Slashdot Mirror
Radioactive Decay Apparently Influenced By the Sun
quax writes "In school you probably learned that the decay rate of radioactive matter is solely determined by the halftime specific to the element. There is no environmental factor that can somehow tweak this process. At least there shouldn't be. Now a second study confirmed previous findings that the decay rate of some elements seems to be under the subtle and mysterious influence of the sun. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for this strange effect buried in the decay rate data."
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/1839202/advance-warning-system-for-solar-flares-hinges-on-surprising-hypothesis
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
0...-1...-2...-3
Where are we going with this?
Possibly the most exciting physics news of the year. Although the detection of the Higgs boson was big, it mostly confirmed what existing theory predicted. Interesting, important - but, to some physics, perhaps a bit boring.
If further measurements continue to verify this effect, there are some very interesting new physics to discover.
My first though: "Oh that is so cool! Wow, we're learning more about our world every day. I welcome this new discovery and hope to learn more!"
My second thought: "... Oh God. The creationists. The *creationists*. They're going to read this (repeated through a third party "science" website like Answers in Genesis), throw back their heads and shout, "Therefore, Jesus! Therefore JESUS! Science is wrong again! The Earth really is 6,000 years old! Radiometric dating is peudoscience invented by liberals and now we have proof!"
Fucking Christ.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
halftime specific to the element
Some of the heavier elements even have a musical program.
(I think you mean half-life. Nice job, editors.)
The original claim dates from 2008 and 2009. (Original paper here- http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283). While TFA claims that this has been confirmed, the group confirming this shares many of the same authors http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205. This still has not yet been confirmed by a genuinely independent group. Also the claims still only focus on two specific isotopes Si-32 and Ra-226. One thing worth emphasizing is that this has no bearing on things like the age of the Earth or other uses of radiometric dating. The isotopes are not used generally for radiometric dating and the percentage change in decay rates being observed is tiny. Moreover, for many of the sorts of things we do radiometric dating we have multiple distinct methods that cross-check each other. For example, when doing zircon dating, one can date from both the decay of U-238 and that of U-235 which use distinct decay changes. This may turn out to be some very interesting thing going on, but as of right now the impact is limited even if it is correct.
makes sense, there's probably something from the sun that interacts with a nucleus inducing a slightly higher rate of decay.
If you think about what a particle accelerator is, we basically fling particles at other particles and induce a (in many cases artificial or otherwise bizarre) form of radioactive decay. If you figure every particle has some interaction cross section with gamma rays from the sun you will then have an observable effect as the sun cycles. You can probably produce the same effect with a laser (or equivalent for the appropriate range), or a particle accelerator if it's a particle- mass interaction, but the effect is really small, so no one noticed or cared before.
Of course the reason is that it's not 'explained' or with a good theory is that you'd have to figure out what specifically is the interaction, and whether or not it's nucleus specific (probably).
Step 1) See science I don't agree with
Step 2) Find no logical arguments to shoot it down
Step 3) resort to ridicule and call it a day
Shhh... creationists don't understand negative integers. Or even zero.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Why trash? Is it unfathomable that maybe slight variations in the gravitational force resulting from the proximity to the Sun are affecting how it is tugging on the subatomic particles and ever so slightly modifying the rate of decay?
The data has no causation therefore it remains unproven that it is the sun causing this.
End.
False! When Chuck Norris heard of the radioactive waste storage problem he began to consume copious amounts of radioactive waste at each meal. The enviromental conditions in his mighty digestive tract were able to accelerate the decay of the radioactive material. The waste produced from Chuck Norris is no longer dangerously radioactive.
I wonder if Mars was subjected to more radiation if its core would spin more?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If this is true I'm betting it's because of cosmic rays rather than the unwavering gravitational force. Seriously, when something is 8 light minutes away the shape isn't going to affect the gravitational force it exerts on distant objects.
If neutrinos are the suspects, wouldn't it be easy to measure the decay rates of one of those nuclei in a strong neutrino flux, close to a large nuclear reactor or in a neutrino beam from an accelerator?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
If this is true, and there is actual causation and not only correlation (both these things are not clear to me at the moment), my first hypotheses would probably have to do with the quantum Zeno effect, rather than gravity. Although an explanation using gravity variations is also a valid hypotheses. But I agree that speculative hypes like this do not belong on /.
(disclaimer: PhD in physics, working in space-science)
Now M.I.A. is controlling radioactive decay? That's one powerful finger.
Interesting. The effect is well under 1%, but above the noise threshold. Observed for radium (a beta emitter) but not europium (an alpha emitter), with the same experimental setup.
Although heat, pressure, and chemical binding have no measurable effect on radioactive decay, external particles hitting an atom certainly can affect radioactive decay. That's how chain reactions and particle accelerators work.
There's a suspicion here that solar neutrinos might be responsible. Beta decay involves the weak nuclear force, while alpha decay involves the strong nuclear force. Neutrinos are known to interact with the weak nuclear force.
The Fermilab accelerator, which can be used as a neutrino generator, was shut down and decommissioned in September 2011. That would have provided a way to test this hypothesis.
In the year 2013, the world learned it was wrong to fear Mother Earth. For all along, watching and judging humanity through the eyes of it's radioactive minions was
^^^
*******
FATHER ** SOL **
*******
+++
Coming soon to a theater near you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.
Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.
Sure they do, but their negative numbers only go to -3988 (skipping 0 of course).
such that 'gravity well' of the sun, or the simply its distance, effects the underlying process churning out radioactive decay, in a different proportion than it effects more complex entites like our measuring devices.
Well, considering the Sun didn't exist until the fourth day of creation, and dry land existed on the third, radioactive decay could have done anything from day negative infinity till day four.
For all we know about sub atomic particles and forces this was something not in the least predicted.
What if another reaction within the sun could cause massive decay all over the earth? Periods of mass extinction or mass mutation.
On the practical side it hints that decay rate can be controlled. Could be really important for subatomic particle researchers trying to produce and observe particles with ridiculously short life spans.
If the effect could be produced on demand within a localized area for long periods of time then it could possibly be used to semi neutralize rector waste or to make normally unusable radioactive elements practical fuels.
People are stupid. Wizard's first rule. Think about what this means to 'carbon dating' material. What else does mankind yet to learn and ask yourself, "Does mankind know for a fact anything?"
Mankind knows for a fact that every time a new discovery is made, silly bints such as yourself will drastically overestimate the amount of science it overturns.
I wonder if we would be able to harness this effect to build really efficient neutrino observatories? I'm imagining something like how a PET scan works, with a positron annihilating an electron to release a gamma ray, but instead with a neutrino interacting with a radioactive element to produce decay. That would be really awesome if it's possible. Nebulas, and the galactic core would become as transparent as windows to us. Exciting!
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist!
Putting those two effects together, it is easy to imagine that some change in the make up of the sun as it evolves can also affect the nature of the gravity well around it.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
So first it's faster than light neutrinos and now solar influence on radioactive decay.
Sorry but I don't need this on Slashdot. Fox News has all the trash science I'll ever need.
News cycle linked to neutrino cycle. Film at 10:45.
Why? They never had trouble denying reality *before* this hit the news.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I am not a young-earth creationist, but you should read more carefully.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
God said "Let there be light" on the first day (after having created the heavens and the earth), but since the point of view of that verse is from the Earth's surface ("and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"), that could just mean that "Let there be light" is just the first time sunlight has been able to reach the surface of the Earth, not necessarily that it was the creation of the sun.
If the element is so full of neutrons that they are already flying off in all directions, wouldn't that giant supermega generator (You can see it in the sky on a clear day) spewing googlians of subatomic particals have some effect? (As in the spewed partials would be adding energy to the already very dense atoms) If I could test this I would measure the decay as a mass of a very dense element was moved closer to the sun. Sorry didn't read the arcticle maybe this was covered :-)
http://Lenny.com
Neutrinos are carriers of the weak atomic force. and as such the closer you are to the sun the more decay will happen...Because the weak force is what causes heavy elements to decay.... DUH!
It's a artefact of the detector, as in some unknown effect radiating from the sun is affecting the reading.
AccountKiller
If this is truly confirmed, then the obvious next step is to determine what particles being emitted by the sun are causing this effect. Is it a neutrino thing? Neutrinos aren't affected by the magnetosphere at all, IIRC. Once we know the particle(s) involved, there might be some useful tech emerge from it; perhaps it could be used to build a new generation of fission reactors where this effect can be used to enhance control or safety? I dunno... it's not my field at all but that seems obvious enough.
How could it mean that? The sun is a light emitter. Why couldn't it just mean that light is different from the darkness and the light emitter.
Isn't it possible to invent "wet" and "dry" before inventing water?
testing out my trending skills
Step 1) See science I don't agree with
Step 2) Find no logical arguments to shoot it down
Step 3) resort to ridicule and call it a day
Why don't you tell us how much did the Koch brothers paid you to post that?
When I first read the story myself I was trying to figure out the connection between the sun and radioactive material on earth. I couldn't figure it out.
But then it hit me. I don't think the Sun is the "cause" of the change. I believe there is some other force at work in the universe that affects BOTH the sun and other radioactive materials on Earth.
For example, if you were on the ocean in a ship and you saw another ship and noticed a correlation that every time the other ship bounced up and down, your ship would do the same soon. You might think the other ship was the cause when in fact it was the waves in the ocean causing both.
If we're moving closer or farther from the Sun, shouldn't the differences in gravity make time flow at different speeds?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The radius of Earth's orbit varies from 147166462 KM to 152171522 KM, or about 3.4%. Since flux is a measure of per unit area, the flux at any point in the Earth's orbit should be number of particles per square meter for a sphere centered at the Sun, and that goes as 4pi(R)^2. So the ratio of flux from closest to farthest approach should vary by those differences squared which is close to 7%. Maybe I am not interpreting the plots correctly but the claimed effect looks a lot smaller than that. If you are going to throw around possible explanations than it is important to check the basic predictions are at least consistent. I do not know whether the results are right or not. I do think having members from the earlier experiment means this does not qualify as independent verification. I didn't check the original papers but I hope they explain in detail the statistical as more importantly the systematic errors and how the latter were controlled and measured. It would be interesting to place one of these detectors near a neutrino beamline and compare results for beam on versus beam off in a similar time of year. I suppose one might even be able to place multiple detectors at different distances away from the beamline axis and compare rates by distance away. One significant challenge would be calibrating the actual flux at the various detectors from the beam when it is on. If it could be done it would reduce some of the systematic errors, but a lot would depend on how long one has to sample to get enough data.
Being closer to the sun diminishes the effect that the effect of the Kryptonite on earth. Kryptonite inhibits radio activity (which is also why super man looses his powers.). Therefore being closer to the sun results in more radioactivity. :)
-4004, you insensitive Darwinist clod!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Its good you bought that up, I was afraid that even if the science was uncomfortable we had to look into it anyway.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I'll try to explain what I meant.
If the early earth had an atmosphere that was dense with ash or debris (from heavy volcanic activity and impacts with other objects), then it may have been so thick that sunlight could not reach the surface. When He said "Let there be light," it may have just been when the atmosphere cleared up and allowed light to reach the surface. Separating the day and the night just describes the rotation of the earth, but the fact that light only hits the surface when it faces the sun would not have been evident from that vantage point until the sky cleared enough to let light through.
I think that makes way more sense than saying he created the sun after creating the earth. It sounds like you're suggesting it could mean he created the sun first, but created sunlight after, but that also makes no sense to me. I probably misunderstood you though. Care to clarify?
From most to least plausible order:
Random accidental correlation that cannot be repeated in independent experiments
Detector noise caused by Sun.
Solar neutrinos catalyze decay.
Undiscovered particles (dark matter) interaction catalyzes decay.
Gravity affects decay rates differently than relativity predicts.
Gravity affects clocks differently than relativity predicts.
It is hard to see how anything having to do with neutrinos could be effected by whatever local noon is in a lab in Isreal. Look at the time of day correlations.. If I did this in a lab in the US should I expect the same time of day results? If so how would such results square with the earth being transparent to neutrinos? Would this not be evidence against neutrinos as a cause?
Separatly it is hard to see how the paper gets away with voltage and temperature measurements which correlate so closely with the variation in observed instrument readings while not discussing any procedures to either characterize the implictaions of the variations on the actual measurement equipment.
I mean is it really that hard to regulate a low voltage power supply or control the temperature in a room?
The neutrino folks published and asked people to check out what was going on. This is actually a second study of the decay rate that backs up the original. This is science.
Science is NOT just whatever happens to be in the tiny head of Slashdot user 20178.
You are just as bad as any creationist, you dumb dogfucking shit sack.
Could this be an effect of interaction between the sun and dark matter?
Which means that our atomic clocks aren't exactly correct...
O.o
Disclaimer: i am an experimental physicist from another field (with experience in precision measurements).
looking at the arxiv preprint:
Why would one allow a +-3% variation in *absolute* temperature (figure 6). 6% of 300K are 18K (this is huge. My experiment needed to be recalibrated when the temperature changed by 1 degree). This explains also the *huge* fluctuation of the biasing voltage "lead accumulator" completely propotional to the temperature. which brings me to the next point: the paper makes is sound like this voltage was used *without further stabilization* for biasing the electronics. Why any sane experimentalist would accept such fluctuations when cheap and reliable means (controlled heater, 50cent voltage controller) is beyond my comprehension.
That being said, we talk about some difference on the order of 500 counts (per day, see the paper and multiply the numbers...), respectively 25 per hour or 1 per 2 minutes. I am no expert on it, but at such low count rates an exclusion of the influence of cosmic rays would be needed. Sasly the paper also does not show any dark count rate experiment. If they let the same detector run without anything inside and show the data, then we could make some conclusions.
Ideally they shoud have run an identical detector without a sample in close vincinity at the same time and correlate the fluctuations.
They're also both papers from the same guy, contrary to what the article implies.
Frame dragging and gravitational wave production can be straightforwardly calculated and are very small. These are pretty well understood effects of well tested theories so, no, I don't find it easy to imagine (how to get the desired effect).
I also don't see how any of this can evade the Messenger results, which should see a huge signal and doesn't.
Its entirely possible that the point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific treatise on the exact method, mechanics, and timing of the creation of all things.
Im just gonna throw this out there, and maybe Im wrong, but I dont think that would have been terribly relevant to a bunch of nomadic shepherds. I would also note that trying to turn the hebrew word "yom" into "day" before there was a sun or moon, or anything else we commonly use to define "day", seems to make very little sense to me-- especially when "yom" is used for the 7th "period of time" which is generally agreed to not have ended.
god had to see light to understand that it is good
Not really. You can see a Ferrari, and see that it is good, and still have had prior knowledge of it. I also think its a bit absurd to overliteralize it so that you infer from the word "see" that it was a visual phenomenon with photons and eyeballs with cones and rods connected to a brain.
Stop for a moment, remember who the audience was, put on your 7th grade reading hat, and then look at the text.
Or it may have been absolutely none of that, and people are trying to infer stuff that shouldnt be inferred. The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account, and trying to turn it into one utterly misses the point ("there is a creator"; "work is good, but so is rest"; as well as setting the model of 6 periods of work and 1 of rest).
This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world. Just take it at face value, and dont go beyond it.
Not to start a gigantic flame war, but it has LONG been an argument that things we regard as "constants" may not in fact be constant. Its also been inferred that you have no easy way of proving that they are-- any such attempts will rely on more assumptions of constancy.
Such speculation(?) has generally been met with ridicule; now theres research to suggest that, in fact, those constants ARENT constant in the way we thought they were. And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
The faster than light neutrinos was legitimate news as they had tried and failed to find the problem. They did eventually find the problem.
In this case you should go back and study as half life is a statistical figure that's used to estimate the effects of radiation. A half life is just a probability that half the particles will emit their radiation during that period of time. And the fewer particles there are, the less likely the number is to be accurate. By the time you get to an infinitesimal number of particles like 10, they may all decay immediately or they could take a hundred million years.
What's more, it's been well established that outside influences do impact the rate of decay, how do you think that a fission reactor works?
These are two different data series involving cooperation with different research partners. The article claims confirmation not independent confirmation.
Indeed, if someone, and I'm not saying it was aliens (although it was aliens), had explained how the Earth was actually created to people at that point, they probably would have just scratched their heads and written what was in Genesis anyway.
Which is not to say we are smarter than they were, but we have a lot more accumulated knowledge about the natural world and fewer misconceptions.
I also think its a bit absurd to overliteralize it so that you infer from the word "see" that it was a visual phenomenon with photons and eyeballs with cones and rods connected to a brain.
Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Reading the bible in English is like playing telephone in high school--somewhere along the line someone replaced all the nouns with "cock."
And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer and selectively ignore evidence to make it seem possible.
approximately 1% variation per year that cancels year on year, so no change to carbon dating.
The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account...
More information on how you *know* what you think you know would be useful. Otherwise how can we distinguish you from every other religious crank claiming to know the "truth"?
This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world.
No. It is *way* more absurd than that. It's as if some cave-dwelling, Bronze-Age, cattle herders wrote down their best guess at something as complex as the formation of the Universe, and a civilisation that has figured out enough to achieve space-flight is still taking their myths seriously.
Is it unfathomable that maybe slight variations in the gravitational force...
Yes, the gravitational force is 30+ orders of magnitude weaker than the force it is trying to overpower, the effect is comparable to a mosquito trying to tow the Moon away. Dark matter/energy are really only names for new and puzzling phenomena that we have recently observed, this could fall in the same category and is certainly worth deeper investigation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
News cycle linked to FTL neutrino cycle. Film last night at 11.
Your cuing is going into negative, the same way a young Earth creationist feels about evolution. Ups, I did it again.
Obviously not everyone is ridiculing the idea, or else these people wouldn't be researching/publishing it.
IMO the safe bet is that this won't pan out (like the FTL neutrinos), but the interesting/fun bet us that it will (as would have been the case with FTL neutrinos).
I.e., Asimov's "That's funny..."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"I think that makes way more sense than saying he created the sun after creating the earth."
Of course it makes more sense. But that only points out what a nonsense Genesis is:
"13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
That's no open to interpretation: The two great lights, the one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night were created the fourth day. So yes, god created the heaven and the earth, *then* the light, *then* the day and the night, *then* the starts, the sun and the moon.
In that order, go figure.
"The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account"
Oh, great! But, wait a second, where does the Genesis say that?
Or is it, well, you know, it's a poetic interpretation, not to be taken literally... But then, what's the difference between that tale, that shouldn't be taken literally, and those other tales when that Jesus Christ they talk about goes resurrecting people, wandering over the waters and all that jazz? I remember owning a bible when I was a child and I don't remember the tales coming some of them in blue ink and some in black, or something like that, to know when it's a "poetic description" and when a "revealed truth".
"Indeed, if someone, and I'm not saying it was aliens (although it was aliens), had explained how the Earth was actually created to people at that point, they probably would have just scratched their heads and written what was in Genesis anyway."
No, sir. Any intelligent mind has deep problems to blatanly contradict their own knowledge unless there's a concious effort to lie.
It is perfectly possible, even for the imperfect and limited mind of the human being, to rise a poetic description of the genesis of the Universe, understandable even to a bunch of analphabet goat hearders, without coming to such stupid things like "the Sun was created after the Earth" i.e. Tolkien's Ainulidale.
That the almighty god (or his alien minions) didn't manage to produce anything better is terribly suspectful, almost as if it were the analphabet goat hearders themselves the ones coming to the story.
There is no dogmatic-accepted scientific theory. There are just accepted theories, theories that best fit the data collected to this point. All scientists who are worth the name know that theories are just approximations of reality and as such can and will be modified in time to correct inconsistencies and better describe what they try to model.
On the other hand, all religious doctrines are completely dogmatic, and to add insult to injury, there is no religion that isn't completely inconsistent with itself. You don't even need to look outside the doctrines to find critical incoherences.
Now regarding "young earth" creationists, there is no significant difference between them and you. You both try to force data to conform to your theories (supposedly written by your invisible God), instead of trying to conform your theories to the data. The fact that they try to do it to carbon dating and you don't does not make your approach better in any way.
No, it's just standard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There's good reason to be skeptical.
Nuclear disintegration is the weak interaction at work.
The weak interaction involves neutrinos.
The sun emits a lot of neutrinos.
Of course, it is not that simple, and physicists still have to churn out a theory. But the idea that the sun can influence nuclear disintegration does not looks odd to me
I said implies, not claims.
The article actually says "corroborated," which I think most people would understand in the context of another person saying the same thing: he corroborated my story. Still, it technically doesn't necessarily imply independent confirmation, so I said implies.
A text may say why stuff happened while science is about working out how stuff happened. For instance evolution has nothing at all to say about the role of God one way or another, that's a different field (why not how), the dispute we have there is a political one due to various groups worried that the size of their Christianity Lite flock is threatened by scientists poking holes in their dumbed down view of the universe.
It's pretty well all about some idiots preaching that nothing ever changes feeling threatened by those that measure change. That's politics, and God gets no say in it one way or another.
Let's try an example of a carpenter building a table. Forensic scientists can come in later and determine exactly how it was made, but why it was made and what thet carpenter was thinking at the time is not a question that is going to be answered.
Ignore me if you like because my entire country was damned to hell by Oral Roberts becuase he had his bags searched at an airport. That's the sort of bullshit you get where people use religeon as an excuse to push their own agendas (like the religeon vs science bullshit I'm referring to).
...but that is usually the best place to start an investigation.
This article is exactly that. "Hey. We just noticed a strong correlation. Let's try to figure out why."
In other words, science.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
So are we going to have Janet Jackson have another "wardrobe malfunction" as a result of this?
You could at least get the terminology right, FFS. It's "half-life", in case you're interested.
I remember hearing how a couple other test groups did come up with some anomalous readings here and there. Tantalizing hints, that kind of thing. And I have an open mind about stuff like this. It isn't impossible.
Got any good links to read up on?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
At least he's smart enough to figure out how to register and log in.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Otherwise how can we distinguish you from every other religious crank claiming to know the "truth"?
By using those wonderful critical thinking, reasoning, and reading skills you learned in school. My word, one wonders how anyone managed to get through English Lit.
Oh, great! But, wait a second, where does the Genesis say that?
Because it was not written as a scientific treatise. Before you go any further, you may want to acquaint yourself with the idea of "genre".
that shouldn't be taken literally,
I dont believe I said that. I said dont overliteralize it. There is a difference. I believe that what it says is fact, but that you cant infer above and beyond what was intended, which I believe can be ascertained pretty easily by remembering who the audience was and what the apparent themes are.
Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation.
Theres generally only one level of translation involved-- we have a remarkably good record of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Theres only the translation from hebrew to english in most bibles you will pick up (or greek to english for the NT).
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer
I must be missing something. Isnt this what every atheist does when he ridicules a theist? And lets be honest here-- slashdot is no small contributor to that.
Shhh. These are not the hypocrites you are looking for.
Why do atomic clocks work 100% flawlessly all the time then? They're notorious for not randomly speeding up and slowing down (unless they change velocity). This is that neutrinos go faster than light BS all over again. Get bad results, publish to get lots of popularity and money, and then someone outs you by not replicating the results.
:P So some little alpha particle for example gets detected and counted and tada, you can calculate the decay rate which you actually knew in the first place since it's always the same.
Knowing almost nothing about this sort of thing, I can still disprove their idiotic conclusion. Observe:
decay rates are measured when a nuclear radiation particle is created from when a neutron...oh let's say blows up
So, what are solar flares made out of? Nuclear radiation. Specifically, the exact same kind which can make it through the atmosphere and be picked up accidentally by the sensor. In fact, all the sensor is is an electric impulse fed into a computer chip. If a completely different type of radiation causes an electrical impulse, it can be mistaken for radiation coming from your high-neutron isotope melting down. Tada, the end. Seriously, how did nobody think of that yet?
This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.
This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.
The thing is, and in saying this I'm not saying its right or wrong, the point of dispute is whether the geological record does indeed represent millions of years. So asking them to not ignore 'so-called' millions of years of geological record is not going to get you anywhere at all.
Personally, I don't like things like red shift nor carbon 14 dating as giving scientific evidence by themselves unless they can be corroborated by other evidence. For example, there are formations of galaxies and other objects where it is clear that the red shift data in these cases is, somehow, giving a false reading. If we can't identify exactly why red shift data in these examples is giving a false reading, how do we know that it is giving a correct reading in other cases?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
News just in: The bible wasn't written in English.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Yeah, but anything written or referring to events per-Israel was most likely oral tradition and defiantly wouldn't have been written in recognizable Hebrew.
null
"News just in: The bible wasn't written in English."
Of course, that silly me!
That explains why in my Spanish translation is Moby Dick the one going around the world after Ahab!
If you count your faith on the Bible in translations saying absolutly different and contradictory things than whatever original, you should rethink it a bit.
Anyway, can you point my to the original that says that god created the Sun first and the Earth only came after that?
"I dont believe I said that. I said dont overliteralize it."
OK, I'm fine with that. Just not to take the risk of overliteralize it, I won't take any single word for true.
"I believe that what it says is fact"
So in the days of Josue the sun stopped still, isn't it?
"which I believe can be ascertained pretty easily by remembering who the audience was"
Well, obviously the intended audience included our modern day society or else, what's the point in make a faith today based on that book?
Interestingly, although the big bang, photon decoupling and the notion that most stars predate our sun are 20th century discoveries, these details fit the Genesys narrative better than the notions of the creation of the earth that were in vogue prior to the 20th century.
let there be light - big bang
separated light from darkness - photon decoupling
create firmament of heaven and separate firmament of earth and divide the waters of heaven and earth - planetary disc creation and planet formation
doesn't really match the "the sky was cloudy on the earth until 'let there be light'" theory, but hey, if you are going to play "pattern recognition" with 8,000 year old oral traditions you should at least get as much leeway as they give Nostradamus.
Que idiota eres
..
...
...
How stupid of you
Hmm, well those two sentences are not saying contradictory things, they are both saying that you are an idiot
Now imagine both of those sentences are coming from the original french "Mais quelle andouille tu fais"
Which can certainly be translated into any of those forms, and however could just mean if the context is clear about it "you are making great sausages !" (something like that)
Furthermore, imagine that those written words accepted as the almighty truth everywhere on the planet are filling allegedly technical spanish and english blogs
The spanish blogs would debate over the fact that idiota can be a synonym of ignorante, and there would be the school of those interpreting the whole situation of you being certainly smart but uneducated blablabla
The english blogs would have people wishing each others death or cumbersome sexual 'happenings' because to some it would be obvious that the 'how stupid of you' is not to be taken as an absolute state of your 'being stupid'ness but instead revealing something very specific that you just did right at this moment
(no doubt other parts of the scriptures must reveal which one of your posts / creations was wrong, therefore evil, and the schools keep dividing)
Well, this is what people above are arguing about exactly: ways to interpret words in certain conditions which are most certainly way more off by the simple virtue of their being translations than by the margin of interpretation they have in their final language, and that was your parent's point
Now, to add some more room to 'interpretations', and just in case I am offending you, I am actually not meaning that you are an idiot (I don't know you), I just meant that you are wrong in your answer to your parent's post and that you have to see just how silly it is to argue over sensible interpretations over the meaning of words which are not even the original words to begin with.
The saddest thing is that it was probably about sausages anyway
let there be light - big bang
separated light from darkness - photon decoupling
create firmament of heaven and separate firmament of earth and divide the waters of heaven and earth - planetary disc creation and planet formation
Exactly this- of course I have yet to convince any bible thumpers in my family that the bible's narrative fits the scientific explanation- they're all too busy arguing for things that are demonstrably false :/
Science can't disprove the bible (unless we invent a time machine), the bible certainly can't disprove science, and they rarely touch on the same subjects. Why can't we all just get along?? (oh right, the hate...)
To be overly accommodating and post-modern, I suggest that the references to formlessness and waters is pointing to the disk of gas before the nuclear reactions started in the developing sun. Separation of light and darkness suggest the initial completion of the process of planetary formation.
To be not so overly accommodating but still post-modern, I suggest that the Genesis is about the people, for the people and by the people. It is valuable piece of human culture like the pyramids, opening our eyes for to the ideas of our distant predecessors.
Depends on the 'atheist'. Though I wouldn't call myself that. For that I have to hold the notion that God does not exist. Instead, I hold the notion that it does not matter. That it is a completly irrelevant question to ask to begin with. Does that mean I'm an athiest? I don't know, perhaps. So, in my case, all I do is reply with "why is this relevant"? I wouldn't say I redicule. I just see them chaising their own tails like dogs and it just saddens me.
It is open to interpretation, and mine still allows for this. Like I said, if the atmosphere was full of dust and ash, and then cleared enough for light to get through (like an overcast day), you would have day and night, but you would not be able to see stars, the moon, or the sun. When the atmosphere finishes clearing up (on the fourth day), they become visible.
Obviously we look at it from different perspectives. I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and meant to teach us. I also believe science is another way of discovering the work of God. If one seems to contradict the other, I assume it is a failure in interpretation, because they should both agree.
My assumption is that you totally reject the Bible to begin with, so you can very easily conclude that it is any perceived inconsistency with what you already think you know just reinforces your opinion that it is rubbish.
Not to start a gigantic flame war, but it has LONG been an argument that things we regard as "constants" may not in fact be constant.
The Hubble Constant would seem to be a good example of this; while many people assumed that it was actually a constant, the underlying theories only require that it be constant in space (not in time), and when you mess around with other theories time-dependence makes quite a bit of sense (and helps fill in some gaps).
Of course, this case is slightly different; the suggested correlation (silly /. headline inferring causation) goes against existing theories. And looking at the data a bit more closely, one has to wonder how good a correlation that actually is, and how big a variation (taking into account the errors). This is definitely one of those "more data needed" situations. If true (and someone can come up with a theory as to *why* - which is the important part) this could be really interesting.
Obviously, scientists should never ridicule science that is either backed by verifiable evidence or theory, but such dramatic new suggestions may require more careful study than otherwise. I'm reminded of that recent fuss about faster-than-light neutrinos; either a huge chunk of existing theory was wrong, or someone had screwed up their measurements... and unsurprisingly, it turned out to be the latter.
That said, ridiculing (most) religion is perfectly acceptable; there you tend to have both a lack of a consistent theory and a lack of verifiable evidence. And on top of that you're supposed to make major life choices based on it... how is that *not* silly?
[Disclaimer: It has been a few years since I studied cosmology, so I may be completely wrong wrt that stuff about Hubble.]
This result may not be an example, yet, because it has not been independently confirmed yet. (Who knows if it will be?)
Something like this is bound to happen sometime. (Some think it already has.)
Will physicists have the courage and humility to admit current theories are broken, or will they act like geologists with respect to Wegener, before nuclear fission was discovered?
It isn't about temperature, the stormier the sun, the more energetic atoms are... and so are less likely drop to an energy level where neutrons can spontaneously undergo beta decay. If the energy level is high enough electrons will smack into protons creating neutrons... But that is high energy plasma and won't generally be found on the Earth. ... Know anything about string theory?
"My assumption is that you totally reject the Bible to begin with"
Your assumption is wrong, then: it's quite an interesting reading. I only reject the bible (the pentateuch, to fit better here, since this is about genesis) being inspired by anything else than the minds of the people and culture of the time (and the derive introduced by the ages of oral transmitions and the politics involved since then).
"I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and meant to teach us."
No, it's much more than this. Your assumption is that since it's divinely inspired it can't be wrong and, as such, you are going to stretch your interpretations as much as you need to fit your prejudice.
"Well, this is what people above are arguing about exactly: ways to interpret words in certain conditions which are most certainly way more off by the simple virtue of their being translations than by the margin of interpretation they have in their final language, and that was your parent's point"
No, that certainly was not the point of the parent's post. His point was that my timeline was wrong/unintersting because of the translation -OK, I certainly can admit that, but the implicit was that somehow other translations (or an alledged original) were better -or else he was admitting my point of genesis being a nonsense after all, without providing any further evidence.
In other words:
Given that stating the Earth being created before the Sun is a nonsense, either genesis is a nonsense because it's a nonsense or it seems to me to be a nonsense because of the translation.
In this second case, well, where's the nonsensical version of genesis where the Earth was not created before the Sun?
It can be the case, of course, that the "real" revealed genesis has been lost, but then believers should rethink about his faith in a nonsensical book (because it does resemble the real revelation no more) and/or about their faith in a "almighty" being that despite of his intention of revealing his word fails at it.
Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.
Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.
Peer-review isn't immue to issues...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated
Also, peer review is not designed to catch fraud, only to catch errors in process or analysis.
In the Ivy League they aren't immune to issues either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser
Also (okay, these aren't researchers, but perhaps this is more relatable...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/education/harvard-says-125-students-may-have-cheated-on-exam.html
People are just people. Just because they are working at a fancy-schmancy university, or some other folks put another gold star next to their paper (peer review is often blinded by reputation), isn't the standard we should be touting. The only arbitor that matters is nature, as one famous physicist (RPF) put it, "Nature cannot be fooled"...
Your beliefs are so unconventional, that I was suprised to read that you claim to be a Christian.
That being said, I believe that the sun was created after the earth.
I think that when he said "Let there be light.", he could have meant the physics of light. Imagine if he created wires, batteries and LEDs. "Let there be light." would figuratively include the laws of electricity that allow for the invention to work. Creating the technology could be done after creating the laws of physics.
On the day when he created the plants, he probably also created fungus. Natural bioluminescent fungi does exist, so we don't need the sun to create light.
Another example of "existing" before "being here" is the Canadian Forces efforts to sell off old vehicles. These vehicles are unused, and unassembled. You can buy them for $100. Several parts are stored in oil to keep them in good condition. If you buy 1 of them, then you'll have a vehicle, quite possibly before you even physially touch it. Likewise, you'll own it before you ever use it or get any day to day mobility out of it. In this example, ownership and physical control are very loosely tied.
In our world, we are used to inventing by way of thinking and physically creating, mostly at the same time. Nobody lays out every historical detail in chronological order, because there are so many steps of thinking and making, and they would be so mixed up, that our heads would spin if we tried to figure it out.
God doesn't need that trial and error process. He just has to want, and that desire will be thorough enough to be accounted for as invention, before he even lifts a figurative finger.
Also, God is higher than everything, so that means he doesn't have to follow the limited process of trial and error.
You see how he thinks when he swears by his name, because it is the highest name, and when he orders Hosea to marry a prostitute. According the law, Hosea shouldn't have done that, but God's law superscedes the regular day to day laws without breaking them.
To really nail it home, let's discuss a tangential topic. You have probably watched the ST:NG episode, where Q takes Picard all the way back to when the first slime was forming in a pool. Imagine having that privilege in a 6-day creation world, but with the luxury of bringing a tricorder together. So you, I, and a fool are transported back. You and I are interested in what's going on around us, but the fool is easily distracted by a balloon, which he brought back with him.
The first stop is day 6. We watch God form Adam. We see breath breathed into him. We know how old he is: less than a full day. Immediately, we pull out our tricorders, and what do you think that the tricorder will say? Is Adam less than a day, or past his teens? The tricorder should have no concept of history, so it should only measure based on Adam's physical aspects, which means that Adam should be measured accurately as a man several years old. This is not deceptive either.
So, you and I are excited. We decide that since we have the opportunity, we should explore a bit more, and then randomly visit the 3rd day. There is nothing to see. All we hear is rustling plants and wind. We feel the wind too. All of a sudden, we hear a peculiar noise. We turn to it. After a few moments, we recognize that it is Fool, who is rubbing the balloon on his head. When he removes the balloon from his head, we should see a spark, right? As long as the air isn't too cloudy, then we should. This 3rd day experience should be observable to non-scientists before the sun is created.
In the Genesis account, light is loosely tied to the sun.
testing out my trending skills
Sorry. I should have replied to this post, as opposed to the post below.
Everybody, I continued the discussion with him below.
testing out my trending skills
I like to think that I don't stretch my interpretation. There are times when I simply say "I don't know what this means," rather than try to force an interpretation based on everything else I know.
Does this mean the earth is 6000 years after all and I should go to church again?
"I like to think that I don't stretch my interpretation. There are times when I simply say "I don't know what this means,""
First of all, I'm not implying you are being dishonest (either to yourself or to me) but you *are* already stretching your interpretation even if all you do is "I don't know what this means" when the most logical interpretation is "this must be wrong" (i.e.: this can't be god's revelation but human invention from some millenia ago) since you can't accept it because your a priori judgement is it is in fact god's revelation (uhhh... since this can't be wrong, but certainly looks wrong, this must be that it hides some kind of allegory I still can't grasp, or something).
So in the days of Josue the sun stopped still, isn't it?
This is only a problem if you start with the assumption that there is no God, which is to say circular logic.
Well, obviously the intended audience included our modern day society or else, what's the point in make a faith today based on that book?
Fair point, but there was definitely an immediate audience which we are not. It can be written with the knowledge that we would read it, and still be written for a specific people.
I dont intend anything in this post to offend, but to provoke thought; please do not take it as anything else.
I would say that your notion is attempting to create an easy way out, when in fact there is not one. If God does in fact exist, and is in fact as powerful as believed, then your relationship to him is, bar none, the most important thing in the world-- whether or not you recognize it. If you are in opposition to Him, there would be no power that could protect you from His ire.
There are many views on theism, and (by necessary truth) all of them save one are wrong. I think the view that "it does not matter" manages to be the most wrong-- because it doesnt just get the answer wrong, it gets the question wrong too. I would challenge you to consider on what grounds you consider the question "irrelevant"-- I would wonder if there were not some reason you avoid the question.
Being Christian I can not simply leave the question here-- It is my belief that there is in fact a God, and that he is so opposed to wrongdoing and to upholding justice as to place all of us who have ever committed a wrong in deed or thought in a terrible bind; I would contend that this includes you, me, and every other person who has lived. I would urge you to read through the book of Romans and determine whether you could still say that the question is irrelevant.
there you tend to have both a lack of a consistent theory and a lack of verifiable evidence. And on top of that you're supposed to make major life choices based on it... how is that *not* silly?
Basically any political ideology fits all 3 of those criteria, yet it is not considered silly to take up such an affiliation. In MANY situations with no evidence where major life choices are required, people have no problem making such decisions; why the double standard with religion?
I would also disagree with the "no consistent theory" thing-- there is such a thing as "systematic theology" which lays it out, but basically ANY religious conception is at its core a "consistent theory" of what one thinks of spiritual things. Whether it is right or wrong is, of course, a different matter altogether.
The Genesis account clearly says that the 24-hour day was not in existence until the 4th creative day, thus the creative "days" could not have been literal Earth days. Technically, the last two could have been, but they weren't because 1) the same word for "day" is used for all six, and 2) science (duh).
Personally, I am a creationist (couldn't you guess?), but I actually know what the Bible says.
That's an odd claim. I looked up the Young Literal Translation:
4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.
(...)
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.
14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;
17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
Which suggests a few things: Firstly that the separation God made between night and day occured on the first day, not the fourth (but some more stuff happens on the third). Since you trumpet your superior knowledge of the Bible, I think you really ought to at least have memory of the first page of the book. Secondly, he makes the statement right at the top. Thirdly, that the presence of these lights in the sky was the definition of the time of day. Fourthly, that he means "day" and "night" to be something which is only indicated by the presence of the luminaries, and not something which is actually defined inherently by their relative position.
Interestingly, the literal translation also does seem to indicate quite strongly that the Moon gives off light - which, together with the implied geocentricity, I would consider a claim difficult to reconcile with your argument that the Bible is not inconsistent with scientific findings.
toresbe
Basically any political ideology fits all 3 of those criteria, yet it is not considered silly to take up such an affiliation.
Which, arguably, is what is wrong in politics in may places. Decisions are made based on political ideology in ignorance of (or despite) evidence. Policies are made, then some evidence is found to justify it, rather than the other way around. And then people vote based on those justifications and spin, rather than on actual evidence.
Your first paragraph really highlights what it is I'm trying to get across. The "if" and the other "if". Yes, "if" He does in fact exist... we don't even have an answer to that question. We do know that we exist, however, so what changes? We exist either way. So lets start asking the "big question".... why? We asked. We still exist, and nothing changed. We asked again, and again and again, and nothing changes. For christians... it's been what 2000 years now? I sit through church, and the question is still the same. Same doubts. Same questions over and over and over. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" "How do we know God is real?" etc, etc... Is this not chaising your own tail? Because I don't really see it gets people any actual answers that they seek.
And what is it about the stance that feels "easy" to you? I didn't arrive at it just out of the blue. I arrived at this by wrestling with the question and ultimately finding no significance for it in my life. That does not mean I am without humility. When my *prayers are answered I make concious note of it. I say thank you. It is enough for me to know I have done so. The existence of a God or lack there of is irrelevant in that thought process.
*Prayers... or wishes or desires of my mind, whatever you wanna call it.
We asked again, and again and again, and nothing changes.
There are answers in the Bible for some of your questions, but for others the answer is "we arent told". This isnt evasion, and its perfectly valid: once you accept the premise that "there is a God", the assertion that he is beholden to explain Himself becomes rather absurd. That he condescended to do so to such a degree already, and one would demand yet more, I think indicates clearly a flaw that all of us have: pride. It is, among many other behaviors and inclinations I see, a strong support for the Bible's claims about the character and nature of man.
"Why do bad things happen to good people?"
This is generally regarded as a difficult question; and I dont intend to say my answer will satisfy everyone. But at the core of it, the problem is that your question is wrong: There are no good people. I would assert that there are far more people than would like to admit it that in the right situation could be as brutal as Stalin, and feel fully justified in doing so. I would challenge anyone who thinks otherwise of themselves to reflect on whether their deeds, thoughts, and motivations are truly without blame. And I would assert that anyone who thinks they are is practicing self-deception, and that a single day watching that person could show the lie.
"How do we know God is real?"
I think there are many good evidences of that, and for me the biggest is how often the Bible gets it right-- it is to me a credible source. When raw secularism will try to say that communism can work and that there is nothing wrong with man, I can judge its credibility based on how often it has gotten it right. When the Bible says that all men are wicked, and even their best deeds are filled with flawed motivations, I can look and see ample evidence of that. Between the two, the Bible is thus established as much more credible as regards the human state.
There are other examples, but what is convincing for me would perhaps not be convincing for you; if this were truly something important to you (which you say it is not) you could find out whether the bible is credible by reading it.
And what is it about the stance that feels "easy" to you?
I think you are-- forgive me if this is offensive-- deceiving yourself. You have already acknowledged that if God does exist, then is the most important thing in the world; the only way you can feel it irrelevant is by wagering that he does not exist at all.
To quote CS Lewis,
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
Decisions are made based on political ideology in ignorance of (or despite) evidence.
The problem, as with religion, is that the evidence available doesnt fit many people's idea of "sufficient", but you nevertheless must choose. This means making do with what you have.
And then people vote based on those justifications and spin, rather than on actual evidence.
That does happen, and I wont deny that there are cultural / familial "christians" with no real conviction or depth of belief. That does not take away from those who have made a choice with depth behind it.
Does imply that atomic clocks are not reliable?
How's this for a hypothesis to explain the affect of solar activity and radioactive decay? "Radioactive decay does not exist in isolation, but depends on the collision of solar particles to cause the release of the decay element. The higher the level of solar activity and the proximity of the solar source, the higher the rate of radioactive decay due to the greater number of collisions that occur on the target isotopes. While this affect and result are nearly constant in our solar system (at least, for the past few billion years) other systems with more local stars, stars of different mass/size, and in systems without any local stars the rates of radioactive decay can vary significantly from that observed on Earth."
I percieve this to be a strawman. There simply is no assertion that He is beholden to explain anything at all. Such a thing does not enter into the relm of my reality. Therefore, your perception of my pride is based on a false premise. Perhaps I have pride, but this would not be a source in any way. I wager that the Bible's claims about the nature of man come from the men which penned it. Word of God, or not.
This is simply the question I hear tackled. You are asserting that man's nature is what we see throughout history. I do not disagree, survival is a strong instinct. But then you assert that there are no people practicing self-revelation, and no one conciously training their own will to never fall into such traps. On this point you are flat out wrong. Not that there are many.
The Bible is not a book of evidence. It getting it right or wrong has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your comment regarding secularism and communism is about, or how they are connected to this argument. That communism was attempted? What is your point here? That the Bible reflects man's self centerdness is not a point in your favour. The Bible is Word of God, written by Man.
I never said it was unimportant. I said it is irrelevant. I picked that word carefully. I'm about half way through. Cover to cover. Not missing a beat.
I have a similar sentiment towards you, but to me that is not an issue. You're missing the point. I'm not wagering. To wager is to through the die, if you will. I'm not throwing any. I see no point. The days are simp
There simply is no assertion that He is beholden to explain anything at all.
It is implied when people insist on an answer to things like "why is there evil" (which is, to be fair, not the same as what you asked).
It was not, by the way, my intention to accuse you of pride in that matter. I was speaking generally, to a perceived common retort to my statement. That you did not make the statement, nor think it, you are obviously not one I had in mind. Honestly, that was aimed as much at myself as at anyone else.
I do not disagree, survival is a strong instinct. But then you assert that there are no people practicing self-revelation, and no one conciously training their own will to never fall into such traps
In Romans 7, Paul remarks about how he seems to keep sinning and doing things he abhors, even though he "knows better"-- he knows the traps to avoid, and yet he keeps doing "that which I do not want to do". I think the idea that we can work harder to avoid sin is a myth, but I would be interested to speak to one who would claim that they had successfully gotten all ill intentions, motivations, and deeds out of their life.
I would also point out that while you certainly can see (at least some of) the deeds of a man's life, you will never have access to their will. On that point however I would be surprised if you could even produce a man whose external deeds had been made faultless.
It getting it right or wrong has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your comment regarding secularism and communism is about, or how they are connected to this argument.
The point was this: When communism was first bandied about, one might be excused for thinking it a great idea. After seeing it fail many times, one would only have oneself to blame for supporting it through another failure-- it had already demonstrated a lack of credibility.
With the Bible, on every observation it makes about things we can directly see-- humans in action-- I find it to be spot on in a way that I have not found secular humanism to be. Humanism, that I have encountered, seems to say "we can get rid of societal-- or even personal-- evil". I am unaware of such attempts ever meeting anything but failure.
That the Bible reflects man's self centerdness is not a point in your favour. The Bible is Word of God, written by Man.
It seems that a God who desired his word to be known would be fairly impotent if he could not even preserve his message.
. To wager is to through the die, if you will. I'm not throwing any. I see no point.
If you were told, you must throw this die and wager or else you will be executed, and you said "I dont see the point", it would tell a bystander one of two things: Either A) you do not believe the threat, or B) you do not care about your life.
Now, lets say the situation were slightly different. Lets say you were told "You MUST wager about whether I always tell the truth, or you will be killed". Assuming B is not true (which I will, and correct me if I am wrong), this means that for you to refuse on grounds of irrelevancy means that, in your head at least, you have already wagered-- you have wagered that he does not always tell the truth.
According to the Bible, there is no "middle ground". You are either for God, or you are rejecting him and are subject to judgement. To say "Whether you tell the truth or not I will not wager" means either that you do not care about such judgement, or else that you do not take that message seriously (that is, you believe it false). You have, in fact wagered.
If everything is of God then God is already revealed in plain sight and I need not question.
That assumes that God is pro-you, which I think is an unsafe assumption unless you have strong reason to believe otherwise.
Incidentally, your words are very similar to a quot
This is the nature of practice. It is not implied that no mistake will ever happen. That errors of judgement are gone. What you do is learn from the mistakes you do make. Meditate on them. Forgive yourself and move on. There is nothing more to do, except not repeating it. You must be humble and accept it.
You will always see all of your own deeds. You will always know all of your own thoughts. That is enough. You do not need follow anyone else. No one else needs you following them.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~Einstein
I cannot comment, I don't know what "Humanism" is in this context. There are many disparate groups out there, if that's what you mean, but they're hardly in sync or are in any way connected.
Those are not the only possible options. C) you are in defiance of your oppressor and will not sacrifice your integrity even in the face of death.
If wheather or not he is telling the truth is not relavant to me then neither the words that I would utter in response to the enquiry. In that situation, what is relevant is my life and not dying for a stupid reason. Whether I care what the real outcome of my "wager" is not in the picture. After the fact, and regardless of my answer, I'm in the exact same situation that I was in before. I still would have no way of knowing if my life is about to end. So I'm not going to busy myself pondering something that has no bearing on the outcome.
I cannot respond to most of your points in a way that would not repeat myself-- I think somehow there is a disconnect either between what I think you are arguing and what you really are, or vice versa.
The one thing I would clarify is your comment about my knowledge being personal.
I know a great many people who I truly believe to be Christians, big C, sincere, etc. It is common for us to disagree on various finer points of theology-- the nature of will and whether it is truly free, the extent of the corruption of man's nature, etc. As things go, they tend to be small.
On occasion, one will contend that I am in error, and will provide proof of such (generally scripture). Now, there are times that I believe that their interpretation is flawed, but there are others that their interpretation seems much more in line with the text and/or reality than what I had originally thought; in those cases I change my belief to what seems to be more correct.
All this is to say I do believe that there is an absolute truth here, Im not postmodernist, and I certainly do not believe that some things about God could be true for me but not for my brother's God. One of us is correct, and if my brother can provide a compelling case for why I am error, why then perhaps I will correct my error.
I appreciate the conversation and only wish more people could be as civil, clear, and levelheaded as you-- even if I still think you are wrong ;)
I'm fairly clear on what you're saying. I wouldn't be surprised that there's a disconnect. Its not easy to condence years of thought into a few short posts. It is not impossible to bridge this gap, however. You simply must empty your cup.
I came out of the Purdue Physics Department with a Ph.D. and am deeply disturbed that Fischbach is doing physics by press release again. He his pattern he pioneeered when he developed the "Fifth Force" based upon bad data.
The main culprit behind these variations is most likely interference in the detector due to the solar storm itself.
If the group had done a reasonable job of ruling out detector variation I would be interested, but it is telling that they jumped to these wild conclusions before even considering if their detectors were being affected.
Their conclusions are nuts to put it lightly. There arguments that no one has completely disproven them are correct; however, neither has my argument that invisible green men from mars are responsible for their detector variations.
I came out of the Purdue Physics Department with a Ph.D. and am very concerned that we are doing science by press release. Fischbach got in trouble with this at one point when he developed the "Fifth Force" which was based upon not understanding the experiments he was utilizing in his theory. It is disturbing that the most likely culprit of detector interference was completely ignored by the group as they leaped to the exotic conclusion that variable nuclear decay rates are the culprit. Standard practice in experimental physics is always assume the detector is at fault when you get unusual results and it is interesting that this is treated merely as a side topic by this research. In short, this research is most likely bogus.