to fight against infections, and the red corpuscle to carry energy and oxygen to the cells of the body and remove the carbon dioxide waste to the lungs etc.
... then I'd be impressed. But in fact, there's absolutely nothing in the bible that couldn't have been written by someone a few thousand years ago. Nothing.
Not that they could even write of course.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2018 3:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1441 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 12:36 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 1448 by Phat, posted 12-25-2018 6:07 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1444 of 1482 (845966)
12-24-2018 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1441 by ICANT
12-24-2018 12:36 AM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
Keep a civil tongue with your typing and I will respond to you.
I'm not a member of your congregation pastor, you may have noticed that I am not in awe of your enormous intellect and status. I'm not one of your bleeting sheep, I'm quite definately a goat. and I will respond to your nonsense as I see fit. Whether you respond or not is your problem not mine.
All I know is that it was the position of science that if a person was sick that you would bleed them to make them well.
Why is that all you know? We know rather a lot about blood letting yet you only pick out a few 'facts' to make your usual distorted and error-ridden case.
For a start blood letting was pre-science, practiced for thousands of years and finally *stopped* by science. It was practiced in Egypt around the time the stories that made it into your little books were being made up. Odd given Mose's special insights that it continued. The practice was essentially discontinued by the end of the 19th century.
quote:
One reason for the continued popularity of bloodletting (and purging) was that, while anatomical knowledge, surgical and diagnostic skills increased tremendously in Europe from the 17th century, the key to curing disease remained elusive, and the underlying belief was that it was better to give any treatment than nothing at all. The psychological benefit of bloodletting to the patient (a placebo effect) may sometimes have outweighed the physiological problems it caused. Bloodletting slowly lost favour during the 19th century, after French physician Dr. Pierre Louis conducted an experiment in which he studied the effect of bloodletting on pneumonia patients.[29] A number of other ineffective or harmful treatments were available as placebosmesmerism, various processes involving the new technology of electricity, many potions, tonics, and elixirs. Yet, bloodletting persisted during the 19th century partly because it was readily available to people of any socioeconomic status.[30]
Bloodletting - Wikipedia
He did say the life of the flesh was in the blood.
And from that you tell us that what he meant was that blood is composed of white and red corpuscles and plasma, and that the haemoglobin in the plasma transports oxygen from the lungs to the 'flesh' and transports carbon dioxide away and so on.
And he didn't mean that he'd noticed that if blood drains out the 'flesh' dies?
That's just hilarious. But like I say, had Moses actually said anything like what you said about the composition of blood I would be more than impressed. But of course all he's reported to have said was what was already known to everyone at the time.
So Moses wrote about what is now a scientific fact at least 2400 years before it was discovered.
That would be classified as a verified prediction.
That would only be classified as a 'verified prediction' by a total charlatan attempting to mislead his vulnerable audience.
People with a brain in their heads would classify it as an outright lie.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1441 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 12:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1445 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 3:24 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1447 of 1482 (845984)
12-24-2018 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1445 by ICANT
12-24-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
Name me one person including Moses that knew the life of the flesh was in the blood during his lifetime 2800 years ago.
Everyone did.
He did not give a dissertation on the blood system. He had no microscope to look into blood and see what was there.
No microscope? He had god to tell him about such stuff. Seems like a feeble excuse ICANT. If he wanted anybody to take any notice, he should have elabourated a little.
And, by-the-way, it was you who brought up the blood componants and began the lecture. Oh, look, here it comes again, more irrelevant google notes
quote:
Matteo Realdo Colombo, (born 1516?, Cremona [Italy]died 1559, Rome), clearly outlined circulation of venous blood from the right ventricle, through the pulmonary artery to the lungs, whence it emerges bright red after mixture with a spirit in the air, and returns to the left ventricle through the pulmonary vein. In his only published work of 1559 On Things Anatomical etc etc
So whether you like it or not Moses wrote about the life of the flesh being in the blood at least 3,000 years before it was known.
Looks like I have to say it again then - everyone alive knew that blood was necessary for life. Got it? No-one alive knew how or why. Moses didn't know how or why. If the bible contained *that* kind of information and if Moses has said a little more than the blindingly obvious, I'd be a bit more impressed.
I pointed out to you that bloodletting was practiced in Mose's time and in his country. It seems that Moses's special knowledge wasn't particularly useful. I also pointed out that it was science that ended the practice not your primitive beliefs. If your beliefs had persisted we'd still be living in tents and dying at the age of 25.
Are you saying the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" is a lie?
I'm saying that you are lying by telling people that Moses had any special knowledge of blood. In the story he obviously only knew what everybody else knew. You have no clothes ICANT.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1445 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 3:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1454 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 1:17 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1449 of 1482 (845995)
12-25-2018 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1448 by Phat
12-25-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Happy Mōdraniht
Phat writes:
ICANT is arguing that it was science...and I can see your argument that he is attempting to use that argument to advance his beliefs and perhaps his book. People should be taught all sides of an issue. My experience shows that ancient "wisdom" was at times wiser than the educated medical and scientific establishment of today...who is driven by ulterior motives, in the case of pharmaceuticals at least.
ICANT is talking bollocks. He's hijacking the real, modern science that he doesn't understand and routinely corrupting and falsifying it and jemmying it to match platitudes from his bible in an attempt to make it sound sensible.
It is NOT science. There is no science in the bible; science only properly began in the 18th century. (I'll happily accept astronomy and mathematics that were rather brilliantly developed earler, particularly in the Greek and Islamic countries.)
Folk 'wisdom' was and is incredibly dangerous, it's mostly magical thinking rubbish and you were lucky if the 'remedies' didn't kill you. Until the scientific method came along nothing was tested, everything was hearsay and superstion. Most maladies were caused by demons requiring a charman. ICANT would have loved it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1448 by Phat, posted 12-25-2018 6:07 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1450 by Phat, posted 12-25-2018 7:17 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 1453 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 1:03 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1451 of 1482 (845997)
12-25-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1450 by Phat
12-25-2018 7:17 AM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Phat writes:
The point is that luck had nothing to do with my accepting the discipline of fasting.
I really hope it works out for you.
Science verified what the ancients intuitively knew.
They knew nothing Phat, they fasted for religious and traditional reasons.
This whole love affair that you have with modern science is no better than what we have with what you call superstition.
Says the man typing stuff into a computer that someone an ocean away can see instantly.
Eventually, science will prove us right, but it likely will take an event that shakes you out of your smug comfort zone in order for you to see it...and you will still have to believe by faith...there will not be solid facts handed to you. I do have solid facts to back up my acceptance of fasting. It no longer is ancient wisdom. Someday, God will be proven to be more than ancient superstition. The proof, however, will come individually and subjectively.
People have been saying that for thousands of years. It's just a dream Phat. But it's probably best for you not to wake up.
Have a lovely Christmas.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1450 by Phat, posted 12-25-2018 7:17 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1457 of 1482 (846012)
12-26-2018 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1453 by ICANT
12-26-2018 1:03 PM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
ICANT writes:
Which is what your science concerning creation is based on.
There in no science of creation.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1453 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 1:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1463 by ICANT, posted 12-27-2018 1:04 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1458 of 1482 (846013)
12-26-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1454 by ICANT
12-26-2018 1:17 PM


Re: Creation
Icant writes:
No one knew the life of the flesh was in the blood until the circulatory system was discovered.
Everyone knew that without blood the flesh dies.
After that discovery took place it was discovered that there was red blood cells in the blood that carried oxygen, and energy to each cell in the body for them to function.
Yeh, science is pretty cool like that.
But they did know that if you took all the blood out of an animal or human they would die. Which a lot different from understanding the circulatory system.
It sure is, and they didn't understand the circulatory system. If Moses had even mentioned the circulatory system I'm have been impressed - though not terribly surprised as it was there to be discovered. I'd be even more impressed that having 'understood' the circulatory system he'd done anything with the knowledge. But he didn't know anything about it, he just said what everyone already knew. You'd love to make something more of it but UCANT.
Why do you want to make ancient people ignoramuses in one breath and then the next say they knew what was not known until the 1900 hundreds?
Now here's a perfect example of your total lack of integrity. You *know* that I am saying that they didn't understand the circulatory system and its purpose. You know that because I've said it half a dozen times. Yet you twist it in this simpleton way - who do you think you're fooling?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1454 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 1:17 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1459 by Phat, posted 12-26-2018 4:50 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1460 of 1482 (846015)
12-26-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1455 by Phat
12-26-2018 1:52 PM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Phat writes:
It seems that the basic issue with Tangle is that he assumes that collective human wisdom knows more now than we did thousands of years ago.
Do you actually doubt that? Really?
He is selective as to which wisdom and selective as to what the wisdom purports to teach. If you give him even a hint that the wisdom was intuitive or came from God, he will run faster than a cat needing a bath.
If we're sticking with the cat analogy it's more likely, I'd spit in your face.
Look Phat, wisdom is only useful if it's knowledge. The sort of 'wisdom' you talk about is folk wisdom, 90% useless 10% dangerous.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1455 by Phat, posted 12-26-2018 1:52 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1461 by Phat, posted 12-26-2018 4:56 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024