|
|
Bearing in mind the Bible was written around 2000 to 3000 years ago, I have compiled some interesting insights into Bible verses, science now, and science then.
I am interested to see everyone's input.
Key:
The Bible
Science Now
Science Then
Okay, so here we go!
Bible: The earth is a sphere [Isaiah 40:22]
Now: The earth is a sphere
Then: The earth was a flat disk
Bible: Incalculable number of stars [Jeremiah 33:22]
Now: Incalculable number of stars
Then: Only 1,100 stars
Bible: Free float of earth in space [Job 26:7]
Now: Free float of earth in space
Then: Earth sat on a large animal
Bible: Creation made of invisible elements [Hebrews 11:3]
Now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)
Then: Science was ignorant on the subject
Bible: Each star is different [1 Corinthians 15:41]
Now: Each star is different
Then: All stars were the same
Bible: Light moves [Job 38:19-20]
Now: Light moves
Then: Light was in a fixed place
Bible: Air has weight [Job 28:25]
Now: Air has weight
Then: Air was weightless
Bible: Winds blow in cyclones [Ecclesiastes 1:6]
Now: Winds blow in cyclones
Then: Winds blew straight
Bible: Blood is the source of life and health [Leviticus 17:11]
Now: Blood is the source of life and health
Then: Sick people must be bled
Bible: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains [2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6]
Now: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Then: The ocean floor was flat
Bible: Ocean contains springs [Job 38:16]
Now: Ocean contains springs
Then: Ocean was fed only by rivers and rain
Bible: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water [Leviticus 15:13]
Now: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water
Then: Hands washed in still water
This isn't to get people to believe the Bible is truth and infallible, but in my opinion it presents a pretty compelling case of a few examples where science has actually proven the Bible.
What do you think?
Two little things:
| Quote: |
Bible: Blood is the source of life and health [Leviticus 17:11]
Now: Blood is the source of life and health
Then: Sick people must be bled
|
I think that science would say that proteins are the source of life and health. Many living things have blood, but not all do in fact have blood. Take paramecium, for example. There are proteins in paramecium, and it is essential for the life of the creature IIRC, but there certainly isn't any blood in a paramecium.
| Quote: |
Bible: Ocean contains springs [Job 38:16]
Now: Ocean contains springs
Then: Ocean was fed only by rivers and rain
|
The current theory is that comets slammed into the earth to create the oceans. There are no springs that feed the oceans - from what I learned about plate tectonics the only thing under the ocean that is remotely close to a spring is the sea floor are the divergent plate boundaries that spew magma into the lithosphere.
Other than that it sort of surprises me that such ideas were in the bible and these ideas did not catch on during the middle ages with the amounts of devout Christians in Europe.
| Soulfire wrote: | Bearing in mind the Bible was written around 2000 to 3000 years ago, I have compiled some interesting insights into Bible verses, science now, and science then.
I am interested to see everyone's input.
Key:
The Bible
Science Now
Science Then
Okay, so here we go!
Bible: The earth is a sphere [Isaiah 40:22]
Now: The earth is a sphere
Then: The earth was a flat disk
Bible: Incalculable number of stars [Jeremiah 33:22]
Now: Incalculable number of stars
Then: Only 1,100 stars
Bible: Free float of earth in space [Job 26:7]
Now: Free float of earth in space
Then: Earth sat on a large animal
Bible: Creation made of invisible elements [Hebrews 11:3]
Now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)
Then: Science was ignorant on the subject
Bible: Each star is different [1 Corinthians 15:41]
Now: Each star is different
Then: All stars were the same
Bible: Light moves [Job 38:19-20]
Now: Light moves
Then: Light was in a fixed place
Bible: Air has weight [Job 28:25]
Now: Air has weight
Then: Air was weightless
Bible: Winds blow in cyclones [Ecclesiastes 1:6]
Now: Winds blow in cyclones
Then: Winds blew straight
Bible: Blood is the source of life and health [Leviticus 17:11]
Now: Blood is the source of life and health
Then: Sick people must be bled
Bible: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains [2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6]
Now: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Then: The ocean floor was flat
Bible: Ocean contains springs [Job 38:16]
Now: Ocean contains springs
Then: Ocean was fed only by rivers and rain
Bible: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water [Leviticus 15:13]
Now: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water
Then: Hands washed in still water
This isn't to get people to believe the Bible is truth and infallible, but in my opinion it presents a pretty compelling case of a few examples where science has actually proven the Bible.
What do you think? |
Most of those examples are bogus, and require real subjective interpretation to gather any meaningful scientific claims out of them. For example:
| Soulfire wrote: | Bible: The earth is a sphere [Isaiah 40:22]
Now: The earth is a sphere
Then: The earth was a flat disk |
The actual verse is (KJV): "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" You interpret "circle of the earth" as "sphere". Why? It seems to me that it means a flat disk. God is comparable to "a person sitting on the flat disk of the earth (the inhabitants of which are bugs), holding up a sheet over his head like a tent made of black fabric with the stars and other heavenly bodies on it". How does the tent analogy even make sense with a spherical Earth?
| Soulfire wrote: | Bible: Incalculable number of stars [Jeremiah 33:22]
Now: Incalculable number of stars
Then: Only 1,100 stars |
i'm not sure where you get the 1,100 number from, but you have ignored some key facts. First, the term used is "hosts of heaven", which can be interpreted either to mean stars or angels - sometimes they are interpreted one way, sometimes another. Second, the bible is pretty clear that there is something up there called the "firmament" (basically, the tent from the previous case) that the stars we see are attached to, and behind that are even more stars and heavenly bodies that we cannot see. Third, most ancient civilizations were well aware that stars came and went, so to claim a fixed number seems suspicious to me.
| Soulfire wrote: | Bible: Free float of earth in space [Job 26:7]
Now: Free float of earth in space
Then: Earth sat on a large animal |
That's just being dishonest. Some civilizations thought the Earth was on the back of an animal, not all. Given the age of Job, it's hard to determine exactly when and where its influences came from. There's no reason to presume there was anything revolutionary about the cosmology until you can actually determine what prevailing thought was. Further, the surrounding context makes clear what is actually being described is a flat Earth, not a spherical one. It would seem the only thing of interest about this cosmology is that rather than having a flat Earth supported from beneath, it has a flat Earth hanging from heaven. Cute, but still dead wrong.
| Soulfire wrote: | Bible: Creation made of invisible elements [Hebrews 11:3]
Now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)
Then: Science was ignorant on the subject |
A mistranslation/misinterpretation. The actual text does not mean "made of" in the sense of "matter is made of (constructed of) atoms", but made of in the sense of "cars are made of (the products of) man". The verse is part of an appeal to faith, saying that the faithless believe that everything comes from (that is, is the product of, or is "made of") nature, wherease the faithful believe that everything came from God willing it into existence. It has nothing to do with the structure of creation, but with where "creation" came from (ie, it came from being created, it didn't always exist).
And so on and so forth.
I hate agreeing with Indi, but, whereas I don't mind an interpretation of The Bible, I do dislike manipulating the translation just to prove a point. Nice try, Soulfire, but no basket...
HM
| Soulfire wrote: | | This isn't to get people to believe the Bible is truth and infallible, but in my opinion it presents a pretty compelling case of a few examples where science has actually proven the Bible. |
Even given the points raised by others about the validity of the claims in each case (possible mistranslation, reinterpretation, etc), there is still a conceptual problem with the idea of science proving the Bible on any of these points.
People need to be careful about claims of proof just because science or modern knowledge agrees with some statements. There is more to it than just the final answer - there is the important part of understanding the reasoning behind the answer. It is quite possible even now to have a completely crackpot "theory" that through bogus reasoning comes up with an answer that agrees with science in a few cases, even if it is completely wrong elsewhere. Just because both agree (in that they get the same answers) in a few cases does not imply at all that one proves the other. It's a bit like the confusion between correlation and causation - two things might always happen together, but that does not imply that one causes the other.
What I see is that there are some statements in the Bible which were not necessarily the widely accepted view of the world when they were written, and which have subsequently become accepted, understood or explained by science.
I am sure that there are many statements like those you highlighted in almost any old or ancient book or writings, whether they are religious, philosophical or whatever. Also, there are undoubtedly similar statements that are now accepted for reasons other than science (through wider and deeper philosophical arguments, for example). On the other hand, almost all such writings also contain statements which are now regarded as simplistic, misguided or just plain wrong for similar reasons.
If you step back and think about it, the people who wrote the Bible (or probably almost any similar major historic work) probably weren't dedicated conformists in their time; it's quite likely that many of them were seen then as what we would now consider to be free-thinking radicals. It's quite likely that they would have been open to new ways of thinking about the world in many different contexts, so it would be amazing if there weren't statements in the Bible (or similar) that match this pattern.
While I doubt any of you are scholars on the language of the Bible, I am manipulating nothing.
Do I not have a right to interpret a verse the way I see it? With that kind of logic, pointing fingers and saying "You've misinterpreted that" isn't acceptable. The problem is that you can interpret one verse a thousand different ways - does that make it wrong? I guess that's for you to decide.
What I'm surprised is that everyone is overlooking the fact that this book was written some 2000 to 3000 years ago -- not even atheists agree that it is at least somewhat credible?
Given the limited technology of the day, I am quite surprised at the understanding of the world. I guess I am the only one who finds it fascinating.
Ah well.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Given the limited technology of the day, I am quite surprised at the understanding of the world. I guess I am the only one who finds it fascinating.
|
What about the Romans and Greeks? They were pretty famous about understanding their world better than other ancient civilizations. I believe it was a Greek who first proposed the theory that the Earth rotates around the sun.
| {name here} wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: |
Given the limited technology of the day, I am quite surprised at the understanding of the world. I guess I am the only one who finds it fascinating.
|
What about the Romans and Greeks? They were pretty famous about understanding their world better than other ancient civilizations. I believe it was a Greek who first proposed the theory that the Earth rotates around the sun. |
True, but their theories were largely rejected.
| Soulfire wrote: | While I doubt any of you are scholars on the language of the Bible, I am manipulating nothing.
Do I not have a right to interpret a verse the way I see it? With that kind of logic, pointing fingers and saying "You've misinterpreted that" isn't acceptable. The problem is that you can interpret one verse a thousand different ways - does that make it wrong? I guess that's for you to decide. |
You have the right to interpret any text any way you want. You can interpret the bible as a science text; you can interpret the Divine Comedy as an autobiography; you can interpret Gor as a sex manual; you can interpret anything written by Ayn Rand as coherent. Go nuts.
Just don't expect anyone else to take your interpretations seriously unless they can be backed up with facts - facts about context or other facts.
| Soulfire wrote: | | What I'm surprised is that everyone is overlooking the fact that this book was written some 2000 to 3000 years ago -- not even atheists agree that it is at least somewhat credible? |
There is nothing in the bible that wasn't known even 5,000 years ago. You assume a linear progression of knowledge: we didn't know, then we found out, and we've known since. That's not so. Knowledge came and went. Correct answers were deduced then overruled by dogma or other factors. People thought the Earth was a stationary plate with the Sun travelling over head, then they thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun, then they thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, then something else and so on and so forth... and that's all just in one civilization. The ancient Isrealites were influenced by dozens of ancient civilizations (they actually produced very little knowledge themselves).
The bible is a collection of writings that span thousands of years, each picking up traits of the thinking of the time of writing. Would it be any surprise if they got things right once in a blue moon? No, not at all. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The real question is: if the bible was divinely inspired, would it ever be wrong?
And boy is it ever wrong! It's an almost constant stream of poor science and ancient worldviews that we know are wrong, with a few marginally potentially correct facts interspersed throughout. To find facts that seem to be right, one has to bend and twist and squint.
So, credible? No, i think not.
| Soulfire wrote: | | Do I not have a right to interpret a verse the way I see it? With that kind of logic, pointing fingers and saying "You've misinterpreted that" isn't acceptable. The problem is that you can interpret one verse a thousand different ways - does that make it wrong? I guess that's for you to decide. |
In the context of this discussion, what is relevant is not your interpretation of the scriptures, but the intentions of the people who wrote them. Therefore, it's acceptable for someone to disagree on point of fact with your interpretations (in this context).
From my perspective, it seems that you're "cold reading" things into those writings that aren't there.
| make_life_better wrote: | Even given the points raised by others about the validity of the claims in each case (possible mistranslation, reinterpretation, etc), there is still a conceptual problem with the idea of science proving the Bible on any of these points.
People need to be careful about claims of proof just because science or modern knowledge agrees with some statements. There is more to it than just the final answer - there is the important part of understanding the reasoning behind the answer.
|
I agree with HM, and yet I find this somewhat sickening. You are arguing that he should not try to provide supporting evidence for his religion? It wasn't the greatest of cases presented, but your whole attitude that it was somehow wrong for him to even try sounds like fanatical bigotry to me. How dare someone with a different point of view from you try to support their point of view??
| Indi wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: | Bible: Free float of earth in space [Job 26:7]
Now: Free float of earth in space
Then: Earth sat on a large animal |
That's just being dishonest. Some civilizations thought the Earth was on the back of an animal, not all. Given the age of Job, it's hard to determine exactly when and where its influences came from. There's no reason to presume there was anything revolutionary about the cosmology until you can actually determine what prevailing thought was. Further, the surrounding context makes clear what is actually being described is a flat Earth, not a spherical one. It would seem the only thing of interest about this cosmology is that rather than having a flat Earth supported from beneath, it has a flat Earth hanging from heaven. Cute, but still dead wrong.
|
I wasn’t too impressed with most of the other points, but this one is quite impressive, and as far as I am aware, without parallel of any kind in the ancient world. The Buddha referred to countless other Buddha worlds, but he didn’t point up at the sky while he was doing it, and that is as close as you can get to my knowledge, of any kind of parallel to this verse in Job.
If anyone is being dishonest in this case, Indi, it is you.
Job is a very interesting book, which is also one of the primary scriptural sources for Jews believing in reincarnation. There is a verse that refers to the multiplicity of lifetimes of a man.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | make_life_better wrote: | Even given the points raised by others about the validity of the claims in each case (possible mistranslation, reinterpretation, etc), there is still a conceptual problem with the idea of science proving the Bible on any of these points.
People need to be careful about claims of proof just because science or modern knowledge agrees with some statements. There is more to it than just the final answer - there is the important part of understanding the reasoning behind the answer.
|
I agree with HM, and yet I find this somewhat sickening. You are arguing that he should not try to provide supporting evidence for his religion? It wasn't the greatest of cases presented, but your whole attitude that it was somehow wrong for him to even try sounds like fanatical bigotry to me. How dare someone with a different point of view from you try to support their point of view?? |
I am absolutely not saying that. I am wholly in favour of anybody providing evidence of any of their beliefs, whether they are religious or not. I was trying to distinguish a different thread of thought than just another argument about whether these points that soulfire raised were due to interpretation or mistranslation.
I don't think that what I wrote implies at all that it is "wrong for him to even try" - I agree that would be fanatical bigotry, and I absolutely will not accept the idea that this sort of stuff is not up for discussion here. I think that it is important for us to be able to post these questions and challenges, preferably without feeling likely to be attacked for our sincerely held views.
My point was simply that there is a conceptual problem with trying to say that any evidence of this sort proves anything about any writings. In general it is very hard to prove any theory; it is usually much easier to disprove one, and much of science is made up of theories that are widely accepted because they make the right predictions and have stood up to every test that has been tried (i.e. they haven't been disproved).
I was also trying to point out that the world view or theories that underlie ancient writings may not be the same as our current world view (comprising scientific theories, philospohy, etc.). Just because the answers came out the same doesn't mean that the reasoning behind those answers agrees at all in other cases.
Let's assume that the highlighted statements from the Bible are OK to take as quoted, i.e. we agree to put aside any discussion of translation and interpretation, and just take them at face value. Then we can certainly take them as supporting evidence, and I have no problem with that at all. However, just because some of the numbers or statements agree to some extent still does not prove anything. I am quite happy to go along with the idea that the Bible and current scientific models and theories agree on some things, and I am quite happy to accept that some of the things written in the Bible (or any other ancient writing) may be ahead of their time (or just ahead of general acceptance, or maybe even groundbreaking and new at the time). But we have little evidence that the thinking that lay behind those statements highlighted is in any general agreement with current scientific knowledge, and they may have been completely different in other cases. As Indi said above, even a broken clock is right twice a day. My point is that the notion of "proof" is often misunderstood and the word gets abused and misused, and I think it is inappropriate here. Even the word "confirms" in the subject is a bit questionable.
I suppose I have just fallen into the same "picky" trap about the use of words that some others here are perhaps better known for. I'll just shut up. 
| Indi wrote: |
And boy is it ever wrong! It's an almost constant stream of poor science and ancient worldviews that we know are wrong, with a few marginally potentially correct facts interspersed throughout. To find facts that seem to be right, one has to bend and twist and squint.
|
Actually, this is just as bad. Science has shown that there is some validity to some of the restrictions (such as pork), and it's been used to find a number of sites that there was almost no other proof for. Also, a number of the OP's points are valid (even though a few are stretching it).
I mean, the OP may have been exaggerating a bit, but it's only by a bit...
HM
| Indi wrote: | | And boy is it ever wrong! It's an almost constant stream of poor science and ancient worldviews that we know are wrong, with a few marginally potentially correct facts interspersed throughout. To find facts that seem to be right, one has to bend and twist and squint. |
Was it not you who said I needed fact to back up my statements? Anyone can say the Bible is wrong. What have you got to back it up?
| make_life_better wrote: | | I was also trying to point out that the world view or theories that underlie ancient writings may not be the same as our current world view (comprising scientific theories, philospohy, etc.). Just because the answers came out the same doesn't mean that the reasoning behind those answers agrees at all in other cases. |
Another way to look at it is to consider fiction. H. G. Wells wrote in War of the Worlds in 1898 about the Martian invaders using "heat ray" weapons that are remarkably similar to lasers... almost 20 years before Einstein laid the theoretical framework for the concept, and over 60 years before it was actually developed.
So... what? What am i supposed to gain from that? H. G. Wells could see the future? Or he just used his imagination and happened to be proven vaguely right on that particular point (while simultaneously being proven wrong on others, such as intelligent life on Mars).
| Soulfire wrote: | | Was it not you who said I needed fact to back up my statements? Anyone can say the Bible is wrong. What have you got to back it up? |
i could simply reiterate several of your own examples to show that biblical cosmology is flat Earth with a heavenly "firmament" acting as canopy above that the stars are set in, where angels move them around (and the sun and moon as well). Take the reference in Job 26 for instance.
Or would you like an engineering analysis of the ark? 'twon't float, i can promise you that.
But you probably would dismiss my engineering background as atheist. That's fine. Explain the four-legged insects in Leviticus. A bat is apparently a bird in Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on.
But in point of fact, who cares? If the bible got it right once in a while, that doesn't imply truth... unless H. G. Wells was also a divinely inspired prophet. What would imply truth is if the bible got it right always. That is clearly not the case.
1) A lot of SF fans actually respect Wells and Verne for foreseeing a lot of inventions. Then again, I think that using a SF writer as part of your analogy is a bad thing; too many scientists get inspired by SF and make those inventions come true, and SF tends to have a proven foresight about various things (a number of scenes in 2001, for example were proven to be true). Not saying by a long shot that it's 100% accurate, but enough has happened that it's just bad to have as part of your analogy...
2) I'll give you the ark and the four-legged insects; however, bats tended to end up on a lot of lists (even today) that would make it seem like too many count it as a bird, when they are just including it for completeness, and the birds list just feels right.
At the same time, The Bible does seem to get a lot of things right (not 100%, but good enough that a lot of people have taken notice).
Oh...and I'm giving you the ark due to the number of animals it was supposed to have contained; the engineering itself has been shown to work...
HM
| Indi wrote: | i could simply reiterate several of your own examples to show that biblical cosmology is flat Earth with a heavenly "firmament" acting as canopy above that the stars are set in, where angels move them around (and the sun and moon as well). Take the reference in Job 26 for instance.
Or would you like an engineering analysis of the ark? 'twon't float, i can promise you that.
But you probably would dismiss my engineering background as atheist. That's fine. Explain the four-legged insects in Leviticus. A bat is apparently a bird in Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on.
But in point of fact, who cares? If the bible got it right once in a while, that doesn't imply truth... unless H. G. Wells was also a divinely inspired prophet. What would imply truth is if the bible got it right always. That is clearly not the case. |
And I could retaliate all of your arguments with a simple, but true fact: that is God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and exists beyond time and logic. That further implies that God can do anything.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Of course I am not going to be bull-headed about it, because it's not like I reject science... quite the contrary, but the thing of it is is that you cannot look at God and try to make sense of Him. |
<SLAP!>You bring up a reasonably good point, and then you try to weasel out of it like this...?
Sorry....that's just lame...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: |
Of course I am not going to be bull-headed about it, because it's not like I reject science... quite the contrary, but the thing of it is is that you cannot look at God and try to make sense of Him. |
<SLAP!>You bring up a reasonably good point, and then you try to weasel out of it like this...?
Sorry....that's just lame...
HM |
It wasn't weaseling out. I said it because I was convinced someone was going to call me a close-minded, bull-headed nut job or something along the lines.
My point is my point.
But since I've erased it, I hope my point is clearly seen.
Soulfire,
I find your interest in the subject interesting. You may or may not have it completely accurate; however, I am more interested in knowing what got you started into looking into the subject? It is a fascinating subject about how science and religion are not so much at odds as some athiests and some of those who profess a belief in God may think there is. You picked a tough subject to explore with those on the WWW. It appears that some people took it too personally.
I might suggest that you ask God these questions too because in time the answers you get from Him will be of much more value than what our puny minds can come up with. You are obviously seeking something. There is nothing wrong with seeking. Just remember, we may never find all our answers now. Have faith and continue seeking. Most of all, forgive those who are afraid, because as we know, that is why the bully attacks.
Some of us are quite comfortable that the Bible is what it says it is and has always been so.
We are quite comfortable with what it says and if it contradicts science in any way then science is the medium that is in error and still developing it's theories.
We can see no unexplained contradictions or errors in the Bible and accept it as the inspired word of God revealing all that he wants us to know about him.
| nickfyoung wrote: | Some of us are quite comfortable that the Bible is what it says it is and has always been so.
We are quite comfortable with what it says and if it contradicts science in any way then science is the medium that is in error and still developing it's theories. |
You know what? That's just fine. i have no objection to that. As i said above, so long ago, you're free to interpret any text you like any way you like. No one else has to respect that, but if you really want to believe the Bible is a science book, go nuts. If you bring that belief to an open discussion, it's going to be discussed, so if it's a belief you can't back up with a rational argument, you'd better be ready for some chop. But if you really believe it, then so long as you don't rub it in other people's faces, there seems little harm.
And if a religion really believes that its holy text is right and science is wrong, and that science will recognize its "mistakes" and "catch up" with what the holy text said all along, that's fine, too.
However, if someone really believes that science is wrong and has to continue developing before it "catches up" with the divine truth, then they should STAY THE ****** OUT OF SCIENCE AND LET IT DEVELOP.
Meddling in science is a sign of doubt; it's a sign that believers don't really trust that science will figure things out eventually. Because if they did, they wouldn't need to meddle in science any more than real scientists feel obliged to meddle in creation "science". You don't see a lot of real scientists showing up at creation "science" seminars, or publishing articles in creation "science" "journals", trying to "correct" the mistakes. Real scientists have no doubt that real science is more likely to be right than creation "science", so they just ignore the bullshit and focus on what they believe. Real scientists don't bother to try convincing creation "scientists" that they're wrong (they don't have anything to do with them at all, except when they try to get their shit into the school science curriculum). Biblical "scientists", however, have an inferiority complex, and secretly know that their "science" is bullshit, so they try hard to get it recognized by legitimate scientists.
If Christians really believed that their holy text had the science right, they wouldn't be posting arguments in P&R trying to convince people. They would be building Ark-sized wooden ships loaded with an entire world's worth of animals and food, pointing out insects with four legs, using dirt from the temple floor in lie detector tests, trying to fly in aeroplanes that were built using the assumption that π = 3, and basing a space program on the notion of trying to get a hook up in the firmament and pulling themselves up to Heaven. But they don't. They don't do anything productive, or invent anything. They just meddle in science... the science they think is misguided... trying to distort it and warp it to their vision, even though they claim they know science is wrong and already have the answer book in hand. Why not just use the holy text to guide their research into next-generation science and technology instead of wasting time with the scientists who are oh-so-wrong?
| Indi wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | Some of us are quite comfortable that the Bible is what it says it is and has always been so.
We are quite comfortable with what it says and if it contradicts science in any way then science is the medium that is in error and still developing it's theories. |
You know what? That's just fine. i have no objection to that. As i said above, so long ago, you're free to interpret any text you like any way you like. No one else has to respect that, but if you really want to believe the Bible is a science book, go nuts. If you bring that belief to an open discussion, it's going to be discussed, so if it's a belief you can't back up with a rational argument, you'd better be ready for some chop. But if you really believe it, then so long as you don't rub it in other people's faces, there seems little harm.
And if a religion really believes that its holy text is right and science is wrong, and that science will recognize its "mistakes" and "catch up" with what the holy text said all along, that's fine, too.
However, if someone really believes that science is wrong and has to continue developing before it "catches up" with the divine truth, then they should STAY THE ****** OUT OF SCIENCE AND LET IT DEVELOP.
Meddling in science is a sign of doubt; it's a sign that believers don't really trust that science will figure things out eventually. Because if they did, they wouldn't need to meddle in science any more than real scientists feel obliged to meddle in creation "science". You don't see a lot of real scientists showing up at creation "science" seminars, or publishing articles in creation "science" "journals", trying to "correct" the mistakes. Real scientists have no doubt that real science is more likely to be right than creation "science", so they just ignore the bullshit and focus on what they believe. Real scientists don't bother to try convincing creation "scientists" that they're wrong (they don't have anything to do with them at all, except when they try to get their shit into the school science curriculum). Biblical "scientists", however, have an inferiority complex, and secretly know that their "science" is bullshit, so they try hard to get it recognized by legitimate scientists.
If Christians really believed that their holy text had the science right, they wouldn't be posting arguments in P&R trying to convince people. They would be building Ark-sized wooden ships loaded with an entire world's worth of animals and food, pointing out insects with four legs, using dirt from the temple floor in lie detector tests, trying to fly in aeroplanes that were built using the assumption that π = 3, and basing a space program on the notion of trying to get a hook up in the firmament and pulling themselves up to Heaven. But they don't. They don't do anything productive, or invent anything. They just meddle in science... the science they think is misguided... trying to distort it and warp it to their vision, even though they claim they know science is wrong and already have the answer book in hand. Why not just use the holy text to guide their research into next-generation science and technology instead of wasting time with the scientists who are oh-so-wrong? |
| Quote: | | You don't see a lot of real scientists showing up at creation "science" seminars |
Are you saying then that Christian scientists are not 'real' scientists.
| nickfyoung wrote: | | Are you saying then that Christian scientists are not 'real' scientists. |
Not at all. I don't think that Indi said "Christian scientists" a single time. A Christian scientist is a scientist who is a Christian. However, Indi did mention "Creation scientist" which is a "scientist" who takes the Bible as literal truth and, furthermore, thinks that science will "prove" their belief and that any science that goes against their belief, is by default, incorrect. Creation scientists are wrong... Laughably and face-palming wrong.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | | Are you saying then that Christian scientists are not 'real' scientists. |
Not at all. I don't think that Indi said "Christian scientists" a single time. A Christian scientist is a scientist who is a Christian. However, Indi did mention "Creation scientist" which is a "scientist" who takes the Bible as literal truth and, furthermore, thinks that science will "prove" their belief and that any science that goes against their belief, is by default, incorrect. Creation scientists are wrong... Laughably and face-palming wrong. |
A creation scientist who takes the Bible as literal truth you will usually find is a Christian scientist.
| nickfyoung wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | | Are you saying then that Christian scientists are not 'real' scientists. |
Not at all. I don't think that Indi said "Christian scientists" a single time. A Christian scientist is a scientist who is a Christian. However, Indi did mention "Creation scientist" which is a "scientist" who takes the Bible as literal truth and, furthermore, thinks that science will "prove" their belief and that any science that goes against their belief, is by default, incorrect. Creation scientists are wrong... Laughably and face-palming wrong. |
A creation scientist who takes the Bible as literal truth you will usually find is a Christian scientist. |
All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
This actually isn't a completely analogous expression because a Creation-scientist is NOT a scientist (although a Christian scientist IS a scientist). Let me show you the difference.
Here is how a scientist works:
Here is how a Creation-"scientist" works:
Hypothesis = current beliefs that will never change and that you will work to attempt to "prove" no matter what the actual data shows
|
|
|
|
|
V
Someone else's experiment --------------> Experiment shows that hypothesis doesn't work
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------V
V---------------------------------------------------Ignore this experiment
Experiment confirms solid hypothesis
|
|
|
|
|
V
Hypothesis is proven without uncertainty and this is forever proof that the hypothesis is correct even though the data may be skewed and up to 10000000000 other experiments showed that the hypothesis is incorrect
This is taken from another thread of mine:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-144600.html
| Soulfire wrote: | Bearing in mind the Bible was written around 2000 to 3000 years ago, I have compiled some interesting insights into Bible verses, science now, and science then.
I am interested to see everyone's input.
Key:
The Bible
Science Now
Science Then
Okay, so here we go!
Bible: The earth is a sphere [Isaiah 40:22]
Now: The earth is a sphere
Then: The earth was a flat disk
Bible: Incalculable number of stars [Jeremiah 33:22]
Now: Incalculable number of stars
Then: Only 1,100 stars
Bible: Free float of earth in space [Job 26:7]
Now: Free float of earth in space
Then: Earth sat on a large animal
Bible: Creation made of invisible elements [Hebrews 11:3]
Now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)
Then: Science was ignorant on the subject
Bible: Each star is different [1 Corinthians 15:41]
Now: Each star is different
Then: All stars were the same
Bible: Light moves [Job 38:19-20]
Now: Light moves
Then: Light was in a fixed place
Bible: Air has weight [Job 28:25]
Now: Air has weight
Then: Air was weightless
Bible: Winds blow in cyclones [Ecclesiastes 1:6]
Now: Winds blow in cyclones
Then: Winds blew straight
Bible: Blood is the source of life and health [Leviticus 17:11]
Now: Blood is the source of life and health
Then: Sick people must be bled
Bible: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains [2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6]
Now: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Then: The ocean floor was flat
Bible: Ocean contains springs [Job 38:16]
Now: Ocean contains springs
Then: Ocean was fed only by rivers and rain
Bible: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water [Leviticus 15:13]
Now: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water
Then: Hands washed in still water
This isn't to get people to believe the Bible is truth and infallible, but in my opinion it presents a pretty compelling case of a few examples where science has actually proven the Bible.
What do you think? |
Science and bible have its owned differenct and conflict discussion and explanations.. this is a hard to pic to debate on.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | | Are you saying then that Christian scientists are not 'real' scientists. |
Not at all. I don't think that Indi said "Christian scientists" a single time. A Christian scientist is a scientist who is a Christian. However, Indi did mention "Creation scientist" which is a "scientist" who takes the Bible as literal truth and, furthermore, thinks that science will "prove" their belief and that any science that goes against their belief, is by default, incorrect. Creation scientists are wrong... Laughably and face-palming wrong. |
A creation scientist who takes the Bible as literal truth you will usually find is a Christian scientist. |
All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
This actually isn't a completely analogous expression because a Creation-scientist is NOT a scientist (although a Christian scientist IS a scientist). Let me show you the difference.
Here is how a scientist works:
Here is how a Creation-"scientist" works:
Hypothesis = current beliefs that will never change and that you will work to attempt to "prove" no matter what the actual data shows
|
|
|
|
|
V
Someone else's experiment --------------> Experiment shows that hypothesis doesn't work
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------V
V---------------------------------------------------Ignore this experiment
Experiment confirms solid hypothesis
|
|
|
|
|
V
Hypothesis is proven without uncertainty and this is forever proof that the hypothesis is correct even though the data may be skewed and up to 10000000000 other experiments showed that the hypothesis is incorrect
This is taken from another thread of mine:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-144600.html |
So when a scientist calls himself a creationist he can't really be a true scientist. He would realize this wouldn't he being a scientist.
Being a scientist and embracing creation he would be aware that he is going down this path in the eyes of science. How does he justify that.
He is deliberately going against science and is aware of the consequences of that. What is driving him to do that.
| nickfyoung wrote: | | So when a scientist calls himself a creationist he can't really be a true scientist. |
Correct. You can be a Christian and a scientist if you completely divorce the two ideas. However, a Creationist, by definition, does NOT divorce the two ideas. A Creationist believes that the world was created in six days and that a bunch of other stuff happened when this clearly didn't happen. Not too many scientists are Christians but the ones that are Christians tend to believe in God but think that the Bible is metaphorical and not literal.
| Quote: | | He would realize this wouldn't he being a scientist. |
No, he/she wouldn't. He/she is NOT a scientist.
| Quote: | | Being a scientist and embracing creation he would be aware that he is going down this path in the eyes of science. |
No, because he/she CANNOT embrace Creation and be a scientist. Scientists cannot believe that the Earth was created in six days because the evidence shows otherwise.
| Quote: | | How does he justify that. |
Creationists justify their beliefs in the same way that you do.
| Quote: | | He is deliberately going against science and is aware of the consequences of that. What is driving him to do that. |
His irrational delusions are driving him/her to go against science.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | | So when a scientist calls himself a creationist he can't really be a true scientist. |
Correct. You can be a Christian and a scientist if you completely divorce the two ideas. However, a Creationist, by definition, does NOT divorce the two ideas. A Creationist believes that the world was created in six days and that a bunch of other stuff happened when this clearly didn't happen. Not too many scientists are Christians but the ones that are Christians tend to believe in God but think that the Bible is metaphorical and not literal.
| Quote: | | He would realize this wouldn't he being a scientist. |
No, he/she wouldn't. He/she is NOT a scientist.
| Quote: | | Being a scientist and embracing creation he would be aware that he is going down this path in the eyes of science. |
No, because he/she CANNOT embrace Creation and be a scientist. Scientists cannot believe that the Earth was created in six days because the evidence shows otherwise.
| Quote: | | How does he justify that. |
Creationists justify their beliefs in the same way that you do.
| Quote: | | He is deliberately going against science and is aware of the consequences of that. What is driving him to do that. |
His irrational delusions are driving him/her to go against science. |
I have just picked a scientist at random from a list who claim to be creationists.
This guy is a geologist. Are his credentials up to scratch, I wouldn't know.
He has one publication, "Mt St Helens 'dating" which is a pretty comprehensive work with lots of technical mathematical equations which are way beyond me., http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v10/n3/argon
His conclusion is below.
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if he is talking rubbish or not. If he is delusional then his work in these areas would be delusional too would it not.
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
Argon analyses of the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens raise more questions than answers. The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar* in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty. Argon occlusion in mineral phases of dacite at Mount St Helens is a reasonable alternate assumption. This study raises more fundamental questions—do other phenocryst-containing volcanic rocks give reliable K-Ar ages?
I don't fully agree, Matrix. One CAN be a creationist and a scientist... as long as their area of science doesn't really address issues of creationism. Just like other Christian scientists, if the science is divorced from the religion/bias, they can still do good science.
For example, one could easily be a analytical chemist or something without religion infringing upon it in any way, creationist, or otherwise. You're certainly right, however, that a geologist, cosmologist, or biologist (in most fields), for example, can't be both an honest scientist and creationist.
I mean, yeah, it makes them a poor critical thinker and skeptic in general, but it may not impact their science.
| Ankhanu wrote: | I don't fully agree, Matrix. One CAN be a creationist and a scientist... as long as their area of science doesn't really address issues of creationism. Just like other Christian scientists, if the science is divorced from the religion/bias, they can still do good science.
For example, one could easily be a analytical chemist or something without religion infringing upon it in any way, creationist, or otherwise. You're certainly right, however, that a geologist, cosmologist, or biologist (in most fields), for example, can't be both an honest scientist and creationist.
I mean, yeah, it makes them a poor critical thinker and skeptic in general, but it may not impact their science. |
| Quote: | | You're certainly right, however, that a geologist, cosmologist, or biologist (in most fields), for example, can't be both an honest scientist and creationist |
So my example above has to be one of a dishonest scientist, him being a geologist.
It most certainly raises GIANT red flags, yes.
EDIT - good science requires us to eliminate as many personal biases as possible and investigate only what the data tells us. We don't try to make the data work with a model, we try to make a model that works with the data... there's no agenda, just an effort to uncover the truth. Creationist scientists go about it backwards, and they maintain a specific bias as superseding even the truth of the data. That is why their conclusions (though not always their WORK) should be examined extra critically.
| Ankhanu wrote: | | It most certainly raises GIANT red flags, yes. |
So if there are dozens and dozens of these guys,,,, maybe it is contagious...
Are they all delusional. I mean, it is understandable to label Christians as delusional but when we have highly intelligent people jumping in too and then scientists who are jeopardizing their career or at the very least their credibility. I suppose it depends which peers you value the most.
See my edit to the above quoted post.
| Ankhanu wrote: | I don't fully agree, Matrix. One CAN be a creationist and a scientist... as long as their area of science doesn't really address issues of creationism. Just like other Christian scientists, if the science is divorced from the religion/bias, they can still do good science.
For example, one could easily be a analytical chemist or something without religion infringing upon it in any way, creationist, or otherwise. You're certainly right, however, that a geologist, cosmologist, or biologist (in most fields), for example, can't be both an honest scientist and creationist.
I mean, yeah, it makes them a poor critical thinker and skeptic in general, but it may not impact their science. |
Even the chemist cannot be a Creationist because of the chemistry involved in dating methods that you'd have to ignore, the evidence for the age of the earth and the formation of the earth that uses the chemical properties of old stuff (that you wouldn't believe to be old unless you're the rare OEC), etc.
While I accept that there might be some type of scientist that can be a Creationist, I cannot really think of it. Any application of the scientific method will debunk any Creationist beliefs. Like I said, you can be a CHRISTIAN and a scientist (and there are quite a few Christian-scientists). But you cannot believe that God magicked up the Earth in six days and the whole flood thing and etc. I suppose that you can be a computer scientist and a Creationist but I'd but CS as engineering.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | Even the chemist cannot be a Creationist because of the chemistry involved in dating methods that you'd have to ignore, the evidence for the age of the earth and the formation of the earth that uses the chemical properties of old stuff (that you wouldn't believe to be old unless you're the rare OEC), etc.
While I accept that there might be some type of scientist that can be a Creationist, I cannot really think of it. Any application of the scientific method will debunk any Creationist beliefs. Like I said, you can be a CHRISTIAN and a scientist (and there are quite a few Christian-scientists). But you cannot believe that God magicked up the Earth in six days and the whole flood thing and etc. I suppose that you can be a computer scientist and a Creationist but I'd but CS as engineering. |
So, what you're saying is that a chemist trying to determine the chemical makeup of, various compounds can't be creationist because some physical chemists and physicists use completely different methods in a semi-related, but irrelevant field? That's a little like saying that because a street is blocked off half way due to a water main leak, you can't use the first third for travel to reach an intersecting street.
Determining the chemical constituents of the atmosphere, or the runoff from a landfill, is, realistically, divorced from biblical claims, and creational literalism need not apply to any work, data, nor interpretation of the data. Spectroscopy and the Bible aren't really gonna play.
You can be a scientist and creationist; not all lines of inquiry require any sort of theistic outlook, atheist, agnostic, theist nor literalist theist, and if a creationist's area of expertise doesn't pertain to a question related to religion, there's no potential for conflict.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
So, what you're saying is that a chemist trying to determine the chemical makeup of, various compounds can't be creationist because some physical chemists and physicists use completely different methods in a semi-related, but irrelevant field? That's a little like saying that because a street is blocked off half way due to a water main leak, you can't use the first third for travel to reach an intersecting street.
Determining the chemical constituents of the atmosphere, or the runoff from a landfill, is, realistically, divorced from biblical claims, and creational literalism need not apply to any work, data, nor interpretation of the data. Spectroscopy and the Bible aren't really gonna play.
You can be a scientist and creationist; not all lines of inquiry require any sort of theistic outlook, atheist, agnostic, theist nor literalist theist, and if a creationist's area of expertise doesn't pertain to a question related to religion, there's no potential for conflict. |
No. What I am saying is that if you're using the same science that shows without a doubt that the earth is older than 10,000 years old or that the early atmosphere was mostly nitrogen and CO2 - which could not have supported life within a few days - like the Biblical Creation says, or whatever then you cannot be a Creationist. Like I said, I accept that you might be able to convince me that there is some type of science that doesn't completely conflict with the Creationist account. Scientists study the natural universe.
Therefore, the exact evidence and data of your field is almost certainly going to conflict with Creationism somehow. It might be on the age of the earth, how life developed, how the world was developed, the fact that pi isn't 3 (as claimed in the Bible), the fact that the earth isn't flat (as claimed in the Bible), that the earth isn't formed of water, the earth doesn't rest of pillars, rainbows are a result of a giant flood, that a giant flood not only is possible (without destroying all life on the planet) but that it happened, that Noah's ark was possible (any engineer can tell you that it would sink), that languages appeared suddenly because people tried to build a giant tower to Heaven (hell, honest anthropologists cannot even be Creationists), the moon is a light source, strange animals like unicorns exist, etc.
Can you tell me one scientific field that you can honestly practice with any kind of validity by accepting everything that a Creationist must accept? I probably didn't even list half of the stuff. I just listed as much as I could. I think that I listed enough to conflict with every science field, including mathematics (Pi isn't three), engineering (Noah's ark AND Pi), as well as anthropology (besides, anthropologists have already tried looking for evidence of things such as Exodus and are now completely sure that it didn't happen).
Furthermore, even if you did find some sort of science field that somehow coexisted with everyone of those facts, a Creation-"scientist" would still be ignoring the scientific method in almost everything that they believe. Therefore, I see no way to be a Creationist and a scientist at the same time. You can be a Christian scientist who believes in the whole "theistic evolution" thing where evolution happened, the earth is old, etc. yet God designed it all to work that way. Whatever. I don't care. Some of the best scientists have been Christians (of course, most of those scientists lived hundreds of years ago). The head of the human genome project is a Christian. Whatever floats your boat. But I see no way to be a Creationist (as in you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible except for the possibility of OEC Creationists who believe that each day in Genesis was hundreds of thousands of years... but I think we showed recently that that doesn't even work too well) and a scientist.
You're missing the point that ancient Earth conditions, early universe origins, life origins/development, etc. can be completely irrelevant to someone's field of study. Scientists tend to be very specialized in their work; science is a highly compartmentalized study. One need not understand nor accept findings/studies outside of their narrow scope in order to do their work honestly or well.
Early Earth atmosphere was different than it is today and wouldn't support aerobic life? Completely irrelevant to determining what it is today. It could have been made of neon in the past, what it is now is still going to be what it is.
In the greater context, yes, creationists don't jive with science, but it's not all or nothing. You've gotta remember just how effectively people can compartmentalize their outlooks/beliefs. I mean, I'm the sort that thinks we should be skeptical in all areas of our lives... but most people aren't. They might be extremely critical of, say lava formation processes or torque bands in transmission design, but believe in the power of astrology... clearly they're not applying skepticism and rational thought equally. Same goes for scientists, sadly.
No. You're missing my point. My point is that you don't have to actually study that for it to contradict something that you use. An engineer doesn't have to study ark building to know that Noah's Ark wouldn't float and so no matter what they build (the engineer can build bridges or planes), if they believe in Noah's Ark then they are a dishonest engineer. It doesn't matter what branch of mathematics a mathematician studies; if they believe that Pi=3 then they are just retarded.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what branch of chemistry that you study, if you don't believe in an old earth then you don't accept radiometric dating which means that you don't understand basic decay which means that you don't understand how atoms actually function and chemistry is essentially the study of atomic properties. It doesn't matter what your research is; you don't understand or accept how atoms work and so how do you call yourself an honest chemist?
If you believe that the earth rests of pillars, then you cannot be any type of geologist or astronomer or most types of physicists. What about other types of physicists? Well if you believe that the earth was formed of water then you have no understanding on basic physical properties and so EVERY part of your field will crumble.
The Bible isn't just wrong on specific facts. If it was wrong on specific facts then perhaps someone could be a Creation-scientist if they chose a field that doesn't touch any of those facts. The Bible is actually wrong on entire physical properties - which are the basis of entire scientific disciplines that all types of science rely on.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | No. You're missing my point. My point is that you don't have to actually study that for it to contradict something that you use. An engineer doesn't have to study ark building to know that Noah's Ark wouldn't float and so no matter what they build (the engineer can build bridges or planes), if they believe in Noah's Ark then they are a dishonest engineer. It doesn't matter what branch of mathematics a mathematician studies; if they believe that Pi=3 then they are just retarded.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what branch of chemistry that you study, if you don't believe in an old earth then you don't accept radiometric dating which means that you don't understand basic decay which means that you don't understand how atoms actually function and chemistry is essentially the study of atomic properties. It doesn't matter what your research is; you don't understand or accept how atoms work and so how do you call yourself an honest chemist?
If you believe that the earth rests of pillars, then you cannot be any type of geologist or astronomer or most types of physicists. What about other types of physicists? Well if you believe that the earth was formed of water then you have no understanding on basic physical properties and so EVERY part of your field will crumble.
The Bible isn't just wrong on specific facts. If it was wrong on specific facts then perhaps someone could be a Creation-scientist if they chose a field that doesn't touch any of those facts. The Bible is actually wrong on entire physical properties - which are the basis of entire scientific disciplines that all types of science rely on. |
| Quote: | | if they believe that Pi=3 then they are just retarded. |
I have never come across this objection before so I had a look. I think one is being extremely picky to use it as an objection to the Bible.
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"
The verse above is the one in question and it is talking about cubits and hand breadths for a start, hardly exact mathematical formula.
The Phoenicians were very skilled craftsmen then and still are today.
"If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The inner radius and the inner circumference.
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
The complete calculation is at http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Matrix, we're talking different contexts, then. I'm talking about the functional work that is done, not the conceptual nature of cognitive dissonance that doesn't necessarily factor into a functional reality.
| Ankhanu wrote: | | Matrix, we're talking different contexts, then. I'm talking about the functional work that is done, not the conceptual nature of cognitive dissonance that doesn't necessarily factor into a functional reality. |
Well I don't know how there can be a clear difference between them. I mean, take something completely irrelevant.... Like....
Assume that I'm a mathematician and my research is trying to prove the existence (or non-existence) and uniqueness of a strong solution (we already have weak solutions) to the Navier-Stokes equations. It is possible that I can prove with without ever directly using Pi. However, I will almost certainly (the almost is there because we haven't seen a proof yet because it is an open problem that someone will get a million dollars for if they can solve) use a ton of analysis, topology, PDEs, etc. and there is absolutely no way that I could have learned the necessary mathematics under the assumption that Pi=3.
Another example... I am an engineer who designs airplanes. Therefore, my work is completely irrelevant to boats. Therefore, it should be irrelevant that I'm a Creationist who believes in Noah's Ark, right? Well... Do you think that someone that actually thinks that Noah's Ark would have floated stands a chance of understanding the engineering involved in keeping airplanes up? If they cannot understand boat-building - which has been around for thousands of years - then they will almost certainly not understand the relatively new work of airplane building.
Another example... I am a chemist and my research is in solar energy. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, right? However, do you think that there is even a remote chance that I would be capable of understanding the photovoltaic effect if I cannot understand how atoms work and why they decay?
Like I said, you can be a Christian and a scientist - as long as you divorce the two ideas. However, by accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible then you are accepting that many fundamental parts of science are wrong and I cannot think of any research that you can do that wouldn't somehow have a basis in the things that the Bible gets wrong or that wouldn't, at least, wouldn't require you to learn these things beforehand so that you're able to understand your current research (such as in the mathematics case... You cannot learn partial differential equations without multivariable calculus, linear algebra, analysis, topology, etc. and for those you need geometry (since topology is really just an abstraction of geometry in some sense), trigonometry, etc. (and all of those things require you to know what Pi is).
I'll give you an example where a creationist BIOLOGIST could still be an honest, even a good, scientist… I'll use my own fields of study.
There is yet much we don't know about the basic biology (life histories, phenology, food sources, breeding grounds/resources, dispersal capabilities, etc.) of many species, even higher level taxonomic level group. Studying these questions doesn't require making reference to evolutionary theory (though one would be somewhat remiss to ignore it completely, it need not be addressed), life origins, age of the Earth, Pi, etc. I might read it a little more closely, but I'd be relatively comfortable reading a paper by a creationist that informs me of the method/behaviour by which, say, Lonicera pilicornis traps and captures its collembolan prey, or seasonal activity patterns in different habitats… though I would be entirely skeptical of the quality of work by the same biologist describing the links between it and other loricerine species.
Believe it or not, the Bible doesn't always apply, literal nor allegorical.
In any case, it is up to us to be skeptical of discoveries/findings and their reporting no matter the theistic beliefs of the author. Sometimes, what creationists do is worthy science… but only if they're working in a field that doesn't immediately relate to Biblical teaching.
You disagree, sure… but hey, it's me reading/evaluating/using the papers in my field 
Okay, I'll agree that there is one example. You can study the behavior of a certain animal but not talk about why that behavior was evolutionary advantages. I guess I didn't think about that example because that's closely related to the social sciences (for non-human animals) and I tend to have very little respect for those fields :)
It's not related to social science at all, actually. I'm not talking about ethology here...
But in similar vein, one can study, the chemistry fields I mentioned above, mechanics fields of physics, properties of material, thermodynamics, just to name a couple fields without really dealing with Biblical claims.
Regarding Pi = 3, I really think that literal acceptance of that is pretty rare, even amongst YEC types.
| Ankhanu wrote: | | It's not related to social science at all, actually. I'm not talking about ethology here... |
It's practically a social science - although I give it more respect. Jane Goodall studying chimpanzees in Tanzania doesn't go against the Bible - I suppose. Although, from my understanding, she had no real qualifications when she first started and was mostly observing their behaviors which then allowed her to write a Ph.D. thesis even though she did no undergraduate work. I'd put that closer to sociology except that you're using animals and not people.
| Quote: | But in similar vein, one can study, the chemistry fields I mentioned above, mechanics fields of physics, properties of material, thermodynamics, just to name a couple fields without really dealing with Biblical claims.
Regarding Pi = 3, I really think that literal acceptance of that is pretty rare, even amongst YEC types. |
Not really. If you're studying the properties of material then you're studying what matter is made up of - atoms. Therefore, you must have a solid understanding of atoms and if you do then you'll understand radioactive decay and, therefore, know that the earth cannot be a few thousand years old.
If you're studying the mechanics fields of physics then you should know that the earth isn't formed of water, that a giant tower up to the "heavens" is impossible, that Noah's Arks was impossible, etc.
And as far as thermodynamics... I just laughed. I've never met a Creationist who didn't believe that the second law of thermodynamics "disproves" evolution.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | It's not related to social science at all, actually. I'm not talking about ethology here... |
It's practically a social science - although I give it more respect. Jane Goodall studying chimpanzees in Tanzania doesn't go against the Bible - I suppose. Although, from my understanding, she had no real qualifications when she first started and was mostly observing their behaviors which then allowed her to write a Ph.D. thesis even though she did no undergraduate work. I'd put that closer to sociology except that you're using animals and not people.
| Quote: | But in similar vein, one can study, the chemistry fields I mentioned above, mechanics fields of physics, properties of material, thermodynamics, just to name a couple fields without really dealing with Biblical claims.
Regarding Pi = 3, I really think that literal acceptance of that is pretty rare, even amongst YEC types. |
Not really. If you're studying the properties of material then you're studying what matter is made up of - atoms. Therefore, you must have a solid understanding of atoms and if you do then you'll understand radioactive decay and, therefore, know that the earth cannot be a few thousand years old.
If you're studying the mechanics fields of physics then you should know that the earth isn't formed of water, that a giant tower up to the "heavens" is impossible, that Noah's Arks was impossible, etc.
| Quote: | | And as far as thermodynamics... I just laughed. I've never met a Creationist who didn't believe that the second law of thermodynamics "disproves" evolution. |
|
Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | It's not related to social science at all, actually. I'm not talking about ethology here... |
It's practically a social science - although I give it more respect. Jane Goodall studying chimpanzees in Tanzania doesn't go against the Bible - I suppose. Although, from my understanding, she had no real qualifications when she first started and was mostly observing their behaviors which then allowed her to write a Ph.D. thesis even though she did no undergraduate work. I'd put that closer to sociology except that you're using animals and not people. |
It's called ethology... and it's a pretty difficult discipline in many regards. This is the same branch of biology that Richard Dawkins specializes in. Part of the difficulty in conducting behaviour experiments is that they are exceptionally difficult to control for, and, frequently, controls modify behaviour.
As I mentioned, the examples I provided with the ground beetle above aren't even within the realm of ethology/behaviour science... they're more closely allied with ecology; the interactions of organisms with their environment (abiotic and biotic), and niche. I'm fine with you having little respect for the things I study, but, they are important. Without understanding the biology (read natural history, phenology, trophic roles, reproductive habits, etc.) of a species, we are exceptionally limited in our ability to assess its status, its importance within various systems, its potential interactions with other species, etc. etc.... it's the baseline information from which it can be assessed; without it, there is conjecture. There are also important real-world applications in terms of understanding invasion biology, dispersal, and sustainability of various systems, athropogenic or natural.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Quote: | But in similar vein, one can study, the chemistry fields I mentioned above, mechanics fields of physics, properties of material, thermodynamics, just to name a couple fields without really dealing with Biblical claims.
Regarding Pi = 3, I really think that literal acceptance of that is pretty rare, even amongst YEC types. |
Not really. If you're studying the properties of material then you're studying what matter is made up of - atoms. Therefore, you must have a solid understanding of atoms and if you do then you'll understand radioactive decay and, therefore, know that the earth cannot be a few thousand years old.
If you're studying the mechanics fields of physics then you should know that the earth isn't formed of water, that a giant tower up to the "heavens" is impossible, that Noah's Arks was impossible, etc.
And as far as thermodynamics... I just laughed. I've never met a Creationist who didn't believe that the second law of thermodynamics "disproves" evolution. |
You're still missing the point... mostly, I think, because you don't want to see it.
You're using the broader scope to invalidate the narrow scope... but if the narrow scope doesn't sweep along the problem occurring in the wider scope, that issue won't necessarily apply. You don't need to discuss radioactive decay of isotopes in order to assess the suitability of a new polymer for use in batteries... You don't need to address crationist hydroplate theory when describing the motion of particles near the speed of light... You haven't encountered a creationist who doesn't use the 2nd law to disprove evolution... you're not looking very hard (neither am I, but I've seen some recognize that it's a stupid argument). That's pretty much an argument from ignorance.
I really can't believe I'm defending creationists here 
In general, yes you have a point, but this little side chat is about specifics... and the specifics don't always fall in line with the general point.
| nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
Kind of...
In short, people who use this silly argument fail to take into account that life on Earth is not an isolated system... there are energy inputs and outputs. The Sun provides lots of energy into the Earth system, that energy is utilized to build short term organization, a reduction of entropy. I mean, yeah, long term, entropy is gonna win out, but in the short term, it can be overcome.
It's an argument based on a poor understanding of systems, of entropy, of thermodynamics in general...
| nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
The nontechnical answer is simple: "nature decays into chaos over time" is exactly what Creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics says. However, that is a lie because the second law of thermodynamics does NOT say that. That's about as easy as I can put it... People like Kent Hovind tell you that the law says that knowing that most people won't study physics or chemistry and so they'll never know that the law actually doesn't say that and so they'll never know that he's lying.
The law actually says that the entropy of an isolated system almost always increases unless it is in thermal equilibrium.
I know that is technical but there really isn't a way to explain it if you haven't studied chemistry. The only reason that I wrote the law down was to show you that it says nothing about evolution or nothing that can apply to evolution. First of all, Earth isn't an "isolated system." An isolated system is a system (Earth is a physical system) where matter (matter is just stuff... like rocks, food, etc.) or energy can enter or exit the system. Stuff from space falls down all the time and more importantly, we get energy from the sun. So therefore, Earth is NOT an isolated system and so the second law doesn't even apply to our planet and so you obviously cannot use it for evolution. And even if you tried to consider evolution to be a physical system (which it isn't - it's a process) then it still isn't isolated because plants receive energy from outside (the sun) and then animals eat those plants...
There... I tried my best. I couldn't explain what the second law of thermodynamics actually means because that would get technical. So instead, I showed you why it says nothing about evolution and why it doesn't apply.
| Ankhanu wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
Kind of...
In short, people who use this silly argument fail to take into account that life on Earth is not an isolated system... there are energy inputs and outputs. The Sun provides lots of energy into the Earth system, that energy is utilized to build short term organization, a reduction of entropy. I mean, yeah, long term, entropy is gonna win out, but in the short term, it can be overcome.
It's an argument based on a poor understanding of systems, of entropy, of thermodynamics in general... |
| Quote: | | I mean, yeah, long term, entropy is gonna win out, |
But isn't the argument about long term?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
The nontechnical answer is simple: "nature decays into chaos over time" is exactly what Creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics says. However, that is a lie because the second law of thermodynamics does NOT say that. That's about as easy as I can put it... People like Kent Hovind tell you that the law says that knowing that most people won't study physics or chemistry and so they'll never know that the law actually doesn't say that and so they'll never know that he's lying.
The law actually says that the entropy of an isolated system almost always increases unless it is in thermal equilibrium.
I know that is technical but there really isn't a way to explain it if you haven't studied chemistry. The only reason that I wrote the law down was to show you that it says nothing about evolution or nothing that can apply to evolution. First of all, Earth isn't an "isolated system." An isolated system is a system (Earth is a physical system) where matter (matter is just stuff... like rocks, food, etc.) or energy can enter or exit the system. Stuff from space falls down all the time and more importantly, we get energy from the sun. So therefore, Earth is NOT an isolated system and so the second law doesn't even apply to our planet and so you obviously cannot use it for evolution. And even if you tried to consider evolution to be a physical system (which it isn't - it's a process) then it still isn't isolated because plants receive energy from outside (the sun) and then animals eat those plants...
There... I tried my best. I couldn't explain what the second law of thermodynamics actually means because that would get technical. So instead, I showed you why it says nothing about evolution and why it doesn't apply. |
That makes sense. I have always looked at civilization say as an improvement over nature, buildings, cities etc, although that may not be the case.
Then in instances like the Inca civilization, nature returned the civilization to jungle. But I suppose that can be seen as an improvement for nature, healing the blight of mans buildings on nature.
And I think that you're still missing my point. I understand where you're coming from - I just think that it's wrong. A Christian can be a perfectly good scientist if they divorce the two topics. The Bible says a lot about the fundamentals of how the world works and is almost always wrong. Therefore, all a Christian has to do is claim that they are metaphorical or that they aren't really talking about science somehow. Fine. That's cool. Now... If the Bible made all sorts of incorrect scientific claims such as "Ester is NOT a functional group (ester is the only one that I can remember off the top of my head... It's been many years since I've studied that stuff)" then the physicist studying mechanics could do just fine as a Creationist and a scientist.
However, that isn't the case. The Bible is making all sorts of scientific claims that are wrong on a fundamental level in essentially every single branch of science! There is no way that you can really be a scientist in even the most specific field if you believe that the fundamentals of the broader field that the specific field is a subset of is wrong. You cannot be any type of physicist if you believe that it is possible to build a giant tower all the way up to Heaven (actually, that might be a bad example because it's been a while since I've read it but I don't think they finished) or that it is possible for Noah's Ark to float.
Like I said, the Bible is crapping on entire scientific principles and so if you accept the Bible like a Creationist (I'll ignore the fact that it says that Pi=3 because you told me that people cherry-pick that out and there's still plenty of other bad stuff) then you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of every branch of science. You cannot be ANY type of chemist if you don't understand atoms. You must understand basic atomic theory because that is what chemistry is and EVERY single part of chemistry uses atomic theory. Creationists (except for the rare OEC but they're hardly a Creationist because when I refer to Creationism, I am referring to the usual example of someone who literally believes in the Bible) don't accept basic atomic theory. So you cannot be any type of chemist.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | And I think that you're still missing my point. I understand where you're coming from - I just think that it's wrong. A Christian can be a perfectly good scientist if they divorce the two topics. The Bible says a lot about the fundamentals of how the world works and is almost always wrong. Therefore, all a Christian has to do is claim that they are metaphorical or that they aren't really talking about science somehow. Fine. That's cool. Now... If the Bible made all sorts of incorrect scientific claims such as "Ester is NOT a functional group (ester is the only one that I can remember off the top of my head... It's been many years since I've studied that stuff)" then the physicist studying mechanics could do just fine as a Creationist and a scientist.
However, that isn't the case. The Bible is making all sorts of scientific claims that are wrong on a fundamental level in essentially every single branch of science! There is no way that you can really be a scientist in even the most specific field if you believe that the fundamentals of the broader field that the specific field is a subset of is wrong. You cannot be any type of physicist if you believe that it is possible to build a giant tower all the way up to Heaven (actually, that might be a bad example because it's been a while since I've read it but I don't think they finished) or that it is possible for Noah's Ark to float.
Like I said, the Bible is crapping on entire scientific principles and so if you accept the Bible like a Creationist (I'll ignore the fact that it says that Pi=3 because you told me that people cherry-pick that out and there's still plenty of other bad stuff) then you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of every branch of science. You cannot be ANY type of chemist if you don't understand atoms. You must understand basic atomic theory because that is what chemistry is and EVERY single part of chemistry uses atomic theory. Creationists (except for the rare OEC but they're hardly a Creationist because when I refer to Creationism, I am referring to the usual example of someone who literally believes in the Bible) don't accept basic atomic theory. So you cannot be any type of chemist. |
| Quote: | | I'll ignore the fact that it says that Pi=3 |
I thought that pi=3 thing was explained before. I have re-posted below.
I have never come across this objection before so I had a look. I think one is being extremely picky to use it as an objection to the Bible.
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"
The verse above is the one in question and it is talking about cubits and hand breadths for a start, hardly exact mathematical formula.
The Phoenicians were very skilled craftsmen then and still are today.
"If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The inner radius and the inner circumference.
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
The complete calculation is at http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
^^Nick: Where does it say what the wall thickness was? You can't just assume that it was the thickness that you want. If you could do that then you could make it work for anything in the world that you want. Furthermore, why are you choosing OUTER rim for one measurement and INNER rim for another? I know why, it's so that you (or whoever wrote this) can do the maths and make whatever calculation you want work for you.
What if it had said that it measured 100 units across and 500 units circumference yet was perfectly circular?
Well, I'll just say the 100 units measured from inner to inner rim and that the 500 units measured around the outer rim. Now... All I have to say is that the mold was 59.2 units thick... Now, the true diameter will be 159.2 units because 500/159.2 is about 3.14... See, isn't it nice how I can make ANY measurement work the way I want to with your assumption?
And I'm sorry that I didn't respond before; I didn't think that you'd care for a response on that point because all I essentially said was, "Wrong, you cannot interpret that way" and then you'll say, "I disagree; I can" and we really don't get anywhere. You have your opinion and I have mine and I didn't see a debate meaningful there...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ^^Nick: Where does it say what the wall thickness was? You can't just assume that it was the thickness that you want. If you could do that then you could make it work for anything in the world that you want. Furthermore, why are you choosing OUTER rim for one measurement and INNER rim for another? I know why, it's so that you (or whoever wrote this) can do the maths and make whatever calculation you want work for you.
What if it had said that it measured 100 units across and 500 units circumference yet was perfectly circular?
Well, I'll just say the 100 units measured from inner to inner rim and that the 500 units measured around the outer rim. Now... All I have to say is that the mold was 59.2 units thick... Now, the true diameter will be 159.2 units because 500/159.2 is about 3.14... See, isn't it nice how I can make ANY measurement work the way I want to with your assumption?
And I'm sorry that I didn't respond before; I didn't think that you'd care for a response on that point because all I essentially said was, "Wrong, you cannot interpret that way" and then you'll say, "I disagree; I can" and we really don't get anywhere. You have your opinion and I have mine and I didn't see a debate meaningful there... |
I have included a short quote from the article from the link above to see if it makes sense of it.
"Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they did occasionally — gasp! — cooperate with Jews?"
Such an old and delightful thread.
Science and religion don't really match. Why? Simply because religion is based on faith and interpretation whereas science is based on evidence and objectivity. I was shocked that people still chose to believe in creation instead of evolution after what, 100+ years after Darwin's death?
There's a reason why we're making better airplanes, better ships, better computers, better medicine - it's because we're using the scientific method for that. If we just hoped and prayed for these things - none would come. Just look at the Dark Ages in Europe, a time of almost no invention or innovation when compared to Ancient Greece, for example. I don't think it's an accident that it was also the time of great religious power in that region.
I like the saying "Science makes planes fly. Religion makes people fly into buildings", which very nicely points out the dangers of irrational blind belief.
And for the record, I'm not surprised some people are openly hostile to creationists. If I have to hear about that christian student and atheist professor... or about Pascal's Wager one more time. Sometimes it seems that these people are somehow trained to repeat these extremely cheesy and ignorant "stories". To make rational people mad? To seem smart? I don't know, but gets really old, really fast.
Basically, Matrix, you see every creationist scientist as a creation scientist, I don't. Not every creationist working within science is in it politically... those that are are definite problems, those that aren't can be just like any other scientist in their field (as long as it's not directly working on a subject in which there is conflict). Cognitive dissonance sure does apply, but, as you recognize with non-creationists, they do compartmentalize.
| c'tair wrote: | Such an old and delightful thread.
Science and religion don't really match. Why? Simply because religion is based on faith and interpretation whereas science is based on evidence and objectivity. I was shocked that people still chose to believe in creation instead of evolution after what, 100+ years after Darwin's death?
There's a reason why we're making better airplanes, better ships, better computers, better medicine - it's because we're using the scientific method for that. If we just hoped and prayed for these things - none would come. Just look at the Dark Ages in Europe, a time of almost no invention or innovation when compared to Ancient Greece, for example. I don't think it's an accident that it was also the time of great religious power in that region.
I like the saying "Science makes planes fly. Religion makes people fly into buildings", which very nicely points out the dangers of irrational blind belief.
And for the record, I'm not surprised some people are openly hostile to creationists. If I have to hear about that christian student and atheist professor... or about Pascal's Wager one more time. Sometimes it seems that these people are somehow trained to repeat these extremely cheesy and ignorant "stories". To make rational people mad? To seem smart? I don't know, but gets really old, really fast. |
| Quote: | | If I have to hear about that christian student and atheist professor... or about Pascal's Wager one more time. |
Yes, they do seem to do more damage to their cause and are oblivious to that. Maybe the newer converts who are all bubbly and excited and just want to tell the world. Some do just go overboard.
And so what is the difference between a Creationist scientist and a Creation scientist in your opinion? A Creationist scientist would be a scientist who believes in the literal account of Genesis (including the flood in all that stuff) whereas as Creation scientist tries to use science to prove Creation... Well, there is a slight difference although not much. A Creationist scientist doesn't have to try to prove Creationism but that is irrelevant! I'll say my point again, if you accept Creationism then you accept things that go against the fundamentals of every scientific field - as I have shown - and if you don't know the fundamentals of a scientific field then you cannot understand any subset of that field. You cannot study anything in chemistry without knowledge of atomic theory and Creationism doesn't accept basic atomic theory. Period. That is one example. You can be a Christian and a scientist; however, you cannot accept Creationism.
There is a difference between knowing a theory and accepting it. You assume that anyone who is creationist simply doesn't understand the scientific fundamentals, while frequently true, it's not always the case. There are creationist scientists who understand evolution theory, for example, FAR better than you do, but do not accept it... they see a couple points to quibble over and give them undue weight in order to ease their cognitive dissonance and rationalize their belief over their knowledge.
According to you, this biologist, if they study, perhaps biomechanics, therefore cannot do good work in their field, analyzing the stresses exerted on a femur when landing a long jump... if they study pharmaceuticals, they can't produce a valid assay/trial for a drug... whether that biologist accepts evolution is immaterial to the work they're doing, unless they wish to contextualize the studies in a MUCH broader scope than the trials rightly allow. It doesn't matter how the femur evolved, whether we were specially created or evolved, whether life was created or was abiogenic... the current system is what matters. Likewise for the drug design/testing... believe it or not, integration of evolution in medicine is a pretty new thing, and is generally not done in most study types.
This biologist, if working in taxonomy, for example, however, would be almost useless and likely dishonest.
Rejection isn't always based on ignorance (of a theory)...
Hmm, I think the problem is that 'face' is assuming rationalism where it doesn't necessarily exist. As Ankhanu points out, some creationists who are scientists are well aware of the conflict that this generates. 'Face' is correct to say that the two positions (insofar as 'scientist' can be regarded as a position) are mutually contradictory. One cannot, on the one hand, determine to decide issues of fact based on evidence and the scientific method whilst, on the other hand, holding to a literal account of creation as set-out in Genesis. The two are mutually incompatible.
Where I believe Ankhanu is correct is in pointing out that the person in this conflicted situation does not necessarily disqualify themself from doing valid science. One might point-out that science requires honesty - a scientist MUST report and record observations honestly regardless of their opinions, convictions, beliefs etc. One might also consider that anyone with a proper grounding in science who believed in a biblical literalist creation MUST be dishonest and, therefore, unable to do science in a manner which could be trusted by colleagues. Whilst I would agree that this is certainly the case with many people in that position (and one can simply peruse AiG or similar sites for ample evidence of this), it isn't necessarily the case.
Humans seem to have an ability to live with a pretty remarkable degree of cognitive dissonance - ie holding two or more contradictory positions at the same time. We seem able to do this without any obvious impact on our other cognitive abilities. Exactly how we manage this is still not totally clear but the fact remains that we do. Personally I think that it must have some negative impact on our cognition - even if that impact is not obvious or even measurable - but I also have to accept that people can, and do, apparently manage to manage this conflict in a way which allows them to do honest science.
Examples?
Michael Behe has done work of genuine scientific merit in biology. There is some dispute about just how much of a 'creationist' Behe actually is, but he has been content to be associated with creationists organisations which take the literalistic position on creation.
I would, however, point out that although I am saying that being a creationist is not a de-facto bar on being able to do science, experience and example mean that I personally would be inclined to treat any scientific claim by a creationist with more scepticism than normal, and regard any scientific claim directly pertaining to the issue of 'creation' to be highly dubious and to require very careful examination before acceptance.
The simple truth is that creationists have a long and sordid history of dishonesty and misrepresentation and, at best, appalling ignorance. Whilst one should always, of course, be wary of unwarranted generalisations, my own experience leads me to believe that this generalisation is not unwarranted when applied to creationists in any kind of public sphere or forum.
Right on the nose, Bikerman, throughout the entire post.
That still isn't my point. I recognize that almost every Creationist is dishonest and so they will lie about their results which invalidates any scientific credibility that they have. However, even if they honestly report any results I still doubt their ability to be a scientist. This isn't about holding two contradicting views - it's about not understanding the core of any scientific discipline.
For instance, would you cross a bridge that was designed by an engineer who believes in Noah's Ark and, therefore, believes that the boat would float? How do you expect them to understand anything in engineering if they don't understand the basic mechanics of mechanical engineering?
If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old then you obviously don't understand aging methods which means that you don't understand radioactive decay which means that you don't understand how atoms work and so you don't understand atomic theory. Can you do absolutely anything in chemistry - the branch of science that studies atomic theory?
If you believe that two of each type of animals were able to spread the globe, repopulate without genetic defects, and then "micro"evolve to create every subspecies - all within no time at all (by evolution standards... I mean a couple thousand years?) - then you don't understand genetics, basic evolution, DNA, etc. and so then do you have the ability to understand any part of biology? Every thing that I have ever seen in biology requires knowledge of those concepts - knowledge that you obviously cannot have if you don't believe it.
Now, let's say that you can find some branch of chemistry, engineering, biology, etc. that doesn't use the actual fundamentals of that branch of science, you still have another problem. How did you get to graduate school and pass the classes without the knowledge of the actual subject?
This just comes down to knowing basic fundamentals and not being able to do something without knowing the fundamentals. Could you build a modern car without understanding how an internal combustion engine works? If I don't believe that nails or screws hold pieces of wood together then would I ever be able to build a desk? I simply don't understand how you can do any part of chemistry without understanding how atoms work or how you can do any part of mechanical engineer without understanding why the Ark would not have floated because you do not know the core of the field and the fundamental principle(s) of the field.
I see your point, but I'm not sure you are seeing mine.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of holding contradictory beliefs/views and, unlike computers, humans are apparently able to manage this trick.
So, to take your example, the engineer who believes in Noah's Ark will be perfectly well aware (or should be) that a 450ft wooden boat is not viable, but by a miracle of cognitive dissonance, will be able to both know that AND believe in the biblical story. Now, don't ask me how this trick is accomplished - I have an hypothesis which involves a very 'localised' form of self-deception, but I'm not an expert in psychology - all I know is that humans seem to be able to manage this logically contradictory situation somehow, without their heads exploding. Speaking as someone who (at least would like to believe that he) tries to decide on the evidence, I'm probably not the best person to ask about the ins and outs of cognitive dissonance. I also have my own doubts about just how effectively we CAN manage it - I have a suspicion that it must introduce a weakness into one's cognitive abilities, a bit like a stress-fracture which can remain undetected but will, under certain conditions, lead to a catastrophic failure......
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | That still isn't my point. I recognize that almost every Creationist is dishonest and so they will lie about their results which invalidates any scientific credibility that they have. However, even if they honestly report any results I still doubt their ability to be a scientist. This isn't about holding two contradicting views - it's about not understanding the core of any scientific discipline. |
Again:
Understanding =/= acceptance
The two terms are different.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | For instance, would you cross a bridge that was designed by an engineer who believes in Noah's Ark and, therefore, believes that the boat would float? How do you expect them to understand anything in engineering if they don't understand the basic mechanics of mechanical engineering? |
I guarantee that many, MANY people do cross bridges fitting this description. Fewer, perhaps, in North America, but still many around the world, particularly throughout Europe.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old then you obviously don't understand aging methods which means that you don't understand radioactive decay which means that you don't understand how atoms work and so you don't understand atomic theory. Can you do absolutely anything in chemistry - the branch of science that studies atomic theory? |
Physics largely deals with atomic theory, actually... but yes, there is a LOT of chemistry you can do without reference to it. I've given broad examples.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | If you believe that two of each type of animals were able to spread the globe, repopulate without genetic defects, and then "micro"evolve to create every subspecies - all within no time at all (by evolution standards... I mean a couple thousand years?) - then you don't understand genetics, basic evolution, DNA, etc. and so then do you have the ability to understand any part of biology? Every thing that I have ever seen in biology requires knowledge of those concepts - knowledge that you obviously cannot have if you don't believe it. |
Again, you're incorrect. I've given examples.
Evolution really only comes into play if you want to investigate how something developed, or want to provide a context for current systems based on history... straight study of current conditions need not always make reference to it. Similarly, genetics isn't generally a problem for creationists, until you start getting into change over time, evolutionary history, etc. There is a lot you can study without hitting that context.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Now, let's say that you can find some branch of chemistry, engineering, biology, etc. that doesn't use the actual fundamentals of that branch of science, you still have another problem. How did you get to graduate school and pass the classes without the knowledge of the actual subject? |
There are several examples of such people... Knowing how to answer a question is not the same as believing the answer to be valid.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | This just comes down to knowing basic fundamentals and not being able to do something without knowing the fundamentals. Could you build a modern car without understanding how an internal combustion engine works? If I don't believe that nails or screws hold pieces of wood together then would I ever be able to build a desk? I simply don't understand how you can do any part of chemistry without understanding how atoms work or how you can do any part of mechanical engineer without understanding why the Ark would not have floated because you do not know the core of the field and the fundamental principle(s) of the field. |
Your argument is based on your own ignorance of how people work with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization of ideas.
Look at Dr. Kurt Wise; he's a classic example. According to your hypothesis, he doesn't understand the theories involved in the study of geology, despite his Harvard awarded Ph.D.... Thing is, he DOES understand the field, he just rejects it. His faith in the Bible holds higher priority in his mind than the knowledge he has gained through years of scientific study; as such, it is the science that is wrong in his mind.
This isn't rational, by any stretch... but to suggest that people like this don't know the science is absurd.
I understand what you're trying to say, Matrix... it's just factually inconsistent with the reality of how people work.
Question is - Can a creationist do good science?
The answer is - Yes.
The answer with caveat is - Yes, but it should be treated with an extra critical evaluation due to potential for bias conflicts (and thereby sloppy interpretation or outright dishonesty). If the creationist is addressing questions that directly have bearing on biblical questions, the work should be checked particularly thoroughly.
I have a question, Matrix - If a scientist is a creationist, but doesn't publicize that fact (isn't political in their belief, it's personal), and isn't working on questions that address issues within the Bible... how would other scientists, or the public, know? Should we just distrust the science of all who aren't publicly secular?
Thing is, this is the sort of stuff peer-review is designed to weed out. Papers aren't published (in reputable journals) without being critically examined, and biases recognized... and when they are published, you'd better believe the greater community is doing the same. It's actually kinda scary how hateful and catty scientists can be when they detect something is improper in a published paper...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | That still isn't my point. I recognize that almost every Creationist is dishonest and so they will lie about their results which invalidates any scientific credibility that they have. However, even if they honestly report any results I still doubt their ability to be a scientist. This isn't about holding two contradicting views - it's about not understanding the core of any scientific discipline.
For instance, would you cross a bridge that was designed by an engineer who believes in Noah's Ark and, therefore, believes that the boat would float? How do you expect them to understand anything in engineering if they don't understand the basic mechanics of mechanical engineering?
If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old then you obviously don't understand aging methods which means that you don't understand radioactive decay which means that you don't understand how atoms work and so you don't understand atomic theory. Can you do absolutely anything in chemistry - the branch of science that studies atomic theory?
If you believe that two of each type of animals were able to spread the globe, repopulate without genetic defects, and then "micro"evolve to create every subspecies - all within no time at all (by evolution standards... I mean a couple thousand years?) - then you don't understand genetics, basic evolution, DNA, etc. and so then do you have the ability to understand any part of biology? Every thing that I have ever seen in biology requires knowledge of those concepts - knowledge that you obviously cannot have if you don't believe it.
Now, let's say that you can find some branch of chemistry, engineering, biology, etc. that doesn't use the actual fundamentals of that branch of science, you still have another problem. How did you get to graduate school and pass the classes without the knowledge of the actual subject?
This just comes down to knowing basic fundamentals and not being able to do something without knowing the fundamentals. Could you build a modern car without understanding how an internal combustion engine works? If I don't believe that nails or screws hold pieces of wood together then would I ever be able to build a desk? I simply don't understand how you can do any part of chemistry without understanding how atoms work or how you can do any part of mechanical engineer without understanding why the Ark would not have floated because you do not know the core of the field and the fundamental principle(s) of the field. |
| Quote: | Bikerman
The simple truth is that creationists have a long and sordid history of dishonesty and misrepresentation and, at best, appalling ignorance. |
| Quote: | | I recognize that almost every Creationist is dishonest and so they will lie about their results |
Are you guys saying that creationists are dishonest people or that you see their science as dishonest.
It is not quite the same thing.
Ya know, I'm very tempted to say creationists in general... but the discussion is creationists who are scientists. I don't think creationists are all dishonest, some are just ignorant; being wrong isn't the same as being dishonest.
Yes, pretty much my view as well. Many are dishonest, the rest are ignorant - either wilfully or not. Then there is a subgroup - the cognitive dissonance group - who are, I think, technically dishonest....
| nickfyoung wrote: | I have just picked a scientist at random from a list who claim to be creationists.
This guy is a geologist. Are his credentials up to scratch, I wouldn't know.
He has one publication, "Mt St Helens 'dating" which is a pretty comprehensive work with lots of technical mathematical equations which are way beyond me., http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v10/n3/argon
His conclusion is below.
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if he is talking rubbish or not. If he is delusional then his work in these areas would be delusional too would it not. |
He is talking rubbish, and he is delusional in his work.
First of all, you should be aware that that is not a real scientific paper. It's a fraud, published in a creationist magazine, not a real peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, it wouldn't get published in a real scientific journal. It's garbage.
Full disclosure: i am not a geologist. However, i am well-trained in radioactivity; i am registered a nuclear reactor worker in Ontario. The thing about this article is: it's not about geology at all, it's about radiometric dating - specifically, potassium-argon dating.
Here's what he did, in plain English. Mr. Austin went to Mount St. Helens in Washington, which violently erupted in 1980, killing almost 60 people. Between 1980 and 1986, there was continued activity - small lava flows - and a new lava dome was formed. What Mr. Austin did was take a chunk of this newly formed lava dome, and perform K-Ar radiometric dating on it. He discovered - to his great shock! - that the rock dated 0.35 ± 0.05 million years. "Preposterous!" he says; he knows the rock is only 10 years old (the paper is from 1996)! Thus, he concludes there is a "fundamental question to be asked" about the accuracy of K-Ar dating.
Now, to put it in the simplest and most honest terms available, Mr. Austin is a ****** idiot. i am, of course, using the scientific definition of "****** idiot", which is: if your entire theory hinges on a fact that can be proven wrong with a 30 second Google search or a quick check of Wikipedia... you're a ****** idiot.
Observe. Check out that potassium-argon dating wiki page again. Go down to the section on "Applications". What do the first two sentences in that section say? Here, i'll quote them for you:
Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.
In fact, it turns out that Mr. Austin sent his samples to a company called Geochron Laboratories in Massachusetts. Geochron, being a legitimate laboratory, had a warning regarding submissions for K-Ar testing: "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." (M.Y. = million years) Why not? Because with samples that are too young, ⁴⁰K atoms in the test equipment that contaminate the sample become very significant. Exponentially significant, in fact, which means that a sample as young as 1986 would have exorbitant contamination error - even a tiny bit of ⁴⁰K contaminant would have a huge effect on the results. Mr. Austin, being the honest Christian that he is, ignored Geochron's warnings, falsely reported the potential source of error in the "paper" as "very remote" and didn't even bother to mention that he was told by the freaking laboratory that the results would be meaningless.
Nor does Mr. Austin bother to consider the fact that NO radiometric dating is EVER done in isolation. Real scientists don't just pick up a rock, run a random radiometric test on it, then declare an age. Real scientists use a massive collection of information - including multiple radiometric tests, as well information about the strata the sample was taken from and so on - to determine the age of a rock. Some radiometric tests give good results for young samples, some gives good results for old samples. By doing a battery of tests and looking at all of the results you can clearly see patterns that indicate the real age of the rock. You can't see patterns, however, from a single data point. Which is why real scientists don't work that way. Real scientists don't look at one fishy result and then call an entire field of study into question.
Basically:
Mr. Austin picked up a rock, and subjected it to a test he knew wouldn't produce good results, then acted shocked when he got bad results back. Then he said that since he got bad results in his one test, that must mean the whole testing methodology is suspect.
So, to summarize:
- Not a real scientific paper. Just a magazine article from a creationist magazine carefully disguised to look like a scientific paper. (The creationist magazine, incidentally, is also carefully disguised to look like a scientific journal. As you can see in the little image, the words "Technical Journal" are huge. "Technical Journal"... sounds impressive, right? The real name of the magazine, though, is Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Ah, now it's a little less impressive. Turns out, it's not really hard to make your own magazine and publish your own "research". If you're impressed by a creationist organization publishing a creationist magazine with a "research" article that's pro-creationist, then wait till you read "A statistical analysis of Indi's awesomeness" in the Indi is Awesome Technical Report.)
- Not peer reviewed. The author can say whatever crap he wants, and with no peer review, there's no filter.
- The experiment was incompetently performed. The author used a test that he knew wouldn't work - the laboratory told him so - and treated the results as legitimate.
- Dishonest impersonation of the scientific method. The author is pretending to be open-minded, but real scientists don't test to confirm their beliefs (doing that just leads to what happened here: cherry-picking bad data to support your conclusion), they test to challenge them.
- Dishonest methodology. If the author was really serious about testing the validity of radiometric dating, he would have done proper radiometric dating. If you want to prove a certain brand of car has poor mileage, you don't do the test on a car you know has a hole in the gas tank, precisely because you know it will give you the result you want even if it's not the truth.
- Dishonest, and absurd, generalization from one bad result - that was expected! - to a criticism of an entire testing methodology.
Conclusion:
My sister's dog can do better science than this. And he's a really stupid dog.
| nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
Entropy is not chaos. Chaos is something entirely different.
The law is that for every closed system - every system with no inputs and outputs, and the universe itself is obviously a closed system (you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave) - total entropy will never decrease, and will often increase.
One way to think of entropy is to think of order and disorder, yes... but order and disorder in the information technology sense. Not in the common sense. You can keep using those words, but they don't mean what they think you mean.
What entropy really is is quite simple: it's the amount of USEABLE energy available. The amount of energy available never changes - that's the conservation law - but just because you have a ton of energy, that doesn't mean you can use any of it.
Imagine you have a huge room of air, all at a uniform pressure. There is a metric ****** of energy in that room, but if all the air is at a uniform pressure... it's all good for nothing. It's just sitting there. You can try to put a windmill in there, but it's just going to sit there, too. This is maximum entropy state: tons of energy, but none you can use, because it's all dispersed evenly around you.
Now imagine the same room, with the same amount of air, but - by some magic - all the air is in one half of the room, and the other half of the room is pretty much a vacuum. It's the same amount of air, the same total energy, but with the energy concentrated in one area. Now you can do a lot. You can put a windmill between the two sides, and when that air rushes across to fill the vacuum, it will turn the windmill... you can use the energy to actually do work.
Right now, in the universe, energy is highly clumped into stars and other astronomical stuff, so the total entropy of the universe is very low. But, over time, the energy from the stars will disperse - they'll die out and go cold, and their energy will be spread pretty much evenly over a huge area - and, eventually, all of the universe's energy will be spread evenly, everywhere, which means although the universe is full of energy, it's all useless. Nothing can happen any more. That's maximum entropy, and the effective end of the universe: the "heat death" of the universe, the Big Chill. (Of course, we don't know for sure if this is the ultimate fate of the universe yet, because we still don't know what dark energy is. But, from what we know now, that's the prediction.)
And how does all that relate to evolution? It doesn't.
What's going on there is creationists are conflating different terminology to create one, big confused mess. They confuse entropy (physics) with entropy (information theory). The two ideas are closely related, mathematically, but not the same.
Here's what the creationists are trying to do: They are treating the genome as an information system, and saying that because the genome has so much data (specifically, the information to create individual humans), it has low (information) entropy. And, in fact, the process of evolution decreases the (information) entropy in genomes over time - the more information a genome picks up by evolving, the lower its (information) entropy. But (thermodynamic) entropy must always increase, therefore, evolution violates the law of thermodynamics. Seems legit, doesn't it? The trick is obvious if you highlight.
So, to summarize:
- (Thermodynamic) entropy is just a measure how much USEFUL energy there is in a system. The total energy does not change, but in order to do work, you need variations in energy - clumping, basically - so you can take advantage of the flow of energy from high energy areas to low energy areas to do work.
- High entropy means all the energy is evenly distributed, and you can't take advantage of any of it do work. That means nothing happens. At all.
- Low entropy means that the energy is highly clumped, and you can take advantage of the energy gradients to do work. It's rather like the idea of a dam or a hydroelectric station at a waterfall. When you have some water at high energy (higher up in a gravity well), it's going to try and flow down to a lower energy state, and you can stick a dam/generator in its path to syphon off some of that energy. If all you have is a huge, flat ocean with no currents, you still have a crapload of water, but you use any of it; a dam or generator is useless.
- (Informational) entropy is a measure of unexpectedness in data. The lowest entropy is a perfectly predictable sequence, like "11111111..." or "01010101...", because there's no surprise - you know exactly what's coming next. You can't store any information in a sequence without any entropy. The more information that you store in less space, the greater the entropy. So if the genome gets more information - by natural selection - without growing, its entropy increases. (If the genome gets larger, it may temporarily decrease, depending on whether new information is stored in the expansion.)
- Time increases thermodynamic entropy (this is called the arrow of time). It has nothing to do with informational entropy. (Informational entropy does NOT necessarily always have to increase with time.)
- Evolution (usually) decreases informational entropy in the genome. It has nothing to do with thermodynamic entropy.
| nickfyoung wrote: | I have included a short quote from the article from the link above to see if it makes sense of it.
"Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they did occasionally — gasp! — cooperate with Jews?" |
i have no trouble believing that the Phoenicians knew their stuff. i do have trouble believing that an almighty, omniscient being would use such craptastic math.
And no, by the way, i've heard that apologist excuse before about how the 30 cubits is the inner diameter. It's not. It's pretty clear even in the English translation, but in the original Hebrew, it's crystal clear. The "round about" there is from "סָבִיב", which is translated in other places as "on every side" (Num 16:27). In other places it is used, it talks about building walls "about" cities (2Ch 14:7), borders being "round about" nations (Gen 23:17), fields "round about" cities (Gen 41:48) and having enemies "on every side" (Jdg 8:34). Hell, in the very next ****** verse (1Ki 7:24) it says that there were sculptures "round about" the bowl, under the brim. i assure you, the sculptures weren't on the inside of the bowl.
In other words, despite what your source wishes the Bible said, it actually describes a bowl with outer dimensions 10 cubits diameter and 30 cubits circumference. That's what it says, not what believers want it to say.
Incidentally, the other parts of the apologist's "reasoning" are bizarrely flawed. Clearly this guy is no engineer. First they say: "The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness)...". Wait, what? So if i told you that a coffee cup had a diameter of 8.5 cm and a circumference of 26.7 cm... that means the ball's walls have zero thickness... and in effect, don't really exist? Wow. Then they say: "Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"?". Yeeeah, it's so adorable when clueless people try to sound like engineers. So you need 4 inches of brass to support a 20' diameter, 10' deep bowl structure? Geez, someone must think brass has the strength of papier-mâché. Either that or they sure as hell don't build them like they used to. (i would also assume the Phoenician craftsman were a little smarter than that apologist, and knew that while thickness varies linearly, weight varies cubically, meaning that the thicker you make the walls, the quicker it will collapse under its own weight.) You wanna know what thickness of brass you'd really need to support a 20' diameter, 10' deep bowl? A couple millimetres. Seriously, 10 mm - less than half an inch - and that sucker will not only be able to support itself, it'll be bulletproof. Seriously. Bulletproof glass is usually thinner than 2 inches. It's like that person has no concept whatsoever of the strength of brass, which is as strong as structural steel.
(But, for the record, it is quite possible that what is called "brass" in the Bible wasn't actually brass, but rather bronze. Not that that makes much difference here; bronze is also a hell of a lot stronger than papier-mâché.)
| Indi wrote: | | nickfyoung wrote: | I have just picked a scientist at random from a list who claim to be creationists.
This guy is a geologist. Are his credentials up to scratch, I wouldn't know.
He has one publication, "Mt St Helens 'dating" which is a pretty comprehensive work with lots of technical mathematical equations which are way beyond me., http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v10/n3/argon
His conclusion is below.
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if he is talking rubbish or not. If he is delusional then his work in these areas would be delusional too would it not. |
He is talking rubbish, and he is delusional in his work.
First of all, you should be aware that that is not a real scientific paper. It's a fraud, published in a creationist magazine, not a real peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, it wouldn't get published in a real scientific journal. It's garbage.
Full disclosure: i am not a geologist. However, i am well-trained in radioactivity; i am registered a nuclear reactor worker in Ontario. The thing about this article is: it's not about geology at all, it's about radiometric dating - specifically, potassium-argon dating.
Here's what he did, in plain English. Mr. Austin went to Mount St. Helens in Washington, which violently erupted in 1980, killing almost 60 people. Between 1980 and 1986, there was continued activity - small lava flows - and a new lava dome was formed. What Mr. Austin did was take a chunk of this newly formed lava dome, and perform K-Ar radiometric dating on it. He discovered - to his great shock! - that the rock dated 0.35 ± 0.05 million years. "Preposterous!" he says; he knows the rock is only 10 years old (the paper is from 1996)! Thus, he concludes there is a "fundamental question to be asked" about the accuracy of K-Ar dating.
Now, to put it in the simplest and most honest terms available, Mr. Austin is a ****** idiot. i am, of course, using the scientific definition of "****** idiot", which is: if your entire theory hinges on a fact that can be proven wrong with a 30 second Google search or a quick check of Wikipedia... you're a ****** idiot.
Observe. Check out that potassium-argon dating wiki page again. Go down to the section on "Applications". What do the first two sentences in that section say? Here, i'll quote them for you:
Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.
In fact, it turns out that Mr. Austin sent his samples to a company called Geochron Laboratories in Massachusetts. Geochron, being a legitimate laboratory, had a warning regarding submissions for K-Ar testing: "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." (M.Y. = million years) Why not? Because with samples that are too young, ⁴⁰K atoms in the test equipment that contaminate the sample become very significant. Exponentially significant, in fact, which means that a sample as young as 1986 would have exorbitant contamination error - even a tiny bit of ⁴⁰K contaminant would have a huge effect on the results. Mr. Austin, being the honest Christian that he is, ignored Geochron's warnings, falsely reported the potential source of error in the "paper" as "very remote" and didn't even bother to mention that he was told by the freaking laboratory that the results would be meaningless.
Nor does Mr. Austin bother to consider the fact that NO radiometric dating is EVER done in isolation. Real scientists don't just pick up a rock, run a random radiometric test on it, then declare an age. Real scientists use a massive collection of information - including multiple radiometric tests, as well information about the strata the sample was taken from and so on - to determine the age of a rock. Some radiometric tests give good results for young samples, some gives good results for old samples. By doing a battery of tests and looking at all of the results you can clearly see patterns that indicate the real age of the rock. You can't see patterns, however, from a single data point. Which is why real scientists don't work that way. Real scientists don't look at one fishy result and then call an entire field of study into question.
Basically:
Mr. Austin picked up a rock, and subjected it to a test he knew wouldn't produce good results, then acted shocked when he got bad results back. Then he said that since he got bad results in his one test, that must mean the whole testing methodology is suspect.
So, to summarize:
- Not a real scientific paper. Just a magazine article from a creationist magazine carefully disguised to look like a scientific paper. (The creationist magazine, incidentally, is also carefully disguised to look like a scientific journal. As you can see in the little image, the words "Technical Journal" are huge. "Technical Journal"... sounds impressive, right? The real name of the magazine, though, is Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Ah, now it's a little less impressive. Turns out, it's not really hard to make your own magazine and publish your own "research". If you're impressed by a creationist organization publishing a creationist magazine with a "research" article that's pro-creationist, then wait till you read "A statistical analysis of Indi's awesomeness" in the Indi is Awesome Technical Report.)
- Not peer reviewed. The author can say whatever crap he wants, and with no peer review, there's no filter.
- The experiment was incompetently performed. The author used a test that he knew wouldn't work - the laboratory told him so - and treated the results as legitimate.
- Dishonest impersonation of the scientific method. The author is pretending to be open-minded, but real scientists don't test to confirm their beliefs (doing that just leads to what happened here: cherry-picking bad data to support your conclusion), they test to challenge them.
- Dishonest methodology. If the author was really serious about testing the validity of radiometric dating, he would have done proper radiometric dating. If you want to prove a certain brand of car has poor mileage, you don't do the test on a car you know has a hole in the gas tank, precisely because you know it will give you the result you want even if it's not the truth.
- Dishonest, and absurd, generalization from one bad result - that was expected! - to a criticism of an entire testing methodology.
Conclusion:
My sister's dog can do better science than this. And he's a really stupid dog.
| nickfyoung wrote: | Isn't that the law that says that nature decays into chaos over time, or something like that, as compared to an evolution into orderly improvement.
That is what I have always heard too. What is the scientific answer, not in too technical terms please. |
Entropy is not chaos. Chaos is something entirely different.
The law is that for every closed system - every system with no inputs and outputs, and the universe itself is obviously a closed system (you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave) - total entropy will never decrease, and will often increase.
One way to think of entropy is to think of order and disorder, yes... but order and disorder in the information technology sense. Not in the common sense. You can keep using those words, but they don't mean what they think you mean.
What entropy really is is quite simple: it's the amount of USEABLE energy available. The amount of energy available never changes - that's the conservation law - but just because you have a ton of energy, that doesn't mean you can use any of it.
Imagine you have a huge room of air, all at a uniform pressure. There is a metric ****** of energy in that room, but if all the air is at a uniform pressure... it's all good for nothing. It's just sitting there. You can try to put a windmill in there, but it's just going to sit there, too. This is maximum entropy state: tons of energy, but none you can use, because it's all dispersed evenly around you.
Now imagine the same room, with the same amount of air, but - by some magic - all the air is in one half of the room, and the other half of the room is pretty much a vacuum. It's the same amount of air, the same total energy, but with the energy concentrated in one area. Now you can do a lot. You can put a windmill between the two sides, and when that air rushes across to fill the vacuum, it will turn the windmill... you can use the energy to actually do work.
Right now, in the universe, energy is highly clumped into stars and other astronomical stuff, so the total entropy of the universe is very low. But, over time, the energy from the stars will disperse - they'll die out and go cold, and their energy will be spread pretty much evenly over a huge area - and, eventually, all of the universe's energy will be spread evenly, everywhere, which means although the universe is full of energy, it's all useless. Nothing can happen any more. That's maximum entropy, and the effective end of the universe: the "heat death" of the universe, the Big Chill. (Of course, we don't know for sure if this is the ultimate fate of the universe yet, because we still don't know what dark energy is. But, from what we know now, that's the prediction.)
And how does all that relate to evolution? It doesn't.
What's going on there is creationists are conflating different terminology to create one, big confused mess. They confuse entropy (physics) with entropy (information theory). The two ideas are closely related, mathematically, but not the same.
Here's what the creationists are trying to do: They are treating the genome as an information system, and saying that because the genome has so much data (specifically, the information to create individual humans), it has low (information) entropy. And, in fact, the process of evolution decreases the (information) entropy in genomes over time - the more information a genome picks up by evolving, the lower its (information) entropy. But (thermodynamic) entropy must always increase, therefore, evolution violates the law of thermodynamics. Seems legit, doesn't it? The trick is obvious if you highlight.
So, to summarize:
- (Thermodynamic) entropy is just a measure how much USEFUL energy there is in a system. The total energy does not change, but in order to do work, you need variations in energy - clumping, basically - so you can take advantage of the flow of energy from high energy areas to low energy areas to do work.
- High entropy means all the energy is evenly distributed, and you can't take advantage of any of it do work. That means nothing happens. At all.
- Low entropy means that the energy is highly clumped, and you can take advantage of the energy gradients to do work. It's rather like the idea of a dam or a hydroelectric station at a waterfall. When you have some water at high energy (higher up in a gravity well), it's going to try and flow down to a lower energy state, and you can stick a dam/generator in its path to syphon off some of that energy. If all you have is a huge, flat ocean with no currents, you still have a crapload of water, but you use any of it; a dam or generator is useless.
- (Informational) entropy is a measure of unexpectedness in data. The lowest entropy is a perfectly predictable sequence, like "11111111..." or "01010101...", because there's no surprise - you know exactly what's coming next. You can't store any information in a sequence without any entropy. The more information that you store in less space, the greater the entropy. So if the genome gets more information - by natural selection - without growing, its entropy increases. (If the genome gets larger, it may temporarily decrease, depending on whether new information is stored in the expansion.)
- Time increases thermodynamic entropy (this is called the arrow of time). It has nothing to do with informational entropy. (Informational entropy does NOT necessarily always have to increase with time.)
- Evolution (usually) decreases informational entropy in the genome. It has nothing to do with thermodynamic entropy.
| nickfyoung wrote: | I have included a short quote from the article from the link above to see if it makes sense of it.
"Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they did occasionally — gasp! — cooperate with Jews?" |
i have no trouble believing that the Phoenicians knew their stuff. i do have trouble believing that an almighty, omniscient being would use such craptastic math.
And no, by the way, i've heard that apologist excuse before about how the 30 cubits is the inner diameter. It's not. It's pretty clear even in the English translation, but in the original Hebrew, it's crystal clear. The "round about" there is from "סָבִיב", which is translated in other places as "on every side" (Num 16:27). In other places it is used, it talks about building walls "about" cities (2Ch 14:7), borders being "round about" nations (Gen 23:17), fields "round about" cities (Gen 41:48) and having enemies "on every side" (Jdg 8:34). Hell, in the very next ****** verse (1Ki 7:24) it says that there were sculptures "round about" the bowl, under the brim. i assure you, the sculptures weren't on the inside of the bowl.
In other words, despite what your source wishes the Bible said, it actually describes a bowl with outer dimensions 10 cubits diameter and 30 cubits circumference. That's what it says, not what believers want it to say.
Incidentally, the other parts of the apologist's "reasoning" are bizarrely flawed. Clearly this guy is no engineer. First they say: "The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness)...". Wait, what? So if i told you that a coffee cup had a diameter of 8.5 cm and a circumference of 26.7 cm... that means the ball's walls have zero thickness... and in effect, don't really exist? Wow. Then they say: "Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"?". Yeeeah, it's so adorable when clueless people try to sound like engineers. So you need 4 inches of brass to support a 20' diameter, 10' deep bowl structure? Geez, someone must think brass has the strength of papier-mâché. Either that or they sure as hell don't build them like they used to. (i would also assume the Phoenician craftsman were a little smarter than that apologist, and knew that while thickness varies linearly, weight varies cubically, meaning that the thicker you make the walls, the quicker it will collapse under its own weight.) You wanna know what thickness of brass you'd really need to support a 20' diameter, 10' deep bowl? A couple millimetres. Seriously, 10 mm - less than half an inch - and that sucker will not only be able to support itself, it'll be bulletproof. Seriously. Bulletproof glass is usually thinner than 2 inches. It's like that person has no concept whatsoever of the strength of brass, which is as strong as structural steel.
(But, for the record, it is quite possible that what is called "brass" in the Bible wasn't actually brass, but rather bronze. Not that that makes much difference here; bronze is also a hell of a lot stronger than papier-mâché.) |
Thank you for that in depth analysis. You have gone to a lot of trouble.
The 'proofs' are classic cherry picking and are simply items of biblical agreement with current scientific knowledge ..... nothing more.
Neither does the story of Jonah and the whale:
Book of Jonah (Old Testament)
2 Kings 14:25 (Old Testament) Makes mention of him.
Matthew 16:4 (New Testament)
Luke 11 29 &30 (New Testament)
disprove anything about the Bible. It is simply a very popular Christian history (mostly) book ..... sometimes correct and sometimes not so correct.
The problem I have with the Bible is that it's a collection of several works by multiple authors from different time periods. There is a lot of truth in those books that have been collated into what is known as the Bible at least in a historical context, but it also contains information that is open to interpretation and has no definite meaning. Many of the statements contained within are generalized and vague so that any amount of scientific information can be applied to those. That's the main problem I have with the premise that the Bible predicted or stated scientific facts contrary to what was popularly believed back then.
As another person pointed out, the world was perceived to be flat, 2-dimensional, but not necessarily a square. It could have been a flat circle which makes sense in many ways. You move in any direction North, South, East, or West and you can travel the same distance before falling off the world. That in itself can be called a "flat" world; a disc.
It would be a different story if the Bible was straight to the point with no other possible meanings. In many regards, it's a work of art, literature, and poetry that is open to multiple interpretations. It's quite the opposite of scientific literature. It does pose an interesting question though if many of the authors had the foresight of scienitific knowledge ahead of their time.
| Iceaxe0410 wrote: | The problem I have with the Bible is that it's a collection of several works by multiple authors from different time periods. There is a lot of truth in those books that have been collated into what is known as the Bible at least in a historical context, but it also contains information that is open to interpretation and has no definite meaning. Many of the statements contained within are generalized and vague so that any amount of scientific information can be applied to those. That's the main problem I have with the premise that the Bible predicted or stated scientific facts contrary to what was popularly believed back then.
As another person pointed out, the world was perceived to be flat, 2-dimensional, but not necessarily a square. It could have been a flat circle which makes sense in many ways. You move in any direction North, South, East, or West and you can travel the same distance before falling off the world. That in itself can be called a "flat" world; a disc.
It would be a different story if the Bible was straight to the point with no other possible meanings. In many regards, it's a work of art, literature, and poetry that is open to multiple interpretations. It's quite the opposite of scientific literature. It does pose an interesting question though if many of the authors had the foresight of scienitific knowledge ahead of their time. |
| Quote: | | It does pose an interesting question though if many of the authors had the foresight of scienitific knowledge ahead of their time. |
The theory is that the authors had no foresight at all but all that was written in the Bible was at the direction of God. He didn't even dictate what he wanted to each of the authors as he could have done but sort of inspired the knowledge to them by the Holy Spirit. That way we have what God wanted us to know but in each of the authors own individual styles.
Of course, one has to accept the notion of a God before one can accept something as outlandish as this. Much easier just to look at it as a collection of stories with no real relation with each other but then all the stories do relate to each other in very definite ways. Some of that relation is thousands of years apart which is another conundrum. Some scholars have concluded that it is very difficult to accept that parts of the Bible were written by a human mind because of this correlation.
Nasa is studding the soul and it looks like it exists wastes about 20gr and return to the universe when we die
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | | Nasa is studding the soul and it looks like it exists wastes about 20gr and return to the universe when we die |
Any chance of some links to a peer-reviewed reputable source?
...if not I'll just assume it's that tired old urban myth again, not factually correct.
just noticed your answer now i will try to remember were i knew about it
21 grams  and NASA has nothing to do with it
it's a movie ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Grams
.. and the name refers to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)"]dr. Duncan McDougall[/url] who supposedly found it in 1907,
His article is of 1907 and peer reviewed (ASPR)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20281719/21-Grams-Hypothesis-Concerning-Soul-Substance-Together-with-Experimental-Evidence-of-The-Existence-of-Such-Substance
Lx
i didn’t knew about the book.
the stuff i saw was really a Nasa scientist talking about it and the studies they are conducting now, and I’m almost sure it was on the Nasa tv,but soon or later i will find something about it
| LxGoodies wrote: | His article is of 1907 and peer reviewed
Lx |
Yep, as I suspected, that tired old urban myth based on experiments on a mere 6 people which has never been reproduced since, even with the vastly superior measuring apparatus we have today.
In short, bullshit pseudo science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%29
| Quote: | Mikkelson, Barbara; Mikkelson, David P. (October 27, 2003). "Soul Man". Snopes. Retrieved February 17, 2007. "MacDougall's ... methodology ... was suspect, [his] sample size far too small, and [his] ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul ... His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more."
^ Robert L. Park. Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science; Princeton University Press; 2009; page 90 |
May have been this story.
"A PAIR of world-renowned quantum scientists say they can prove the existence of the soul."
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687#ixzz2GTKnawSU
Lots of debate to be had, no new evidence, just contested theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
| Quote: | | Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E,[18] calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in Tegmark's support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John A. Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior'".[19] Tegmark's paper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose–Hameroff position. |
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | i didn’t knew about the book.
the stuff i saw was really a Nasa scientist talking about it and the studies they are conducting now, and I’m almost sure it was on the Nasa tv,but soon or later i will find something about it |
That's probably about a lady,
"Barbara Brennan, former NASA engineer and now world-renowned energy healer (  ), observes that ‘aura’ appears to have weight. Robert Monroe also believes that the ‘Second Body’ has weight, although much less than the carbon-based body. (The terms ‘aura’, ‘astral body’ and the ‘Second Body’ refer to what is generally described as the ‘subtle body’ in the metaphysical literature. The subtle body has often been loosely identified as the ‘soul’.)
If the soul has weight, it means it has mass and is subject to Earth’s gravitational force. This has motivated various researchers, including Noetic Science, to undertake experiments to weigh the soul (...)"
More
http://www.irmina-santaika.com/the-weight-of-a-human-soul/
http://listverse.com/2009/01/29/top-10-bizarre-afterlife-experiments/
I would say... she probably went bzirk
Lx
| Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | i could simply reiterate several of your own examples to show that biblical cosmology is flat Earth with a heavenly "firmament" acting as canopy above that the stars are set in, where angels move them around (and the sun and moon as well). Take the reference in Job 26 for instance.
Or would you like an engineering analysis of the ark? 'twon't float, i can promise you that.
But you probably would dismiss my engineering background as atheist. That's fine. Explain the four-legged insects in Leviticus. A bat is apparently a bird in Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on.
But in point of fact, who cares? If the bible got it right once in a while, that doesn't imply truth... unless H. G. Wells was also a divinely inspired prophet. What would imply truth is if the bible got it right always. That is clearly not the case. |
And I could retaliate all of your arguments with a simple, but true fact: that is God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and exists beyond time and logic. That further implies that God can do anything. |
Before you can claim it to be fact, you have to provide evidence that it is a fact. But wait, you can't. Your religion is based on FAITH. Which automatically dismisses facts, because you are supposed to believe without having all the FACTS. Period. You can dance around it, but in the end you have nothing conclusive, I.E., A FACT.
Go ahead, try to manipulate your religion to justify asking for faith then trying to provide evidence.
You have to pick one though. Either your religion is based on faith without evidence, or evidence without faith.
| Quote: | | Either your religion is based on faith without evidence, or evidence without faith. |
For me, it's evidence without faith. End of story. No religion required.
Any non-proven fact could be fake, I don't buy it.
Lx
| JoryRFerrell wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | i could simply reiterate several of your own examples to show that biblical cosmology is flat Earth with a heavenly "firmament" acting as canopy above that the stars are set in, where angels move them around (and the sun and moon as well). Take the reference in Job 26 for instance.
Or would you like an engineering analysis of the ark? 'twon't float, i can promise you that.
But you probably would dismiss my engineering background as atheist. That's fine. Explain the four-legged insects in Leviticus. A bat is apparently a bird in Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on.
But in point of fact, who cares? If the bible got it right once in a while, that doesn't imply truth... unless H. G. Wells was also a divinely inspired prophet. What would imply truth is if the bible got it right always. That is clearly not the case. |
And I could retaliate all of your arguments with a simple, but true fact: that is God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and exists beyond time and logic. That further implies that God can do anything. |
Before you can claim it to be fact, you have to provide evidence that it is a fact. But wait, you can't. Your religion is based on FAITH. Which automatically dismisses facts, because you are supposed to believe without having all the FACTS. Period. You can dance around it, but in the end you have nothing conclusive, I.E., A FACT.
Go ahead, try to manipulate your religion to justify asking for faith then trying to provide evidence.
You have to pick one though. Either your religion is based on faith without evidence, or evidence without faith. |
| Quote: | | try to manipulate your religion to justify asking for faith |
It is interesting that we can't generate the faith we need to believe in a God. The Bible says that man is incapable of doing that. The only way that faith happens is when it is given to us by God. Man can't do it so God has to provide it as a gift.
man needs a god for faith
man needs a contrie for indetity
man needs family for support
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | man needs a god for faith
man needs a contrie for indetity
man needs family for support |
Three false claims in a neat little list.
Man can have faith in a god that does not exist (faith does not require that the thing to which it is offered actually exists).
There are many ways of forming an identity, and geopolitical nation need not apply.
Those without family (or those who choose to distance themselves from their families) often find support from other sources.
Interesting post, however, a lot of these are not correct. The "Thens" you have chosen were just beliefs of certain groups of people, not everyone.
| TheLimey wrote: | | Interesting post, however, a lot of these are not correct. The "Thens" you have chosen were just beliefs of certain groups of people, not everyone. |
Correct... which was the point.
| Quote: | Man can have faith in a god that does not exist (faith does not require that the thing to which it is offered actually exists).
There are many ways of forming an identity, and geopolitical nation need not apply.
Those without family (or those who choose to distance themselves from their families) often find support from other sources. |
i can also say that what you said is all false and now what?
i didnt said that must be a real god
so please explain me how can you have and identity i meant cultural identity without a country/nation?
yes right those without family find support in charity and stuff like that great support by the way
and that support is just the work of someone that ends at 7pm after that they forget about you,
and guess what.they are at home with their families
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | | i can also say that what you said is all false and now what? |
Now I explain more scenarios to demonstrate my point.
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | | i didnt said that must be a real god |
Touche, but faith is a concept that applies to more than gods.
What about faith that faeries exist? They fey are not gods.
What about faith a relationship will last forever? That's faith in a non-god entity.
etc.
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | | so please explain me how can you have and identity i meant cultural identity without a country/nation? |
Diasporic cultural identities?
| zaxacongrejo wrote: | yes right those without family find support in charity and stuff like that great support by the way
and that support is just the work of someone that ends at 7pm after that they forget about you,
and guess what.they are at home with their families |
What about support networks built of friends? I don't have data, but I would imagine that genuine interpersonal, non-familial, support networks of friends are more common than relying upon charity work support.
what heel fairies?
lollllllllllll
aren’t we talking about real life ,real world if you are talking about fantasy world this is not for me loll
No way for fantasy i have second life lol don’t need forums
| Quote: | | Diasporic cultural identities? |
o great aren’t them all related with a nation ?you see you live in this planet, once you born you are tagged with an identity i can see from your profile you are from Canada so it doesn’t matter if you change your nationality, name ,what so ever you will always be "Canadian"
you see I’m Portuguese married with a Californian girl I can say I’m an America and in fact i am i got 2 nationalities but i didn’t grew in the USA, first time i visited USA i was already an adult you will never see me telling you i am an American because I’m not
i have papers, again papers that say im American but that’s not my real identity
| Quote: |
What about support networks built of friends? I don't have data, but I would imagine that genuine interpersonal, non-familial, support networks of friends are more common than relying upon charity work support. |
Again fantasies ,friends ? Support net works ?
by the way im a volunter in VA and what?
Does VA replace families?
let me teel you strait away NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
We just try "keep" them alive, familie is 70% of our work
and isnt VA charity?
honestly orgs like Va shouldn’t be needed
|
