....totalling 13 seconds with.5 seconds of error......
Even the 13 seconds is way too quick for a one floor at a time Domino style collapse. The time for the supports of each floor to break and for the whole floor and its contents to be accelerated to the next floor and the next and the next should take considerably more time. Maybe somebody else already done the math here.
...You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building.....
Yes you do, and it doesn't make any difference whether you do it one floor at a time or all at once. Somehow, the structural integrity and the inertial mass of the lower building both must be overcome in order to get it all to fall downward. The issue is not whether it fell because it obviously did, but the incredible speed at which the collapse took place.
...that the first intact floor's concreate slab would have had enough strength to halt the entire moving top of the building....
The issue here is not the strength of the building, but the rate of collapse. The falling upper structure would not only have had to overcome the structural strength of the lower structure, but much more importantly it much larger inertial mass, to also accelerate the entire mass downward. This domino acceleration, floor by floor and should have been much slower than what was observed and recorded. Even the 40% slowdown figure is way too fast for such a one floor at a time collapse.
You still could get a complete collapse but not in a free-fall time frame which videos clearly show. The only way to get a free-fall collapse of any building is to eliminate the critical support structures instantaneously or in a carefully timed sequence. The official domino collapse scenario could still result in a complete collapse, but it should take a lot longer than the videos clearly show. The timing of these videos is also corroborated by sensitive seismograph records of vibrations the collapse sent into the earth below.
that also mandates that the speed of the collapse was WAY too fast if the official domino collapse of the towers were true. The inertia of the large mass of the buildings below the crash sites should have slowed the rate of collapse significantly. The videos of collapse instead show that it took place in the same amount of time that a free falling object tossed from the roof buildings would have taken. The only way any building can collapse in free-fall mode, as if all supports of the entire buildings are instantly removed. This is what is normally done when a building is deliberately demolished.
....If you destabilise one floor there is nowhere near enough energy to collapse the whole building when the rest of it is still largely intact...
That could be debated, but the laws of mass and inertia can not be. If the official explanation of the floor by floor collapse domino effect were true, the total TIME taken for the collapse should have been much longer. As the videos clearly show, the buildings collapsed in the same amount of time that a free-falling object would if dropped from the roof of the buildings.
The only way a building can collapse in the minimum of time of free-fall is if all that supports the entire building are instantaneously removed. Any matter with inertia in the way of the collapse should significantly increase the time for collapse of the building as a whole.
...There's more than enough kinetic energy in a building like WTC7 to guarantee a complete collapse once the mass starts moving....
That may or may not be true, but is essentially a red herring. The moving mass of the upper part of the building was considerably less than the inertial mass of the building below the break. The weight and inertial energy of the falling upper part of the buildings could theoretically have overcome the strength of the lower support structure, but not its much larger inertia. That inertia of the lower floors should have slowed down the rate of collapse considerably even if the support structure failed progressively or even instantaneously. However, the videos clearly show that the buildings collapsed in the same amount of time that a free falling object dropped off the roof would have hit the pavement below.
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
...requires more structural integrity than any skyscraper has...
The issue of the structural integrity of the lower section of the building is only of secondary importance. The inertial mass of the falling upper section of the building was much less than the inertial mass of the section below. The downward moving section of the upper floors not only had to break all supports, which might have been trivial, or not, but more importantly had to accelerate the much larger lower mass of the building. This should have slowed the collapse of the entire buildings considerably below the free fall speed which the videos clearly show.
The buildings fell down at the same speed that a steel ball would fall when dropped from the top of each building. The only way such a thing can happen, is if the entire support structure of the building is removed in an instant.
....You will still get at least some of the building intact.....
That may or may not be true, depending on the structure of the building itself. However, the buildings collapsed at essentially free-fall speed, with apparently no resistance from the lower floors. If the domino theory of one floor collapsing the next one down and so on were true, then the total speed of the collapse should have been considerably slower than what the videos show. The inertial mass of the buildings below where the airplanes hit, was much greater than the mass above the impact point. From the videos I've seen at least, this large lower mass did not slow the fall of the smaller upper mass in any way. Only a deliberate near instantaneous removal of all supports in the entire building, could make the whole structure fall as quickly as it did.
....We have observations of all kinds of DNA spontaneous mutations, e. coli evolving into a new species before our eyes [newscientist.com], and many other things that say "Yes, what we've proposed for evolution fits all known facts and weathers the experiments we conduct to test and investigate it".....
The scientists saw some characteristic changes in these e-coli bacteria and INTERPRETED that through their evolutionary worldview glasses.
Other scientists, with just as many degrees to their name, having an intelligent design worldview will interpret that same experiment by saying that all living things have an amazing adaptability. They would also point out that the bacteria were still essentially e-coli, not some other kind of bacteria, such as coccus or spirochete. No evolutionary changes have ever been observed outside of the bounds of some very narrow groupings of life-forms.
Scientists have bred millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to radiation and chemicals. These stimuli have caused a wide variety, often grotesquely malformed fruit flies. However without a single exception, these were still always fruit flies, and nothing but fruit flies. Never, in all the experiments has anything other than fruit flies been produced. This is strong evidence that God indeed created living things to reproduce after their kind, just as it is stated in the Bible. The biblical word translated "kind" is not necessarily the same as the scientific definition of "species".
These sorts of experiments have not only be done with fruit flies, but also with many other creatures. Darwin observed that the beaks of finches change according to the type of food available. This is correct, but can again be interpreted and attributed to the adaptability of living things. The birds were never anything but finches, after their kind, which is finches.
Those with the evolutionary worldview will give this as an example of evidence to support their interpretation of their BELIEF.
The Bible is not intended to be and must not be used as a science textbook, but wherever it does touch science or history, it has never been shown to be wrong. Like any other writing, it is subject to interpretation according to the interpreter's worldview.
Except that most of science that is written up in these journals is paid for by the taxpayers. Then these elite so called "scientific journals" where this taxpayer supported work is reported, charge exorbitant fees for said taxpayers to have access to the fundamental work the taxpayer has paid for already. I think that all scientific reports which contain even one red cent's worth of science done at taxpayers expense should be free to all taxpayers.
...scientist do have faith in their theories......
They do indeed, but this faith is not based on the evidence, but on the underlying worldview of a scientist.
A scientist who believes there is no God, that is an atheist, will interpret the evidence gathered by observation and experiment through that lens. He will attribute everything that exists as having arisen by processors of time and chance.
A scientist who believes in an eternal transcendent Creator God, will interpret the same evidence to show careful thought and design.
There is no such thing as factual evidence, only just plain evidence. Evidence can only be believed not proven.
(...evolution itself is considered well supported...)
Evolution is widely believed, but that does not mean it is correct or the only possible interpretation of the evidence.
(...You believe, after all, that you were created from dirt....)
Apparently you don't know that some good fertile dirt capable of growing the good things you like to eat, is not too different from the elemental makeup of your own body. After all, you are what you eat. We all eat what came up out of the ground (dirt). Therefore, this is good evidence for the biblical interpretation of what you are made of, dirt!
Your shame however is, that your mind is filled with dirt by putting other people down who believe differently than you.
that everything else in this universe is a product of time plus chance is that science or is it philosophy?
(...But your theory had better fit the observable universe better...)
Observing the facts and doing experiments of science, but interpreting these facts is philosophy based on the worldview of the person doing the interpreting.
A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by processes of time and chance, will interpret the facts and observations through that lens of this belief. A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by careful thought and planning, will also interpret the facts and observations through that lens of that belief.
The actual experimental evidence and the observation is the same for both worldviews, but give rise to different theories.
...as the best current explanation for our existence....
Based on the worldview that the universe is a result of time and chance with no possibility that thought in a mind played any role whatsoever. Any notion of the involvement of intelligence is rejected as abominable heresy by the evolution faithful.
.....All these guesses that get passed around as facts....
It doesn't quite work that way. First they make some assumptions (guesses) which could fit into a supercomputer. Finally at long last the supercomputer comes up with a result which is then used for more assumptions in a BS article like this.
Would work much better, if the healthcare industry were set up such that doctors and other health care providers would get paid as long as you're healthy. If you did get sick, they would have to treat you for free and try to get you healthy again. Everybody who is healthy pays premiums to some health insurance. Each person gets to pick a healthcare provider who gets paid a fixed amount per person of that insurance money to keep each person healthy. Each healthy person could get instructions on how to remain healthy and healthcare provider could follow up to see if a person follows those instructions. If not, their premiums could rise.
A health care provider who keeps most of his patients healthy, makes money and one who does not could go broke. A healthcare provider who is better at keeping their subscribers well could advertise this fact and thereby get even more subscribers to keep healthy.
The whole idea of such a system is to reward health not sickness. As it is right now, health-care providers have a financial incentive to treat you and treat you, but not to make you well.
Doctors would have an incentive not to simply prescribe some pill, the side effects of which more often than not leave people worse off than before. For an example of what I'm talking about, just listen carefully to one of the many drug commercials on television. The list of possible side effects mentioned, mostly exceeds the benefits. Most of these drugs treat symptoms and don't address the underlying cause of those symptoms.
Just as in car insurance, where lousy drivers are assigned risk equally to all insurance companies, so also people who are older and more likely to get sick are assigned risk to all medical providers. Any healthcare provider would have to accept them. The premium which healthy and sick people pay would be averaged out to everybody. This is pretty much the way it is right now, in that medical providers have to treat people whether they have money or not. The people who are healthy simply already pay more for their insurance to make up for those who are not healthy.
Doctors should have a strong incentive not to simply treat people, but to keep or make them well.
Which these ancient prophets knew about centuries before Jesus Christ was born? There are many prophecies that spell out details about Messiah that were exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The one about Israel's return and reestablishment has happened and in fact is still going on.
Another very specific prophecy ongoing before our eyes in its fulfillment is about the ancient city of Jerusalem. Among the cities of the world, Jerusalem is relatively small and unimportant. Even in Israel itself it is not the largest city. Yet, what city can you name on this whole planet, where a zoning change threatens world peace? Yet exactly this is what we read in the Bible.
Zechariah 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the peoples all around, and it shall also be against Judah in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples. All who lift it shall be slashed, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
We also read that the final battle of the last war fought on earth will be over the city of Jerusalem. This battle will take place on a large plain north of the city. It is the battle of Armageddon.
(..there were at least the babylonians, persians, medes,..)
Geographically, these empires did extend all the way to India. Not only their existence was prophesied, but also in the order of which they appear in their chief characteristics.
We are all drifting in the stream of time with no external reference point, like a balloonist drifting in the clouds. Because the God of the Bible, the Torah included, exists outside of time and space, he alone knows the future perfectly. He uses this knowledge to authenticate his message to us.
....but those assumptions are always subject to verification...
An assumption, by definition is something that is accepted without evidence or proof. Something that science can verify is called a hypothesis. If there is some verification of a hypothesis by observation or experiment, then it may graduate to a theory. With a sufficient amount of observation and experiment, eventually a theory may be elevated to a LAW of nature.
You are correct in saying that science does make assumptions. These are based on the underlying beliefs of scientists, their worldview. One world view is that everything can be explained by probabilistic statistical processes, blind chance if you will. Another world view holds that there is a mind and processes of thought behind the laws and constructs of the universe.
Scientists make certain observations of the world we live in. Then these observations are filtered through the lens of whatever worldview the scientist has. String theory is guided by the mechanistic interpretation in the same way that the theory of evolution is also guided by the statistical worldview.
Many people do not even wish to approach the possibility that there is a mind, or God responsible for the laws and the order in the universe. As soon as a person admits such a possibility, a question that is very uncomfortable to some, automatically arises. It is the question of personal responsibility or accountability to such a creator God. It seems that you too are in the majority of those who do not want to face that question.
...And Leonardo Da Vinci predicted flying machines and tanks...
It's not like people have not dreamed of flying or invincibility for millennia is it now?
Now take Daniel, one of the figures we read about in the Old Testament. Among the predictions he made, long before it happened, was that there would be a succession of three world empires. He described the power and extent of each of these empires. In other prophecies of the Bible, also long before it happened, even the names of the ruler to come were given. The ancient Hebrew text was translated into Greek, put down in black and white, long before these things took place.
Many biblical predictions are not vague, such as for example those of Nostradamus, but very specific and distinct. One of the prophecies that has been fulfilled in our time is the state of Israel. It is prophesied that the Jewish people would be scattered and all nations of the world. That has certainly happened hasn't it? It has also been prophesied that near the end, they would return again to the land and again speak the language they did in the ancient times. There has never been a language that had become extinct for almost 20 centuries and then become a life again as a living language used every day. This is only a tiny example of the many predictions in the Bible.
....But it is just as easy for the universe itself "just to exist"...
That was the prevailing belief for thousands of years until modern scientific observations showed otherwise. We are now told that the universe, that is time and space, had a very definite beginning. Scientists have labeled it the "Big Bang".
(..The Bible claims a lot of unlikely events happened...)
Yes it does, but then the Bible is very different from other writings. Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
The Bible tells us that the God who exists is outside of time itself. Therefore, He should and does know everything that happens in time. He uses that the ability to authenticate its message to man, the Bible. He makes accurate predictions of history before it happens. Some of these predictions are reflected in the latest headlines of our newspapers. Some are history that has not happened yet, that is the future.
The central figure of the Bible is a person named Jesus who came and visited us here in time and space. He claimed to be God, from another realm commonly labeled "heaven". Now anybody can make such claims of course. What would be some compelling evidence such a claim might be true?
First, anyone worthy to be called "God" and worshiped would have to be perfect. Jesus challenged his friends and enemies to find even a single flaw in His life. None of them could make a truthful accusation of His wrongdoing. Do you know of anybody who can truthfully claim perfection? I can and do hold some other human beings in high esteem. However I could not bring myself to worship anyone who is in the slightest way flawed.
Second, anyone claiming deity would have demonstrate complete control over the forces of nature, including the conquering of death itself. The eyewitness records we have tell us that Jesus alone, of all religious founders met this test also. The others are all quite dead.
Third anyone claiming to be God would have to demonstrate powers and abilities that transcend and control the laws and rules by which our universe operates. His walking on water, multiplying matter, commanding the storm with just a word certainly qualify.
In the end though, evidence cannot be proven but only believed or not. In a court of law, the jury has to either believe or disbelieve the evidence presented on both sides of a case.
Slashdot Mirror
....totalling 13 seconds with .5 seconds of error......
Even the 13 seconds is way too quick for a one floor at a time Domino style collapse. The time for the supports of each floor to break and for the whole floor and its contents to be accelerated to the next floor and the next and the next should take considerably more time. Maybe somebody else already done the math here.
...You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building.....
Yes you do, and it doesn't make any difference whether you do it one floor at a time or all at once. Somehow, the structural integrity and the inertial mass of the lower building both must be overcome in order to get it all to fall downward. The issue is not whether it fell because it obviously did, but the incredible speed at which the collapse took place.
...that the first intact floor's concreate slab would have had enough strength to halt the entire moving top of the building....
The issue here is not the strength of the building, but the rate of collapse. The falling upper structure would not only have had to overcome the structural strength of the lower structure, but much more importantly it much larger inertial mass, to also accelerate the entire mass downward. This domino acceleration, floor by floor and should have been much slower than what was observed and recorded. Even the 40% slowdown figure is way too fast for such a one floor at a time collapse.
....You won't get a complete collapse.....
You still could get a complete collapse but not in a free-fall time frame which videos clearly show. The only way to get a free-fall collapse of any building is to eliminate the critical support structures instantaneously or in a carefully timed sequence. The official domino collapse scenario could still result in a complete collapse, but it should take a lot longer than the videos clearly show. The timing of these videos is also corroborated by sensitive seismograph records of vibrations the collapse sent into the earth below.
...The reason it seemed so sudden and quick is because we've only ever had video of one side of the building when it finally fell...
There are seismic records of the collapse that corroborate the videos which show the buildings in free fall collapse.
...Its simple physics....
that also mandates that the speed of the collapse was WAY too fast if the official domino collapse of the towers were true. The inertia of the large mass of the buildings below the crash sites should have slowed the rate of collapse significantly. The videos of collapse instead show that it took place in the same amount of time that a free falling object tossed from the roof buildings would have taken. The only way any building can collapse in free-fall mode, as if all supports of the entire buildings are instantly removed. This is what is normally done when a building is deliberately demolished.
....To 'pull' a building is to attach cables to it and pull it down....
So what evidence is there steel cables were attached to WTC7 which were used to "pull" it down in some fashion?
....If you destabilise one floor there is nowhere near enough energy to collapse the whole building when the rest of it is still largely intact...
That could be debated, but the laws of mass and inertia can not be. If the official explanation of the floor by floor collapse domino effect were true, the total TIME taken for the collapse should have been much longer. As the videos clearly show, the buildings collapsed in the same amount of time that a free-falling object would if dropped from the roof of the buildings.
The only way a building can collapse in the minimum of time of free-fall is if all that supports the entire building are instantaneously removed. Any matter with inertia in the way of the collapse should significantly increase the time for collapse of the building as a whole.
...There's more than enough kinetic energy in a building like WTC7 to guarantee a complete collapse once the mass starts moving....
That may or may not be true, but is essentially a red herring. The moving mass of the upper part of the building was considerably less than the inertial mass of the building below the break. The weight and inertial energy of the falling upper part of the buildings could theoretically have overcome the strength of the lower support structure, but not its much larger inertia. That inertia of the lower floors should have slowed down the rate of collapse considerably even if the support structure failed progressively or even instantaneously. However, the videos clearly show that the buildings collapsed in the same amount of time that a free falling object dropped off the roof would have hit the pavement below.
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
...requires more structural integrity than any skyscraper has...
The issue of the structural integrity of the lower section of the building is only of secondary importance. The inertial mass of the falling upper section of the building was much less than the inertial mass of the section below. The downward moving section of the upper floors not only had to break all supports, which might have been trivial, or not, but more importantly had to accelerate the much larger lower mass of the building. This should have slowed the collapse of the entire buildings considerably below the free fall speed which the videos clearly show.
The buildings fell down at the same speed that a steel ball would fall when dropped from the top of each building. The only way such a thing can happen, is if the entire support structure of the building is removed in an instant.
....You will still get at least some of the building intact.....
That may or may not be true, depending on the structure of the building itself. However, the buildings collapsed at essentially free-fall speed, with apparently no resistance from the lower floors. If the domino theory of one floor collapsing the next one down and so on were true, then the total speed of the collapse should have been considerably slower than what the videos show. The inertial mass of the buildings below where the airplanes hit, was much greater than the mass above the impact point. From the videos I've seen at least, this large lower mass did not slow the fall of the smaller upper mass in any way. Only a deliberate near instantaneous removal of all supports in the entire building, could make the whole structure fall as quickly as it did.
...The falling, growing, and accelerating mass destroyed the remaining building one floor at a time.....
amazingly in the same amount of time as an object would, freely falling through the air from the top of the building?
....no discussing about heat bending-steel and collapsing building here...
No discussing how fast a building can collapse either. What is known about the acceleration of gravity must not be discussed here.
....We have observations of all kinds of DNA spontaneous mutations, e. coli evolving into a new species before our eyes [newscientist.com], and many other things that say "Yes, what we've proposed for evolution fits all known facts and weathers the experiments we conduct to test and investigate it".....
The scientists saw some characteristic changes in these e-coli bacteria and INTERPRETED that through their evolutionary worldview glasses.
Other scientists, with just as many degrees to their name, having an intelligent design worldview will interpret that same experiment by saying that all living things have an amazing adaptability. They would also point out that the bacteria were still essentially e-coli, not some other kind of bacteria, such as coccus or spirochete. No evolutionary changes have ever been observed outside of the bounds of some very narrow groupings of life-forms.
Scientists have bred millions of generations of fruit flies, subjecting them to radiation and chemicals. These stimuli have caused a wide variety, often grotesquely malformed fruit flies. However without a single exception, these were still always fruit flies, and nothing but fruit flies. Never, in all the experiments has anything other than fruit flies been produced. This is strong evidence that God indeed created living things to reproduce after their kind, just as it is stated in the Bible. The biblical word translated "kind" is not necessarily the same as the scientific definition of "species".
These sorts of experiments have not only be done with fruit flies, but also with many other creatures. Darwin observed that the beaks of finches change according to the type of food available. This is correct, but can again be interpreted and attributed to the adaptability of living things. The birds were never anything but finches, after their kind, which is finches.
Those with the evolutionary worldview will give this as an example of evidence to support their interpretation of their BELIEF.
The Bible is not intended to be and must not be used as a science textbook, but wherever it does touch science or history, it has never been shown to be wrong. Like any other writing, it is subject to interpretation according to the interpreter's worldview.
...Food for money, science for money....
Except that most of science that is written up in these journals is paid for by the taxpayers. Then these elite so called "scientific journals" where this taxpayer supported work is reported, charge exorbitant fees for said taxpayers to have access to the fundamental work the taxpayer has paid for already. I think that all scientific reports which contain even one red cent's worth of science done at taxpayers expense should be free to all taxpayers.
...scientist do have faith in their theories......
They do indeed, but this faith is not based on the evidence, but on the underlying worldview of a scientist.
A scientist who believes there is no God, that is an atheist, will interpret the evidence gathered by observation and experiment through that lens. He will attribute everything that exists as having arisen by processors of time and chance.
A scientist who believes in an eternal transcendent Creator God, will interpret the same evidence to show careful thought and design.
...factual evidence...
There is no such thing as factual evidence, only just plain evidence. Evidence can only be believed not proven.
(...evolution itself is considered well supported...)
Evolution is widely believed, but that does not mean it is correct or the only possible interpretation of the evidence.
(...You believe, after all, that you were created from dirt....)
Apparently you don't know that some good fertile dirt capable of growing the good things you like to eat, is not too different from the elemental makeup of your own body. After all, you are what you eat. We all eat what came up out of the ground (dirt). Therefore, this is good evidence for the biblical interpretation of what you are made of, dirt!
Your shame however is, that your mind is filled with dirt by putting other people down who believe differently than you.
.... But if you choose to believe....
that everything else in this universe is a product of time plus chance is that science or is it philosophy?
(...But your theory had better fit the observable universe better...)
Observing the facts and doing experiments of science, but interpreting these facts is philosophy based on the worldview of the person doing the interpreting.
A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by processes of time and chance, will interpret the facts and observations through that lens of this belief. A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by careful thought and planning, will also interpret the facts and observations through that lens of that belief.
The actual experimental evidence and the observation is the same for both worldviews, but give rise to different theories.
...as the best current explanation for our existence....
Based on the worldview that the universe is a result of time and chance with no possibility that thought in a mind played any role whatsoever. Any notion of the involvement of intelligence is rejected as abominable heresy by the evolution faithful.
.....All these guesses that get passed around as facts ....
It doesn't quite work that way. First they make some assumptions (guesses) which could fit into a supercomputer. Finally at long last the supercomputer comes up with a result which is then used for more assumptions in a BS article like this.
.....the whole concept of health insurance....
Would work much better, if the healthcare industry were set up such that doctors and other health care providers would get paid as long as you're healthy. If you did get sick, they would have to treat you for free and try to get you healthy again. Everybody who is healthy pays premiums to some health insurance. Each person gets to pick a healthcare provider who gets paid a fixed amount per person of that insurance money to keep each person healthy. Each healthy person could get instructions on how to remain healthy and healthcare provider could follow up to see if a person follows those instructions. If not, their premiums could rise.
A health care provider who keeps most of his patients healthy, makes money and one who does not could go broke. A healthcare provider who is better at keeping their subscribers well could advertise this fact and thereby get even more subscribers to keep healthy.
The whole idea of such a system is to reward health not sickness. As it is right now, health-care providers have a financial incentive to treat you and treat you, but not to make you well.
Doctors would have an incentive not to simply prescribe some pill, the side effects of which more often than not leave people worse off than before. For an example of what I'm talking about, just listen carefully to one of the many drug commercials on television. The list of possible side effects mentioned, mostly exceeds the benefits. Most of these drugs treat symptoms and don't address the underlying cause of those symptoms.
Just as in car insurance, where lousy drivers are assigned risk equally to all insurance companies, so also people who are older and more likely to get sick are assigned risk to all medical providers. Any healthcare provider would have to accept them. The premium which healthy and sick people pay would be averaged out to everybody. This is pretty much the way it is right now, in that medical providers have to treat people whether they have money or not. The people who are healthy simply already pay more for their insurance to make up for those who are not healthy.
Doctors should have a strong incentive not to simply treat people, but to keep or make them well.
....that a mostly Christian western world ....
Which these ancient prophets knew about centuries before Jesus Christ was born? There are many prophecies that spell out details about Messiah that were exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The one about Israel's return and reestablishment has happened and in fact is still going on.
Another very specific prophecy ongoing before our eyes in its fulfillment is about the ancient city of Jerusalem. Among the cities of the world, Jerusalem is relatively small and unimportant. Even in Israel itself it is not the largest city. Yet, what city can you name on this whole planet, where a zoning change threatens world peace? Yet exactly this is what we read in the Bible.
Zechariah 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the peoples all around, and it shall also be against Judah in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples. All who lift it shall be slashed, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
We also read that the final battle of the last war fought on earth will be over the city of Jerusalem. This battle will take place on a large plain north of the city. It is the battle of Armageddon.
(..there were at least the babylonians, persians, medes,..)
Geographically, these empires did extend all the way to India. Not only their existence was prophesied, but also in the order of which they appear in their chief characteristics.
We are all drifting in the stream of time with no external reference point, like a balloonist drifting in the clouds. Because the God of the Bible, the Torah included, exists outside of time and space, he alone knows the future perfectly. He uses this knowledge to authenticate his message to us.
....but those assumptions are always subject to verification...
An assumption, by definition is something that is accepted without evidence or proof. Something that science can verify is called a hypothesis. If there is some verification of a hypothesis by observation or experiment, then it may graduate to a theory. With a sufficient amount of observation and experiment, eventually a theory may be elevated to a LAW of nature.
You are correct in saying that science does make assumptions. These are based on the underlying beliefs of scientists, their worldview. One world view is that everything can be explained by probabilistic statistical processes, blind chance if you will. Another world view holds that there is a mind and processes of thought behind the laws and constructs of the universe.
Scientists make certain observations of the world we live in. Then these observations are filtered through the lens of whatever worldview the scientist has. String theory is guided by the mechanistic interpretation in the same way that the theory of evolution is also guided by the statistical worldview.
Many people do not even wish to approach the possibility that there is a mind, or God responsible for the laws and the order in the universe. As soon as a person admits such a possibility, a question that is very uncomfortable to some, automatically arises. It is the question of personal responsibility or accountability to such a creator God. It seems that you too are in the majority of those who do not want to face that question.
...And Leonardo Da Vinci predicted flying machines and tanks...
It's not like people have not dreamed of flying or invincibility for millennia is it now?
Now take Daniel, one of the figures we read about in the Old Testament. Among the predictions he made, long before it happened, was that there would be a succession of three world empires. He described the power and extent of each of these empires. In other prophecies of the Bible, also long before it happened, even the names of the ruler to come were given. The ancient Hebrew text was translated into Greek, put down in black and white, long before these things took place.
Many biblical predictions are not vague, such as for example those of Nostradamus, but very specific and distinct. One of the prophecies that has been fulfilled in our time is the state of Israel. It is prophesied that the Jewish people would be scattered and all nations of the world. That has certainly happened hasn't it? It has also been prophesied that near the end, they would return again to the land and again speak the language they did in the ancient times. There has never been a language that had become extinct for almost 20 centuries and then become a life again as a living language used every day. This is only a tiny example of the many predictions in the Bible.
....But it is just as easy for the universe itself "just to exist"...
That was the prevailing belief for thousands of years until modern scientific observations showed otherwise. We are now told that the universe, that is time and space, had a very definite beginning. Scientists have labeled it the "Big Bang".
(..The Bible claims a lot of unlikely events happened...)
Yes it does, but then the Bible is very different from other writings. Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
The Bible tells us that the God who exists is outside of time itself. Therefore, He should and does know everything that happens in time. He uses that the ability to authenticate its message to man, the Bible. He makes accurate predictions of history before it happens. Some of these predictions are reflected in the latest headlines of our newspapers. Some are history that has not happened yet, that is the future.
The central figure of the Bible is a person named Jesus who came and visited us here in time and space. He claimed to be God, from another realm commonly labeled "heaven". Now anybody can make such claims of course. What would be some compelling evidence such a claim might be true?
First, anyone worthy to be called "God" and worshiped would have to be perfect. Jesus challenged his friends and enemies to find even a single flaw in His life. None of them could make a truthful accusation of His wrongdoing. Do you know of anybody who can truthfully claim perfection? I can and do hold some other human beings in high esteem. However I could not bring myself to worship anyone who is in the slightest way flawed.
Second, anyone claiming deity would have demonstrate complete control over the forces of nature, including the conquering of death itself. The eyewitness records we have tell us that Jesus alone, of all religious founders met this test also. The others are all quite dead.
Third anyone claiming to be God would have to demonstrate powers and abilities that transcend and control the laws and rules by which our universe operates. His walking on water, multiplying matter, commanding the storm with just a word certainly qualify.
In the end though, evidence cannot be proven but only believed or not. In a court of law, the jury has to either believe or disbelieve the evidence presented on both sides of a case.