WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 Well science has come this far after centuries of oppression. And we now have such an important invention that can piece together the jugsaw of our universe: The Large Hadron Collider. Brian Greene had this to say about the string theory and the Collider: NOVA: Do you think string theory will ever be accepted as widely as, say, the theory of general relativity? What would it take for that to happen? Greene: Well, the real reason why general relativity is widely accepted is because it made predictions that were borne out by experimental observations. The primary one that put general relativity on the map was its prediction of the bending of starlight by the sun, which in 1919 was confirmed by observation during a solar eclipse. That was the moment when general relativity emerged from the realm of theory and entered the realm of being a piece of reality as we know it. For string theory to have the kind of acceptance of general relativity, it's got to do the same thing. It's got to make a prediction that is borne out by some experiment. And as yet, we haven't quite gotten to the stage where we can make definitive predictions which, if they're found, the theory was right, and if they're not found, the theory was wrong. But we have gotten to the stage where we can make some rough predictions for things that might happen at the future accelerators that are now being built, in particular one in Geneva, Switzerland, called the Large Hadron Collider. If some of the predictions that string theory says might happen are borne out through experiment at that accelerator, then I think it's quite possible that string theory would be as accepted as general relativity. Wow... we have had that collider for a year now and nothing has come of it, and look at all the words of vague hope grasping at straws in the article you just posted... more hoopla with no results. "some predictions" "might happen" "'think' its quite possible" ...and Christians are looked upon manyu times as ignorant and grasping for straws... amazing Matrix or anyone... I am giving you the proper theory that GOD created the heavens and the earth, and youve still got nothing on the table... I frankly dont care how God did it, whether He BANGED it into an expansion after creating a ball of matter from nothing, or whether He just created it as is and put it into a cycle. The point is it is on the table, and i see nothing else beside Him there... Neither can He be knocked off the table and falsified I just want you folks to consider this when you talk to a christian... and i'd like to see something else put on this table, or an answer as to why you wont give God serious consideration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Why is it some people believe faith and science are mutually exclusive? I believe that non-Christians misunderstand what "faith" is. ~~~ The Hebrew word for faith is אמונה (emunah - Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning "support". This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as "faith in God". But, the Hebrew word אמונה places the action on the one who "supports God". It is not knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God. See here for expansion ~~~ The Greek word for "faith" is pistis, which basically means "trust" . . . not "belief" (which is the Greek word pistevo). See here and here ~~~ Thus, "faith" is something we all have. One can put their "support" towards and "trust" in science just as much as someone can put their "support" towards and "trust" in God. (Yes, belief plays into faith, but faith is not belief itself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Wow... we have had that collider for a year now and nothing has come of it, Well, to be fair, that's because something needed to be fixed . . . or some things. Gotta give them the benefit of the doubt for probably the biggest machine on the planet. and look at all the words of vague hope grasping at straws in the article you just posted... more hoopla with no results. "some predictions" "might happen" "'think' its quite possible" ...and Christians are looked upon manyu times as ignorant and grasping for straws... amazing Hmmm...got a point there. Anyway, I don't know enough of the string theory debate to make a decision on it, but I hope you are correct - because then I won't have to bother spending the time trying to make sense of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 Wow... we have had that collider for a year now and nothing has come of it, Well, to be fair, that's because something needed to be fixed . . . or some things. Gotta give them the benefit of the doubt for probably the biggest machine on the planet. and look at all the words of vague hope grasping at straws in the article you just posted... more hoopla with no results. "some predictions" "might happen" "'think' its quite possible" ...and Christians are looked upon manyu times as ignorant and grasping for straws... amazing Hmmm...got a point there. Anyway, I don't know enough of the string theory debate to make a decision on it, but I hope you are correct - because then I won't have to bother spending the time trying to make sense of it! Yes it really is a sinking ship. Ive studied the work of Alan Guth and others, some are as nutty as fruitcakes lol, some are fairly credible, Guth is interesting because he knows its a sinking ship, and he knows that not even the math works out.. he admits it... but he also admits he holds to it just because he likes the idea... hoping someone will find a way to make it work... i cant fault someone for wanting to hold onto his lifes work. But lets be for real about all this... How scientific is an atheist when they refuse to even acknowledge the ONE and ONLY THING that is legitimately on the table as a very valid theory... My hope is to change this at least in a few... and id like to see an atheist address this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 26, 2009 But lets be for real about all this... How scientific is an atheist when they refuse to even acknowledge the ONE and ONLY THING that is legitimately on the table as a very valid theory... My hope is to change this at least in a few... and id like to see an atheist address this point The only answer I've ever seen a non-Christian give for this is, "We can't know," thus, why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 But lets be for real about all this... How scientific is an atheist when they refuse to even acknowledge the ONE and ONLY THING that is legitimately on the table as a very valid theory... My hope is to change this at least in a few... and id like to see an atheist address this point A very valid theory for what? We've got the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of general relativity, the Atomic theory, etc etc. The String Theory cannot be proven (yet) or disproven (yet) because its of such a huge calibre in terms of physics. What I mean is that the scientists are trying to re-create something huge that happened in our universe in a controlled environment. Not an easy thing to do. And if the String theory is proven or disproven, it means we've come up with the technology to do so and in that would enable us to do so many more experiments. It doesn't matter the outcome, being able to test it is evidence enough. Matrix dont take my words and convictions in any personal way... i just feel i have some very valid issues that most atheists would ignore... i have nothing against anyone because of their belief, but i do have something against hypocracy, and i frankly believe hypocracy rules in the atheist camp when they grasp for such srtraws, touting as a theory something whiuch by definition doesnt even come close to fullfilling the requirements of a theory, just so they can shove the one theory that DOES dit the criteria, right off the table. 2 THINGS You are grasping for desperate straws here it seems. You are doing the very thing christians are accused of doing many times. Im trynig to show you that not only are we on equal footing scientifily, we have the ONLY footing, because not many notables believe in string theory any more... When its largest proponants admit it doesnt work out IN THE MATH... not even on paper... you have serious problems... when BRILLIANT scientists lambast it as not even credible as a theory, youve got problems... And yet you wont even consider the theory that God did it, THOUGH ITS TESTABLE in a time ensitive way and therefore valid as a theory by definition... so why would you kick it off the table? Is it bias? it certianly isnt scientific, nor is it proper proceedure. Let me remind you that science is SUPPOSED to be unbiased in its persuits of truth. So why do we have this bias among every atheist i know who is even the slightest degree into science? I'd really like an answer to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 And by the way... you do realize that relativity, big bang bla bla... these in no way disprove the biblical account... so whats this 'we have' stuff? strawman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 You are grasping for desperate straws here it seems. You are doing the very thing christians are accused of doing many times. Im trynig to show you that not only are we on equal footing scientifily, we have the ONLY footing, because not many notables believe in string theory any more... When its largest proponants admit it doesnt work out IN THE MATH... not even on paper... you have serious problems... when BRILLIANT scientists lambast it as not even credible as a theory, youve got problems... Okay, I read my post again and its very clear what I said. I'm not saying the String theory is true. Nor am I saying its untrue. What I'm saying is that the technology to prove its truthfulness far surpasses the outcome of the test. Meaning, with that technology, scientists can bust open any scientific claim that Christians have for God/god creating the universe. Its not a credible theory because we haven't been able to test it (yet). There's a machine in the works. I think its much better trying to figure out how things work than just saying "Oh God/god did it" and leave it at that. Matrix... love the name and the movie by the way... the first one was great. ... heres the thing. Look at the first article i posted... IT HAS been tested in many ways and EVERY ONE failed. This super collider is their last straw of hope, which is why most scientists who have seriously studied it, have jumped that ship long ago.. That article lists SEVERAL of the tests that have proven it false... that fact just isnt popular Now... why do you imagine that God couldnt use a logical process to do everything when the world and the universe display such order and so little if any randomness? I want to know why this isnt considered and looked into and i want to know why the bias if science is unbias? Science has dont nothing but PROVE the bible true in records of geology and such, so we have huge mounting evidence yet atheists discard it with great bias... i'd like to ehar a reasonable explanation why, and nim just not getting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 You are grasping for desperate straws here it seems. You are doing the very thing christians are accused of doing many times. Im trynig to show you that not only are we on equal footing scientifily, we have the ONLY footing, because not many notables believe in string theory any more... When its largest proponants admit it doesnt work out IN THE MATH... not even on paper... you have serious problems... when BRILLIANT scientists lambast it as not even credible as a theory, youve got problems... Okay, I read my post again and its very clear what I said. I'm not saying the String theory is true. Nor am I saying its untrue. What I'm saying is that the technology to prove its truthfulness far surpasses the outcome of the test. Meaning, with that technology, scientists can bust open any scientific claim that Christians have for God/god creating the universe. Its not a credible theory because we haven't been able to test it (yet). There's a machine in the works. I think its much better trying to figure out how things work than just saying "Oh God/god did it" and leave it at that. Matrix... love the name and the movie by the way... the first one was great. ... heres the thing. Look at the first article i posted... IT HAS been tested in many ways and EVERY ONE failed. This super collider is their last straw of hope, which is why most scientists who have seriously studied it, have jumped that ship long ago.. That article lists SEVERAL of the tests that have proven it false... that fact just isnt popular Now... why do you imagine that God couldnt use a logical process to do everything when the world and the universe display such order and so little if any randomness? I want to know why this isnt considered and looked into and i want to know why the bias if science is unbias? Science has dont nothing but PROVE the bible true in records of geology and such, so we have huge mounting evidence yet atheists discard it with great bias... i'd like to ehar a reasonable explanation why, and nim just not getting it The first one was great! I know there are quite a few religious references in there (I think to some names in the Bible). Do you know about it? And if so, could you tell me what they are? I've always wanted to know haha. I think they used Neo as a reference to Jesus and I think if he wore sunglasses and a leather jacket all the time, that'd be pretty sweet Anyways, back to the subject. As far as I know, scientists are still on board for the collider (and given how much that thing cost, I would be too). If you have any links otherwise, please post them. As for randomness, I've read The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow and he proves that randomness is so pervasive in our lives and in our world. He formulates the accident theory of life which I think is absolutely fantastic. So its not that I'm biased to the bolded, its just that I've studied randomness and know our world is filled with it. What do you mean in terms of geology? I don't know how many Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, but science completely trumps the idea. So if you're not one of those people, can you provide examples in the Bible? Matrix, Yes there are some Christ referances in the matrix, but even moreso its a statement on government, the media, and society. As for randomness, we are ruled by order, not randomness. I dont deny randomness occurs, but Christians often refer to this as 'miracle'. God sometimes intervenes. However random isnt the rule, its the exception in a universe of order. As for the collider, this is their last desperate hope but many abandoned it long ago. if it doesnt even work out on paper, i dont disagree with the ones who have jumped ship. As for the earth, almost no christians believe the world is 6000 years old, this is hype and propaganda meant to belittle us. Just as there are scientists with some crank ideas, there are Christians, very few, who believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Not only is this just plain wrong, it certainly isnt what the bible teaches at all. The bible shows a very ancient age in many places. It shows cycles of life and destruction even declaring it in the hebrew, just as geology and fossile evidence has taught us... It shows creation, then being laid waste and destroyed, life renewing, the atmosphere clearing, life beginning in the seas, birds coming forth from the sea life and so much more... you really should give it serious consideration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 26, 2009 The first one was great! I know there are quite a few religious references in there (I think to some names in the Bible). Do you know about it? And if so, could you tell me what they are? I've always wanted to know haha. I think they used Neo as a reference to Jesus and I think if he wore sunglasses and a leather jacket all the time, that'd be pretty sweet Sorry to play "Mr. Reason", but they didn't have sunglasses and leather jackets back then. Anyway - I could answer your question in a couple of boring sentences, or you can read about it at the following link, which is a lot more stimulating: http://hollywoodjesus.com/matrix.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts