Christian scientist..

[Ezra]

5 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Ok, I respect your opinion - however? - since the industrial revolution, surely things have changed eg: warmed.

What scientists have found is that all the human activity in the world (including industrial pollution etc.) has changed the overall temperature by just one degree.  What everyone forgets to tell you is that carbon dioxide is the food of plants, and CO2 is being used up as it is being produced.  

The bigger issue is the pollutants in the atmosphere which cause cancer but don't contribute to "global warming" (which is a major hoax).  Now they want to fine cattle in California for passing methane-loaded wind! They should be fining their politicians for spreading manure and creating a stink.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

More precisely, these:  paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental' ---astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology.

 

For instance...?

 

Please provide the Empirical TESTS that confirm your claim here...?

There's really no way to tell, to broad a brush...just speculation; they're motives or predispositions are irrelevant anyway.  They will have to give account either way.

 

 

And about a week into their studies...if they're paying any attention (i.e., Fogging a Mirror) and their Instructors and Textbooks are anywhere near the vicinity of coherency, they will invariably reach...

 

Werner Heisenberg Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, (Nobel Prize, Physics)...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." 

[“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10)

 

What 'they' think evolution is, is so laughably absurd on numerous levels; I'm actually shocked it's even discussed anymore.  Heck, the 1850's called, they want their argument back.  

 

regards

 

Enoch; “More precisely, these:  paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental' ---astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology”

I think my use of “e.g.” indicated that my list wasn’t exhaustive. Nevertheless, I would suggest that, for example, geologist don’t just apply their knowledge to claims about the past. Investigating and describing the current constitutional makeup of geological structures is legitimate science. It’s only in making claims about the past that they depart from the scientific method.

 

“exaggerating the confidence in secular theories beyond what is logically justified by the facts”

“For instance...?”

OK (still not sure why you feel the need to be so antagonistic) – but “for instance”, claiming that the trend in fossil succession can only rationally be interpreted to support Common Ancestry.

NOTE: I don’t need a rebuttal to that position as I clearly already disagree with it – I was just providing an answer to your request for a “for instance”.

 

“And I think most of them would come under the umbrella of deceived, rather than being intentionally dishonest”

“Please provide the Empirical TESTS that confirm your claim here...?There's really no way to tell, to broad a brush...just speculation; they're motives or predispositions are irrelevant anyway.  They will have to give account either way”

Obviously, I can’t provide empirical evidence of their inherent deception any more than you can provide empirical evidence of their ‘priestly’ motives (with the exception of a few; such as those I mentioned - who state their motives). The “speculation” works both ways.

Though I can appeal to scripture which claims that the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one, the prince of the power of the air, and they are in darkness, and under a veil etc. I can also appeal to my personal interactions whereby most (atheists/agnostics and scientists) have been generally nice to me, despite my faith.

You are correct, we will all “have to give account”. Ascertaining their motives helps me to differentiate between who is ready to consider what I have to say, and who is wasting time playing games, just trying to assert some dominance over an opposing position and put me in my place.

 

“And about a week into their studies...if they're paying any attention (i.e., Fogging a Mirror) and their Instructors and Textbooks are anywhere near the vicinity of coherency, they will invariably reach...Werner Heisenberg Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, (Nobel Prize, Physics)..."The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." [“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10)”

If by all that you mean that science is taught from a presupposed naturalistic perspective, then I agree.

[Enoch2021]

On 12/2/2016 at 8:30 PM, HisFirst said:

The term mad scientist must be for a reason??

Touche, well played.

 

Quote

I know I could google this, but I prefer human interaction - quantum mechanics - when, where would you use this?

 

As a ROCK Solid basis of a Christian World-View (Not the only one)...

 

Werner Heisenberg Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, (Nobel Prize Physics)...

"The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." 

[“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10)

 

Practical --- day to day, well...

 

"Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/

 

"This information age, of course, came about because of semiconductors and solid-state physics, which were enabled by quantum mechanics."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/

 

 

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize Physics...

 

"I'm tempted to say that without Quantum Mechanics we'd be back in the Dark Ages.  I guess more accurately, without Quantum Mechanics we'd be back in the 19th Century ---Steam Engines, Telegraphs Signals".

 

 

Quote

Thanks.(please dumb the answer down for me ?)

No problem. 

 

regards

Edited May 6, 2017 by OneLight
Removed YouTube Link

[Willa]

Concerning global warming, in 1960 I rode on a glacier with my family in a cat they called a snow mobile.  I suggest my pastor visit it when he went to Lake Louise, Alberta.  He found that it no long exists.  A large glacier had disappeared.  This is not a little snow pack--it is a vestige of the last ice age.  

But part of the answer to our problems is to plant more trees.  Yes, I confess to being a nostalgic tree hugger.  Not only are the beautiful, they are also healthful.  

While I have known a couple of geneticists who agree with Enoch, especially about toxic emissions and carcinogens, my own scientific knowledge is on the puny side.  But curiosity keeps me interested.

[Enoch2021]

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think my use of “e.g.” indicated that my list wasn’t exhaustive.

Fair enough... but I knew you meant much more; Exhibit A...

Quote

Nevertheless, I would suggest that, for example, geologist don’t just apply their knowledge to claims about the past. Investigating and describing the current constitutional makeup of geological structures is legitimate science. It’s only in making claims about the past that they depart from the scientific method.

Ok, Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ??  Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...?

 

Quote

 

“exaggerating the confidence in secular theories beyond what is logically justified by the facts”

“For instance...?”

OK (still not sure why you feel the need to be so antagonistic) – but “for instance”, claiming that the trend in fossil succession can only rationally be interpreted to support Common Ancestry.

 

1.  How in the World can you construe a “For instance...?” as being antagonistic ??  

Is "Can you Provide an Example??" Condescending ?

2.  Trend in fossil succession... is not a "Scientific Theory".

 

Quote

Obviously, I can’t provide empirical evidence of their inherent deception any more than you can provide empirical evidence of their ‘priestly’ motives (with the exception of a few; such as those I mentioned - who state their motives).

Well ahhh, I didn't make the claim; You did.

 

Quote

The “speculation” works both ways.

It would... if I had made the claim.  

Can you wait until I make a Speculation to charge me with... Speculation ?   I'd appreciate it.

 

regards

[FresnoJoe]

4 hours ago, HisFirst said:

 quantum mechanics - when, where would you use this?

Ultra-Precise Clocks

Reliable timekeeping is about more than just your morning alarm. Clocks synchronize our technological world, keeping things like stock markets and GPS systems in line. Standard clocks use the regular oscillations of physical objects like pendulums or quartz crystals to produce their ‘ticks’ and ‘tocks’. Today, the most precise clocks in the world, atomic clocks, are able to use principles of quantum theory to measure time. They monitor the specific radiation frequency needed to make electrons jump between energy levels. The quantum-logic clock at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Colorado only loses or gains a second every 3.7 billion years. And the NIST strontium clock, unveiled earlier this year, will be that accurate for 5 billion years—longer than the current age of the Earth. Such super-sensitive atomic clocks help with GPS navigation, telecommunications and surveying.

The precision of atomic clocks relies partially on the number of atoms used. Kept in a vacuum chamber, each atom independently measures time and keeps an eye on the random local differences between itself and its neighbors. If scientists cram 100 times more atoms into an atomic clock, it becomes 10 times more precise—but there is a limit on how many atoms you can squeeze in. Researchers’ next big goal is to successfully use entanglement to enhance precision. Entangled atoms would not be preoccupied with local differences and would instead solely measure the passage of time, effectively bringing them together as a single pendulum. That means adding 100 times more atoms into an entangled clock would make it 100 times more precise. Entangled clocks could even be linked to form a worldwide network that would measure time independent of location.

Uncrackable Codes

Traditional cryptography works using keys: A sender uses one key to encode information, and a recipient uses another to decode the message. However, it’s difficult to remove the risk of an eavesdropper, and keys can be compromised. This can be fixed using potentially unbreakable quantum key distribution (QKD). In QKD, information about the key is sent via photons that have been randomly polarized. This restricts the photon so that it vibrates in only one plane—for example, up and down, or left to right. The recipient can use polarized filters to decipher the key and then use a chosen algorithm to securely encrypt a message. The secret data still gets sent over normal communication channels, but no one can decode the message unless they have the exact quantum key. That's tricky, because quantum rules dictate that "reading" the polarized photons will always change their states, and any attempt at eavesdropping will alert the communicators to a security breach.

Today companies such as BBN Technologies, Toshiba and ID Quantique use QKD to design ultra-secure networks. In 2007 Switzerland tried out an ID Quantique product to provide a tamper-proof voting system during an election. And the first bank transfer using entangled QKD went ahead in Austria in 2004. This system promises to be highly secure, because if the photons are entangled, any changes to their quantum states made by interlopers would be immediately apparent to anyone monitoring the key-bearing particles. But this system doesn't yet work over large distances. So far, entangled photons have been transmitted over a maximum distance of about 88 miles.

Super-Powerful Computers

A standard computer encodes information as a string of binary digits, or bits. Quantum computers supercharge processing power because they use quantum bits, or qubits, which exist in a superposition of states—until they are measured, qubits can be both "1" and "0" at the same time.

This field is still in development, but there have been steps in the right direction. In 2011, D-Wave Systems revealed the D-Wave One, a 128-qubit processor, followed a year later by the 512-qubit D-Wave Two. The company says these are the world's first commercially available quantum computers. However, this claim has been met with skepticism, in part because it’s still unclear whether D-Wave’s qubits are entangled. Studies released in May found evidence of entanglement but only in a small subset of the computer’s qubits. There's also uncertainty over whether the chips display any reliable quantum speedup. Still, NASA and Google have teamed up to form the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab based on a D-Wave Two. And scientists at the University of Bristol last year hooked up one of their traditional quantum chips to the Internet so anyone with a web browser can learn quantum coding.

Improved Microscopes

In February a team of researchers at Japan’s Hokkaido University developed the world’s first entanglement-enhanced microscope, using a technique known as differential interference contrast microscopy. This type of microscope fires two beams of photons at a substance and measures the interference pattern created by the reflected beams—the pattern changes depending on whether they hit a flat or uneven surface. Using entangled photons greatly increases the amount of information the microscope can gather, as measuring one entangled photon gives information about its partner.

The Hokkaido team managed to image an engraved "Q" that stood just 17 nanometers above the background with unprecedented sharpness. Similar techniques could be used to improve the resolution of astronomy tools called interferometers, which superimpose different waves of light to better analyze their properties. Interferometers are used in the hunt for extrasolar planets, to probe nearby stars and to search for ripples in spacetime called gravitational waves.

Biological Compasses

Humans aren't the only ones making use of quantum mechanics. One leading theory suggests that birds like the European robin use the spooky action to keep on track when they migrate. The method involves a light-sensitive protein called cryptochrome, which may contain entangled electrons. As photons enter the eye, they hit the cryptochrome molecules and can deliver enough energy to break them apart, forming two reactive molecules, or radicals, with unpaired but still entangled electrons. The magnetic field surrounding the bird influences how long these cryptochrome radicals last. Cells in the bird’s retina are thought to be very sensitive to the presence of the entangled radicals, allowing the animals to effectively ‘see’ a magnetic map based on the molecules.

This process isn't full understood, though, and there is another option: Birds' magnetic sensitivity could be due to small crystals of magnetic minerals in their beaks. Still, if entanglement really is at play, experiments suggest that the delicate state must last much longer in a bird’s eye than in even the best artificial systems. The magnetic compass could also be applicable to certain lizards, crustaceans, insects and even some mammals. For instance, a form of cryptochrome used for magnetic navigation in flies has also been found in the human eye, although it’s unclear if it is or once was useful for a similar purpose.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/#mQM5OUrk8YdeGf8L.99

[enoob57]

Well to rise up for Jesus is to mark ones back as target to destroy here.... we are not home but in enemies camp thus to speak truth in it's naked form will be anxiety to the many that are here! The bottom line as to Scripture

Matthew 23:5 (KJV)

[5] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

as the motivation in false religion and that being atheist to cults- so to be magnified by whom they are trying to impress 'man'... but those of God this place be cursed!
Love, Steven

[Tristen]

On 03/12/2016 at 0:57 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Fair enough... but I knew you meant much more; Exhibit A...

Ok, Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ??  Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...?

 

1.  How in the World can you construe a “For instance...?” as being antagonistic ??  

Is "Can you Provide an Example??" Condescending ?

2.  Trend in fossil succession... is not a "Scientific Theory".

 

Well ahhh, I didn't make the claim; You did.

 

It would... if I had made the claim.  

Can you wait until I make a Speculation to charge me with... Speculation ?   I'd appreciate it.

 

regards

 

Hey Enoch,

 

“Ok, Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ??  Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...?”

If you can’t even imagine the other functions of geologists, I suggest I would be wasting my time finding examples. The main work of geologists is to determine the suitability of geologic foundations for human construction and habitation. Others are employed in searching for natural resources. They don’t just make claims about the past.

 

 “1.  How in the World can you construe a “For instance...?” as being antagonistic ??  Is "Can you Provide an Example??" Condescending ?”

Many of your posts demonstrate that the secularist go so far beyond the facts, so far that you even refute the credibility of calling them scientists Yet when I summarise the same idea (i.e. an idea that you demonstrate overwhelming agreement with), you deem it worthy of challenge. That speaks to your reactive disposition.

 

“2.  Trend in fossil succession... is not a "Scientific Theory".”

The trend in fossil succession represents the observations. Common Ancestry is the theory. That absolute confidence in Common Ancestry based on fossil succession goes beyond the “scientific” method is my explicit point. So again, not sure why you feel the need to find a wedge when we are in agreement

 

“Can you wait until I make a Speculation to charge me with... Speculation ?   I'd appreciate it”

You called them “demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests” (speaking to their ‘religious’ motives - but without any empirical support). But when I suggested that many are deceived rather than intentionally, knowingly, following religious dogma (implied by your use of "priests", you required empirical support before considering my position. But apparently only my position counts as “speculation”.

So I don’t feel as though you are being fair-minded. You seem to be looking for an argument for arguments sake. I can’t claim to know your motives either, but you are coming across as reactive and unnecessarily antagonistic. So I am signing off from this conversation.

Regards.

 

 

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Ok, Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ??  Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...?”

If you can’t even imagine the other functions of geologists, I suggest I would be wasting my time finding examples. The main work of geologists is to determine the suitability of geologic foundations for human construction and habitation. Others are employed in searching for natural resources. They don’t just make claims about the past.

 

So that's a Tacit "NO"; Ergo...it's not "Science".

 

Quote

 

“1. How in the World can you construe a “For instance...?” as being antagonistic ?? Is "Can you Provide an Example??"

Condescending ?

Many of your posts demonstrate that the secularist go so far beyond the facts, so far that you even refute the credibility of calling them scientists Yet when I summarise the same idea (i.e. an idea that you demonstrate overwhelming agreement with), you deem it worthy of challenge. That speaks to your reactive disposition.

 

Can you answer the question?

 

Quote

 

“2.  Trend in fossil succession... is not a "Scientific Theory".”

The trend in fossil succession represents the observations. Common Ancestry is the theory.

 

So common ancestry is a "Scientific Theory"?

Ok, Post the Scientific Theory, THEN...Post the Scientific Hypotheses that were Validated/Confirmed to make it so...?

Highlight The Independent and Dependent Variables for each...?

 

Quote

That absolute confidence in Common Ancestry based on fossil succession goes beyond the “scientific” method is my explicit point.

This is incoherent and contradictory to your last point.  

1.  What does 'absolute confidence' have to do with anything and ... what does that even mean?

2.  If it's a Scientific Theory as you sorta kinda implied above, then how can it go beyond the Scientific Method...?

 

Quote

So again, not sure why you feel the need to find a wedge when we are in agreement

Well we're not in agreement because Common Ancestry is NOT a Scientific Theory, it's Religion--Demonstrably.

 

Quote

You called them “demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests” (speaking to their ‘religious’ motives - but without any empirical support).

As a Whole, they are.  The discipline is NOT Scientific because they inherently can't follow the Scientific Method --- "Science".

If you think they are Scientific, then (AGAIN)...

Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ??  Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...? 

 

Quote

But when I suggested that many are deceived rather than intentionally, knowingly, following religious dogma (implied by your use of "priests", you required empirical support before considering my position.

Yes, because you made the claim.  Provide SUPPORT for your claim, then I'll consider your position.

 

Quote

But apparently only my position counts as “speculation”.

Until you SUPPORT your claim above.....that's precisely what it is.

 

Quote

So I don’t feel as though you are being fair-minded.

Why ??  I'm only asking you to SUPPORT your claim.

 

Quote

You seem to be looking for an argument for arguments sake.

No, I'm actually focused on precision, accuracy, TRUTH.   And many things that "SEEM" to be...actually aren't.

 

Quote

I can’t claim to know your motives either

Well now you know.

 

Quote

but you are coming across as reactive and unnecessarily antagonistic.

Try SUPPORTING your claims in lieu of Appealing to Emotion (Fallacies) and the 'contrived' "coming across" phenomena will vanish.

 

regards 

 

[delade3]

On 11/25/2016 at 5:05 PM, HisFirst said:

Can you be part of the scientific community without compromising your Christianity?

I know there are many scientists who are Christians but there must be huge pressure from within the scientific field to bend ones belief system..?

 

Could you provide an example of how the bending of The Word of God is pressured in Science?