• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Does Science Agree With the Bible?

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It seems to me that there are four basic "supernatural" (not naturally occurring on Earth) components to Lambda-CDM, virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade. The observation of confirmation bias over the past decade is simply astounding as it relates to Lambda-CDM.

Dark matter

In 2006, "dark matter" proponents claimed that lensing data supported the existence of an *exotic* form of matter. Their grandiose claims about the supposed existence of supernatural forms of matter were of course *entirely* dependent upon the *assumption* that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate in 2006, and therefore any "missing mass' was necessarily found in a *non baryonic* form of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archiv ... 439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex ... 90819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) Last year in 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal ... 08929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

Now if there was any doubt about their ordinary mass estimation problems, let's look at how they did in the lab with respect to exotic matter claims since 2006:

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel. In fact the whole thing has become a SUSY theory of the gaps claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

2) LUX experiments demonstrated that the mainstream poured tons of money down a hole in the ground and found exactly *zero* evidence of exotic matter as they erroneously *predicted*.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... s-up-empty

3) PandaX experiments also verified that the mainstream has a bad habit of pouring money down a hole and coming up empty:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092814.php

4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:

http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect ... 131219.htm

If the *numerous* revelations of *gross* baryonic mass underestimation in 2006 wasn't bad enough, they've already falsified every "popular" brand of exotic matter that they put forth since 2006. In at least nine different ways, they've either *destroyed* their own claims about the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006, or they falsified every so called 'prediction" that they ever made about exotic matter in the lab.

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims is based upon the *presumption* that all SN1A events act as "standard candles' and occur pretty much exactly the same way, every single time. Since their original claims however, several studies have since undermined their claim that SN1A events are all the same, and are really 'standard candles' as they *assumed*:

1) Major studies done as far back as 2011 cast serious doubt on their dubious claim about 'standard candles' that apparently aren't standard after all:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 10112.html

2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 041015.php

Note that dark energy makes up almost 70 percent of their entire theory, meaning that the *vast* majority of their theory rests upon a now *falsified* premise!

Inflation

Inflation theory was all the rage again last year when the mainstream made *ridiculous* and grandiose claims about having 5+ sigma confidence that the polarized light patterns they observed were caused by inflation and gravity waves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Guth even make claims about it being Nobel Prize worthy work. They called it the "smoking gun" for inflation.

Of course the *entire* claims was based upon their "assumption' that they could rule out other very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns, and that 'assumption' fell completely apart by the time the paper passed the peer review process. Despite all the outrageous hype, it turns out that *ordinary dust* around out own galaxy is the likely culprit, not inflation:

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-infla ... -dust.html

That leaves inflation's only claim to fame it's '"prediction' of homogenous layout of matter, and even *that* claim has been blown out of the water by Planck's revelation of a hemispheric variations in the CMB and "cold spots'.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51559-hemisph ... ackground/

There's really *nothing left standing* of Lambda-CDM after the revelations of the past decade. The whole thing was based upon *now falsified* premises, none of which the mainstream has come to terms with. They're simply in denial at this point.

I think this also brings up a good question with respect to EU/PC theory, particularly since it's in it's infancy at the moment and there are multiple viewpoints and multiple theories to choose from within EU/PC theory. How are *we* as a community going to avoid the same problem of confirmation bias with respect to various 'electric' solar models to choose from, and with respect to various ideas put forth within the framework of EU/PC theory?


Hi, (edits mostly done now)

On understand, reading, passing tests, getting degrees, from a reviewer.

The reviewer was Richard Feynman. The subject was Physics. The Country I will leave out.

((Richard has a shared Nobel Prize, for something I don't understand yet, why a fast moving electron deflects a proton, rather than sticking to it. The elastic, (meaning no losses) collision happens from a virtual (whatever that means in This case) photon that is exchanged between the two particles.))

He did have to give his results publicly. They were this. Your program is very good. All your students know all the equations. They do not know what any of them mean though.

When I hear equations being thrown around as the beginning and the supposed ending of a discussion, when it gets bad enough that nothing is happening,,,

I ask the errant member, nicely, quietly, this question:

Which comes first?, The equation or the idea?

Some can handle that. Others cannot.

The idea comes first.

You are being asked here, by someone, not if you KNOW OF, what is written.

You are being asked if you understand what is written.

The test, I use on myself, when I am not allowed to be wrong, is, Can I teach what I know?.

No one throws equations as a response when lives, company fortunes or science is at stake, instead understandings and proofs are given. Equations many times Come later.

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
What is Roman Catholicism stance on Galileo today compared with the Protestant and EOC views of today? Had the RCC changed it's view about him presently? Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/reopening-the-case-against-galileo.7895176/
Reopening the case against Galileo






.

Hi,
Hi,

Do you have any idea how much reading you gave me to do?

I went through much of it. I got side tracked (normal to researchers), and just got back here.

I read your CF reference.
I read your Catholic.com reference.
Now I will look at the EOC view.

Esoteric. Abstruse. Those two words petty much clarify any statements from The Vatican on anything.

Another one is waiting hundreds of years on an issue.

The RCC, apologized to Galileo. They spent sonething like 12 years reviewing what THEY DID, to him.

The apology came after that.

In 1992, Or so, they apologized for the sentence put on him in the year 1616.

Since then, The Roman Catholic Church has apologized for other things, that have been done.

Their apology is abstruse, esoteric and ambiguous, to me.

Personally, I am not allowed to handle opinions. The church was egregiously wrong then, in science, but only on that issue.

The church is egregiously horrifically wrong, on not correcting such an obvious mistake earlier.

Presently, they are mum, on one other issue like that now. They still know about God though. They do.

The Catholic Church, not being God, is hardly to be expected to be perfect, and I do though expect them to be perfect, though. I do.

If I could mix the Baptist's and The Catholics together, both churches would improve. Each, has something to offer the other one. Each though has something to give up, that is wrong.

Next, I would sprinkle in The Anglicans.

I know too little about the Eastern Orthodox Church, to know what to do with or about them.

That is all for now.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

If Mike supported his claims with real science I would not mind so much. The problem
We're not at that point yet because you won't be bothered to read any of it, let alone comment on those "tests". I can't force you to take "baby steps".
That is because you are the one with learning to do here Mike.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What led you to not believe in Leprechauns?
Watching the Little people program on TV led me to believe that little people are real.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Loudmouth said:
What led you to not believe in Leprechauns?
Watching the Little people program on TV led me to believe that little people are real.
Perhaps little people evolved from leprechauns? Reminds me of this hilarious episode from "Bonanza":

"One of Bonanza's funniest moments. Hoss finally convinces "Little Joe" that he actually did find some Leprechauns, sort of."




.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LLoJ
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
e

That is simply not true. You have bought into Christian propaganda. And yes, when tested it has been shown that the average atheist has a better understanding of the Bible than the average Christian. They do not "do what the Bible says to do" they do what they know to be right regardless of what the Bible says. In fact if you did what the Bible says you would be arrested, especially the Old Testament. Atheists do what is right because they understand right from wrong and they know that it is usually better to "do right". But this is not the part of the forum for this. I was simply trying to correct some of your grosser errors about atheism.
Chew it up and spit it out anyway you want to. If you do what the Bible says to do and you get the results the Bible says you will get then that is evidence that the Bible is true. I am not the one that claims atheists follow the Bible better then the so called believers, you are the one making that claim.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We ask for just a glimmer of evidence for God, none is given.
Other than Divine Cause God represents wisdom, knowledge and understanding greater then mankind. He knows better then we do what is good and right and true. By your own admission you follow this higher calling. You must have a lot of confidence that man was able to invent, create and discover all that he was able on His own without any sort of leadership or guidance along the way.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
What is Roman Catholicism stance on Galileo today compared with the Protestant and EOC views of today? Had the RCC changed it's view about him presently? Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/reopening-the-case-against-galileo.7895176/
Reopening the case against Galileo






.

Hi,

Argh, argh. I know. Quit whining and get back to work.

I AIN'T done with the Protestants yet.

EOC, says Galileo, meaning what happened to him, cannot happen from an EOC position because the EasternOrthodoxChurch is a science.

Try this out for size, it's wrapped up linguistically in trade talk, therefore slightly esoteric, but with a dictionary, it's manageable I think. At least I am able to wade through it despite the moderate linguistic winds and light linguistic rain against me:

http://oodegr.co/english/epistimi/orthodox_faith_natural_sciences.htm

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,323
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,582.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Other than Divine Cause God represents wisdom, knowledge and understanding greater then mankind. He knows better then we do what is good and right and true. By your own admission you follow this higher calling. You must have a lot of confidence that man was able to invent, create and discover all that he was able on His own without any sort of leadership or guidance along the way.

Indeed. No mythical figures necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
If Mike supported his claims with real science I would not mind so much. The problem

You mean like that real science in that real working terella experiment, or do you mean the "real science" that falsified the core claims of Lambda-CDM like 10 times in the last decade?

That is because you are the one with learning to do here Mike.

The only thing I've learned from you is how lazy you are. I've handed you multiple *published* peer reviewed papers to support my statements, *and* working models to support my own models, and you won't read or respond to any of it.

All I've seen from you thus far is a lame link to an *unpublished* website.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
What is Roman Catholicism stance on Galileo today compared with the Protestant and EOC views of today? Had the RCC changed it's view about him presently? Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/reopening-the-case-against-galileo.7895176/
Reopening the case against Galileo






.

Hi, (edits in progress now)

(Done. I say your question is answered now. Am I right or not in that assessment?)

Galileo was always misunderstood by everyone, but he was always right.

Thus he is on par with Newton, Einstein and Leonardo Davinci, in the being right department.

A key result of people like that, is a lot of hatred, from those who are wrong. They, all get over it with time.

In this world, I know two people like that.

I have personally witnessed, as they came to me to tell me, two apologies, where the errant persons came to me.

On first one, I never understood, why he came to me, almost. He seemed to still be an errant person type. As a result maybe by telling me, he felt like he could avoid telling the person who corrected him. And that person was important.

The second one came to me, at the memorial, for the person mentioned above.,

Nicely stopped, this man starts in. His point was that he is so incredibly rich that he has to answer to no one.

But, when he bumped into this same man I am talking about, after not playing by the established rules, like everyone else, he then got fear. The man never let up reminding him of his error. Never.

I thanked the man for his kind treatment of that man. Those words he did not have to give me. He did.

The other person, a female this time and like Galileo, brilliant even beyond her understandings then, said one day. "I am so tired of apologies." She was getting tired of hearing them.

She did not quit though. She accepted all future apologies, and kept on and on.

With one man, after his first apology to her, she did not get the next two.

He just changed when cornered, both times. She can say, it is entirely rewarding to see a man lose his errors, and turn into something amazing. What he should always have been, but fought.

He was the second man, who did not want to turn out like his successful dad.

From this Idiot-Savant, Auto-Didactic, The Protestsnts so sensitized The Roman Catholic Church, by The Protestant Reformation, that they may have influenced The Roman Catholic Church at the time, into over reacting.,

That seems to be the present Protestant View today.

As stated The EasternOrtodoxChurch today, say Galileo could never have happened with them, as they are a science.

As stated earlier, The Roman Catholics admitted error on their part, in 1992, after a 11 year or longer re investigation of what happened., their apology is far less than clearly stated.

Now. Galileo was never in error.
Now. Only errants will say that.

Now. All Apologists say Galileo was partially at fault.
Now. They, all Apologists are wrong.

No Apologist is a scientist like Galileo.

So no Apologist is competent to talk about what they do not know, and that is a scientist like Galileo.

Almost, no scientist, is like Galileo.

So, almost no scientist, is competent to talk about Galileo.

Einstein did.

I know of one other, like Einstein.
Both scientists, independently, further without knowing each other's work on Galileo, know that Galileo made no errors what so ever.

He was falsely accused.
He was falsely convicted.

They did not understand Galileo, nor Science, nor their own Bible well enough, nor God, nor Religion, and like happened with and to Joan of Arc, he was hurt unfairly and unjustly, but possibly quite forgivable, if they acted in ignorance. and even if they did not act in ignorance, but with any kind of malice, personal, political, abuse of power or authority, that too is forgivable, both by Galileo but also by God, Who Forgives us all, as long as we tell the truth, then ask Him to forgive us.

The church has already asked God to forgive them for that.

http://www.studentpulse.com/article...o-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
This simply demonstrates my original point that atheists tend to apply a non scientific, purely empirical standard of evidence to the topic of God, whereas they gladly and openly and willingly accept *indirect* evidence with respect to any other topic under the sun. They also tend to misrepresent their *empirical* needs with respect to the topic of God with as a "scientific" method when in fact the scientific method does *not* require an empirical (direct) standard of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Yes, people tend to "born" atheist. But that is not due to "lack of understanding". People who are born into a religious house usually have religion foisted upon them. They become atheists when they have a better understanding of the religion that they had placed upon them by their parents. Understanding a religion is the fastest way to atheism.

Er, it's also the fastest way to theism. :) People are simply born ignorant of concept entirely. Atheists are not ignorant of the concept so there's a unique difference between the mental state we are born with (ignorance) and the personal choices of labels that we make with respect to the topic of God.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Chew it up and spit it out anyway you want to. If you do what the Bible says to do and you get the results the Bible says you will get then that is evidence that the Bible is true. I am not the one that claims atheists follow the Bible better then the so called believers, you are the one making that claim.

No, it is only evidence that the Bible has some good advice. It is hardly evidence that the Bible is true. And yes, for almost all matters of ethics you will find that atheists do better than Christians. Let's start with something obvious. Atheists are far underrepresented in prison. Since they are roughly 5% of the population if they were just as bad as Christians one would find about 5% of the prisoners in federal prisons to be atheists. Instead they are an amazingly low 0.07%:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
This simply demonstrates my original point that atheists tend to apply a non scientific, purely empirical standard of evidence to the topic of God, whereas they gladly and openly and willingly accept *indirect* evidence with respect to any other topic under the sun. They also tend to misrepresent their *empirical* needs with respect to the topic of God with as a "scientific" method when in fact the scientific method does *not* require an empirical (direct) standard of evidence.
Sorry, but this only shows that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You sadly do not even understand what empirical evidence is. People here can help you with that.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Er, it's also the fastest way to theism. :) People are simply born ignorant of concept entirely. Atheists are not ignorant of the concept so there's a unique difference between the mental state we are born with (ignorance) and the personal choices of labels that we make with respect to the topic of God.


And atheists have learned enough to see all of the contradictions in theistic beliefs. By the way when you know something there is no more a possibility of personal choice in belief.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Other than Divine Cause God represents wisdom, knowledge and understanding greater then mankind. He knows better then we do what is good and right and true. By your own admission you follow this higher calling. You must have a lot of confidence that man was able to invent, create and discover all that he was able on His own without any sort of leadership or guidance along the way.

Why do you think that man could not understand the difference between good and evil himself. It really is not that hard of a concept. You only need to realize that you could be on the other side of any situation.
 
Upvote 0