Research on Belief in God

Page 79 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Maaaaaaaarten said:
I'd just like to point out that Copernicus system was actually hardly an improvement to the Ptolemaic system. As for the calculations and accounting for the observations they had in the time, Copernicus system solved some problems, but it hardly did a better job than the Ptolemaic system. It's not like Copernicus could actually prove his ideas.

After Copernicus we have Tycho Brahe. Tycho was a Danish astronomer who tried to take the best from both worlds. He developed the Tychonic system, in which the earth was still the center of the universe. The sun and the moon were in an orbit around the earth, but the other planets were in an orbit around the sun. This system was actually superior to the Copernican system in its day. It explained the observations and calculations of their day better than the Copernican system.

Galileo adhered to the Copernican system and he developed better telescope lenses with which he could do some new observations which supported the Copernican system. However, Galileo's system still was full of flaws because Galileo still believed that the orbit of the celestial bodies had to be circular. His system wasn't really better than the Tychonic system, for the observations and calculations they had in the day.

It was only with Kepler that the heliocentric system definitely took the lead. Kepler was the first one to suggest that the orbit of the planets might be elliptical rather than circular. This fitted the observations very well and now with Kepler's innovations the heliocentric system was finally clearly superior to all its rivals. By the way, Galileo was a contemporary of Kepler and was in correspondence with Kepler, but for some reason he completely ignored this great discovery of Kepler concerning planetary motions.

By the way, all this time everybody adhered to Aristotelian physics. The problem with this is that Aristotelian physics couldn't account for a massive object like earth floating around in the universe. They didn't know the celestial bodies were also massive objects yet; so with their knowledge, they could account for celestial bodies to float around in space. So what's important for all of this; the heliocentric model was contradictory with the the physics of the day, making the heliocentric model absolutely counter intuitive and absurd to all the educated people of the day, which is one of the reasons it met with so much opposition. Only when Isaac Newton revolutionized physics, after Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo and Kepler, could we account for massive objects moving around in an orbit in space because of the notion of gravity.

The reason why I'm writing this and is that as far as I'm concerned given this history and given the discussions earlier in this thread, designating Galileo as some sort of martyr for science against the evil oppressing anti-scientific church, as he is commonly portrayed, is a complete misnomer. Galileo couldn't prove his theory. As has been demonstrated previously in this thread, the only physical persecution Galileo suffered was for insulting the pope, not for his science. As has also been demonstrated previously in this thread, before Galileo started ridiculing him, the pope actually encouraged and supported Galileo to publish a book containing the arguments for the different arguments for and against the heliocentric system.

Another thing I want to note is that putting this whole Galileo affair in the mold of a religion versus science confrontation is very misleading and a complete anachronism. Actually Galileo was very religious. In fact, almost all the pioneers of the scientific revolution were very religious. I don't mean a generic type of religion that everybody had in the day; their works, letters, et cetera, indicate a vibrant personal faith. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were motivated as much by their religion as the ones who opposed them. The unfortunate idea that religion and science are somehow fundamentally in a conflict is a 19th century idea. This conflict didn't exist before that time. Projecting modern notions of a conflict between religion and science on the Galileo affair or indeed on the scientific revolution at large, as is commonly done, is very much an anachronism.
We all know how to contextualize the history. However, historical comprehension today does not mean renouncing critique. You thus overlook one glaring point: namely, that while the ecclesiastical authorities held sway, someone like Galileo could be silenced and effectively imprisoned for daring to insist upon something that was contrary to "logic" (when such logic, as we know, was a travesty), simply because it placed the status quo (which means the religious authority over society) into question and ultimately made it seem ridiculous, just as has been since demonstrated.

The point is that civilization has evolved from thinking the world was at the center of the universe, but to get there a certain opposition had to be overcome. That opposition was a terrible instrument of oppression.
 
RetroActive said:
I sometimes wonder if the heliocentric model wasn't more widely known in the ancient world but got lost at some point and confused with other spiritual correspondences that became understood as literal fact. If the Greeks knew did the Babylonians and Egyptians? They were all talking to each other, certain circles anyway, and the Greeks seemed to be a bit looser lipped than their counterparts. I don't know the how, where or why but I would suspect the burning of the library of Alexandria, the fall of the Greek world, and then the Roman...what remained, or was resurrected was a spiritual model of the cosmos not an actual model as had also been previously understood (among a few anyway), in addition to the spiritual interpretation.

Just a thought, you'd know better obviously.


Dante's Divine Comedy Rendered as a spiritual interpretation.
Christian scriptual exegesis since late antiquity made history the providential outworking of the celestial design, which thus effectively killed rational inquiry for sapientia for over a thousand years. Our world is a product of this contradiction.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Tank Engine said:
The article really only says that radiometric dating is subject to error, but doesn't really come up with any answer

But how about the fact that through telescopes we can see stars definitely more than a few thousand light years away? Does this mean that some parts of the universe are old, but ours is young? Or did god create a universe that looked old
(as some have argued regarding fossil deposits of "ancient" species)?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects

The first hypothesis I would reject on the basis that our solar system doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary.

If the second theory were true, then I would have to reject the theory of "god is truth", since he is a deceiver.

Admittedly, I would have to have to admit the second hypothesis is revolting to my sensibilities as a scientist :eek:

I guess you'd have to argue that measurement of distance according to the red shift is incorrect (i.e the inflation model is hugely inaccurate).


Halton Arp did, and apparently paid the price. Was he correct?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/10598040/Halton-Arp-obituary.html
 
djpbaltimore said:
I don't find the author's arguments very persuasive. It seems more like trying to nitpick the claim of Monkey DNA and human DNA being similar as if that is the only evidence that suggests human evolved from primates.

In the lab, I work with a human gene called theta-defensin that has a premature stop codon that prevents it from being translated into a protein. Gorillas and chimps have the same gene with the exact same mutation that prevents translation. The science strongly suggests humans and chimps both have the identical mutation because they arose from a common ancestor. Of course, an alternative argument is that they share a mutation because God made it so. I don't find it plausible that a God or an 'intelligent designer' would give both species inferior copies of the same gene.
And that's sorta been one of the points I've been making. No Christian would deny the science of what you are studying and researching. We would just respectfully disagree with the evolutionary interpretation of the physical evidence we have. The current physical evidence doesn't prove or demand that we came from a common ancestor. Of course there will be some similarities as we are both living creatures. There are also big differences in our DNA that make us very different.
 
RetroActive said:
Interesting, but it would have been nice to know what Arp thought about the broader implications of his observations and conclusions. That is to say, if he thought the Big Bang was not the origin of the cosmos, what alternative hypothesis did he propose? Did he even have one? At any rate, it doesn't appear that his motivations were driven by a biased religious fervor and, therefore, to make the "science" conform to a precondition of belief (which is never good scientific inquiry). Although he was certainly used as a tool by such minded folk and their agenda.

http://creation.com/halton-arp-dies

PS. The video that had accompanied this, seems to have disappeared.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Interesting, but it would have been nice to know what Arp thought about the broader implications of his observations and conclusions. That is to say, if he thought the Big Bang was not the origin of the cosmos, what alternative hypothesis did he propose? Did he even have one? At any rate, it doesn't appear that his motivations were driven by a biased religious fervor and, therefore, to make the "science" conform to a precondition of belief (which is never good scientific inquiry). Although he was certainly used as a tool by such minded folk and their agenda.

http://creation.com/halton-arp-dies

PS. The video that had accompanied this, seems to have disappeared.
He believed in a steady state universe that's a product of ongoing creation (and destruction). I'm not aware of any religious bias but I am (becoming) aware that some religious folks are becoming interested in these theories. Guilt by association, or co-option, doesn't really interest me though.
His site:
http://www.haltonarp.com/

from 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

He's introduced by Donald Scott:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kin9zqPMPaI

btw, they try to tie Velikovsky and ancient myths into this via David Talbot, I'm not really a fan.

The electrical/plasma aspect is intriguing though. Stick to the sun.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Jspear said:
As I've said plenty, I'm not an expert in this area at all.
I know some Christian scientist (Bigmac, don't worry they aren't all from Answers in Genesis) believe that the earth very easily could have been created "old." When God made the tree's for example they were already mature and had fruit. No doubt that could apply to outer space. I don't really think that insinuates being a deceiver.
I'm not arguing that creating middle-aged trees is deceiving. As for creating visible outer space not being deceiving, I'm not convinced, but I'd definitely argue that creating a pre-history in the form of a fossil record is deceiving.
 
RetroActive said:
He believed in a steady state universe that's a product of ongoing creation (and destruction). I'm not aware of any religious bias but I am (becoming) aware that some religious folks are becoming interested in these theories. Guilt by association, or co-option, doesn't really interest me though.
His site:
http://www.haltonarp.com/

from 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

He's introduced by Donald Scott:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kin9zqPMPaI

btw, they try to tie Velikovsky and ancient myths into this via David Talbot, I'm not really a fan.

The electrical/plasma aspect is intriguing though. Stick to the sun.
Looked up steady state theory and here's what came up:

steady state theory
A cosmological theory stating that the universe has always expanded at a uniform rate with no beginning or end, that it will continue to expand and have constant density, and that the distribution of old and new objects in the universe is basically even. The theory has been largely abandoned in favor of the big bang theory, largely due to the discovery of quasars and other entities that appear only at very great distances, suggesting an absolute relationship between the age of objects and their distance. Steady state theory was also discredited by the discovery of cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by the big bang theory but not by the steady state theory.

and...

A theoretical model of the universe in which the density of matter is constant over space and time, and the observed expansion of the universe is compensated for by the continuous creation of matter to maintain a constant density. Because of its inability to predict the observed cosmic microwave background radiation, the model has been discredited.

As for cosmic background radiation and its problems:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Admittedly I don't know the reliability of these sources, though perhaps someone more prepared than I can indicate their validity.
 
This discussion is really out there.
"God created the universe old". Does he also increase the speed of light at will, so that, you know, those stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away don't contradict the 6000-year old universe theory?

"There is no physical evidence" :D :D
 
rhubroma said:
We all know how to contextualize the history. However, historical comprehension today does not mean renouncing critique. You thus overlook one glaring point: namely, that while the ecclesiastical authorities held sway, someone like Galileo could be silenced and effectively imprisoned for daring to insist upon something that was contrary to "logic" (when such logic, as we know, was a travesty), simply because it placed the status quo (which means the religious authority over society) into question and ultimately made it seem ridiculous, just as has been since demonstrated.

The point is that civilization has evolved from thinking the world was at the center of the universe, but to get there a certain opposition had to be overcome. That opposition was a terrible instrument of oppression.

You are simply out of touch with the historical reality. Titanic was a plane.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Looked up steady state theory and here's what came up:

steady state theory
A cosmological theory stating that the universe has always expanded at a uniform rate with no beginning or end, that it will continue to expand and have constant density, and that the distribution of old and new objects in the universe is basically even. The theory has been largely abandoned in favor of the big bang theory, largely due to the discovery of quasars and other entities that appear only at very great distances, suggesting an absolute relationship between the age of objects and their distance. Steady state theory was also discredited by the discovery of cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by the big bang theory but not by the steady state theory.

and...

A theoretical model of the universe in which the density of matter is constant over space and time, and the observed expansion of the universe is compensated for by the continuous creation of matter to maintain a constant density. Because of its inability to predict the observed cosmic microwave background radiation, the model has been discredited.

As for cosmic background radiation and its problems:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Admittedly I don't know the reliability of these sources, though perhaps someone more prepared than I can indicate their validity.
Halton Arp got in trouble for suggesting that red shift isn't an accurate indication of distance as he was finding too many anomalies, like galaxies joined with quasars that had two different red shifts.

There are plenty of crazy things going on in the universe that the standard model hasn't predicted, that's what these folks are pointing out and suggesting that electricity is present and a much stronger force than gravity. They don't have all the answers, that's for certain, but they're questioning everything.


Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

Is it Galactic or Universal? Or just background radiation from earth/water?
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Jspear said:
As I've said plenty, I'm not an expert in this area at all.
I know some Christian scientist (Bigmac, don't worry they aren't all from Answers in Genesis) believe that the earth very easily could have been created "old." When God made the tree's for example they were already mature and had fruit. No doubt that could apply to outer space. I don't really think that insinuates being a deceiver.
"When God made the tree's for example they were already mature and had fruit"

That is yet another tiny example of gods awesome power. let's not forget he created the universe. He has the ability to manipulate the mass he has created.
He created the earth in less than a week. He made a snake talk :D

He fu%ks around with your heads buy creating all these scientific facts that lead many of us not to believe in him.
He lets the weather kill thousands of people.

Its good to know that the moon really is not moving away :rolleyes: and it was always in perfect alignment for us to live:D

Its good to know that all those white dwarfs are just imaginary and our sun will be just fine,,,phew

Its good to know that we have got this information from books written not by God but some of his mates
A singing bush what that's about:

There's the time a prophet calls a couple of bears out of the woods to maul a gang of rowdy teenagers. There's also a story about a woman who dresses provocatively and tricks her father-in-law into getting her pregnant. And their son ends up in the genealogy of Jesus

Super stuff and all highly believable :D
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Jagartrott said:
This discussion is really out there.
"God created the universe old". Does he also increase the speed of light at will, so that, you know, those stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away don't contradict the 6000-year old universe theory?

"There is no physical evidence" :D :D

Cosmology is really out there.



 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
frenchfry said:
Not at all true. I fully respect the right of anyone to have their own beliefs, but like Mr. Anuss I don't appreciate when someone's religious beliefs are imposed on me or affect my daily life.

I don't spend a lot of time wondering about the science of why/how we are here either. I don't see what value that has. Once again, if others want to dedicate their lives to discovering the origins of the universe let them go at it, I'm just not that interested. I would rather concentrate on how to make this a better place to live.
The story we tell ourselves has vast implications. If you want to make this place a better place to live - tell a better story.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Apparently the standard model cosmologists have the earth at the center of the universe again.

Stephen Crothers: The Parallax Effect on Short Hair | EU2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48fo

For anyone that wants to invoke pseudoscience or lump Crothers into a creationist camp Tom Barnaby (follow the top comment by Mark Greer) appears to be doing a good job of fielding questions in the comments.

Don't ask me, I don't know but I do know where the big bang came from - metaphysical speculation.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Here's how this metaphysical speculation was traditionally depicted - the monad:




Here it is in stone:


The big bang cosmologist still use this same symbol. So was the Universe created all at once, from a point or circle, as is assumed (interpreted) in the Jewish creation story or an ongoing process like the breath of Brahman? :)
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
RetroActive said:
Apparently the standard model cosmologists have the earth at the center of the universe again.

Stephen Crothers: The Parallax Effect on Short Hair | EU2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48fo

For anyone that wants to invoke pseudoscience or lump Crothers into a creationist camp Tom Barnaby (follow the top comment by Mark Greer) appears to be doing a good job of fielding questions in the comments.

Don't ask me, I don't know but I do know where the big bang came from - metaphysical speculation.
He assumes quite a lot of things are not fact when they are. He Really is speaking a lot of nonsense most of the time based on his on deviations of known scientific truths. His dark hole assumption's are fairy tales.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
ray j willings said:
He assumes quite a lot of things are not fact when they are. He Really is speaking a lot of nonsense most of the time based on his on deviations of known scientific truths. His dark hole assumption's are fairy tales.
hahaha good argument Mark, I mean Ray. If you want to believe in your big bang creation myth that's ok with me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts