LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you know the difference between wisdom and knowledge? Science only gives a person knowledge. Science needs to do experiments, need data in order to know a simplest fact, which wisdom takes it as a breath.

Yu've underlined the key point: science does experiments, and verifies the facts it claims. Common knowledge (or 'wisdom', as you call it) just asserts
truth, without ever trying to

Do you know the key qualification of being a Jedi? That is what science can not understand.

Peddle in sophistry all you want, high-brow whinings about 'wisdom' and 'knowledge beyond science' has given us absolutely nothing of value - and I challenge you to prove me wrong - whereas science, the actual acquisition of testable, demonstrable knowledge, has given us phenomenal advances in agriculture, in medicine (vaccination being the crowning achievement of medicinal science), in understanding our origins, and the origins of the world around us...

Science tells us how the dance of the stars, how they are born and how they will die. If you can show me that using nothing but wisdom, I'll eat my hat.

 

[KIYX]

I want to answer your question. But you do not respect my faith. So, sorry, no answer for you.

Your copout is noted.

It's ok, I know you didn't have a real answer anyway.

 

[Gracchus]

I want to answer your question. But you do not respect my faith. So, sorry, no answer for you.

You won't answer, because you get no respect, and the lack of answer causes you to be disrespected... Wow! You had better go eat worms! Then we'll all be sorry!

 

[dad]

A monosyllabic vocabulary doesn't help your case.

Problem for you is, that you have no comprehension what my case is. You thought it had to do with God ' got in a fight with his sidekick'. No. No one can really fight God.

 

[Gracchus]

Problem for you is, that you have no comprehension what my case is. You thought it had to do with God ' got in a fight with his sidekick'. No. No one can really fight God.

Except you of course! Or don't you remember that you threatened to "kick his keister" if he dared to disagree with you?

 

[dad]

Except you of course! Or don't you remember that you threatened to "kick his keister" if he dared to disagree with you?

Think again. The off topic bit you allude to was likely about if He disagreed with His Own word.

 

[juvenissun]

Yu've underlined the key point: science does experiments, and verifies the facts it claims. Common knowledge (or 'wisdom', as you call it) just asserts
truth, without ever trying to


Peddle in sophistry all you want, high-brow whinings about 'wisdom' and 'knowledge beyond science' has given us absolutely nothing of value - and I challenge you to prove me wrong - whereas science, the actual acquisition of testable, demonstrable knowledge, has given us phenomenal advances in agriculture, in medicine (vaccination being the crowning achievement of medicinal science), in understanding our origins, and the origins of the world around us...

Science tells us how the dance of the stars, how they are born and how they will die. If you can show me that using nothing but wisdom, I'll eat my hat.

Some smart people work very hard, but achieve little.
This is the difference between science and understanding.
Science is good, but is not enough and is not essential. The Lord says: we can earn all the world (do all the sciences you like to do). But if one lost his life (do not understand), what is the fortune (proven scientific facts) good for?

Do you want to me to explain more? When you try to argue, please do not forget how did this exchange start. (you said: "we have evidences, what do you have?")

 

[Delphiki]

Some smart people work very hard, but achieve little.
This is the difference between science and understanding.
Science is good, but is not enough and is not essential.

Then why is the universe as described in the bible so teeny tiny compared to what we now know about it? In what way, does religion help us understand the universe outside of making people believe in some almighty supernatural being of which there's absolutely no evidence for?

 

[Nostromo]

Some smart people work very hard, but achieve little.
This is the difference between science and understanding.

It surely is, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

Anyway, think for a second about all the other faith systems that claim to have 'understanding'. Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Muslims and so on all claim to have an understanding of the true nature of the world, one that contradicts your understanding and contradicts evidence in the natural world, and they don't have anything to support it either.

If you agree with me that their understanding of reality is wrong even though they are so convinced, what is it that distinguishes your understanding? Remember, they see you and your beliefs exactly the same way you see theirs.

 

[juvenissun]

It surely is, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

Anyway, think for a second about all the other faith systems that claim to have 'understanding'. Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Muslims and so on all claim to have an understanding of the true nature of the world, one that contradicts your understanding and contradicts evidence in the natural world, and they don't have anything to support it either.

If you agree with me that their understanding of reality is wrong even though they are so convinced, what is it that distinguishes your understanding? Remember, they see you and your beliefs exactly the same way you see theirs.

Right or wrong of understanding depends on the application (should I quote a Bible verse for this statement?). The law of gravity is right, but if you do not use it, then it is a piece of useless scientific info, and most people do not have to pay any attention to the evidences of it. You think Noah's Flood is wrong, then you will not learn anything from it. But if I think it is right (without enough evidences), then I can learn a lot from it, and use it on A LOT OF other practical purposes.

To kill Americans sounds right to a few Muslim people, scientific or not (i.e. supported by evidence or not). Even you think it is wrong, they are doing it for their benefits. That is what does a understanding mean.

 

[juvenissun]

Then why is the universe as described in the bible so teeny tiny compared to what we now know about it? In what way, does religion help us understand the universe outside of making people believe in some almighty supernatural being of which there's absolutely no evidence for?

The description of the universe in the Bible is not tiny. How big it is depends on how much one can understand.

The description of the universe from the Bible helps me to understand more than I could understand by science only, with evidences or not.

 

[Delphiki]

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/OTcosmos.jpg

Of course, not everybody subscribes to the literal.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Some smart people work very hard, but achieve little.
This is the difference between science and understanding.
Science is good, but is not enough and is not essential. The Lord says: we can earn all the world (do all the sciences you like to do). But if one lost his life (do not understand), what is the fortune (proven scientific facts) good for?

For the good of humanity. The developments of vaccinations and refrigeration, germ theory and evolution, quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics, have all fundamentally changed the world we live in. You can insult scientists and the scientific method all you want, at the end of the day, it produces results. Attacking science has done nothing but impinge human progress and the improvement of human (and non-human) lives.

Like I said, show me something other than science that can give us vaccines and quantum theory, and I'll eat my hat.

Do you want to me to explain more? When you try to argue, please do not forget how did this exchange start. (you said: "we have evidences, what do you have?")

I said this to someone else, so I figure our conversation could go any which way. If you want to go into how something other than and wholly separate to science can produce its life-altering discoveries, be my guest.

 

[Nostromo]

You think Noah's Flood is wrong, then you will not learn anything from it. But if I think it is right (without enough evidences), then I can learn a lot from it, and use it on A LOT OF other practical purposes.

We're not talking about whether or not we can learn a lesson, we're asking if it really happened.

People can learn from many texts, including ones that describe actual events and ones that do not.

To kill Americans sounds right to a few Muslim people, scientific or not (i.e. supported by evidence or not). Even you think it is wrong, they are doing it for their benefits. That is what does a understanding mean.

It seems to me that in this discussion you're confusing moral correctness with empirical truth.

Science has nothing to say about morality, right or wrong questions are not something it can answer. Men make those decisions.

The real question I'm asking is.. what understanding is there in the Bible that you cannot get somewhere else, and what is there that shows this understanding is correct?

 

[MorkandMindy]

My point was the distinction of some facts being 'scientific' is an artificial one.

What would happen if you were prosecuted for speeding and instead of admitting that at 3 PM you were 10 mph over the speed limit on road whatever and you said that at 3 PM you had been in Mexico?

When asked for air ticket information, passport stamp or any evidence you couldn't provide any, and you had been at work that day.

You might be in trouble for perjury. Could you get off it by saying you hadn't claimed to be geographically correct. That you had the time right and that was enough?

'Scientifically inaccurate' is meaningless. There either is a firmament holding the stars or there isn't.

I would certainly call the gravity that exists within a galaxy a firmament. The forces of a galaxy or a galaxy itself could certainly be called a firmament...just saying. It's semantics, we know that the stars are held in close (relatively of course) proximity to one another within galaxies, they aren't free floating off wherever, as far as we have discovered, they exist only within galaxies.

Yes, 'gravity' refers to a phenomenon that keeps the stars together in a galaxy, but holding the stars is a property of the firmament mentioned later, the other one is keeping the water on Earth separate from the water above the Earth, I guess that means where the rain comes from:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

As I understand it this means the rain is kept above the stars, and looking at the clear night last night there certainly was no rain blocking the view of the stars and they don't ripple or anything, so this may well be correct.

 

[Gishin]

If the bible is so clear, why do we have to have discussions like this? When it says firmament it means gravity and when it says water it means plasma but when it says global flood and rib women it means global flood and rib women but when it says seven headed beast it means russia.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, 'gravity' refers to a phenomenon that keeps the stars together in a galaxy, but holding the stars is a property of the firmament mentioned later, the other one is keeping the water on Earth separate from the water above the Earth, I guess that means where the rain comes from:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

As I understand it this means the rain is kept above the stars, and looking at the clear night last night there certainly was no rain blocking the view of the stars and they don't ripple or anything, so this may well be correct.

Stars ripple all the time, it's called atmospheric distortion. The wind is literally blowing the light, making them twinkle.

As for the rain being kept above the stars... have you ever seen one of these?

It's where rain comes from. And where do they in turn come from? Evaporated surface water.

Rain is not kept above the stars - though I'd love to see proof to the contrary.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... Nonetheless, the Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook...

Let's just take an everyday event. You are in court and asked what you were doing in town yesterday night. You say you weren't in town yesterday night but there's cct footage of you breaking the front window of a store. So you get off the perjury bit by claiming that you were never meant to be a history textbook.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's just take an everyday event. You are in court and asked what you were doing in town yesterday night. You say you weren't in town yesterday night but there's cct footage of you breaking the front window of a store. So you get off the perjury bit by claiming that you were never meant to be a history textbook.

Since I had previously, explicitly, and under oath swore that I was indeed telling the truth, I would be lying to then say "Oh, actually, what I said wasn't meant to be taken literally".

Though the thought of God going under oath when he authors the Bible is somewhat amusing... what does he place his hand on?

 

[Gishin]

therefore she's a gay robot or something? What does that have to do with anything?