Science: possible to revive the dead hours after their souls enter the afterlife! :D

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by redwards

A quick glance of a few of those tells me that that level of scientific understanding could have and probably did predate the bible, where you mention understanding, and several of them are simply making ridiculous inferences.

I'm looking for something which is a non-metaphorical, non-obvious, specific statement of natural fact which was confirmed by science at a later date. Something like the size of the sun in reference to the earth. That would be impressive. This stuff is not.

You're asking for something you are determined not to find. Your cursory glance is with an athiest glaze. Perhaps closer investigation is in order. The Bible says to wash hands under running water to prevent the spread of disease. The Bible says there are springs at the bottom of the seas. The Bible says the Earth hangs on nothing (is in a vacuum, to put it "scientifically"). The Bible says dead bodies stink. Some of those things were obvious when they were written, and some were not.

You're going to see inference and metaphor where you like. I can see you all the way over there (whereever you are) going "la la la I can't hear you" to this post, when, in fact, you got 0wned. The Bible says that if you wring your nose it will bring forth blood. You can test that one if you like.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

You're asking for something you are determined not to find. Your cursory glance is with an athiest glaze.

And you're accepting grossly vague characterizations as evidence, or rudimentary understanding as revolutionary. Nostradamus did better than this. By your standards, nearly any book ever written could be re-characterized to display unprecedented understanding of the natural world. This is the kind of evidence that conspiracy theorists think is strong ("ZOMG! He said "pull it!" He must've meant "dynamite that building.")

Perhaps closer investigation is in order. The Bible says to wash hands under running water to prevent the spread of disease.

Does it specify to be downstream of the drinking hole? Because that could encourage the spread of disease if you fuck it up.

The Bible says there are springs at the bottom of the seas.

No, it says "have you entered the springs of the sea?" You let me know why someone in 2000 B.C. would enter a spring at the bottom of the sea. I'm pretty sure it was regarding the sea as a 'spring', or else is poorly translated. How misguided, if it's not a translation error.

The Bible says the Earth hangs on nothing (is in a vacuum, to put it "scientifically").

The earth is held in its orbit by the sun. That would've been a pretty impressive reference. Hangs on nothing is simply inaccurate.

The Bible says dead bodies stink.

How revolutionary. I think corpses smell like roses.

Some of those things were obvious when they were written, and some were not.

And the ones that weren't are bad mischaracterizations, from all I can see.

You're going to see inference and metaphor where you like. I can see you all the way over there (whereever you are) going "la la la I can't hear you" to this post, when, in fact, you got 0wned. The Bible says that if you wring your nose it will bring forth blood. You can test that one if you like.

Owned. Right. Let me go dig up some Nostradamus references. I bet they're way cooler.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by redwards

Does it specify to be downstream of the drinking hole? Because that could encourage the spread of disease if you fuck it up.

This is exactly what I expected of you. It's not enough to say a thing, but the Bible must then go off on a tangent equivilent to an entire sceince textbook for you to accept it. You're just not going to find that. You'll find more chemistry in a chemistry book than a biology book, don't you agree? Granted, there's going to be SOME chem, but you're the kind of person that would deny everything in the biology book unless they also saw in the the chemistry book (and vise versa). Of course, you'd never reach any understanding of anything this way. The Bible is not a science textbook, nor is it a geography textbook or a history textbook. It is the Bible. It has science and geography and history IN IT, but it is not a textbook for one particular subject. I say this, knowing that you already know that, knowing that you're fully aware of the logical fallacy you're presenting here, but hoping that some other reader will at least see your silliness for what it is.

No, it says "have you entered the springs of the sea?" You let me know why someone in 2000 B.C. would enter a spring at the bottom of the sea. I'm pretty sure it was regarding the sea as a 'spring', or else is poorly translated. How misguided, if it's not a translation error.

The point isn't WHY you would enter the springs, but that you couldn't. Haven't you ever heard something like "eww, I don't like broccoli." And the mom says "how do you know, you've never tried it." God was asking a few rhetorical questions. Sometimes, people think they know everything. Sometimes you have to remind them they know two things: jack, and shit, and jack left town. When God said "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" He KNEW Job hadn't done that. No one could walk around on the ocean floor! This becomes more clear just a few verses later "Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all." Don't you hate those "know-it-all" types? God then says "By what way is the light parted, [which] scattereth the east wind upon the earth?" When did you learn that Solar radiation causes the wind? When was this first put to scientific text?

The earth is held in its orbit by the sun. That would've been a pretty impressive reference. Hangs on nothing is simply inaccurate.

It wouldn't impress you at all. The Bible clearly states the springs on the ocean floors, and the fact that the sun causes wind. You're not impressed by those, you're not going to be impressed by the Bible saying something like "the world hangs on the invisible string of the sun". You'd just find something else wrong with the wording, or you'd say it wasn't specific enough.

[redwards]

This is all just disingenuous attribution of random vague phrases in the bible to something specific.

Yes, I think it has to be specific to be impressive, otherwise it's too easy to manipulate. Those who consider god the great creator of the universe have generally regarded him as one hell of a scientist. If that's the case, I'd like to see his science books, not his religious prose.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by redwards

This is all just disingenuous attribution of random vague phrases in the bible to something specific.

Yes, I think it has to be specific to be impressive, otherwise it's too easy to manipulate. Those who consider god the great creator of the universe have generally regarded him as one hell of a scientist. If that's the case, I'd like to see his science books, not his religious prose.

God put some obvious and specific things in the Bible. Perhaps you could use these as reference points. For example, in Proverbs: "Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood..."
Is it true or is it untrue that churning milk will bring forth butter? Is it true or is it untrue that wringing your nose will make it bleed? Are those not specific enough? You want directions to follow, or a specific recipe? You want the Bible to be a cookbook AND a science book? Funny how you don't apply the same scrutiny to things you place your faith in.

I don't see how you're coming up with "vague". "In a deep place somewhere there's something with water coming out." That's vague. I'm sure you'd remain entirely unconvinced unless the Bible pointed out latitude and longitude of a specific spring at the bottom of a particular body of water. Right? So amazing you wouldn't apply such scrutiny to your own belief system. I'm sure you follow radiometric dating with religious conviction. This blind faith (delusion, as it were) extends beyond rationality and pollutes so-called science. Let's go to Nature magazine for an example. (‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia, 1994)
) where researchers applied their psuedoscience to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 million years. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is faith-based, and unexpected results are simply thrown out. Don't you think a range of from 4 million to 23 million years is a little... vague? But this happens all the time in your religion (passed off as science). If Christians could do this with prayer, they could scientifically conclude that prayer works, and therefore there must be a god!

You have a greater religious conviction and blind faith than I ever could. At least athiests generally don't have the drive to blow stuff up. You people would be dangerous.

That's as much as I'm going to veer off course of this topic. Wanna keep throwing punches? Let's start a different thread

[redwards]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

God put some obvious and specific things in the Bible. Perhaps you could use these as reference points. For example, in Proverbs: "Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood..."
Is it true or is it untrue that churning milk will bring forth butter? Is it true or is it untrue that wringing your nose will make it bleed? Are those not specific enough?

Those aren't impressive enough. I expect a supreme being to be able to describe something more profound than butter-churning.

You want directions to follow, or a specific recipe? You want the Bible to be a cookbook AND a science book? Funny how you don't apply the same scrutiny to things you place your faith in.

What faith?

I don't see how you're coming up with "vague". "In a deep place somewhere there's something with water coming out." That's vague. I'm sure you'd remain entirely unconvinced unless the Bible pointed out latitude and longitude of a specific spring at the bottom of a particular body of water. Right?

I'd be very impressed if the bible did the math on calculating the circumference of earth and the models which provide latitude and longitude references. That would be pretty awesome.

Doesn't the fact that the bible didn't do that and science did make science, like... waaaaaaay cooler?

So amazing you wouldn't apply such scrutiny to your own belief system. I'm sure you follow radiometric dating with religious conviction. This blind faith (delusion, as it were) extends beyond rationality and pollutes so-called science. Let's go to Nature magazine for an example. (‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia, 1994)
) where researchers applied their psuedoscience to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 million years. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is faith-based, and unexpected results are simply thrown out. Don't you think a range of from 4 million to 23 million years is a little... vague? But this happens all the time in your religion (passed off as science). If Christians could do this with prayer, they could scientifically conclude that prayer works, and therefore there must be a god!

Link to article so I can even confirm your analysis? I suspect the simple answer is something along the lines of two layers of strata convening in the area due to seismic activity, and the geologists choosing between them based on other data, though I can't confirm this until you can give me a link.

Of course, throwing out every bit of radiometric evidence ever recorded works much better for your point, doesn't it?

Granted, you copied that almost verbatim from some creationism website and probably don't have a link and have never read the article, but then, I never credited you with original thinking. If you like, we can boil it down to the validity of creation scientists (like the one who wrote whatever you copied) vs. evolutionist scientists and argue over who places more emphasis on empirical evidence. That would be funny.

You have a greater religious conviction and blind faith than I ever could. At least athiests generally don't have the drive to blow stuff up. You people would be dangerous.

Right. Mountains of radiometric dating data is inferior to your book, I keep forgetting.

That's as much as I'm going to veer off course of this topic. Wanna keep throwing punches? Let's start a different thread

Go for it.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by redwards

Those aren't impressive enough. I expect a supreme being to be able to describe something more profound than butter-churning.

So the rules change again. Now you need "profound". You'll have to look to Revelations for that. It's so profound, scholars will be debating the meaning right up through the time all those events take place.

What faith?

Everyone places faith in various things. You don't analyze every step you take for fear your legs won't work they way they did last time, right? Everyone makes assumptions based on their belief system of the workings of the world around them.

I'd be very impressed if the bible did the math on calculating the circumference of earth and the models which provide latitude and longitude references. That would be pretty awesome.

Doesn't the fact that the bible didn't do that and science did make science, like... waaaaaaay cooler?

Yea, it does. I love science. That might be why I do what I do instead of joined the priesthood or something. That, and I like to have sex. With adult women.

I wasn't much for reading the Bible as a child. It was boring, and I hated old-English. As an adult, I find it a fascinating literary work, and I wonder how much Christians read that book, especially the prudish ones that seem to find sex so... icky. They just skip over the whole book of Song of Solomon? Geez. Anway...

Of course, throwing out every bit of radiometric evidence ever recorded works much better for your point, doesn't it?

You would say throw out the results you don't like, I say just throw out all the results. Seems like my way, if nothing else, is more consistant.

Granted, you copied that almost verbatim from some creationism website and probably don't have a link and have never read the article, but then, I never credited you with original thinking. If you like, we can boil it down to the validity of creation scientists (like the one who wrote whatever you copied) vs. evolutionist scientists and argue over who places more emphasis on empirical evidence. That would be funny.

Right. Mountains of radiometric dating data is inferior to your book, I keep forgetting.

Go for it.

I used that particular example because it was convenient. It's hardly the only one. We both know the way rocks and fossils are dated.

Now, back to the subject:
I wonder if there's some empirical way to show the human body lost something (energy or mass) and then got it back when revived? Would this somehow lead to us understanding what the soul/spirit is made of?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Now, back to the subject:
I wonder if there's some empirical way to show the human body lost something (energy or mass) and then got it back when revived? Would this somehow lead to us understanding what the soul/spirit is made of?

That would be impressive.... But I wasn't aware that the soul was supposed to have any weight. So why would you think you'd lose some magic soul weight when you die?

If the soul really did exist and it actually had mass... It wouldn't be too hard to measure it as someone died. Too bad the only attempt at that was by some guy using crude instruments that were about as reliable as guessing.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Everyone places faith in various things. You don't analyze every step you take for fear your legs won't work they way they did last time, right? Everyone makes assumptions based on their belief system of the workings of the world around them.

What you are describing is not faith, it's based on something observable.

He knows for a fact he has legs and he knows for a fact that they work everyday. It's statistics.


If you know your alarm clock goes off at 6 am every day, do you have faith in it every night you go to sleep, or do you rely on your experience to tell you it will work?

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Scrum

What you are describing is not faith, it's based on something observable.

He knows for a fact he has legs and he knows for a fact that they work everyday. It's statistics.


If you know your alarm clock goes off at 6 am every day, do you have faith in it every night you go to sleep, or do you rely on your experience to tell you it will work?

.

Thank you

[redwards]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

So the rules change again. Now you need "profound". You'll have to look to Revelations for that. It's so profound, scholars will be debating the meaning right up through the time all those events take place.

....and now we're on to predictions that haven't occurred. You think describing butter churning and predicting plagues which have never happened is proof positive of divinity, but you toss radiometric dating because it has to account for sampling errors?

You would say throw out the results you don't like, I say just throw out all the results. Seems like my way, if nothing else, is more consistant.

Yes, how dare they take various strata into consideration?

I used that particular example because it was convenient. It's hardly the only one.

You used it because it was the first thing on your creationism website, you haven't even read the article.

We both know the way rocks and fossils are dated.

I doubt it.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by redwards

....and now we're on to predictions that haven't occurred. You think describing butter churning and predicting plagues which have never happened is proof positive of divinity, but you toss radiometric dating because it has to account for sampling errors?

And, by your logic, I could log all my prayers, and throw out the wishes that didn't come true, calling them "sampling errors".

Yes, how dare they take various strata into consideration?

See, you DO know how fossils are dated- by the rock layer they're found in. And the rock layers are dated by the fossils found in them. THEN they do the radiometric dating. If the date fits within the preconcieved timespan they've already given the sample (based on their circular reasoning), it's considered valid. If it doesn't, they throw it away and try again.

If radiometric dating were so accurate and precise, they wouldn't need to first date the sample by relative reference. If they didn't use their circular reasoning to date a sample before doing the radiometric dating, radiometric dating would be shown for the farce it truely is.

I have an 18" stainless steel ruler in my garage. It works every time. When radiometric dating can do what my ruler can do (provide consistant results every time), I'll be a believer. Until then, it seems a little too much like measuring souls or prayer to me.