BS: Gravity solved?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 05:56 PM

That's right, Goofus - acuracy IS a big deal!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 05:46 PM

OK..approximately 1950 years ago.....big deal.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 05:01 PM

" Same goes to shimrod , concerning whom, I do not plan to push what I say is a suggestion , and look up sources , when he never provides any evidence to support his assertions."

If you read my posts, they mainly consist of questions - which you can rarely provide satisfactory answers to, Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 04:08 PM

Donuel, Swift has detected 1000 Gamma Ray Bursts in 12 years, some of these will result from the formation of black holes, but not all. The rate won't increase because its limited by the sensitivity of the detectors. It isn't clear that the mission will last long enough to work in tandem with JWST, in any case JWST is not a rapid reaction telescope and is the wrong thing to work in tandem with SWIFT. The Large Synoptic Survey telescope may be, but again its not clear if it will be running during the lifetime of the Swift mission. Networks of smaller telescopes are the thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 04:03 PM

Why is Goofus giving a Wikipedia description of Jeffrey Archer? I said the bible plagiarises other superstitions in the same way Archer borrows from other authors.

Odd fucker.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 03:56 PM

Donuel, re the telescope that the Hawaii court revoked the permit for, stick it on La Palma, it would be welcome there. Just as good a site, just not US territory thats all.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 03:43 PM

No it wasn't GfS, it was written about 60AD, and now its 2016, my maths says thats less than 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 03:41 PM

Bill, you are moving the goal posts again. You already know that I don't claim to be able to give conclusive evidence of the details of my Christian faith , though if we keep to the subject of origins , I think the biblical model is more in line with science , whereas evolutionism is often opposite to the evidence. Same goes to shimrod , concerning whom, I do not plan to push what I say is a suggestion , and look up sources , when he never provides any evidence to support his assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 03:22 PM

Donuel: "We know much less than half of what goes on at the event horizon, inner horizon and the so called singularity."

Agreed.

Sounds remarkably like, "For our knowledge is always incomplete and our prophecy is always incomplete, and when the complete comes, that is the end of the incomplete.

When I was a little child I talked and felt and thought like a little child. Now that I am a man my childish speech and feeling and thought have no further significance for me.

At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!"

Written over 2000 years ago!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 02:51 PM

At this very moment the irrational abnormal act of burning out the eyes of an astronomer is happening. It wasn't just Galileo that had religion stop his search of the heavens. In Hawaii there is a mountain top where priests say the gods live. So does a new telescope project and the courts he ruled in favor of the priests.

Religion and Astronomy still clash today. It is not just the religionists that hi jack science threads instead of exploring their own religious threads.

What must entice the religionists is the admission of cosmologists that we do not know what is happening at certain boundaries in our universe. We know much less than half of what goes on at the event horizon, inner horizon and the so called singularity.

The swift telescope will confirm in allegiance with the Webb the formation of one black hole a day and the number of black mergers changing the very shape of the universe.

But as long as earth bound telescopes can have their eyes shuttered by religion we can count on religion to help us learn less.

Science does not forbid religion from choosing knowledge. he Vatican has its own astronomy program. Lets hope religion need no longer forbid science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 02:06 PM

'rational'??, 'normal'??
According to who? You??
..and you are so 'rational'?, 'normal'? to judge that for everyone else???

As far as you referencing Jeffrey Archer, here, from Wikipedia:

Jeffrey Howard Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare (born 15 April 1940) is an English author and former politician. Before becoming an author, Archer was a Member of Parliament (1969–1974), but resigned over a financial scandal that left him almost bankrupt.[2] Later, after a revival of his fortunes from the royalties of his best-selling novels, he became deputy chairman of the Conservative Party (1985–1986) before resigning after another scandal, which would lead to the end of his career in elected office.[3] He was made a life peer in 1992. His political career ended with his conviction and subsequent imprisonment (2001–2003) for perjury and perverting the course of justice, which followed his second resignation. His books have sold around 330 million copies worldwide.[4]"

This has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. methinks you are really stuck and bound up by a political conviction(if you will) of convenience of toleration of powerlessness.

Try Love...it works!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 01:35 PM

I'm sure it was Magic Steve, fair play.

The Goofus's of this world have another definition of magic though.

The snag is, the supernatural attributes of the bible references to the big JC were nicked in Jeffrey Archer fashion from Mithras and other superstitions.

Dan asks, quite reasonably why the mocking of religion is doing the rounds in this thread. It's because some on here are trying to splice it into reality and the thread title itself, attempting to dumb down science to the paltry level of theological reasoning, and you know, that's not only insulting but has held back research and progress ever since we started thinking further than the next hunting trip.

It's only through dismissing nonsense that the wonderful and exciting discoveries of our universe have been able to develop.   The real universe is far more exciting, wondrous and thought provoking than the dismal limited visions found in religion. Some on here would have children hampered by seeing the make believe at the equal level of reality.

It isn't only insulting and dangerous, but must be embarrassing for normal people who happen to feel comfortable with aspects of faith.

Mind you, it's rather fucking hilarious reading Goofus saying that rational people have closed minds....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 01:34 PM

Great!!...another tidbit for you...six days after my operation, I had to see the cardiologist (A different cardiologist than the one I referred to in my prior post), for a consultation before release, from the hospital, I sat down across from his desk, with my daughter, and the first words out of his mouth were, (verbatim) were, "Your recovery was nothing short of miraculous, I've never seen anything like it"...Later, in the same meeting, he also said, "By the way, I've heard your music on YouTube, and Man, there is a lot of healing in that music!"
On my five week follow-up visit, I had to meet with him again. This time I brought a stack of CD's, to which I gave to EVERY attendant, Nurses, technicians, assistants, etc, on the floor that I was on, and gave the cardiologist three copies, and the cardiology department three copies, with permission to copy and use those pieces, free of charge, no royalties or or licensing fees...just, as I said, "Hey man, if this stuff works, use it all you want, if it helps heal people."
It is now being used in six hospitals in four states(at last count), in both cardio and psych therapies!!
As far as I know, when I think about it, it's not the notes, or the melodies, but rather, where my head was at when I recorded it, and somehow that is picked up by the patient. The healing then comes from within that patient....repeat: As far as I know ...
Magic??..who knows how we 'define' it.....but there is a power in the unseen elements of Life, that religious institutions or political ideologies(most any of them), that is NOT being tapped on. Instead, they leave their 'members' both disillusioned, and 'in the dark' while posing as solutions...for the problems that they have instituted, encouraged, and prolonged!!..even to the point of just making stuff up, for their 'followers' to think, and live under, and try to impose on everyone else...and it is nothing short of TRAGIC!

hey, next time you pick up your harmonica, remember our exchange here, and play with a lotta' soul, and Love...see what happens!

Yeah!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:34 PM

I edited the track for our local dance teacher, who choreographed a beautiful piece of ballet for her older pupils. When I listen to the track, in my head I can still see them dancing it. Lovely it was. Even magic!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:30 PM

Steve: "If you want to know what's really true, your quest is for evidence."

Consider this, my post was not promoting a 'religion' but a power..the power of Love....

There is an account, written by Mark, but spoken by Jesus, who said, "These signs shall follow them that believe..."
He did NOT say, 'Those who believe, will follow after signs...'

When I had my quad bi-pass, I took over an hour, in ICU, to as the doctor told my family, "He doesn't want to come back"

On a subsequent visit to the first cardiologist, (I was flown from one hospital to another), I told her of what I 'saw' or 'experienced'....and this is what she told me, (verbatim), "You know, I've lost a few patients on the table, you know, really lost them. We tried everything we could to revive them, sometimes frantically, and some we were successful. I mean, they were dead...gone..but the ones who we could revive, and came back, were all telling me the same thing that you are saying." (True story).

Evidence??? That is something for others to 'judge'...but what I can say, is 'Love...and IT will create your circumstances'.

A while ago I posted a link to a film called 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' The film goes into depth about the marriage of known science, and what people call ,'spiritual' or even 'metaphysics'..and they approach it, from a NON-religious angle.
There are too many things that they have found to be true, and verifiable...even the effects of Love on snowflakes, and the molecular structure of water(of all things). Any of you might do yourselves a good service to watch the flick.

All that being said, I am NOT endorsing any 'religion'...in fact, 'religion' has been so destructive, by turning the 'message of the kingdom'(read: 'realm'), of the unseen, into some sort of 'organization' with rules, bi-laws, fear, repression, and often a political structure of elitism....often keeping people totally ignorant of the 'laws' (read: 'properties') of the unseen world, in which contains the very essences of life. Man IS capable of so much more, than we've been led to DIS-believe!!... it can't be even realized, or understood, by the way the 'churches', and 'political movements', have kept its people in the dark..on purpose....for control of a very materialistic hierarchy!!....IT's not about that..so when I read some of your posts, slamming certain churches or religious institutions, I see the bitterness. I see the bitterness and pain, inflicted upon some of you, some starting as a young child, and so getting as far away from those religions was one of the most liberating rebellions in your life....however, the sting of their dogmatic enslavement still lingers....so it seems easier to write it all off....and remain bitter...and insulated and closed minded...lumping it all into a taboo.
Actually, your 'rebellion' from those things were, in fact, a step in the RIGHT direction...and WHY did you 'rebel'....perhaps an 'unseen' force of Love, Liberty, and a Light, inside us, that somehow KNEW this NOT to be right!

Sometimes the 'evidence' is right in front of our noses..sometimes brewing inside us...but we still look for an 'external evidence'...in the physical....when in actuality, the physical, is just a manifestation, of the unseen powers at work!

Fair enough??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:19 PM

I will check it out thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:10 PM

I don't know why you got the idea I was angry. I'm actually having a very unangry day today. Very placid, looking forward to my pasta with chilli and broccoli, a glass of Nero d'Avola and a couple of Beethoven sonatas. Thought I'd try the F#, Op 78, then the E minor, Op 90. Balm to the soul and plenty of the magic of reality. As long as Mrs Steve doesn't expect me to sit through recordings of Graham f*****g Norton on the telly I'll remain serene. When I post here I'm posting to whoever wants to read it, poor souls. If I want to speak to a particular person only, there's a simple way of doing it. I advise the approach.

As I'm defying the theme of the thread somewhat here, I recommend a YouTube listen to Defying Gravity, sung by Idina Menzel, from Wicked. Very nice song, beautifully sung.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 11:15 AM

I am sorry you feel that way butI wwas talking
To Gfs
Why the anger you can notbbelieve anything
Youwwant

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 07:49 AM

Now a little birdie has just whispered in my ear that a chap whose posts I never read is burbling on about a Godly power, an unseen force, a gravity thing, a consciousness, etc., that is in accord with the laws of physics. I just wondered whether anyone up for it would care to ask him whether he actually knows what these laws of physics are. Better still, ask him if he has the faintest clue as to what he's talking about. If you get a reply, let me know in this thread. I know he could tell me himself, but I don't read his posts, as you know. Very handy thing, this little birdie. I believe in little birdies. They have bird brains I suppose, but they seem to be cleverer than some of those people whose posts I never read.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 07:37 AM

Science and maths can't show us glimpses of miracles, and neither can you. There's plenty of magic in the world, for sure, to nick an idea from a Richard Dawkins book title, but it's the magic of reality, not the fake magic of sorcerers or of superstition or of biblical "miracles." And it's much more satisfying. If you want to know what's really true, your quest is for evidence. That isn't a cold, dry endeavour. It's delicious and you have to use your brain, unlike what you do when you settle for "believing in God."

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 04:10 AM

" Shimrod, it was suggestion rather than assertion , even though there is some evidence."

OK, Pete, let's have that scrap of evidence - after all, it's you that goes on and on ... and on etc. about "observable, testable, repeatable science". And turning to that tiresome mantra - which you, no doubt, are 'parroting' from 'Creation.com' - bear in mind that God isn't observable - let alone testable, repeatedly or otherwise. For that matter, the biblical story of creation isn't open to scientific scrutiny either - we've only got ancient texts, of dubious origin, to go on (the semi-absurd convolutions of a couple of contributors above notwithstanding).

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 02:00 AM

Gravity hurts a lot, I fell out of a tree once

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 01:56 AM

1cor13 my favorite passage for sure

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 01:31 AM

Glad to hear from you!!
I agree with a lot of what you said....but what rings through, and louder, is your sincerity!
The path to follow has already been laid...and that is to Love. Death cannot stop Love. Nothing can, although blind morons would try to have us BELIEVE that something can or will...whether it be politics, fear of financial failure, or any failure for that matter. We are, for a bit of time, encased in the physical realm...or 'kingdom'...yet Love is a power, that cannot be manipulated for our own greed or pride or lusts, and remain as Love, intact. We must conform to the will and properties of Love, not by our own will..but by our submission to it.
THIS is the reason why lesser ideologies would prefer to nullify Love, and what it can do, and is doing!
Religions are man's way of trying to reach 'God'.....Jesus Christ was God's way of reaching man!...and what he said, as a law, was Love god above all things, and Love your brother as yourself....in fact, Love opens ALL the doors. 1 John4:8 is VERY clear about this.."The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love."
We are NOT talking about a 'religion'...matter of fact, we are talking about a power, that is even consistent with the laws of physics...but it is an unseen force....you know...sorta like 'gravity',...and consciousness. 'Faith' is just a portal that reaches out from the physical, and moves things in the 'realm' (or 'kingdom') of the unseen. Problem is, when someone says 'faith', it is usually mixed up with faith in a religion....and not in Love...which is God..

Regards!!
Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:15 AM

There are no random events in math, only events we cannot yet plot. Deeper youdig the more yyou see God

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 12:08 AM

Gfs,
The creator is so beyond us that we as humans have a hard time following. It is designed that way. The almighty created everything, but understand that a complex set of dynamics was set forth. There is absolutely no conflict between creation and evolution or faith and science. He gave us a free will and a set of very interesting steps to follow to let us see the truth. It is a shame to think that such order such impossible mathematical combinations in such caotic events to create life was just a thunder bolt.. Give the almighty credit. The Bible gave us a start saying the almighty built it. Let science and math show a small glimpse of the miracle. There is no either or.. There just is... A day in the cosmos is irrelevant, man was created. How long the process took in God days is his knowledge not ours. Trying to limit the almighty by just a book is sad. We are given the book as an outline of how to live. Our job is to find our way back.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 11:19 PM

Paul, who wrote a few epistles, was originally on a mission to kill, capture and/or persecute the early Christians. As you know, he had an experience on the road to Damascus, which changed his life. He later was killed for his beliefs...but what did they include??

Here, he wrote this:

"If I speak with the eloquence of men and of angels, but have no love, I become no more than blaring brass or crashing cymbal. If I have the gift of foretelling the future and hold in my mind not only all human knowledge but the very secrets of God, and if I also have that absolute faith which can move mountains, but have no love, I amount to nothing at all. If I dispose of all that I possess, yes, even if I give my own body to be burned, but have no love, I achieve precisely nothing.

This love of which I speak is slow to lose patience—it looks for a way of being constructive. It is not possessive: it is neither anxious to impress nor does it cherish inflated ideas of its own importance.

Love has good manners and does not pursue selfish advantage. It is not touchy. It does not keep account of evil or gloat over the wickedness of other people. On the contrary, it is glad with all good men when truth prevails. Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. It is, in fact, the one thing that still stands when all else has fallen.
All gifts except love will be superseded one day

For if there are prophecies they will be fulfilled and done with, if there are "tongues" the need for them will disappear, if there is knowledge it will be swallowed up in truth. For our knowledge is always incomplete and our prophecy is always incomplete, and when the complete comes, that is the end of the incomplete.

When I was a little child I talked and felt and thought like a little child. Now that I am a man my childish speech and feeling and thought have no further significance for me.

At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!

In this life we have three great lasting qualities—faith, hope and love. But the greatest of them is love."

Now, back to 'gravity'...

GfS

P.S. Maybe when you guys can understand and get past that unseen force of gravity and what it can do, maybe you'll be ready to discuss this unseen force...and what it does...and can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 11:06 PM

OK..the last one was in jest.
The Bible doesn't include that Pontius Pilate committed suicide, but he did. That comes from other historical sources of that time period....and there are more sources that there was a man named Jesus who walked around and existed back then.
I can't believe that this is even up for debate.....maybe you'd better stick to gravity.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 10:59 PM

Bill: "There ARE figures and places in the bible that are correlated with various historians, and stuff noted by various historians that are mentioned in the bible, but almost NONE in either case that can be verified as direct, eyewitness accounts. Remember, they didn't have the BBC or CNN with videos back then...."

You left out Fox News and the Wall Street Journal!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 10:55 PM

Gosh, for a guy who staunchly denies the existence of a 'God' in any form, because it's not possible, to you, but you believe in 'little birdies talking in your ear'...hmmm.....you could have quit before you embarrassed yourself.....but this takes the cake!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 10:51 PM

"Don't argue with that as long as it is operational science such as I understand is in the scientific method , and not origins assumption that can not be verified, only interpreted."

And biblical 'facts'? How are we to deal with those which "...can not be verified, only interpreted."?

There ARE figures and places in the bible that are correlated with various historians, and stuff noted by various historians that are mentioned in the bible, but almost NONE in either case that can be verified as direct, eyewitness accounts. Remember, they didn't have the BBC or CNN with videos back then to get exact quotes from the source. 99% of everything was 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay... and THAT was edited and translated and 'interpreted' by the few who could read & write..... and when information about **creation** or **eternal life** or who walked on water ...or fed thousands on a few leftovers.... or returned from the dead... was involved, there were folks whose careers & reputations were at stake hoping to convince as many as possible. (no... I'm not claiming they lied...only that they had a vested interest in the beliefs.)

When convincing, hard data is needed on any issue, pretty strict rules need to be applied to all sides... scientific or religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 08:30 PM

Why, a little birdie has just whispered in my ear that someone or other, probably not very important, has implied that those of us who fail to deny evolution are, somehow, half-wits. Whoever it was, I haven't read his or her post, so it's not easy to comment, but I understand that whoever it was is getting into bed with pete. Now there's a thought. All hearsay, of course, as I haven't read his posts...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:51 PM

There he is again...pretending to not have read my posts. It's OK if you do...just stop bullshitting us. You are only digging your hole deeper.

Pete, I know that there has been some disputed on some of Josephus's writings, but there is enough there....

All that being said, the post is about 'gravity', and somehow the usual frothing starts up about 'evolution'...and argued by half-wits who really don't know what they're talking about.

OK..maybe they are not half-wits...maybe they are just not fully 'evolved'...maybe even the missing links, which nobody has come up with...except maybe on here....and frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about 'evolution' or 'non-evolution'. It's NOT the point....but it does give the loonies something to yak about, about dodging the real issue....a LOT of real issues!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:28 PM

Well let me set the bar very low. Give me some Roman references to Jesus other than the dodgy ones already mentioned. I'm all ears, honest I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:27 PM

Well how about that gfs, just as I was posting and mentioning Steves extreme skepticism (at least as far as God is concerned), he was writing a post demonstrating just that !                Shimrod, it was suggestion rather than assertion , even though there is some evidence.   However, since you never give any evidence , other than appeal to authority and numbers for your assertions, you are in no position to ask me to provide details on this !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:14 PM

Some interesting stuff there gfs. Just a note of caution though ,even conservative scholars are skeptical of the second Josephus quote as perhaps being touched up by a Christian / sympathiser. I have never come across the descriptions of Jesus linked at the bottom, but I don't know if they can be validated if they are locked in libraries. Steve did reply to me when I had supplied some quotes , but he would settle for nothing less than the Romans contempories attesting to the existence of Jesus. I guess if you are a committed atheist you set the bar as high as you can!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:12 PM

Now just in case someone here whose posts I don't read mentions the writings of Josephus, both Josephus and Tacitus were writing long after the alleged death of Jesus. Their works certainly wouldn't pass the Keith A. test of historical authenticity, as they were references way longer than 30 years max after the event and their works are not generally available in bookshops (except in dodgy compilations, of course). In fact, considerable controversy surrounds their integrity. What is far more striking is that, apart from the one dubious Tacitus reference, there is no mention of a chap called Jesus in any Roman writings, rather odd considering that there are huge volumes of such and that 'twas the Romans who supposedly put this troublesome insurgent to death. Still, he either existed or he didn't, and taking your pick is the only option. A few things are rock-solid certain, however. He was not born to a virgin. He did not turn water into wine. He did not raise people from the dead. He did not walk on water or feed thousands on five loaves and two fishes. He did not die and then come back to life. I'm fine with everything else, honest I am. That's because I'm a grown-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 03:52 PM

Ah, someone has just advised me that you've just posted accusing me and my ilk of arguing. Obviously, I don't know exactly what you posted as I haven't read it, but let me just say that my last few posts about those posts of yours that I haven't read are actually attempts to AVOID arguing with you, as there's no point. If you want to reply, do you think you could get someone else to post it for you, as then I'd be able to read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 03:47 PM

Oh bullshit! Some of you, and your ilk, just argue for the sake of arguing.....AND..to prove it, how did you know that I said, "...also, I thought you've said repeatedly that you didn't read my posts.." AND, " I didn't read the post from you accusing me of reading your posts either."

Go back to playing your harmonica. At least there, being a blowhard, MAY have its advantages!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 02:49 PM

I don't read your posts. I predicted in my head that you'd say that Jaysus was a historical fact so I prepared that post several weeks ago, determining to post it this very day, and bingo! It worked! I didn't read the post from you accusing me of reading your posts either. A little mouse told me what you were going to say, and guess what: a little mouse is even brighter than you!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 02:10 PM

Steve Shaw: "Historical fact? Evidence, pease."
Musket: Which historical fact is that Goofus?

Steve, For an 'educator' I hope your field wasn't history....and you misspelled 'please'....
...also, I thought you've said repeatedly that you didn't read my posts...oh well, so much for 'reliability'!!


Following is a list of extra-biblical (outside of the Bible) references of Biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available. AND from contemporaries, who were historians and NOT particularly followers!!

You SHOULD read it ALL!!

    Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
       "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
    Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
       Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

    Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus--Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
       "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
    Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
       Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
       Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
    Tacitus (A.D. c. 55-A.D. c. 117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus--Annals 15.44
       "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
            Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
    Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
       "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
            Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
            The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
            Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
    Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
       "They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
            Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
    The Talmud
       "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"!
            Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
            Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
            This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
    Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
       "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
            Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
            Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

Plus:
plus these accounts, one from the centurion, and kept in Roman records

Let's not divert from 'gravity' to dumb questions about if Jesus historically existed, OK?? ..because it seems that some of you have a LOT of re-thinking to do!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 01:27 PM

....or defined by belief in evolutionism.....    Doing science defined by science.   Don't argue with that as long as it is operational science such as I understand is in the scientific method , and not origins assumption that can not be verified, only interpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 01:26 PM

May I remind you, YET AGAIN, Pete, that somewhere above you made some assertions about "group think"?

You implied that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists who are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda".

You then failed to provide an estimate of what percentage of scientists, working within the field of evolutionary biology, are closet creationists too intimidated by group think to speak out. You also failed to supply any evidence to show that any such browbeaten closet creationists exist.

Finally, I asked if you believe that modern science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy and if it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?

You have failed AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN to answer these questions. Could it be that you don't have any answers to these questions? Could it be that your favourite creationist websites have not provided you with any answers, so there's nothing for you to regurgitate?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 01:04 PM

Well Pete... you regularly ask for "observational, testable , repeatable verified data ", but then skew the standards & definitions for what counts as "observational, testable , repeatable verified data " so that nothing that seems to dispute the Bible counts.

I'm sorry, but when doing **science**, the criteria for evaluating data is defined BY science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:46 PM

Which historical fact is that Goofus?

The only historical facts are that some ancient people with fertile imaginations wrote some interesting stories. Some medieval people changed them to suit their purpose and the marketing carried on from there.

The story of he and his wife and children being banished secretly to France has been doing the rounds for a few hundred years, and the Dan Brown addition is just one of many. Some scholars appear to be looking deeper into this as it conveniently does away with having a dead man coming back to life. It allows him to meet with his mates before getting on a ship etc. Gaul accepted many banished people at the time and many Roman leaders had land there and could give employment to trouble makers if they reformed.

Mind you, as I said.. It is a nice story, but is about as factual as the Jesus concept in the first place. Presumably the borrowed myths about a virgin birth etc may be a little harder to explain away, not to mention that he had a Dad who predates history itself.

In case you hadn't noticed Goofus, this thread is about reality not fantasy.

😇

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:34 PM

Fools give full vent to their rage,
but the wise bring calm in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:27 PM

"If it were not for gravity, we would not know if we were coming or going."

Having a poo wouldn't be very nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: olddude
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:16 PM

If it were not for gravity, we would not know if we were coming or going.

As a math geek and a highly published one at that, Science strengthens my faith not the opposite. It is sad to think that the path the lord used to create this amazing universe is trivilized by others with faith. The Lord gave us a brain. We are allowed to look at the amazing building blocks of creation and make assumptions and observations. What that does for me is make my faith stonger.. It is a sin to assume the lord works in a trivial manner I think.. Hence for what my two cents is worth

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:12 PM

Historical fact? Evidence, pease.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 11:41 AM

Musket: "I know what it makes me think...
I notice the more rational brethren are exploring the idea again that the Jesus character (or the amalgamation of people that became Jesus) wasn't fully crucified and was sent into exile in Gaul. So much for his supernatural image...."

So they 'made it up'....is that why they, the people who wrote his account, and 11 of his closest followers were all martyred?...rather than to re-cant??..for something that they were pretending????

You make no sense, whatsoever.

You've just taken a stance, and are grasping at straws for ANYTHING, just to make some ridiculous reason, to deny a historical fact.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 07:01 AM

It's a combination of failing education in some countries and lack in others but all now having access to social media.

Superstition is attractive when you are educationally challenged, hence the rise in sky pixie adoration. Mind you, note they aren't involved in the big religions because CofE especially is embarrassed by the intellectual deficit in belief and most vicars are comfortable with the tradition but accept it is all stories to make you think.

I know what it makes me think...

I notice the more rational brethren are exploring the idea again that the Jesus character (or the amalgamation of people that became Jesus) wasn't fully crucified and was sent into exile in Gaul. So much for his supernatural image....

Put into a real scientific research subject and it wouldn't even get past first base as there is no evidence a single person with the attributes ever existed so no point. If pete's so called creationist scientists existed too, they would by their training conclude similarly.

My mate who reckons the moon landings didn't happen is a consultant microbiologist. It doesn't impinge on his work that he has problems with that (oh and Area 51, I'm avoiding him whilst X Files is on the telly again.) Presumably if a scientist believes in make believe, his work isn't in any field where reality pops in for a cuppa?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

A bit of unfortunate singular and plural mixing there. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

....oh, and by the way , re your previous idea that creation turns people away from the faith. On the aig page at present is the testimony of a former atheist and evolutionist , who then became creationist when presented with the information ,and then a Christian.    And thanks for supplying links to some of their pages, and as to your suggestion that readers make up their own minds.....I say amen!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 06:56 AM

All religion is ripe for mockery and ridicule when it's put out there instead of being kept under wraps by their deluded adherents. Pete's brand is the most ridiculous of all. What you always have to understand about these people is that they always have an "answer" ready. That's how their websites train them. They don't know enough to take on board any counter-argument and will feel only strengthened by our engaging with them. Ridicule is the only answer, I'm afraid. Even then, they don't always recognise that they're being ridiculed.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 06:47 AM

Dave, the difference between a hollow moon , knitted critters and a soup mining dragon, and creation, is that there is nothing in the latter that is contrary to the scientific method. So, again, if it is palpable nonsense prove it. Methinks you have dropped a ...clanger!... ....with that argument. And I don't recall asking for peer reviewed papers to disprove creation. A logical answer that accords with observational, testable , repeatable verified data should not be too hard for one of your academic achievements . After all, if you are going to claim the findings of other scientists ....palpable nonsense...it is only reasonable you substantiate such charges.                  I can only guess what the point of your follow up post is, Dave, but as you don't elucidate , I will leave it as a valid observation rather than some kind of smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 05:45 AM

Pete is of course right that numbers in fundamentalist religious institutions is increasing, but this is far more true of fundamentalist Islam that fundamentalist Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 05:41 AM

The moon is hollow. Tiny knitted creatures live there, and they eat soup mined by a dragon. I know this because I read it in the scripts of the Clangers. Pete I would like you to provide reference to peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that this is not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 05:29 AM

"......I am not going to....."    Dave .......       No surprise there ! So you deign not answer a challenge , but still make claims of creation as nonsense.   Mainstream churches! Steadily losing numbers , while fundamentalist bible believing churches are increasing. So I take it you cannot demonstrate creationism is nonsense scientifically. .......

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 05:16 AM

"....knock on my door .....interesting discussion.." Bill.    Well, bill, we are already having those discussions , but when it comes to these threads it is the atheists who are knocking. I just opened the door and addressed their ...er...concerns.   And it just goes to show, that at least as far as I am concerned , the talk of aggressive evangelism is not relevant.   Straw man anyone !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:53 AM

Shimrod, that is exactly what these charlatans do. If you follow my links, you see they format and structure their statements like a scientific paper, but the evidence base is a mixture of observations and bible verses. It has no place in science and it has no place n religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:47 AM

I note you're still ignoring my questions, Pete. But just in case you missed them on 17th Feb, here they are again:

"I can't help noticing, Pete, that you tend to ignore awkward questions. Take the the stuff you wrote about "group think" above and my response to it, i.e.

"What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda".

So, Pete, what percentage (roughly) of scientists, working within the field of evolutionary biology, do you believe are closet creationists too intimidated by group think to speak out? What, if any, evidence do you have to show that any such browbeaten closet creationists exist?

In addition, do you believe that modern science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy? If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?"

Oh yes, about your tiresome mantra: (Real)observable, testable, repeatable science is NEVER based on the Bible ... or any other work of fiction!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:46 AM

I do not have to "demonstrate" that to you, especially since there is no way you would listen. But there is so much palpable nonsense here, here, here, and here to be going on with. I would invite readers to look at each of these links and make up their own mind. The last is my subject, on that I could produce many peer-reviewed journal papers to refute every one of the "14 natural phenomena". But I am not going to because nobody takes this stuff seriously. I could produce a whole list of dreamtime legends, and ask you to produce a scientific paper refuting each one, but it would be a waste of time because people reading this do not take them literally.

Now, Pete, I did not say anything about your faith, I said that the stuff produced by a particular organisation, that one, was palpable nonsense. Are you saying that you sign up to their claims? Because no mainstream Church does.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 03:59 AM

Musket,
"Only in WW1"

Yes.
I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

In the specific case of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, I did say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

You people denied that consensus, but could find no historian outside it.
You just kept irrelevantly quoting work from before the consensus because you had nothing else.

I would then point out how fatuous it was to quote long dead historians, or pre-consensus work, as evidence against a fairly recent consensus.

And here you are still ploughing that same old fatuous farrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:48 AM

.....perhaps some day Steve will tell us........What part of eternity is the moment of 'Now'...perhaps any of you can tell us what part of ALL things, are we not a part of. Perhaps some one can tell us what part of the origin of life, is only limited to 'life as we know it'. Perhaps someone can tell us if Love, light, consciousness, are not a collective whole, in which theorizing about the evolution of modern day man, consistently leaves out. Perhaps someone can explain, whether or not, those same invisible forces, are evolving...leaving those who refuse to acknowledge them behind.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

OR....

Let's be small and nothing, and powerless..and at the mercy of the dictates of a theory that ignores the obvious, and says they don't exist.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 11:37 PM

"......perhaps some day Pete will tell us........."       Steve.                                                   Well Steve , I have done so a number of times over these threads, and I shall be happy to do so again but not till we have dealt with Dave's assertion that what creationists believe is "......utter palpable nonsense..."    So, just to remind you....show me how believing in creation is contrary to observable, testable, repeatable science?    And just to clarify, since it looks like you are trying to shift the goal posts, I said I shall be happy to demonstrate how evolutionism Fails the test, not how I would appeal to the scientific method as such . I admit the faith factor ......unlike the evolutionist!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 09:19 PM

how he came upon it.

Why, god handed it to him, of course. Probably graven upon stone tablets.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:54 PM

with regard to. Soddin' iPad.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:53 PM

Perhaps one day pete will tell us what is observable, testable or repeatable with regarded to any of the stuff he believes. Perhaps he could start by telling us about the evidence for his assertions and how he came upon it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 05:57 PM

observable, testable , and repeatable science

Once again, pete, in your self-satisied ignorance, you don't know the meaning of the term.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 05:47 PM

We have special homes for them. They can have a chat with Napoloen most mornings.

Dangerous brainwashing bullshit, preying on vulnerable people. Children should be protected from lying shits like you pete, they really should. The thought of fertile inquisitive minds being abused and closed in this day and age is sad, very very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:41 PM

"......utter palpable nonsense....."    Thank you Dave for your considered opinion of my beliefs.......however since you think it is nonsense , I invite you to point out to me where it conflicts with observable, testable , and repeatable science . And when you have done that I will gladly reciprocate by mentioning a few instances where evolutionism fails that test. It is easy to throw out insults,.....maybe harder to justify them!         And as for the suggestion that creation is a block to anyone becoming a Christian , perhaps you can cite a few instances of those who would have decided to become Christians were then turned away from that decision by creation .   I don't think I would have too much difficulty in finding testimonies of those who were not believers, who became Christians , after being exposed to the arguments of creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:25 PM

"Only in WW1"

The rest of the universe, history, politics, science and entries for the annual Bristol Stool Chart Awards work to other criteria.

Unless and until it suits him.
😹😹😹



🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 10:43 AM

Not true Greg.
Only in specific reference to the history of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years.

I said it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

It is your memory (or honesty) at fault Greg.

As three of you have now referred to the WW1 debate I will share this nugget with you.
In the iconic 1964 BBC series "The Great War" the young Max Hastings is listed on the credits of every episode with the historical researchers.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 09:09 AM

I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

Your memory is failing you, Professor. You have done multiple times.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 08:49 AM

No Greg.
I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

In the specific case of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, I did say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 08:03 AM

Dame Frances Amelia Yates DBE FBA (28 November 1899 – 29 September 1981)

Well she's DEAD fer chrissakes; LONG dead - by The Professor's own criteria she is to be totally disregarded.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 07:39 AM

Re my view of historians, it is completely untrue that I reject the work of any because of when it was written.

Only in the specific case of WW1, where they has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, did I say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

Again, you two are just arguing with me for the sake of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 07:34 AM

Dave, your minute extraction is insufficient.

Try this, as quoted by me earlier.

"To his major theological heresy, the denial of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, was added suspicion of diabolical magical practices. It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some mysterious magicoreligious movement. This movement may have been in the nature of a secret Hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry. If any philosophical or cosmological points were included in his condemnation, these would have been inextricably bound up with his "Egyptianism."

The legend that the nineteenth century built around Bruno as the hero who, unlike Galileo, refused to retract his belief that the earth moves is entirely without foundation."

She refutes that he was tried for his science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

I have no idea what I want Keith. You name a historian, you produce one quote from a whole book, you then make an assertion about Bruno being condemned for his views of the divinity of Christ, whereas your chosen quote from your chosen historian says

"It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned,"

You ignore Musket's pointing out that the said historian's date of death fails to meet your criteria for credibility on another thread, and in her defence you post a link to an article which says amongst other things:

"Scholarship has greeted Yates's views on Bruno and Hermeticism with considerable scepticism while less specialised literature continues to repeat her findings thanks undoubtedly to the greater diffusion of English language literature as much as to the outstanding clarity of her style."

You show no understanding of what Hermeticism actually is, and no evidence of your attempts to find out.

So, quite frankly, I don't think that I do want anything else from you, that is all that is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:32 AM

Ok. Alan Clark and Baldrick are too. Your objection is just trolling.

Remember that bit about petards? The historian Tony Robinson showed us what they were all about in a BBC documentary.

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:08 AM

I regard Yates as a credible historian, and fail to see why you and Dave question her without producing a anyone who disagrees with her views on this.

I made an assertion, backing it first with a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and following up with an extract from a lengthy article by Yates, with a link to the whole piece so it could be seen in context.

Dave says that is not enough to show what Yates' views are on the subject!
What do you want Dave?

You two are just arguing for the sake of it, with no actual challenge to anything I have said or quoted.
Just trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM

I rejected it? Err.. Are you sure?

I think you'll find I was bemused that your criteria of what constitutes a credible historian seems to have flown with the birds when it suits your somewhat tenuous assertion.

Something about petards and hoisting.....

Wot Dave said..

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:50 AM

I missed your reference to Warburg Dave.
Sorry.
What is wrong with me saying,
"His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:41 AM

Keith, you did not support your assertion with a Wikipedia page,

Yes I did. I gave this quote from Yates' Wiki page,
""According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[61] "

That was itself a quote from but one from a different online encyclopedia which none of us seem to have heard of, and which posts patent bollocks in it

Does it matter if you are familiar with the site?
The article was by a recognised expert on the subject. Why is that not enough?

Have you heard of The Warburg Institute, University of London, School of Advanced Study Dave?
http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/giordano-bruno/yates-brunos-mnemonics/

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:39 AM

I have looked her up Keith. Which is why I knew she was a she, despite your post.

"His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?"

According to Wikipedia, which isn't perfect either I grant you, that isn't what Yates thought though. It says:

"Yates suggested that the itinerant Catholic priest Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for espousing the Hermetic tradition rather than his affirmation of heliocentricity."

The Hermetic tradition was pre-Christian, and said nothing about the divinity of Christ.

Presumably the person who wrote the Wikipedia article has read more of the book than just one paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:27 AM

Keith, you did not support your assertion with a Wikipedia page, but one from a different online encyclopedia which none of us seem to have heard of, and which posts patent bollocks in its "subject of the day". However, about Yates, definitely a she, seems a reasonably well regarded historian with a post at the Warburg Institute which is affiliated with the University of London, has been dead for 35 years. She clearly divided opinion, and Trevor-Roper was on her side, which is not a good sign. You would need to read the biography by Marjorie Jones in order to understand better her veracity. But you quote one paragraph out of a whole book Keith, who knows what the rest of the book says.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM

Dave,
The killing of Bruno was an attack on all science, not just one aspect.

What evidence do you have that his execution had anything to do with his scientific theories.
His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?

No idea Keith, I have no access to her books, or the article. So I cannot verify whether that is indeed what she wrote, nor can I read the context in order to estimate how credible she was

Why assume it is all lies Dave.
Why not at least look her up first?
That is what "an academic" would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:14 AM

Musket, you demand that your assertions be given consideratiom without your having to produce anything to support them.
Just your "say so."
You then criticises me for only supporting my assertion with a Wiki page, even though I only used a direct quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy!

Now you reject a quote from this person as somehow inadequate.

Dame Frances Amelia Yates DBE FBA (28 November 1899 – 29 September 1981) was an English historian who focused on the study of the Renaissance. In an academic capacity, she taught at the Warburg Institute of the University of London for many years, and also wrote a number of seminal books on the subject of esoteric history.
Her books Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964), The Art of Memory (1966), and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972) are major works.

In 1971, Yates was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of East Anglia, which was presented to her by Angus Wilson,[70] and in the New Year Honours 1972 Yates was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Art History.[71][72] In October 1973, she was awarded a £5000 Wolfson Award for her wider oeuvre,[73] and in January 1974, Yates delivered four Northcliffe lectures at University College London (UCL). They would subsequently be published by Routledge in 1975 as Shakespeare's Last Plays: A New Approach.[74] She was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975.[75] That same year also saw the publication of Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century, which collected together lectures that she had presented in the 1950s.[76] In February 1976, Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts offered Yates the Kennedy Professorship, which she declined.[77]

Yates was promoted in the Queen's Birthday Honours 1977 to Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) for services to Renaissance studies.[78][79] In 1978, the University of Pisa awarded her the Premio Galilio Galilie for her contribution to the study of Italian history.[33] In March 1979, the British Academy awarded her a £2000 grant so that she could continue to travel from her home to London in order to conduct research.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:06 AM

No idea Keith, I have no access to her books, or the article. So I cannot verify whether that is indeed what she wrote, nor can I read the context in order to estimate how credible she was. Wikipedia states that she argued that Bruno was burned for espousing Hermeticism rather than Heliocentricity. But that is not so very different, as Hermetic thought had a huge influence on Medieval science, certainly on Newton, and possibly on earlier figures such as Roger Bacon. The killing of Bruno was an attack on all science, not just one aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:56 AM

"A historian of the period."

Well you would challenge it yourself Keith, surely? Is said historian eminent, alive, writing in the last twenty years and reflecting a consensus of his peers? I believe that's the Acheson criteria?

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:39 AM

Dave, my quote was an extract from an article by Yates, an historian of the period.
Do you challenge its authenticity or veracity?

he says "This article is based on my books, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964), and The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966). On Bruno, Gilbert, and Bacon, see my essay "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science," in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, Charles S. Singleton, ed. (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 255–274.
Frances A. Yates.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:23 AM

Comparing steering wheels to cars again Goofus? (Or autos, as they say in foreign climes.)

There's a fair bit we don't quite get yet. Sure, there's the odd hypothesis surrounding most areas but the problem with getting God to fill in the gaps is that said God becomes smaller, insignificant and irrelevant as time goes on.

Oh....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:37 AM

You guys comparing religion to God, is like comparing political stances to science....apples to oranges....and probably too shallow to think it through...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 09:58 PM

"Bill, you seem to be making the same comparison implying that not only has the church been guilty of atrocities in its history ,..."

No! I absolutely am not saying any such thing! Evil is done by greedy people who want power & money & such. Some of them happen to be atheists, some claim to be religious. The problem is, the religious ones have an easier excuse built in! "Oh, those we did away with were heretics and deniers of the faith!"

The atheists can't say much beyond "it was us or them, so get over it!"

An evangelistic faith? Oh indeed! "It says right here in our Book that we should go out and convert the heathen! What? You don't believe in our Book? Well, that's the point! We get to harass you until you do! It says so ...right here in this Book you don't believe in! Here.. I'll read you some verses out of that Book you don't believe in until you surrender or until we get enough power to make you sorry you resisted!"
   That worked pretty well with some ignorant tribes who already were superstitious and ripe for a story better than the Fish God they worshiped, and moderately well with half-way educated groups which found it easier not to argue when burning stakes were seen occasionally...... but not 'quite' so well with well-educated folks who knew enough history & philosophy to judge for themselves how to evaluate religious claims.
   Now, the basic urge to evangelize is still on auto-pilot with some sects, even as various states allow their citizens to think for themselves.

Get over it? No... I don't think so. Just keep on "preaching to the choir"... but if you knock on MY door, be prepared for an interesting discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 09:13 PM

Oh, *this* thread got fun in a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 08:18 PM

If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?

Obviously because its God's will.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 07:06 PM

Makes Wikiballs seem sensible...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 06:39 PM

I can't help noticing, Pete, that you tend to ignore awkward questions. Take the the stuff you wrote about "group think" above and my response to it, i.e.

"What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda".

So, Pete, what percentage (roughly) of scientists, working within the field of evolutionary biology, do you believe are closet creationists too intimidated by group think to speak out? What, if any, evidence do you have to show that any such browbeaten closet creationists exist?

In addition, do you believe that modern science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy? If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 05:11 PM

"Christianity is an evangelistic faith"

And it isn't helped in this by some, a small minority, of Christians labelling themselves as "evangelical", spouting utter, palpable nonsense of the type which comes from places like Answers in Genesis, and telling people who might otherwise have some time for the Christian message that said nonsense is central to the Christian faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:21 PM

Bill, you seem to be making the same comparison implying that not only has the church been guilty of atrocities in its history , but that Christians should,nt even interact with unbelievers (..every one else..)    Christianity is an evangelistic faith, I am afraid you will have to get over it. Not that most Christians I know will press the issue, but on here it is the atheists that want to press the issue .               Dave, keith cited two other sources , you will have to try harder if you want to discredit the information.    Seems to me atheists want to condemn the church for as much persecution of scientists as possible , but are , I think, selective with the facts , and secondly ,it was a long time ago. And thirdly , no one is excusing any said persecution anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:06 PM

".......more than a tad insulting......."    Are'nt we a bit sensitive stu!       That expression of an opinion is just that, and no reason to get all upset.   But , just supposing by a long stretch of the imagination , my words could be considered insulting, you certainly don't practise what you preach judging by the flowing accusations following. Step back a bit, surely you are not drawing a comparison between creationists expressing arguments and the violent excesses of Isis and of violence and bloodshed from centuries before. If you want to play that game there is more than enough blood on the hands of atheists and evolution believers , acting consistently with their belief.             Oh, and when was the "dark ages"?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:04 PM

What the blazes is encyclopedia.com? I have never heard of it. However a glance at its featured subject today does not engender much confidence"

"socialized medicine publicly administered
system of national health care. The term is used to describe programs
that range from government operation of medical facilities to national
health-insurance plans. In 1948, Great Britain passed the National
Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services
for all citizens. The system was later amended, now charging a small fee
for th... "


Anything which does not realise that Great Britain is a geographical rather than a political entity, and yet calls itself an encyclopedia, really does not deserve to be trusted on more complex things.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:50 PM

it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!
He was a Dominican Friar and an active and prolific theologian.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:45 PM

Isn't it the point that religious believers have ALWAYS been so confident of their basic 'truths' that they felt obligated to defend them against all attempts to suggest reasonable alternatives? Some centuries it's burning at the stake, sometimes it's just preaching on street corners.
   It's not about debating exactly why the clerics of the day decided Bruno was a problem... it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!

" Freedom OF religion implicitly requires freedom FROM religion for those who wish it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:42 PM

Confirming Wiki,
"The grounds on which Bruno was sentenced are unknown, for the processo, or official document containing the sentence, is irretrievably lost. It formed part of a mass of archives that were transported, by order of Napoleon, from Rome to Paris, where they were pulped. From the reports of the interrogations, it is, however, possible to form an idea of the drift of the case against him. To his major theological heresy, the denial of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, was added suspicion of diabolical magical practices. It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some mysterious magicoreligious movement. This movement may have been in the nature of a secret Hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry. If any philosophical or cosmological points were included in his condemnation, these would have been inextricably bound up with his "Egyptianism."

The legend that the nineteenth century built around Bruno as the hero who, unlike Galileo, refused to retract his belief that the earth moves is entirely without foundation."

This article is based on my books, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964), and The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966). On Bruno, Gilbert, and Bacon, see my essay "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science," in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, Charles S. Singleton, ed. (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 255–274.
Frances A. Yates.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Giordano_Bruno.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:24 PM

Bishop,
It is not well documented, or documented at all, that he was convicted for his insight into the nature of stars.
His religious beliefs were more than enough to get him burnt. People burned for much less back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:01 PM

Good old Keith. Let's all grasp Wikipedia in order to make a good point look suspect!   The case of Bruno is well documented and comparisons are made with that of Al Capone being incarcerated for tax fiddles.

Bad enough those who bring sky pixies into debate without invoking the suspect rambling of Wikipedia into it. I know many entries are factual as there is no reason for spin, but wherever superstition is in the text, I prefer to smile and look for better references.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 11:07 AM

Oh dear. We had better consider Sydney Carter a heretic as well, hadn't we Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 10:47 AM

Actually it appears that he would still be considered a heretic for his theology by just about any Christianity-related body except Unitarians. But the follow up question is, what's wrong with a little heresy?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 10:36 AM

That quote is taken out of context. The wider discussion on the wiki page suggests that Bruno's scientific views as well as his philosophical ones were responsible for his conviction, including:

"claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;"

Bruno has been described as a "walking, talking shitstorm" disliked by Galileo and Kepler, but he was a free thinker who infuriated the church with his recalcitrance and iconoclasm. Saint Carol and his bank of merry men still thinks he was a heretic to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 08:05 AM

On this day in 1600 Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake because he had the insight to recognise that the stars were like our sun and could have planets around them,

He was not executed for his scientific ideas.

Wiki,
"According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[61] Similarly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts that

"Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc."

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 07:44 AM

" Perhaps I ought to be more proactive in challenging their imaginary science"

This sort of attitude has been prevalent in the Christian church for centuries, and has been stated in the thread on Zika an organisation run by old white men for a couple of millennia or so is bound to be totally self-serving whilst ensuring above all it's own survival and it's grip on power

The creationists are the direct intellectual descendants of the Inquisition; they speak with an authority they have not earned and from a position of ignorance of the subjects they proclaim their judgement on. They are so vehement because they are scared of their fragile worldview being challenged by people whose knowledge and understanding far exceeds their own struggling intellects; they cannot even conceive of the nature of the work of those they so readily condemn.

On this day in 1600 Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake because he had the insight to recognise that the stars were like our sun and could have planets around them, and these planets might harbour life.

He was killed by the same breed of nasty, small-minded cowards that in this age rail against science and free thought, the same breed that denied the inquisition as a tool to spread their fear and ignorance now blow up ancient archeological sites, throw gay people off buildings, stone people and try to rubbish the work of honest scientists and spread their own insidious views into our schools and wider culture.

They should be rebuffed and challenged at every opportunity; they want us to return to the dark ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 06:10 AM

Something a bit more interesting than pro/anti-fundie BS about irrelevant issues:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/02/even-einstein-had-his-doubts-about-gravitational-waves

It is interesting to see the process whereby Einstein was persuaded to change his mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 05:55 AM

"I suspect that what you call collective endeavour is just as likely to be collective censure."

Total and utter rubbish, and more than a tad insulting to a lot of honest, hard-working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:35 PM

...and you can take that from an expert!!

GfS

P.S. I was going to 'hold forth' a little on responding on something that is OBVIOUS....but I couldn't resist...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:32 PM

a one-way door to oblivion.

Kinda like ignorance & stupidity........

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:08 PM

" ... you would think that I was initiating these debates rather than responding to the atheists here who just can't help themselves from looking for a verbal contest by mocking creation belief."

You do initiate these 'debates', Pete, by parroting the nonsense that you read on creationists' websites at every opportunity.

" ... especially since their atheistic beliefs have been responsible for countless deaths and misery!"

What?! I don't think that we've heard that one before! When you're really desperate, accuse them of causing "countless deaths and misery"!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:59 PM

black hole is a one-way door to oblivion. According to general relativity, once anything crosses its boundary—the event horizon—it cannot return to the outside. For that particle, the black hole is the entire future.

We'll never actually get a chance to see the particle live out that destiny: Any light the particle emits (which would be the only way for us to observe its death plunge) will be stretched to longer and longer wavelengths with correspondingly less energy, until it fades beyond detectability. In fact, the story is even more strange. If we observe the particle falling in, we could never live long enough to see it reach the event horizon. The extreme gravity of the black hole makes time appear, to an outside observer, to go more slowly there; in fact, the particle would seem to us to take infinite time to reach the event horizon. That's true even though from the particle's reference frame, it crosses the event horizon unremarkably, with no unusual effects on time and space.

If a black hole is a one-way door to oblivion, you might wonder if there is any way to go the other way through the door—and it's a good question. General relativity, which has been our standard theory of gravity for nearly 100 years, makes no distinction between past and future, time running forward and time running backward. (See physicist Sean Carroll discuss the time-symmetry of physics in his interview with Nautilus.) Newtonian physics also is time-symmetric in the same way. So the idea of "white holes"—black holes reversed in time—does make theoretical sense.

Like its opposite, a white hole has an event horizon, one which cannot be crossed from the outside. But white holes' event horizons lie in the past: Particles originating there will appear to "fade in," with increasing energy and wavelength of any light they emit. If a particle somehow came into existence inside that event horizon, it would be expelled to the outside.

In fact, everything about white holes just looks like black holes in reverse. General relativity has absolutely no problem predicting such a thing and describing it mathematically.

But do white holes exist in nature? And if they don't, what does that say about the symmetry of time?

Seeing nothing vs seeing something


Black holes are common in the cosmos—nearly every large galaxy harbors a supermassive one in its nucleus, not to mention smaller specimens. However, astronomers have yet to identify a single white hole. That doesn't rule out their existence entirely, since it might be hard to see one: If they effectively repel particles, there's a small possibility they could be lurking out there somewhere, invisible. Nevertheless, none of all the diverse objects astronomers have observed seem to resemble what we'd expect from white holes.



Supermassive black holes, which are millions or billions of times heavier than that, form by some currently unknown mechanism. In any case, they still are the result of gravitational collapse, whether from a huge super-star born in the early days of the Universe, a huge cloud of gas at the heart of a primeval galaxy, or some other phenomenon. Forming a white hole, however, would require something akin to a gravitational sewer explosion, and it's not clear how that sort of event could ever occur. One possibility is that white holes might be "glued" to black holes. In this view, a black hole and white hole are two sides of the same thing, connected via a wormhole, a concept familiar from many science-fiction stories. Unfortunately, as with forming white holes from scratch, this doesn't really solve the problem: According to theory, any matter falling into the wormhole will cause it to collapse, closing the passage between the black and white holes. (It's also technically possible to create a stable wormhole if "exotic matter" exists with negative energy—a similar principle proposed for a "warp drive"—but no evidence for such material exists.)


A matter of time

So we're left with the probable conclusion that our Universe contains a multitude of black holes but no white holes. That's not because of a fundamental asymmetry in time—general relativity still works just as well either way time flows—but due to the nature of gravitational collapse: It only works one way.

This parallels the situation with the entire cosmos: There was a Big Bang, an initial expansion of all we observe, apparently from a single point. But the evidence points pretty strongly against the possibility of a Big Crunch, a re-collapse of all we observe into a single point sometime in the distant future. If current trends continue (specifically if dark energy doesn't drastically change its character), the Universe will continue to expand forever at an ever-faster rate. It seems there will be no symmetrical end to the Universe, where everything gets sucked back into a tiny singularity, just as it started.

The Big Bang actually looks like a white hole in many respects, and may be the closest our Universe ever gets to having one. It lies in the past for any observer in the Universe, and all we see expanded outward from it. However, it didn't have an event horizon (meaning it was something called a "naked singularity", which is far less kinky than it sounds). Despite that, it resembles gravitational collapse in reverse. {think of our universe banging then accelerating with dark energy} it is a wierd reverse think

Just because the equations of general relativity allow white holes and big crunches, warp drives and wormholes, doesn't mean these things actually exist in nature. The asymmetry of time in gravity isn't inherent, but seems to arise from the behavior of matter and energy: gravitational collapse at the end of time, initial expansion at time's beginning. The deep meaning of that is something physicists are still trying to comprehend.




Matthew Francis is a physicist, science writer, public speaker, educator, and frequent wearer of jaunty hats. He's currently writing a book on cosmology with the working title Back Roads, Dark Skies: A Cosmological Journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete fom seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:54 PM

To look at muskets post you would think that I was initiating these debates rather than responding to the atheists here who just can't help themselves from looking for a verbal contest by mocking creation belief. And then they claim they don't care about it!   Perhaps I ought to be more proactive in challenging their imaginary science , especially since their atheistic beliefs have been responsible for countless deaths and misery!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:21 PM

"There is no such consensus amongst the "religiously inclined"."

OK, nitpicker - amongst CERTAIN FACTIONS of the religiously inclined. Of course the religiously inclined are very prone to splitting into factions. They struggle to agree about the details of their fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:06 PM

What is pete rattling on about?

How can I despise you? You give me a good laugh, and that can't be all bad? I don't mock your lack of intelligence pete, but by the same token, coming on here proposing sky pixies as relevant to normal intelligent people gets the reaction it deserves.

Sure, idiots like those whose websites you quote from are a potential menace and as we see in your case, they prey on the gullible and potentially vulnerable in order to push their stupid agenda.

This thread is about reality. Bringing your imaginary friend into it is off topic to say the very least. Creationist nutters are just an embarrassment to real Christians.

Life with it. But don't think for one minute I or anyone else on here cares one way or another about your gormless superstition. But I'll point and laugh at it. Before normal people did laugh, superstition was taken seriously and that causes more deaths and misery than any other reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:38 PM

"the belief that the Bible is a special book which contains the 'Word of God' and an accurate account of the origin of life on Earth is also based purely on a consensus among the religiously inclined"

No it isn't. There is no such consensus amongst the "religiously inclined".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:39 PM

"Ever heard of groupthink and peer pressure !"

Another 'old chestnut' pulled from your bumper bag of (mouldy) old chestnuts, Pete! What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda". It's all a giant conspiracy!! Evidence, please!
You also like to suggest that conclusions arising out of consensus are invariably wrong. Apart from the fact that that is a gross over-generalisation, you should bear in mind that the belief that the Bible is a special book which contains the 'Word of God' and an accurate account of the origin of life on Earth is also based purely on a consensus among the religiously inclined - there is absolutely no evidence to support such beliefs. On the other hand there are vast mountains of evidence in support of current thinking on evolutionary biology - it's just that you refuse to engage with that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:36 PM

We can keep banging heads I suppose so here goes again. So all opinion "arrived at by thinking atheists are arrived at by....thinking ".   Apart from , well they would say that would,nt they, possible response   , I think that the idea that positions are formed merely intellectually is a bit simplistic. For instance a good case can be made that part of the reason Darwin totally went atheist was emotional , due to family losses.       Obviously I am generalising when I use terms like atheist and scientist .....I am not going to great lengths to indicate every nuance .      As to ...faulty comprehension ..............." That is your perspective , and maybe question begging.          ".......adherence to the scientific method...."   No , I am not equating that to a belief system.   Rather questioning that evolutionism accords with it , as you cannot do observable, repeatable , testable science on the past !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:52 PM

I don't think I am questioning humility or not , stu. Ever heard of groupthink and peer pressure ! But as you think all your colleagues are unbiased , and not shackled to an evolutionist agenda, it may well be that future generations will ask how they were ever taken in by a theory that was contrary to observational and testable science. However, I suspect that what you call collective endeavour is just as likely to be collective censure.   And what about bills link?   If you cannot frame an objection in your own words , I shall not bother addressing it, other than to say I see no reason to equate speculative ideas with in the present science. And the reason I put an ism, on the end is 1, good for the goose..... And 2 , trying to indicate the whole system of belief as opposed to natural selection and such observable occurrence , but which evolutionists like to play bait and switch with.       "......massive, immovable......."   Wot, like evolutionism ,

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:33 PM

Dave , appealing to musket not to equate me with mainstream religion does not cut it with him. He despises me ad much as the compromiser with scripture. In fact in the past he has shown more disdain with the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:12 PM

Don't go sayin bullshit to Bill without smiling around here pardner.

If you all don't see the Gravity in the sitchuasion I reckon you outta go read what yer Bible or Urantia book has say and go satisfy yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:00 PM

Bullshit, Bill....opinions don't necessarily contain understanding, or complete facts...usually limited, cherry picked tidbits which only re-affirm the limited bias of the holder. Because of the reluctance of those who seek the whole truth about anything, which requires actually expanding one's view, which may include actually having to admit that you didn't know it all...and you might have been laboring under false pretenses, and can't bring yourselves to ever admit that your opinion was based on the incomplete...and your pride and stubbornness prevents one from having to admit that you were wrong.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:29 AM

"However the atheist position , wants to rule out theist...esp biblical...position a priori , "

That is simply false, Pete. All opinions by thinking atheists are arrived at.. thinking. As 17 people have told you here, most 'atheists' don't bother to deny religious claims- they merely doubt them because they see little or no convincing evidence. And besides, you are implicitly equating 'atheist' with 'scientist', even though there are many scientists who are not atheists and many atheists who are not scientists..... and many more-- like me-- who are neither. I am a skeptic! I look for bad reasoning from all sides!

And here we have a prime example of bad reasoning... or faulty comprehension.... or just plain stubborness...

"and as you know, in my opinion the atheists is just as much a religious position as the theist ."

Whenever we ...once again.... explain the flaws in several of your claims, you resort again to that one. "Your opinion" is just a classic way of hurling an insult... "Ha... you just believe your position in the same way I believe mine! Mine is just as good as yours!"

That is false... it is out of line with basic definitions and with all understanding of what is meant by the language. You are essentially just clenching your fists, closing your eyes, stomping your foot and insisting, " Yes it is, Yes it is, Yes it is, Yes it is!!"... as if enough repetition of a fallacious idea will make it so.

Even though you actually say it politely and quietly, you are holding to a false definition because it 'seems' to weaken the other side. Perhaps there ARE a few 'atheists' who just blindly and emotionally reject religious thought because they have had bad experiences... *shrug*... but that does NOT serve to define the category itself as "just as religious as true believers"..... and attempting to slip in adherence to the scientific method as 'some sort of belief system similar to unthinking atheism' is a rhetorical device that just won't fly!

As I have said before... believe what you wish and pray & read the Bible and be a good guy...... just don't throw out faulty science and careless definitions to try to discredit those who do NOT take the Bible literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:31 AM

Do they not believe or do they not have belief?

Not much use praying to a concept you reject eh?

Don't get me wrong. I have a relative who is a vicar. He likes the metaphor as a basis for judging his actions and inactions. Although even he says that the job description may not include literal belief but certainly requires him to let others assume it.

The Vatican has an observatory? Our local Tescos has a Costa. Doesn't make Tesco shareholders pseudo baristers.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:23 AM

"claiming that they are the lofty , unprejudiced seekers after truth."

Although the likes of Dawkins give that impression, it totally unrepresentative and virtually every scientist I know possesses far more humility and understands tang of their own failings as unbiased interpreters of their data. This is why we have methodology in place to eliminate any bias as much as we can. It's worth pointing out that science is a collective endeavour and scientists are very robust in their insistence on making sure any flaws in method, results or conclusions are addressed.


" it's description of life producing"after it's kind" is in accord with observational science, and evolutionism is not."

You've forgotten Bill's link earlier Pete? The 'observational science' argument is a falsehood, plain and simple. Also, it's 'evolution' we can observe, not 'evolutionism', which if it were an acceptable name, is a different thing.


"It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it"

But it's not. A creationist starts with the massive, immovable and uncontestable assumption that God exists, and any evidence that is reviewed is only considered viable of it confirms the existence of God. This isn't science, plain and simple so there's no point in creationists feeling scientists they're doing it wrong; we know what we are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:21 AM

Musket, religion in the present includes the search. The Vatican has its own professional astronomical observatory for instance. Please don't think that Pete is representative of present day religion. No mainstream church believes in creationism any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:51 AM

Presupposition and worldview are aspects of humanity. The trick of exploring science is to leave them at the door. The nearest thing to presupposition would be seeing where the evidence leads you, using that stance as a hypothesis and testing it. If it still holds, use it to test other claims till it is either adequately explained or blown out in the light of new information. The subject of this thread will both rewrite text books and confirm others, bolstering the quest for answers.

The answers pete seems to like were discarded in 1583 onwards. You see, religion has in the past included the search but got lost in the fog of forgetting to include a waste paper bin.

All this tosh about creationist scientists. It reminds me of Hollywood bimbos advertising body lotions where they look at the camera and say "here comes the science!" Or that 73% of 39 cats prefer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:39 AM

The 'GUEST' above was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM

"Yes, the creationists base line is the bible ,"

Why choose the Bible as a baseline? Why not the 'Complete Works of Shakespeare' or the 'I Ching' or 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'The Bumper Book of Fun Things To Do On A Wet Sunday Afternoon'?

"It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it ..."

No it's not!

"Of course, that does not mean an evolutionist cannot do some good science ,"

As you plainly do not understand science, you're not qualified to pass such a judgement, Pete. You wouldn't recognise "good science" if you tripped over it!

Finally, for the umpteenth time, there's no such animal as an "evolutionist".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM

Bill, every one , every scientist has presuppositions and worldview ,and as you know, in my opinion the atheists is just as much a religious position as the theist . However the atheist position , wants to rule out theist...esp biblical...position a priori , claiming that they are the lofty , unprejudiced seekers after truth.   It is true that they will not be absolutist, but when it come to origins ideas ,they have to be ,because the data just keeps inconveniently necessitating adjustments of the story. But , though in details they are not , and cannot be absolutist , at the base line they are. Evolutionism is heralded as the fact, whatever the evidence.   They are just as fundamentalist as the bible believer. Yes, the creationists base line is the bible , and openly admits as much , and in this are more honest than the committed evolutionist.   It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it , in fact, IMO, more so since it's description of life producing"after it's kind" is in accord with observational science, and evolutionism is not.   Of course, that does not mean an evolutionist cannot do some good science , maybe even equal to the theists and creationists of the scientific revolution of yesteryear !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM

Oh ear shimrod. You are the one who apparently is a scientist , but I cannot recall a positive...ie non ad honomim. Post on this subject from you.   Bill does use logical arguments , even though I think them skewed ,as I will try to explain next post , but you seem to be just snide.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 02:16 PM

Let me know when he comes back to lecture. I'll be in the pub. There are times when it is easier to remain ignorant...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:40 PM

"evolutionism clashes with observational ,testable repeatable science ,"

Oh dear - that old chestnut again! Pete, you have demonstrated time and time again, on this forum, that you do not understand science, what it encompasses or how it is done. You don't even understand the difference between 'belief' and 'evidence'. Get yourself an education and then come back and lecture us about science!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:37 PM

Pete.... as I have said before in our discussions, having 'qualifications'... that is, a degree and job... IN science is relevant only when they are using scientific principles as their base.

When a 'scientist' analyzes, organizes, studies and forms conclusions based on religious beliefs, he has just switched hats and is acting AS a theologian and using his scientific background as a tool to dispute the majority opinion in his own field!

He may be excellent in lab work, field research, statistical analysis...etc.... but if he finds data that 'seem' to contradict what he thinks he reads in the Bible, and proposes theories to re-assess his own or others' data to reconcile it with his religious beliefs, he is NOT, I repeat, acting as a scientist any longer.

   Many scientists consider themselves to be religious, in that they accept basic principles of conduct and values outlined in religious texts, but they view science as a way of studying HOW god set the universe going and what has happened SINCE 'creation'! Trying to reconcile a literal reading of the bible with science, when the very status OF the bible as History is itself in question, leads to very awkward positions.

It is irrelevant " whether .. those writing historical narrative intended it to be understood as exactly that.". We have no way of knowing what they thought.... we can only look at various versions of old manuscripts, compare translations of partial texts in archaic languages, do **scientific** dating of parchment and ink, do archaeological research to look for relevant materials..... and make **scientific** assessments of what is found.
There are perfectly good explanations for those who wrote 1000-5000 years ago doing what they did..... but being "inspired by God" is only one of several possible explanations..... and 'believing' that they were inspired is just that- a belief. That is why the word belief is used in religious matters. It is a theory in the sense that YOU use 'theory' when trying to cast doubt on certain scientific areas. The difference is, it is a theory that is very difficult to test in any meaningful way. (Finding 'evidence' that MAY point to the actual sites of Sodom & Gomorrah is irrelevant in determining whether some angry 'god' destroyed them. All sorts of other evidence may suggest how 'natural phenomena' caused those cities to be lost.)
------------------------------------------
You said:
" Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links."

In this, you again miss the point of what science & 'Darwinism' are about. Science, properly done, doesn't bother to label stuff as 'fact'. Science is officially open-ended and willing to change IF better data is found. It is true that some things are so obvious & not questioned that they are as close to absolute 'fact' as to make no difference, but stuff like the age of the universe and its composition are hotly debated... as are investigations into anthropology. The difference is, science simply cannot proceed using Adam & Eve as their basic 'truth'... and I cannot rewrite all the data in order to give YOU line & verse from my link, when you will just use a non-scientific quote from Creation.com to refute me.
We operate under different rules... you have 'beliefs' that you MUST defend, no matter what % of the evidence is against you. YOU (meaning those with strong fundamentalist religious beliefs) are making certain serious claims... and the burden of proof is always on those who assert. A circular argument does not answer that burden of proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:36 PM

So, stu, why do you think I should take responsibility for arguments I don't make myself?   And when I say I am not going to go through the whole lot , why should you expect me to. I could do the same as bill , and post a link from a scientist refuting his article ( if I knew how to do it ! ) but that would not make much of a discussion.      I don't understand what you are getting at in the first line , i,m afraid . But , there was nothing in the article that could be described as verifying evolutionism as true. Best I can see , was some reasons why it might not be false.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:15 PM

Dave, I may not have the lofty academics that many of you have but even I can recognise a fallacy, I think. And I think your is called begging the question. Unless you think I was claiming you can get a PhDs in creationism ! It is whether evolutionism or creationism stands up under scrutiny is the question, and though it may be a denial of the evolutionary gloss of their training, it is not as regards the actual data. Your presupposing creation lacks credibility does not make it so. And it seems to me that though evolutionary academics can wax eloquent on technical details , when presented with even understandable to the layman evidence ,that evolutionism clashes with observational ,testable repeatable science , there has been no good answer , but a claimed expectation that science will provide an answer to the problem

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:35 AM

"It takes work and effort to do science, including getting up to speed on whatever you're discussing on forums."

But, surely, Stu, all you need to be an expert on evolution is to read the stuff posted on 'Creation.com' (or whatever). There's a danger, if you make an effort to "get up to speed" with contemporary, mainstream thinking on the subject, that you might learn something that clashes with your (religious) beliefs - and we can't have that, can we?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:21 AM

It's what they ascribed movement to that was suspect....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:05 AM

Should have been "recognise that people watching the night and seasons go round, under clear skies, would have recognised the patterns of movement"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 07:03 AM

"but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact"

That matter is fully addressed in the first point.


"I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links."

Boom-tish! There it is. You've absolved of taking any responsibility for the statements creationists make; it's the point of the article. It takes work and effort to do science, including getting up to speed on whatever you're discussing on forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:52 AM

They built the Antikythera mechanism (maybe that involved Archimedes) to predict these patterns very precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:01 AM

I reckon ancient goat herders were a lot less ignorant about what goes on in the night sky than your average modern human.

It's typical modern arrogance (and disinterest in the sky) to focus on myths associated with the constellations, and astrology, rather than recognise that people watching the night and seasons go round, under clear skies, wouldn't have recognised the patterns of movement.

Sure they, didn't (so far as we know) realise than the earh went round the sun - but you can pass an exam in astro-navigation using an earth-centric model of the sky.

They were probably quite good at selective goat breeding as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:50 AM

And I most definitely did not describe goat herders, the writers of the Bible, or indeed any ancient people as "ignoramuses". I was reserving that description for present day creationists who took their writings literally. The concept of a "scientifically qualified creationist" is a strange one. Its true that someone can get a scientific PhD, then go and do something else. Even be a priest, John Polkinghorne is far from the only example. One of my closest colleagues in astrophysics, now sadly no longer with us, had a parallel career as a Jesuit priest. But to get involved in creationism, that is a denial of the training that obtaining their qualification involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM

"GOAT herders" is what I actually wrote. They probably weren't ignorant ... I bet they knew a lot about GOATS!
.,,.
Ah; but how much did they know about "German poet and philosopher, Johann Gottfried Herder."?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:44 AM

I have often though that Daniel reads like a script to be performed. Not sure whether there was any tradition of performing arts in Maccabean Judea, which is when it seems to originate, but its post the great age of Greek theatre, so its possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:08 PM

"according to shimrod, that the ancient men who wrote the biblical accounts were a bunch of sheep herding ignoramuses .....or similar wording..."

"A bunch of Bronze Age, Middle Eastern GOAT herders" is what I actually wrote. They probably weren't ignorant ... I bet they knew a lot about GOATS!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:07 PM

scientifically qualified

You don't know what the term MEANS, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:55 PM

Bill, I have just read your link. The writer has largely given examples of arguments that informed and especially scientifically qualified creationists do not use. Certainly the less informed might use such arguments, and they are the sort that the likes of Dawkins likes to engage. Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:21 PM

How , Dave, can you KnOW the biblical writers did not intend their writings to be taken literally? Of course people like Daniel and Ezekiel when writing down their visions were unlikely to think the many strange images were literal , and as you yourself generously concede, there are other good , creative passages elsewhere.   I would say the internal evidence , however, indicates that those writing historical narrative intended it to be understood as exactly that.      As far as the gospels are concerned , I don't think anyone claims they were written during ,or straight after Jesus 'earthly life. And it is clear that there are different details esp john. Of course, had there been exact correspondence the skeptics would be crying collusion!          As far as "ignoramuses " are concerned , you will maybe recall according to shimrod, that the ancient men who wrote the biblical accounts were a bunch of sheep herding ignoramuses .....or similar wording...   From what you say here , I take it that you don't go along with that blinkered assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:51 PM

Thank you stu.             Bill and musket, I was replying to Dave re the link by s. Tompkins .       Did you read that link , before you took one part of my reply to Dave out of context ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 07:55 AM

" pikaia and Lancelot please"

Good question. The Lancelet's muscles are configured differently to Pikaia's. They are taller and narrower allowing Lancelets to swim faster; it's likely Pikaia could not do that. There are other morphological differences too, including tentacles on the head of Pikaia, the presence of nine appendages that might be something to do with the respiratory system (lancelets breath through their skin).

While lancelets are considered very close relatives of vertebrates (,molecular biology has given new insight into their position), the status of Pikaia is far less certain; I'm not sure what the current thinking on this is.

It's interesting to note that during the very early development of humans, we too have a notochord and pharyngeal slits.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:00 AM

I think the point about ignoramuses is that every age has them, but their contribution does not usually survive. Most people have heard about Thomas Aquinas, few about Etienne Tempier, who tried to shut him up.

And the writers of the Bible, well many of them were pretty good. Deutero-Isiah, and the writer of Ecclesiastes, well they were up there with the best, Shakespeare for instance. Its a great pity that the term "gospel" has come to be used to mean "to be taken absolutely literally". For I am sure that is not what most of the writers of the Bible mean't, any more than Milton or Bunyan. The gospels sure, have a great deal of historical veracity, particularly that of Luke, but even there the differences between accounts of the same events reflect that they were assembled from second hand, often imperfect recollections some years after the events that they describe.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:49 AM

Alex Jones of the One Show???

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:48 AM

GfS single handedly probes that he doesn't have the slightest understanding of what natural selection is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:02 AM

Glad it was a complement because it certainly wasn't a compliment.

Hey pete! Nobody said the script writers of the bible and other ancient story books lacked imagination. They seemed to have tons of the stuff. So did the people s thousand years later who rewrote most of it to satisfy their sponsors.

Doesn't make it err.. Gospel.

What makes the religious claims to answers absurd is that even people who believed in imaginary friends couldn't help disproving the notion. Galileo and Darwin were greatly worried that their work conflicted with their brainwashed upbringing. Newton failed to make the link that his own work suggested. Even old Albert put a theological argument up against quantum probability.

Yet still, reality marched on. And still marches. Not much chance of dark matter having a white beard and a grudge against normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:35 PM

Hey Hey Hey!!..The troll club is back...bringing with them their snide wannabe jabs.

It's OK....and for what it's worth, Greg... In regards to your last post, I was giving you a complement!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:21 PM

Ya think Goofus is incoherent? Check out his script writers, Alex Jones & Howard Nema - both easily "Googled".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM

Bill refers to gfs's recent content as "convoluted"; I beg to differ

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 07:09 PM

Greg F. just single-handedly just disproved the evolution theory.
Atta boy!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM

ancient men were ignoramuses

So, unfortunately, are certain modern men.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:47 PM

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


Bill: "God must NOT exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the my secular liberal agenda says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe your liberal agenda?"
Bill: "Because it was written by God."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:27 PM

"according to the gospels Jesus affirmed the genesis account."..Ummm... if they had said anything else, they'd have been edited like many other parts were. But the real issue is that you are begging the question:
"Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

some more reading, done by experts who explain things better than I do.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:01 PM

"Usual stuff from shimrod who is so convinced , against all the evidence that ancient men were ignoramuses."

So where did I write that ancient men and women were ignoramuses? I am not "convinced" of any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:28 PM

Biblical literalism is a somewhat vague expression but if you mean reading narrative as narrative , poetry as poetry , proverbs as proverbs etc , then that is my position. And I don't agree that that is a modern phenomenon . The church fathers , though prone to excessive allergories sometimes, were biblical creationists , and according to the gospels Jesus affirmed the genesis account. The article did however, make some valid points, like the tendency of many charismatics to ask what the bible says to them without finding out what it meant to the original hearers. But I fail to see how the original hearers would understand the teaching of the narrative parts of scripture as allegory !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

Biblical literalism appears to be largely a modern phenomenon. Here is an article by Stephen Tomkins on how it has taken root.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:59 PM

Dave, maybe I did,nt make myself clear enough in my reply to stu, but I am not interested in disproving dinos , or some of them at least,had feathers , as it makes no difference to creation . If they did, they would not be the first mosaic creature. However , to evolutionists (who were promoting dino to bird before any feathers were found) it would be important.   Agreed ...pushing ...might be a bit of a blanket word not applicable to all scientists but certainly would be to a lot of evolutionists.      Your last question was answered previously by# but it also goes by creation.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM

You seem, Dave, to have appropriated my remarks re shimrod , to yourself.   Yes people have always been bright enough to distinguish between myth and allegory , but the writings of the early church fathers are affirming of the biblical account.   Those accounts themselves are written in narrative with stylistic indicators that early genesis is narrative as much as later genesis.       And who are these modern people that think the ancients lacked creativity and imagination? Certainly not bible scholars., though not negating the work of the Holy Spirit in the expressive sections of scripture.      I was aware that aquinas was influenced by Greek thought , but it seems he did,nt fall for their evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:33 PM

Dave: "Actually Pete I don't think that ancient men and women were ignoramuses, and I believe that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

I guess that's why you believe in evolution...because, as you said, "...and I BELIEVE* that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

* "I BELIEVE (there is that nasty word again, 'BELIEVE', as in the exercising of 'faith'}....

So, let me get this straight, according to you...we have evolved to a higher level.....but you 'BELIEVE' that ancient men and women were NOT 'ignoramuses'....but the higher evolution of mankind produced the ignoramuses????....."who aren't bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

What the hell are you arguing about?..to to whom??....one of those 'higher evolved' life forms who are not "bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."??????????

Maybe you didn't understand it.....and a lot MORE!!

GfS

P.S ...and he agrees with Bill D about convolution!!..except his own!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:24 PM

pete, scientists do not "push doctrines". They assemble facts and propose theories. Its not my subject, but from what I hear from people whose subject it is, the most favoured theory at present is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. And there is substantial fossil evidence, particularly from China and Mongolia, that many theropod dinosaurs had feathers. And possibly preserved feathers in amber, which may be from birds but more likely dinosaurs.

Now what evidence do you have that this is not so?

And what the blazes is cmi??

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:11 PM

Bill D: "Maybe I DO have "..a LOT MORE to CONSIDER."... like when to recognize I'm batting my head against a wall and quit debating.

Well, if it's a block wall, it might serve to be brain food!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

So stu, that, according to you is a lie , by which I assume you mean a deliberately dishonest statement. I did do a quick check on sources favourable to the evolutionary paradigm and it seems that some dinos evidently had feathers , though I did not actually see feathers. Seems though that most had scales. You did not provide a date for the cmi quote so I don't know if they were correct at the time. For that matter I don't know if they might still be correct. But , as acknowledged in the quote, feathers or not, is not important to the issue as far as creation is concerned. Of course, for evolutionists who are pushing the dino to bird doctrine, it is far more important.                                        And , not that creation stands or falls on the answer, what are the significant differences between pikaia and Lancelot please.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:03 PM

Actually Pete I don't think that ancient men and women were ignoramuses, and I believe that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account. And to understand nevertheless that myth and allegory have their place in improving understanding. Its modern people, and even then, not very many of them, who believe that ancient people were so lacking in creativity and imagination that they could write down nothing but what is effectively a diary. And even then that they were inspired to do so by God, and if God had inspired them to write a mere diary, well then it wouldn't say much for God or the people he had created.

Aquinas of course was a great follower of Aristotle, as well as God, so he was indeed influenced by the Greeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM

Thank you, Guest Dave....I was not going to give GfS any more explanations to ramble on about... especially when his parting shot to me was a bunch of Bible quotations about God=Love.

Maybe I DO have "..a LOT MORE to CONSIDER."... like when to recognize I'm batting my head against a wall and quit debating ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:45 PM

Dave: "Nice one GfS, you very comprehensively make Bill D's point for him."

Glad you understood it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:32 PM

Usual stuff from shimrod who is so convinced , against all the evidence that ancient men were ignoramuses.   A scientist is not someone who labours under " the grossly , silly, delusion............"   Oh dear , all those scientist of the past believing all that stuff !   Never had the benefit of people like shimrod to enlighten them....          And of course, anyone who is a creationist is too much of an idiot , no matter how learned.   Talk about blinkered !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM

Actually Dave, I think there has been evolutionists of some kind or other since the ancient Greeks, so had aquinus been using "reason and rationality" according to your self serving definition he surely would have denied believing in the biblical account!          I don't recall promoting Barry setter fields speed of light ideas , so that is a straw man, however , since you mention it, have,nt evolution believers done same or similar to overcome the horizon problem ? The claim that "creationists reject rational thought" is also self serving and unsubstantiated. I might just as well say the same of evolutionists for holding to their unproven interpretations of the data.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 01:48 PM

Mind you, castigating what I said (or actually Hawking said) for lack of evidence,

I did not.
That is why I ask for quotes and links when you claim to have read something.

a simple statement from Hawking that you don't need a god concept as everything since the Big Bang can be eventually explained

I fully agree.
I would go further and say that the start point can be explained too.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 01:34 PM

Still stands.

Time is a product of an occurrence that has a finite reference in said time, from our relative position. Hence time has an index reference. If Hawking and others are correct in their assumption, (I am not equipped to put a counter argument) then every dimension has the same start reference. That dimension is time, being the variable you can relatively measure other dimensions by. Not sure how you can single that out as a philosophical issue?

It isn't a common problem to science and religion as religion can make it up as it goes on. Religion has nothing to offer other grasping at straws to support their medieval claims. They get confused by different beaks on finches so astrophysics isn't exactly their issue.

Your mislaid book and as you say, religion may have an issue with "before time" but most published papers would call such a phrase an oxymoron. Either there was no "before" or several aspects of the Big Bang cannot be considered valid. According to my son, a post doc working on quantum tunnelling, (which is about as relevant as my mechanical vibration..but he does at least keep an interest, as his first degree was in that field) dismissing "before" takes a leap of logic, but there is little alternative. I on the other hand have to read a lot in order to keep up when we sit with a bottle chewing the fat.

Not my field professionally but focussing within the confines of a start of dimensions, it seems to hold up. If I am not up to date or got hold of the wrong end of the present thinking stick, then I stand corrected but sorry, your post doesn't seem to help me in that regard. It stems from, and this is widely published, a simple statement from Hawking that you don't need a god concept as everything since the Big Bang can be eventually explained and you can't trigger the Big Bang as you cannot have an instance in time to trigger it. If that's out of date, then what has replaced the notion?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:27 AM

[Dave] I am not sure who Jack was getting at, me or Musket.

Musket. You ninja'd me while I was writing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:08 AM

Nice one GfS, you very comprehensively make Bill D's point for him.

I am not sure who Jack was getting at, me or Musket.

Anyway, I disagree with this part of Musket's post:

"Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?"

Time as a dimension is created at the same time as the other dimensions. So the non-existence of time before creation/Big Bang is a philosophical problem common to science and religion.

PCW Davies wrote some time ago a book called "The Mind of God", which considered this kind of issue. I seem to have mislaid my copy though.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:54 AM

Bill D. "GfS.... you have rhetorically convoluted the issue beyond belief!"


Are you trying to tell me(while trying to play to the crowd), I've convoluted something 'Beyond belief'?????.....Belief???...'Belief' requires 'faith'...so whose 'faith'?? ....YOURS???...I thought that earlier you were railing people who 'believed' in God, and that it required 'faith'!!??!!
You are the one convoluting your own rhetoric, with more of your own rhetoric.

Jack Campin: "The fact that fundies come up with glibly superficial strawman arguments about science is not an excuse for doing the same yourself about theology and the philosophy of religion."

"....about theology and the philosophy of religion."


You left out politics, and their(or your)"...glibly superficial strawman arguments about science..."

Bill D.(continuing)" 'You seem to want to keep drawing a difference between the creation, and some sort of creator....consider that perhaps they are ALL one in the same...'

??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

Again, you keep displaying how much you are unaware of what you are talking about...."??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

That is OBVIOUS....and it was your response to, "....CONSIDER THAT PERHAPS they are ALL one in the same..."

So, your response equates to, 'I'm a fundie secularist block-head, who is too blocked to consider ANYTHING outside my blocked mindset'

Consider that.
It's already obvious to a lot of other people....and it didn't require a lot 'faith' to believe it!!!!

Then you continue:
Bill D: "Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?" is phrased as if "most people are aware there is a God... are you with them?" One needs to ask something like: "Do you suspect or believe that there is at least one metaphysical entity which occupies some 'realm' that we in our physical configuration cannot access, and which had some influence in creating/designing/organizing our physical state for some difficult-to-comprehend reason of 'its' own??"

I thought you just said, "...and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

I can see why you want to talk about 'convolution'...Jeez!

here, let me give you a hand....., you posted, "Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?"

PERHAPS <<<<<--- YOU'VE got a LOT MORE to CONSIDER.

GfS

Jeez!...secularists!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:41 AM

Sorry Keith. There is nobody more clever than me, or cleverer as you eloquently put it.

Mind you, castigating what I said (or actually Hawking said) for lack of evidence, then saying God can do what he likes made me smile and anyone who can do that can't be all bad. You forgot to factor in Gandalf by the way. Tolkien saw him as having particle / wave duality in The Silmarillion.

I repeat, time is a product of the Big Bang, if any of the fundamental properties of the Big Bang stand up to scrutiny. Without time, you can't create. Simple really.

There again, why the flying fuck am I bothering? If the brains through the ages hadn't been constrained by superstition, we would have found a way to keep my guitar in tune by now. Might even have cured the aging process or made friends with little green men. Instead, we get mocking of the subject of this thread by semi literate nutters such as pete. Even Keith tries to find a place in this for his invisible friend.


"And those who were dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:25 AM

The onus isn't on science to prove or disprove the existence of the on true God/all the other true Gods/the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there is evidence for any god then that's fine, hooray for god! If there is none (and there isn't at present, as far as I'm aware) that's been published join per-reviewed scientific journals (and not that pseudoscience pap that creationists publish in because no-one else will have them), then that's fine too.

However, if it bothers you feel free to prove the existence of whichever of the gods you believe in. You'll make a name for yourself for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:17 AM

Musket,
If this God is outside the constraints of space and time, he cannot have any bearing whatsoever on the universe, as the universe would be outside of his sphere of being.

You assertion is based on no evidence, and wrong in my opinion.
He would not be constrained by space and time but quite free to operate inside or outside of it, as He chose.

Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?

Er, because He would not be constrained by time, or space.

Much cleverer people that you have been trying to prove the non- existence of God for centuries. Your effort is pitiful.
Sorry.

I think Jack is telling you that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 09:25 AM

So then clever clogs disbelievers, how did Isaac Newton discover gravity in the first place
if God didn't make little green apples
and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime ???

Let the Lord rain down his almighty cider apples on the heads of all satanist pagan atheist commie pervert science teachers & students !!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:59 AM

The fact that fundies come up with glibly superficial strawman arguments about science is not an excuse for doing the same yourself about theology and the philosophy of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:58 AM

Pete, Thomas Aquinas predates evolution by 600 years, and its deniers by 700. Evolution is but one issue, a symptom or focal point for the current generation. Aquinas' point was that reason and rationality were not at variance with Christian thought. For this he was condemned by Etiene Tempier. However the church in subsequent generations reaffirmed its belief in Aquinas' theology, not that of those who condemned him. Popes Pius V and Leo XIII affirmed this in encyclicals.

Creationists reject rational thought, they are the Tempiers of the present day. All sorts of nonsense comes out of creationist institutes, such as Setterfield's variable speed of light theories in a vain attempt to preserve Bishop Ussher's estimate of the age of the universe. Easily refuted by observation and experiment. And all of this creationist nonsense is rejected not only by science, but by every mainstream church.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:13 AM

Interesting. I mention that Hawking noted that you don't need a God for the Big Bang and that time could not exist before the event and pete asks if Hawking said it. Well yes, I just posted saying exactly that!

Err Keith. If this God is outside the constraints of space and time, he cannot have any bearing whatsoever on the universe, as the universe would be outside of his sphere of being. Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?

Bloody hell mate. You propose a construct that doesn't need logic to exist and still get confused in your own logic...

Goofus reckons some people deny this here God. Maybe they do, but what has that to do with the vast majority of educated people who don't deny it because they see nothing to deny. You have to be religious in the first place. Most people over here aren't and never have been.

So anyway. Let's make waves!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:02 AM

"It's just a matter of level of classification."

Pikaia and the Lancelet are examples of convergent evolution and are totally different animals despite appearing superficially the same; both possess a notochord and chevron-shaped muscle bundles as do all chordates, of which the Lancelet is a extant representative. However, there are significant differences between the two animals.



"Of course if you can substantiate any accusation of lies from this prominent resource it is a serious matter and I would not want to be ignorant of such."

Fine. From CMI, this statement is a lie:

"While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and more dubious.?"

In fact, the opposite is true. We now find feathers on far more dinosaurs than we originally thought, and it now appears some sort of filamentous integument might be a basal condition in archosaurs as pterosaurs were also covered in fuzz. By the way, citing Lingham-Soliar in any discussion on feathers in dinosaurs rings alarm bells. In his latest publication of around 18 refs (suspiciously few) eleven are self-citations. Bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 07:26 AM

" ... but I do know Dawkins won't debate qualified scientists , creationists who might be considered equal , but you often see him on YouTube taking on what might be called easy targets.       Basically ,your definition of who serious scientists and theologians is self serving, ie, who agree with your view, or at least are not YEC,s however highly qualified."

Oh dear! I don't blame Prof. Dawkins for ignoring superstitious, obtuse idiots who are in no way his "equal"! He would be wasting his time and energy "debating" with wilfully ignorant fools. The words "scientist" and "creationist" are oxymoronic.

Here's my definition of a scientist (in this context, let's say an evolutionary biologist): A person who is qualified in an appropriate field who approaches the study of the Universe around her/him with an open mind. A scientist is definitely NOT someone who labours under the grossly silly delusion that the myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze Age, Middle Eastern goat herders represent the literal truth about the origins of life on Earth!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 06:42 AM

"....and in one of the infinite beginnings God created everything and he called it the universe. Lo, he saw that all the parts were going in different directions in a chaotic manner. Verily this was not good so he said, "Let there be gravity and lo, there was gravity and all the things that he created behaved themselves....."

And today we all experience it`s effect but can we give a better explanation of why it is there?.

I have a great deal of time for Prof. Brian Cox but when I hear him and others put figures and dimensions, with such conviction, for things such as black holes, etc., which are suggested billions of light years away I do sometimes wonder!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 09:45 PM

GfS.... you have rhetorically convoluted the issue beyond belief!

You said "many proclaim gravity, (but) deny the existence of God." Quite apart from the fact that 'many' just shrug at the idea of "god", rather than bothering to 'deny' it, those ARE concepts that really cannot be compared that way. Gravity is obvious, whether we understand it or not... 'god' is an attempt to explain the unexplainable with a sweeping simplification.


"You seem to want to keep drawing a difference between the creation, and some sort of creator....consider that perhaps they are ALL one in the same...

??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose... Every way you can phrase it..."creation requires creator"... "creation equals creator"... "creator IS its creation"... is a circular argument in which unproven assumptions are used to explain themselves.

Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?" is phrased as if "most people are aware there is a God... are you with them?" One needs to ask something like: "Do you suspect or believe that there is at least one metaphysical entity which occupies some 'realm' that we in our physical configuration cannot access, and which had some influence in creating/designing/organizing our physical state for some difficult-to-comprehend reason of 'its' own??
   Not easy to even ask a fair question, hmmm? Too much work to even learn how to talk that way. Easier to proclaim "god", then enquire suspiciously "Do YOU accept HIM?"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM

I was not aware Thomas aquinas was an evolutionist, Dave. Do you have a quote from him please ,that demonstrates that .         I see a TV programme that had john Mackey talking in a church not far from me .   Dawkins turned up and sat in the audience with his TV Entourage. Seems he did,nt challenge him in the meeting but after made some assertions to which I thought McKay answered well.   I have no idea whether he had declined debate with polkinghorne , but I do know Dawkins won't debate qualified scientists , creationists who might be considered equal , but you often see him on YouTube taking on what might be called easy targets.       Basically ,your definition of who serious scientists and theologians is self serving, ie, who agree with your view, or at least are not YEC,s however highly qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

GfS, I am not talking about serious scientists, nor serious theologians, but about creationists who are neither, but fancy themselves as a bit of each. The likes of John Mackay is who I mean, happy to spout bollocks in churches about science, and to spout bollocks about Christianity in lecture theatres. Except that when faced with someone who really knows about both science and religion, like John Polkinghorne, they run a mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:59 PM

Creation Ministeries International ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:52 PM

What is CMI? Using my favoured search engine, I find:

"Chartered Management Institute"

"Comite Maritime International"

"Continuous Mortality Investigation"


The last sounds sort of scary, though its actually a bunch of actuaries. Nevertheless
I think Stu and Pete are talking about something different entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:48 PM

Dave: "This much was clear to St. Thomas Aquinas, why later pseudo scientists and pseudo theologians reject it is not clear."

'Not clear' because we often overlook the obvious. Theologians and the scientific community have something in common, (along with politicians), and that is, that they all require 'believers' to draw their sustenance from. They DON'T 'believe' that they could enjoy the comfort of their lives, without being a psychic vampire, to feed THEIR perceived 'needs'....so let's all create a rationale, for others to rally behind....whereas another person may have a profound appreciation, and fascination with the 'unseen' (IE. the very elements of life) in which they are closer in tuned with. They don't need followers....however, that closer relationship, to that common reality, binds them together, by the very nature of what they have observed...and NOT by a dogma nor a theory....nor an organized religion....nor a political premise!

Just another thought....

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

I think we are closer to understanding gravity than the capo di tutti capi.

The answer is at about 1:20 of the song.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

Ok Dave, I consider myself corrected re Precambrian.....just as well I was not making a dogmatic assertion about it !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:34 PM

1,......lies and misinformation......?   Care to substantiate that stu ? Especially as ,far as I can see, a major feature of their strategy is quoting from evolutionists themselves. Of course if you can substantiate any accusation of lies from this prominent resource it is a serious matter and I would not want to be ignorant of such.                      2, it is inaccurate to suggest that I ONLY look at cmi as obviously you lot have been attempting to present your belief as factual for years now! and in addition I usually read the links provided.                As far as gravitational waves are concerned, I don't know much at all about it, but if verified by observational, testable science, of course I believe in them. But , I suspect , that just like the undoubted accuracy of carbon dating methods for taking measurements , the interpretation of the results is unproven and often spectacularly wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:06 PM

Keith is right, which is why the ramblings of creationists who try to constrain God in order to push their peculiar pseudo-scientific ideas are an affront not only to science, but also to all religions. This much was clear to St. Thomas Aquinas, why later pseudo scientists and pseudo theologians reject it is not clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:57 PM

Bill D, You are spinning what I posted, and then you comment on your spin...not what I said.

I posted, "We obviously live within the properties of gravity....but...most cannot explain it...
.. the same can be said of God, but many of those who proclaim gravity, deny the existence of God." Then you took it, as, "The same cannot be said about a name...God... given to a concept that we cannot see or measure directly. Saying that "we live within properties (created by God)" assumes the answer in the premise... and that is what is in question. Perhaps something did 'create' everything, but naming the idea does not validate the actuality."

You seem to want to keep drawing a difference between the creation, and some sort of creator....consider that perhaps they are ALL one in the same...that the very effects that brought one into being, caused the 'other' to exist, by the very nature of the event...of which ALL things consist......including all the properties of ALL substances, and the substance of ALL properties!!

...and BTW, how do you measure it all??....to step outside it and measure it, when in fact, you CAN'T step outside of it...because where you go, there it is also! You cannot, nor has anyone, observed it, and then separate the 'observer' as 'objective'...but in their observations, excluded the existence of a separate observer....after all, EVERYTHING came into existence as a result of the original 'BANG', including not only 'the observer', but whet you would have to consider as 'ALL'.

After ALL, what does 'ALL' mean??
ALL means ALL, and that's ALL 'ALL' means.
What IS excluded, is only what the observer CREATES in his/her mind to be excluded.
....and that comes from an unenlightened opinion, calculated by a willful, turning away from EVERYTHING there is to observe.....including the blindness, by not observing everything, and then clinging onto an opinion to justify his/her inclusion of the 'WHOLE'.

Now if you want to label that as merely a 'name'. or even 'religion' that you call 'God'...
when 'GOD' is what we call the 'giver of life' or the origin of life, one has to ask, "Where Am I coming from?...am I trying to separate my self from 'life' to 'measure it'????.....and to 'What end'??..to be separated from life???...alone with my precious false idol, called 'my opinion'???
.....and that, my dear 'catter' happens to be the very message, contained in the very acceptance of the reality, in which 'we live, move and have our being'.

"Elementary, Watson."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:54 PM

Post disappeared!

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/precambrian/

Consider yourself corrected and proved wrong Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:48 PM

If there is a God, He is outside of time and space and not constrained by either.
He would be the creator of time and space.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:36 PM

Would his absence or lack of apply before or after time exists Keith?

Only, his habit of talking to people or interfering in reality, if we take medieval stories as "gospel" requires him to exist in time in order to do things.

Which means by his own biography, he couldn't have existed before the Big Bang. If he had actually existed in anything other than the imagination of man, he was a product of, not the cause of the Big Bang.

Which puts him on the same plane of existence as me, a tin of baked beans and the Andromeda Galaxy.

Just think things through eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:33 PM

Musket says ...nothing....went bang,   Get yer head around that one !   And he says hawking has shown there is no need for a creator.   Somehow , I suspect musket is grossly exaggerating but if anyone has read hawking , perhaps they can tell us if hawking did make that claim ,and why ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:25 PM

Bill, I note the to and froing and classifying , promoting and demoting of organisms in the evolutionary story, but best I can see from your initial link ,there was an admission that there are two identical organisms , which could perhaps really be the same except one was buried sometime and the other still around and presumed for some reason to be different from the other.      Btw, the other thing I noticed in the article is that because of the level of complexity of these creatures , life is said by some ( evolutionists ) that the origin of living things must be pushed back into the Precambrian . Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume the difficulty there , is that there is little to show for it in Precambrian strata?.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:09 PM

" you don't actually need a God to give the Big Bang" but neither does it require His absence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:50 PM

Pete...following links...

"Branchiostoma is one of the few living genera of lancelets (order Amphioxiformes). It is the type genus of family Branchiostomidae."

Then: http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/amphioxus/

It's just a matter of level of classification.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:37 PM

Interestingly, given the waffle from Goofus above, Hawking demonstrated that you don't actually need a God to give the Big Bang. For a god to make it happen, it requires cause and effect. Time is a product of the Big Bang therefore nothing could have been contemplated or actioned before it happened.

So much for God.

As Michael is sat up and alert, I'll try and help him with his old chestnut regarding what went bang.

Nothing.

It's a bit like when Jeremy Clarkson was describing the sound of a particular super car engine. He said it sounded like Tom Jones experiencing man love for the first time. I'm sure it didn't and I doubt Tom Jones has been in a position (sorry) to make that sound, but we get an idea of what Clarkson was trying to describe. Ditto Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:29 PM

Bill, I did not specify amphioxus .....unless that is an alternate name. I simply said another still around.    From your original link.    "Surprisingly, a pikaia lookalike still exists today, the Lancelot branchiartoma................."

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:16 PM

Would you mind running all of that past me again, GfS? I seem to have missed the point and lost the plot ... and even died a little bit. Hint: Please go easy on the stream of consciousness!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 12:13 PM

"We obviously live within the properties of gravity....but...most cannot explain it...
.. the same can be said of God, but many of those who proclaim gravity, deny the existence of God."

Fallacy in reasoning.. gravity is the name given to an observable, measurable phenomenon. The same cannot be said about a name...God... given to a concept that we cannot see or measure directly. Saying that "we live within properties (created by God)" assumes the answer in the premise... and that is what is in question. Perhaps something did 'create' everything, but naming the idea does not validate the actuality.

(and by the way... "We can't SEE gravity....but we see its affects....
We can HEAR gravity....but we see its affects...."..... it's EFFECTS. Color me pedantic.)

________________

Pete... no, Pikaia is NOT identical to amphioxus..... not to those who understand the differences. They have similarities and one is 'likely' the ancestor of the other...but..

https://y11evolution.wikispaces.com/Pikaia+%26+Amphioxus

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 10:36 AM

GfS - "existence started, with...you guessed it...a 'Big Bang'"
.,,.
???
.,,.

À propos -- I have refreshed my old "What Went Big Bang?" thread, which ran from 2009-2012. Just to make it all so much simpler...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 10:17 AM

'Taint about the odd number of legs- its the bit about "evolutionism" [sic]

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 09:09 AM

What about

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 08:43 AM

I presume creatures with odd number of legs would be regarded by evolutionism as those that did,nt make it on the upward path.

You presume wrong - as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 07:26 AM

OK, Ok..this is getting as silly as it can get...let's start with the 'big bang'...that began EVERYTHING, OK?.....Something just happened that made the 'big bang'...fine...now the BEGINNING of ANY-thing starts with 'I (or IT)exists...where before, it didn't.. suddenly, "BANG!!"..I AM...and I am a self-existing entity in which all the properties of all matter, seen and unseen consists....I'm 'The BANG'!! Is the 'bang' done banging??...OH, so as long as the 'bang' exists, all the properties are still in play....Right??...Good!..you're right!...the 'name 'Yahweh' in the Hebrew, means according to (exact)interpretation, 'I Am', 'I Am that I Am', or 'The self existing one'....and it's all the same meaning. So, I guess if you want to put a 'human' personality on some entity, way up in the sky, sitting on a cloud, with a great white beard, and call it 'God'...and then say you don't believe in that..GREAT, you're right...that has nothing to do with anything, except some small minded concept concocted by some self imposed notion of 'small'! Whatever exists, is all part of one...a product of your favorite 'Big Bang".....it self exists...it IS...it has properties, and 'matter' is just ONE of them. Do you imagine that 'consciousness' could be another??....how about 'life', itself???...or are you going to separate them, and hide one in a box, where they are separate from the WHOLE of the 'Big Bang', that because it exists, so does everything!...except what you thought you figured out, from what your favorite ideological funded 'scientific' study says??!
Now, ya' think that's 'too vague' for ya'?....We are ALL living in it. It has 'consciousness', it has 'life', it has 'love'....though maybe not by YOUR limited definition. It has 'space', 'matter'..all the laws of physics, both detectable and beyond....it has you, and everything you've ever seen or experienced, seen or unseen.

Now, if someone wants to call that 'God', and consciously be at one with it, and receive those insights, in wonderment and 'aw', respectfully, and with gratitude, do you imagine that more would be revealed to that person, because he/she managed to discipline themselves to be opened, to process the information and data, ALL around us, but often ignored?

Who knows what Beethoven 'heard', or 'how', and/or /what he meant' when he termed it that way?...but it came from somewhere...whose existence started, with...you guessed it...a 'Big Bang'

There is no God?
There is no 'Big Bang'?
There is no you??

...after all, you want no part of it....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM

".....unless you can point to something I,ve missed...."

I could never have enough arms ;-) Also, stop using CMI as your primary source of information. It's NOT science and is so full of lies and misinformation it's a positively execrable piece of work.

I'm guessing Pete, you don't believe in gravitational waves either, seeing as their very existence and origin disproves in one fell stroke all that Bishop Ussher/creationist idiocy. I'd love to hear your explanation for them (God made just look like they were coming from billions of light years away?)

The instrument they used to measure these waves is an amazing piece of technology, and capable of measuring the distance from here to the sun to the accuracy of an atom. You gotta love science!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:05 AM

No rebut as such, bill. Couple of observations though. I presume creatures with odd number of legs would be regarded by evolutionism as those that did,nt make it on the upward path.          I note the second creature is identical to another still around, yet assigned different names. I wonder about the rationale for that other than philosophical....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:29 AM

As I understand it creationists believe that an old book called the Bible contains the literal truth and that an entity called "God" created everything that now exists. However, they can't demonstrate this(and have to appeal to something irrational called "faith"),and a mouth-piece of theirs called "Pete" knows nothing about Darwinian processes producing the novel information needed to bring about change except heavily biassed accounts published on creationist websites.......unless you can point to something I,ve missed...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Padre
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 10:25 PM

There is a slight folkie connection to this story. One of the institutions involved in the study is Rochester Institute of Technology in [wait for it] Rochester NY. RIT's president is Dr. William Destler, known to many in FSGW as Bill Destler, a member of Rock Creek.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 10:21 PM

Donuel, religion has NOTHING to do with it....AND did Beethoven study 'the Phi ratio or the Fibbinochi sequence'.....or did people who studied his works, AFTER he composed it, assign those names to it??
You know, as well as I, that for his day, he was completely innovative!
He got those ideas from SOMEWHERE, and when asked, that's what HE said. Don't you think he may have answered according to HIS experiences and methods??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 08:27 PM

Upside Down and Inside Out.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 07:04 PM

Dave GUEST,
Neutrinos are found to be 10 million times smaller than the mass of electrons. Do you think gravitons are similar?
Also do you think gravity waves can be destructive or benign if a solar system like ours was 10 light years away from an event like the one we just detected ?



Guest
from sanity to beyond ; I understand some folks are full of religinousnuts, I don't care what you believe you think you are supposed to believe. I believe in a now that is a mixture of past and future.

I analyzed Beethoven's 9th .

He overwhelmingly used the Phi ratio or the Fibbinochi sequence or what is also known as the golden mean for virtually all of his tight knit melodic themes.

I give license for [people of any century to say things to please their employers.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 06:56 PM

Ripple

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 06:49 PM

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1853

Worth a read.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 05:58 PM

Donuel: "The big bang resonance is a b flat waaay deep. No it is not heard but leaves visible traces."

RIGHT!!

Donuel: "The artificial ears we build to hear the music of the spheres are amazing as are the sounds when we translate them into the human hearing range. Saturn makes some remarkable songs. Check them out."

RIGHT!!

Ludwig van Beethoven: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

RIGHT!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 05:56 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-i_VKd6Wo
Great and brief video

Unlike radio waves mass is no obstacle for gravity waves.

Is there a massless particle counterpart to GWs??

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 05:30 PM

creationist thinking

Oxymoron

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 05:15 PM

Amos, the resonance of a black hole has been claimed to be something like 57 octaves below middle C. Too bad its not 42.

The big bang resonance is a b flat waaay deep. No it is not heard but leaves visible traces.

The artificial ears we build to hear the music of the spheres are amazing as are the sounds when we translate them into the human hearing range. Saturn makes some remarkable songs. Check them out.

Dave I was counting on you to elucidate the inappropriate use of the word 'solved' when I wrote it. The waves from the collision/merger of black holes create a gravity well quake as predicted by Einstein but offers more information as you noted. Nothing wrong about being predictable, in fact people like to count on it.


Bill D
The extinction event that eliminated 99 percent of Cambrian species has been identified. It was an comet/asteroid 6 times larger than the Yucatan impact and hit Antarctica which was in a different location on the globe at that time. Today it is 6 kilometers below the ice.Wacky speculation goes farther to claim that impact could have opened the Siberian fissure eruptions since they were directly opposite the impact and those eruptions altered the climate for millions of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 04:39 PM

We can't SEE gravity....but we see its affects....
We can HEAR gravity....but we see its affects....
We don't speak to gravity....though on earth, it is faithfully there...
Gravity has its own laws of physics....and to break them, we think 'freedom'....
We obviously live within the properties of gravity....but...most cannot explain it...

... the same can be said of God, but many of those who proclaim gravity, deny the existence of God.

Go figure!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 03:53 PM

Something you've missed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucigenia One-of-a-kind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia (your probable 50 millionth great-grandfather)

No Pete, don't rebut me... I'm just pulling your leg this time- but those ARE things that help understand just how much everyone has missed. However, they are not really relevant to gravity waves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 02:41 PM

I had not seen those one liners before gfs, I thought em funny.             Stu speciation features in the creation model too, so it is hardly true to say that we are ignoring any evidence. Perhaps you don't know much about creationist thinking ? In fact on cmi there are articles giving examples of speedy speciation. As I understand it evolutionists believe that given enough time speciation is without limit ,so that totally different kinds of animals arise. However , this has never been demonstrated ,(and of course you would appeal to it being unseen due to massive time scale), and neither do they have much, if anything to show , of Darwinian processes producing the novel information needed to bring about change beyond the limits of one type of organism to another.......unless you can point to something I,ve missed....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ligo-gravitational-wave-1.3443697

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 12:02 PM

Thanks for the suggestions of papers Dave!

So LIGO detected two black holes colliding 1.3 billion years ago caught the signal of the gravitational waves that resulted. On the Guardian website they've even got the sound of the two black holes colliding at half the speed of light (I couldn't get the bloody link to work).

Fantastic!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 11:53 AM

Hi, Guest from Sanity. I enjoyed your quips.

Re: How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

I think this one has it backwards. If you took all the sponges out of the ocean, they wouldn't be taking up space any more, so the water level would drop and the ocean would be shallower, not deeper. (Notice that the question doesn't ask about removing sponges plus the water they contain.)

As for gravity, for me physics becomes less and less real all the time. Space-time, for example. I accept that it's true, but it's not real to me. I guess I'm Newtonian at heart. Goes with liking I,IV and V chords.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 10:19 AM

It occurs to me these long-sought gravity waves may just be a sort of resonance in spacetime,, similar to the resonance of fine rosewood backs and sides in a fine guitar. I like the notion of space as a sounding board for mass, and find it amusing to think of a certain kind of planet playing E-minor seventh.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 08:33 AM

Gravity is not "solved" by the discovery of gravitational waves. They are a prediction of work done by Einstein more than 100 years ago, and which has been generally accepted since, the more so as other predictions of that work have already been verified. The first (not counting the precession of the perihelion of Mercury which predates Einstein's ideas) was the deflection of light by the gravity of the sun, measured by Eddington in 1919. Eddington's measurement was in accord with Einstein's prediction, and twice the value that Newtonian gravity would predict. Discovering gravitational waves no more "solves gravity" than Eddington's observations did, less so in my view.

What is more interesting is finding out from what these gravitational waves come. Most of the models involve inspiralling pairs of massive objects (black holes, neutron stars etc). The importance of gravitational waves is that they give us a new window on the physics of these extreme objects.

One thing I don't know is, given the apparent simultaneous detection by more than one detector, how tight is the localisation on the sky. When you can tie the gravitational wave emission to electromagnetic emission (radio, optical, X-ray, gamma-ray) then you can really start to look at new physics.

There was an excellent film on Einstein and Eddington, starring David Tenant and Andy Serkis as the main protagonists, and an excellent supporting cast.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 07:33 AM

Speculation is fun but there are more than two possible announcements.

'As we listened to the merging of two black holes we did not measure any expansion/contraction of space signifying gravity waves like tsunamis through space. This only means the nature of measurement does not register a result in the parameters chosen.

^Waves were detected at light speed.




Leading to more speculation that;


^Waves were FTL.

^ Gravitons seem to have mass.

^Paired gluons may be a particle expression of gravity.

* Perhaps light is relative to gravity waves so we will never detect them.

*Green jello in the snack room skewed results.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 07:10 AM

"So direct us to a paper which tells us how gravity works, and what is actually is."

Newton, I., 1687, "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica " tells you how it works in most terrestrial situations.

Einstein, A., & Grossman, M., 1913, Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, 62, 225–244, 245–261, tells you how it works in the limit of high accelerations.

There is some question about how it works in the limit of low accelerations, see for instance:

Milgrom, M., 1983, "A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis". Astrophysical Journal 270: 365–370.

As to "what it is" there are a few papers on that,one would be:

Higgs, P., 1964, "Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons". Physical Review Letters 13 (16): 508–509.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 05:31 AM

What an amazing coincidence! I was just preparing my breakfast this morning and out of nowhere (the 'voice of God', perhaps?) the thought surfaced: "We haven't heard from Pete, the mouthpiece of the Creationists of Dumbfuckistan, recently". Truly amazing!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 04:34 AM

"Such is the case with gravity because it has been verified by observable, testable, repeatable experiment."

So direct us to a paper which tells us how gravity works, and what is actually is.


"being as they are not able to demonstrate it"

Demonstrate? Like showing how to use a potato peeler? We can watch speciation happening, because some people choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it's not happening.


I'm looking forward to this announcement, exciting stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 03:17 AM

The BBC are referring to it as an update.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 02:35 AM

That list was around long before 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 09:29 PM

Hey Goofus Alex, it was crap in '08 and its crap now.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 08:54 PM

I think it's cool. I just finished a great biography of Einstein in which I actually believe I understand something about relativity.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 07:59 PM

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 11:06 PM

Deep Thoughts For Those Who Take Life Way Too Seriously:
    1. Save the whales. Collect the whole set.
    2. A day without sunshine is like night.
    3. On the other hand, you have different fingers.
    4. 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    5. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
    6. Remember, half the people you know are below average.
    7. He who laughs last thinks slowest.
    8. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
    9. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese in the trap.
    10. Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.
    11. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
    12. Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.
    13. If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
    14. How many of you believe in psycho-kinesis? Raise my hand.
    15. OK, so what's the speed of dark?
    16. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
    17. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
    18. Every one has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.
    19. How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?
    20. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    21. What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
    22. I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
    23. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
    24. Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what happened.
    25. Just remember -- if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
    26. Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 07:50 PM

What creationists think serious biologists believe about evolution is certainly not a theory. It's a pile of strawman bullshit.

Get a fucking education.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 06:31 PM

Ok since you ask.......in science ...theory ...means more than the common use of the word. Such is the case with gravity because it has been verified by observable, testable, repeatable experiment.   However, though evolutionists use it in the same way about their belief , being as they are not able to demonstrate it , the common use of the word ....theory ...is more apt , and maybe too generous !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM

That's the THEORY of gravity - just ask pete.

Subject: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 05:14 PM

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-6-cosmic-questions-they-can-tackle-1.19337?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox

stay tuned tommorow