The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except it doesn't "contradict" science, which is why I posted the lecture. As usual, you still don't "get it", nor can science prove half of their hypotheses.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Furthermore, this guy who is a Rabbi happens to be a WIDELY acclaimed astrophysicist. But as secularist it's your job to pick and choose which scientific theory or author you're going to follow, right?

You're clearly getting at something here. Just come right out and say it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Consistency doesn't seem to be your friend.I suggest you stop responding to my posts, because you'll just have 1 or 2 people correct you.

The intention behind killing determines the moral value of it.

Yo, Sexy, you wanna drop this whole absolutism vs. relativism debate (which is getting quite boring, and getting nowhere at that) and move on to religion itself?

Here is my question: why can religious theories, that are not substantiated by any existing facts, be seen in the same light as scientific theories, that do have a lot of facts directly indicating that they are the 'correct' explanation?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

lolwut? Can't prove half of [its] hypotheses? You realize that the hypotheses that haven't been substantiated are because they haven't been tested yet and that if the data contradicts them they are dropped/altered? Scientific orthodoxy (what goes in textbooks) is right, insofar as we understand the universe.

From the guy who hasn't responded to the fact that his own worldview is inherently contradictory:

The intention behind killing determines the moral value of it. [/B]

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Here is my question: why can religious theories, that are not substantiated by any existing facts, be seen in the same light as scientific theories, that do have a lot of facts directly indicating that they are the 'correct' explanation? [/B]

1. Listen to the lecture
2. Both are based for the most part, on logic as we know it.
3. A majority of scientific theories haven't been tested and/or can't be tested. The same thing goes for religion. So we automatically believe in everything scientific although most theories are disproven, and others can't be proven, just because some of them have been proven(a minority)? How about the fact that the Bible in no way contradicts science? If it did, we as Jews would have to follow science because we are bound to truth.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. Because they haven't been tested, or can't be tested, so they're just hypothesis and you believe in something that hasn't or can't be tested right? Knowing G-d can't be tested either. Do you believe in him?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Prove it. You haven't offered anything that so much resembles an argument.

The difference between killing and murder (aside from the fact that murder is wrong) is the intention behind the act: killing to protect a loved one (self-defense) is all right, while killing for personal gain (murder) is not. It is clear that the rationalization behind the act is very important to you.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

I think I've been over this. You still show a lack of understanding. Perhaps you should move on? Or maybe join an ESL class?

Coming from this guy:

I'm criticizing you for getting two sides of the story

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Could you give an example of something that 'can't be tested or hasn't been tested' that is considered fact? Any example? Anything that doesn't have any evidence suggesting it will do, like the God Hypothesis.

"Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world"

Coming from this guy:

I don't feel too upset by the accusation that I don't understand English. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Traveling the speed of light. We have theories for it. We can't actually test what will happen if we traveled the speed of light, we just have theories. And again, if you stop being ignorant and listen to the lecture, many of your questions will be answered.

Whaa...? You realize that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light (theoretically)? Are you referring to the time dilation effects of general relativity?

1. I'll do when I have time.

2. Huh? So 'God created a magical paradise where there were lots of animals, and then he created a man and a woman in his image. That place also had a tree they couldn't eat from, but that woman was seduced by a snake and ate from it, leading God to banish them and make them moral' is logical now? That's just as logical as saying that we are all part of a computer program of some sort of hyper-intelligent alien being, and that we exist simply for his entertainment. There is nothing indicating one is right over the other.

3. But scientific theories are always based around irrefutable, or mostly irrefutable, facts; and these facts lead to the logical substantiation and creation of theories that explain things. While Biblical and religious theories similarly explain things, scientific theories have facts to back them up and indicate that they are the correct explanations.

The difference between killing and murder (aside from the fact that murder is wrong) is the intention behind the act: killing to protect a loved one (self-defense) is all right, while killing for personal gain (murder) is not. It is clear that the rationalization behind the act is very important to you.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Whaa...? You realize that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light (theoretically)? Are you referring to the time dilation effects of general relativity? [/B]

You asked me for an example, I gave you one. At this point yes it's impossible to travel the speed of light because we neither have the tools, nor the bodily capabilities to survive the travel.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

2. Huh? So 'God created a magical paradise where there were lots of animals, and then he created a man and a woman in his image. That place also had a tree they couldn't eat from, but that woman was seduced by a snake and ate from it, leading God to banish them and make them moral' is logical now? That's just as logical as saying that we are all part of a computer program of some sort of hyper-intelligent alien being, and that we exist simply for his entertainment. There is nothing indicating one is right over the other.

3. But scientific theories are always based around irrefutable, or mostly irrefutable, facts; and these facts lead to the logical substantiation and creation of theories that explain things. While Biblical and religious theories similarly explain things, scientific theories have facts to back them up and indicate that they are the correct explanations. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You asked me for an example, I gave you one. At this point yes it's impossible to travel the speed of light because we neither have the tools, nor the bodily capabilities to survive the travel.

No. Your example of an unsubstantiated scientific deely was 'Traveling the speed of light. We have theories for it. We can't actually test what will happen if we traveled the speed of light, we just have theories.'

There are two parts: 'Traveling the speed of light' and 'what will happen if we traveled the speed of light'. I asked for which one you have a problem with: if it is the former then you will have to disprove the math of general relativity and if it is the latter (time dilation) then you will have to contend with

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/08apr_atomicclock.htm
According to Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time -- called "general relativity" -- clocks in strong gravity tick slower than clocks in weak gravity. Because gravity is weaker on the ISS than at Earth's surface, PARCS should accumulate an extra second every 10,000 years compared to clocks ticking on the planet below. PARCS won't be there that long, but the clock is so stable that it will reveal this effect in less than one year. (Strayer notes that clocks on GPS satellites experience this relativistic phenomenon, too, and that onboard systems must correct for it.)

"Putting atomic clocks in orbit is a good way to test general relativity," says Maleki.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No. Your example of an unsubstantiated scientific deely was 'Traveling the speed of light. We have theories for it. We can't actually test what will happen if we traveled the speed of light, we just have theories.'

There are two parts: 'Traveling the speed of light' [b]and 'what will happen if we traveled the speed of light'. I asked for which one you have a problem with: if it is the former then you will have to disprove the math of general relativity and if it is the latter (time dilation) then you will have to contend with [/B]

I know all of this. The fact remains that we can't actually test traveling the speed of light because we don't have scientific, nor bodily capabilities. And Einstein's theory of relativity is one of the major arguments for the world being both almost 6,000 years old, and 15billion+. Thanks for reminding me.

http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes it's logical. I now know why I've never heard a legitimate argument against religion other than "lol you can't see it". Let me ask you something. Did you ever BOTHER to read the commentary for Genesis, or do you take things you don't agree with literally, and things you do with extra meaning?

Ah, now I see it. It's all perfectly logical. It makes perfect sense.

And now, please explain to me why the theory of the world coming into being, as proposed by Genesis, is better than 'we're part of a hyper-intelligent alien's computer program'. And then give me any fact- a single, cold, irrefutable factor- that indicates that Biblical theories are the correct ones. Or, considering my 'ignorance', could you lay out the 'true', and logical Biblical theory?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'll say this again. Science and the Bible don't contradict one another. Science in some ways can be proven, but in other ways can, yet we still believe in science because at least some of it has been proven. The Bible, like many scientific theories or notions, hasn't been proven yet, and may never be, but people are so quick to dismiss it.

Being that we can't travel in time to witness the creation of the universe, it's very possible that we will never, ever be capable of proving how the universe came to be. However, based on irrefutable, mathematical and tested facts, we have the ability to design theories that have things indicating their correctness.

Here is a very good paper on 'what came before the Big Bang': http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And now, please explain to me why the theory of the world coming into being, as proposed by Genesis, is better than 'we're part of a hyper-intelligent alien's computer program'. And then give me any fact- a single, cold, irrefutable factor- that indicates that Biblical theories are the correct ones. Or, considering my 'ignorance', could you lay out the 'true', and logical Biblical theory?

Being that we can't travel in time to witness the creation of the universe, it's very possible that we will never, ever be capable of proving how the universe came to be. However, based on irrefutable, mathematical and tested facts, we have the ability to design theories that have things indicating their correctness.

Here is a very good paper on 'what came before the Big Bang': http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html. [/B]

This paper doesn't explain how something finite could come out of nothing, or something else that's finite. That's a scientific impossibility.

Here's another one MC.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100715

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I know all of this. The fact remains that we can't actually test traveling the speed of light because we don't have scientific, nor bodily capabilities. And Einstein's theory of relativity is one of the major arguments for the world being both almost 6,000 years old, and 15billion+. Thanks for reminding me.

http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

You haven't answered my question. Is your beef with traveling at the speed of light with the theoretical effects of doing so or is it with getting that fast to begin with? What would you be testing if you did have the capabilities?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

Your Source
For myself, Darwin’s theory of evolution currently explains the world better than intelligent design or creationism or the biblical version.

Your Source
I think the biblical story was never intended to be understood as the literal truth, but as a parable, a poetic paean in praise of the great world that the early biblical writers observed with awe. As do most people even today, believers and unbelievers, scientists and poets alike.

Repeatedly stating that us nonbelievers take the Torah and the Bible too literally and then simply refusing to explain how we should interpret them is stupid, DS.

Also, you need to cite sources that aren't user-generated content,and that's ignoring the fact that the blogger apparently doesn't do much for your case.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You haven't answered my question. Is your beef with traveling at the speed of light with the theoretical effects of doing so or is it with getting that fast to begin with? What would you be testing if you did have the capabilities?

Getting that fast and seeing the effects. We know the theoretical effects of going the speed of life. What would I be testing? That's a good question. I'd send automated probe first to see if it can withstand the travel. Then I'd send a cow or something when vehicles have light speed capabilities and can withstand the travel.

Originally posted by Eminence
So... the Earth wasn't necessarily created in seven days. Humans weren't necessarily created in God's image. The Bible isn't necessarily a universal authority on anything.

Also, you need to cite sources that aren't user-generated content,and that's ignoring the fact that the blogger apparently doesn't do much for your case.