[lotuseclat79]

UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins
Article here.

The UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science.

-- Tom

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by sy2

Many faithful scientists believe that evolution was just a tool used by God. Others flat-out deny that it happened. Eventually, evolution will either have to be debunked (which doesn't look likely, at all) or religion will have to incorporate it in order to remain relevant.

Natural selection and Evolution are different. The dog is a good example to use for contrast. Most scientists agree that all dogs are decedent from one basic species. Selective breeding has led us to many different varieties. It is interesting that from a wolf it is still possible to use selective breeding to produce a wide variety of sizes and shapes of new dogs. However, it would be impossible to produce a wolf type dog by breeding Chihuahuas. Genetic diversity can produce variant species over time, but as diversity is decreased possible variants are also decreased.

So, Natural selection is fact. What remains theory is that a completely different genetic structure can mutate from an existing genetic structure. In other words, getting a wolf from breeding Chihuahua's. Evolution is not possible. Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

[imrippinit]

How long has much of the world had their faith in radio carbon dating?

Its interesting that the science of carbon dating is invalid if the scientific facts in the Bible are heeded. (The rate of carbon decay can only be measured if carbon decomposition has stabilized-since the Bible says our atmosphere underwent significant change after the flood there is basis for considering the rate of carbon decay to be unstable and therefore, the dating method seriously flawed. After all, even scientists who depend on carbon dating are more often than not disappointed by results and eventually discard or modify their parameters to parallel their bias.)

[valis]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

How long has much of the world had their faith in radio carbon dating?

Its interesting that the science of carbon dating is invalid if the scientific facts in the Bible are heeded. (The rate of carbon decay can only be measured if carbon decomposition has stabilized-since the Bible says our atmosphere underwent significant change after the flood there is basis for considering the rate of carbon decay to be unstable and therefore, the dating method seriously flawed. After all, even scientists who depend on carbon dating are more often than not disappointed by results and eventually discard or modify their parameters to parallel their bias.)

I would think that since one really can't argue the physics of decay of the carbon atom, this lends credence to the 'bible is fiction' crowd.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

How long has much of the world had their faith in radio carbon dating?

Its interesting that the science of carbon dating is invalid if the scientific facts in the Bible are heeded.

So the bible is scientific fact??

That is a good one

Not bad writing as far as fiction goes tho

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Simple ..... It had a smaller brim around the inside of the top.



The brim must have been .070795 cubits in thickness.

Hidden Codes in the Bible:
The Value of Pi

Exert: "The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.

The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.

This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?"

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

How long has much of the world had their faith in radio carbon dating?

Its interesting that the science of carbon dating is invalid if the scientific facts in the Bible are heeded. (The rate of carbon decay can only be measured if carbon decomposition has stabilized-since the Bible says our atmosphere underwent significant change after the flood there is basis for considering the rate of carbon decay to be unstable and therefore, the dating method seriously flawed. After all, even scientists who depend on carbon dating are more often than not disappointed by results and eventually discard or modify their parameters to parallel their bias.)

Hi imrippinit,

The so-called "scientific facts in the Bible" are not "scientific" in any way, shape, or form - when the Bible was written, science had barely begun, and the scientific method had not even been invented yet.

Everything you say in the quoted message is predicated on pure speculation based on the "if" phrase you use that assumes a flood of no known definitive date having occured and would have some theoretical impact on the stability of carbon dating thus rendering the carbon dating method seriously flawed and therefore invalid. What you fail to point out is any evidence of whether carbon dating has been seriously discarded by the scientific community in general. The general consensus indicates you will find that carbon dating is still very much alive and in use despite very few cases of bias.

Your point of view has very serious issues of plausibility regarding your obvious bias based on the Bible somehow representing some imagined "scientific fact".

-- Tom

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by valis

I would think that since one really can't argue the physics of decay of the carbon atom, this lends credence to the 'bible is fiction' crowd.

???

When the Universe Became Fuzzy
by Lambert Dolphin Lambert Dolphin

exert: "Physicists like to keep things simple: to do as little work as possible, they follow "Occam's Razor"7 and have a sense of elegance and beauty about nature. Therefore simple theories are to be preferred to complex theories-and if possible a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) would be wonderful to discover. GUTs attempt to link together the four forces of physics8 and the fundamental constants - c, the velocity of light; e, the charge on the electron; h, Planck's constant; and, G, the gravitational constant. When one brings quantum mechanics into attempts to unify the laws of physics, Planck's constant is found to define the "fuzziness," or the "grain size" of the universe. Thus the smallest meaningful length is (Gh/c3)1/2 = 10-35 meters. The smallest time increment of time is the Planck time, 10-42 seconds, the Planck mass, (hc/G2)1/2 = 1019 Gev, etc.

Quantum mechanics furthermore has revealed that attempts to make measurements-for instance, on an atom-would disturb the atom such that precision in one type of measurement automatically meant fuzziness in another parameter.

If one wanted to locate an electron's location accurately by means of a measuring apparatus, the apparatus disturbed the environment; precision in position measurement meant the electron's momentum became proportionally uncertain. The same was true for particle momentum and time and for angular momentum and spin angle as pairs of variables. Planck's famous Uncertainty Principle can be expressed as DpDx h/4þ or DE Dt D h/4þ (read, "the uncertainty in momentum times the uncertainty in position is greater than or equal to Planck's constant, h," etc.).

The phenomenon is not unlike the work of a pollster who sets out to measure public opinion. If he is hasty, works rapidly, but alerts the public so that they become opinionated, and if his sampling methods are not careful, he will get results quickly, but his results will not likely be very representative of the true state of public sentiment on the topic. A second pollster who takes a longer time to collect his data, works quietly, and takes care so as not to alert people ahead of time will get better results.

Recently, QM has been applied to cosmology in attempts to unravel the early history of our universe-assuming the basic Big Bang model is correct-and assuming the speed of light is a fixed constant in time!

All of the above discussion is based on the assumption-since Einstein-that the speed of light, c, is indeed a fixed constant. However as we noted in our earlier Personal UPDATE articles on the aether, the velocity of light, c, is determined by the properties of space - and space may be a very real medium after all. When all of the available measurements of c are carefully studied-using the best possible methods of statistical analysis-the result is that the speed of light has apparently decreased in the past 300 years-with a statistical confidence level of at least 95%.9"

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi imrippinit,

The so-called "scientific facts in the Bible" are not "scientific" in any way, shape, or form - when the Bible was written, science had barely begun, and the scientific method had not even been invented yet.

Everything you say in the quoted message is predicated on pure speculation based on the "if" phrase you use that assumes a flood of no known definitive date having occured and would have some theoretical impact on the stability of carbon dating thus rendering the carbon dating method seriously flawed and therefore invalid. What you fail to point out is any evidence of whether carbon dating has been seriously discarded by the scientific community in general. The general consensus indicates you will find that carbon dating is still very much alive and in use despite very few cases of bias.

Your point of view has very serious issues of plausibility regarding your obvious bias based on the Bible somehow representing some imagined "scientific fact".

-- Tom

Hey Tom,
I disagree.

Why Six Days?
by Chuck Missler

Exert: "The account of the creation of the universe in six days still is a "bone in the throat" to many Christians. Many point out that the word for "day" is yom , and is translated to 54 other words; however, 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is "day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real problem isn't the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it with His own finger in stone!

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11

It is undeniable that God intended us to understand that it was, indeed, six literal days. So how do we deal with the common understanding that "billions of years" was involved? How do we deal with the astronomical distances of millions of "light years" between the galaxies of the universe? Can anyone familiar with the discoveries of modern science take the Genesis account seriously?

It may come as a pleasant surprise to discover that the more you know about modern science - the real physics, not the mythology and conjectures that masquerade as "science" - the more you can take the Biblical text seriously. The Lord always rewards the diligent. (A recent book includes articles by fifty top scientists - from many different fields of specialization - who declare why they believe in a literal six-day creation. 7)"

[valis]

you disagree, or Chuck Missler disagrees?

I have yet to find any scientific data to supercede radiometric dating; one simply cannot argue with physics. It's similar to saying that if you take 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 of oxygen to the far side of the universe, you'd get something other than water. Just won't happen.

Faith and science generally do not good bedfellows make. Faith is the absolute belief in something for which there is zero proof, and science is the study of that which is provable. As one cannot prove or disprove 'God', it must be taken on faith. To follow the logic one step further, if you are basing your entire debate on a figure that must be taken on faith, then the entire debate itself must be taken upon faith.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just wanted to be very clear on the salient points.

v

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by valis

you disagree, or Chuck Missler disagrees?

I have yet to find any scientific data to supercede radiometric dating; one simply cannot argue with physics. It's similar to saying that if you take 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 of oxygen to the far side of the universe, you'd get something other than water. Just won't happen.

Faith and science generally do not good bedfellows make. Faith is the absolute belief in something for which there is zero proof, and science is the study of that which is provable. As one cannot prove or disprove 'God', it must be taken on faith. To follow the logic one step further, if you are basing your entire debate on a figure that must be taken on faith, then the entire debate itself must be taken upon faith.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just wanted to be very clear on the salient points.

v

Chuck and I both disagree with your assertion. I know Chuck well enough to speak on his behalf regarding this question.

It is hard to shake a bias that has been burned into one's psyche. When one incorporates scientific truths from the Bible it renders much of what is taught as fact today to be conjecture or theory that is not actually provable by scientific method. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Its easier however, to have faith and simply take the Bible at its word rather than to actually engage in science to prove it. God does however encourage science.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Hidden Codes in the Bible:
The Value of Pi

Exert: "The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.

The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.

This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?"

Nice.

[valis]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

God does however encourage science.

cool. Prove it.

[iltos]

i think this might add some fuel to the fire -since one of the points of contention here is about the evolution of individual species

it's an essay in today's nytimes by Douglas H. Erwin, a senior scientist at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution and a research professor at the Santa Fe Institute.

the article had a "print function", so i cut and pasted and attached it here as a word doc, if you're interested in the whole thing....imo, it's pretty much in layman's terms, and about how "new" scientific disciplines, particuarly an offshoot of genetics called "evolutionary developmental biology", are both unlocking secrets about evolution and challenging some aspects of what the author calls the "modern synthesis" -the current state of the theory of evolution

but i found this to be the most interesting (highlighting is mine)

The Achilles’ heel of the modern synthesis, as noted by the philosopher Ron Amundson, is that it deals primarily with the transmission of genes from one generation to the next, but not how genes produce bodies. The recent discoveries in the new field of evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo, that the gene Pax-6 controls the formation of eyes in mice and humans, Nkx2.5 heart formation, and a suite of other genes the formation of the nervous system, has provided a means to investigate the genetic and developmental mechanisms influencing how the form of organisms has evolved, not just their genes. Perhaps the most exciting area in evolution is in exploring how rewiring the circuitry of genes produces different arthropod appendages, or wingspots on butterflies.

Eric H. Davidson, a colleague of mine at CalTech, has dissected the network of interactions between the genes that build the gut of sea urchins and starfish during development. When he compares these gene networks, there is a core of about five genes whose interactions are essential to forming the gut, and which have been preserved for some 500 million years.

One advantage developmental biologists have over paleontologists is that they can experiment on the development of these animals. Most of the genes in this network can be removed, and the developing embryo finds a way to compensate. But these five core genes, which form what Davidson calls a kernel, cannot be modified: change any one of them and no embryo forms at all. There is no reason to think that there was anything unusual about how this kernel first evolved some 500 million years ago (before sea urchins and starfish split into different groups), but once the kernel formed it locked development onto a certain path. These events, small and large, limit the range of possibilities on which natural selection can act. These questions about mechanism were not even being asked under the modern synthesis.

not being a scientist, i may be off target here, but something tells me that these kernels, by limiting the paths of evolutionary development, are instrumental in the process of differentiating species.....does that make sense?

oops...i can't attach a word doc.....hold on...it's attached here

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Nice.

Yeah, Missler is quite the scientist. He has a genius IQ and a background of being on the board of directors for both Ford and Texas Instruments. He has many excellent DVDs as well as many articles posted at his website www.Khouse.org.