• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

Maia said:
The launch of Europa Clipper today was very inspiring. I know the best possible outcome would be that it finds the building blocks of life, still I hope they find space whales in the oceans of Europa.:p I mean, twice the volume of Earth's oceans, should be something interesting there.

In any case, should be some interesting pictures.

A part of me would love to do space science. I am not sure I have the patience though. They spent 10 years building the thing, and now it takes 5 years to travel to Europa... Well it has 1.8 billion miles to cover.
Click to expand...
We have spent an extraordinary amount of money trying to find extraterresrial life. I doubt we ever will find anything other than evidence of microbial life, and I don't think that I would think any differently if I did not believe the Bible. Conditions are just too inhospitable for such life. Dr. Walt Brown believes that we will find plenty of evidence of microbial life, because it fits his theory quite well.

Who knows what the future holds, but God alone? Jesus said He would return, but He didn't give us much of a timetable.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
OK, so the one I am using right now; first this is complete conjecture, which is something I personally loathe to do, but again, he would most likely described it in the most generic form, UNLESS God had wanted him to be specific about the computer's processing speed, make model, etc., in which case, he would have described it accordingly.
Click to expand...

You're close to getting my point here.

If God had revealed to Moses the advent of the personal laptop computer then Moses would have to interpret what God told him according to his personal set of references and then he'd also be challenged to describe it in such a way that his contemporaries would have some idea of what he was talking about.

My own estimation is Moses would have had to describe a tablet of stone or clay that magically displayed images and knowledge when prompted.

If the computer had an AI then Moses may well have described it as containing a spirit that answered questions.

If he had described a Dell laptop with a 4Ghz processor, 1TB of storage, and 32GB of RAM then none of his contemporaries or even people from as late as the 1960's would have grasped his meaning.

Which is my point that when God reveals His Wisdom to prophets and apostles then the prophets and apostles have to put that Wisdom into a contemporary context so other people can understand and act on it.

And thus I do not argue that the Bible contains the inspired Word of God but in most cases it is not the literal Word of God. It is what someone wrote down and to the best of their ability. And then that in many cases has been edited and rewritten over the centuries...thus the myriad translations of the Bible we see today.
 
MeganC said:
And thus I do not argue that the Bible contains the inspired Word of God but in most cases it is not the literal Word of God. It is what someone wrote down and to the best of their ability. And then that in many cases has been edited and rewritten over the centuries...thus the myriad translations of the Bible we see today.
Click to expand...
Interesting, @MeganC, but I would argue not entirely persuasive.

What you describe concerning 'prophecy' is valuable, but misses a couple important points:

1) Ultimately, EVERY prophet had a singular message: t'shuvah. "Return to me." ("Repent," as we've noted, is an incomplete translation.)

2) Except perhaps when it comes to plagues, judgment, and related 'tribulation' - the distinction between an abacus (different culture) and a Pentium are not really central. Neither is how an army of invading tanks, Apache gunships, or anti-grav TR-3's might be described; the point is, it's gonna be ugly.

But, (3), and perhaps most importantly, there's a difference between "thou shalt not kill murder slay" and "you're REALLY gonna regret crossing Me," and worshiping those idols.

Commandments have consequences, but they are not prophecies, and aren't so readily misunderstood.

Addendum: With that "kill" mis-translation exception.

And some of those "myriad translations" are just plain wrong. Or at least, 'error-filled.' Perhaps even, Not Inspired. ;)
 
Last edited:
Daniel DeLuca said:
We have spent an extraordinary amount of money trying to find extraterresrial life. I doubt we ever will find anything other than evidence of microbial life, and I don't think that I would think any differently if I did not believe the Bible. Conditions are just too inhospitable for such life. Dr. Walt Brown believes that we will find plenty of evidence of microbial life, because it fits his theory quite well.

Who knows what the future holds, but God alone? Jesus said He would return, but He didn't give us much of a timetable.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are likely millions, if not billions, of extrasolar bodies that have, or will have, life comparable to that of Earth. The problem is distance and time. Even in our own galaxy, if you're extremely generous, the chances of tool-building intelligence developing on a given body spread out over several billion years, you get 1 such civilization every few hundred million years... and if you reach the level of human technology, you're pretty likely to eventually exhaust the resources used on your planet to actually maintain meaningful technology and/or poison your planet and/or make yourselves go extinct through war or your choices.

And a lot of bodies that might harbor life will have enough gravity that escaping them via chemical rockets is impossible, so you're unlikely to spread and gather resources elsewhere. 5% more gravity and chemical rockets would not be able to reach even LEO without obscene amounts of propellant for tiny payloads; by the time you get to 20%, they won't even be able to lift their fuel but it's wholly plausible life could evolve under 20% more gravity.
 
It's so annoying when you point someone to the evidence, and they act like you haven't!
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
It's so annoying when you point someone to the evidence, and they act like you haven't!
Click to expand...
That isn't evidence...there are over 100 billion stars estimated just in our galaxy; planets are the norm, not the exception. There are an estimated trillion galaxies in the observable universe... why would God make all of that only to place life on one single body...

Exactly nowhere in scriptures does it state only earth has life, or even that earth is the only place with intelligent life in the universe.
 
IndianaLife said:
That isn't evidence...there are over 100 billion stars estimated just in our galaxy; planets are the norm, not the exception. There are an estimated trillion galaxies in the observable universe... why would God make all of that only to place life on one single body...

Exactly nowhere in scriptures does it state only earth has life, or even that earth is the only place with intelligent life in the universe.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the fact, proven by the video I posted, that abiogenesis is a myth? Supposed evidence for life spontaneously forming in a lab where favorable conditions exist, has been shown to be invalid. You are engaging in a logical fallacy known as Switching the Burden of Proof. The Burden of proof lies not with the one who asserts nothing about whether life exists on other planets, but with the one who asserts that life can evolve from non-life. That is what I was responding to. You made this remark:
IndianaLife said:
but it's wholly plausible life could evolve under 20% more gravity.
Click to expand...

You left it open to assumption that this is life evolving (which means changing), from non-life. That is the most natural assumption when you speak about life evolving. That is why I stated in my response, what I said about abiogenesis being a myth. Now you are claiming that God placed life there which is to my knowledge, nowhere to be found in Scripture, but that has nothing to do with spontaneous generation of life from non-life. That requires an active being with intelligence enough to create that life. Now if there is Scripture that supports your assertion that life was created on other planets, and I am not referring to any LDS literature here as this is Biblical Families, feel free to share!
 
IndianaLife said:
Exactly nowhere in scriptures does it state only earth has life, or even that earth is the only place with intelligent life in the universe.
Click to expand...
It doesn't write, correct.

But I'm certain there are many who like me would feel more special if humans are only intelligent species in universe.
 
MeganC said:
You're close to getting my point here.

If God had revealed to Moses the advent of the personal laptop computer then Moses would have to interpret what God told him according to his personal set of references and then he'd also be challenged to describe it in such a way that his contemporaries would have some idea of what he was talking about.

My own estimation is Moses would have had to describe a tablet of stone or clay that magically displayed images and knowledge when prompted.

If the computer had an AI then Moses may well have described it as containing a spirit that answered questions.

If he had described a Dell laptop with a 4Ghz processor, 1TB of storage, and 32GB of RAM then none of his contemporaries or even people from as late as the 1960's would have grasped his meaning.

Which is my point that when God reveals His Wisdom to prophets and apostles then the prophets and apostles have to put that Wisdom into a contemporary context so other people can understand and act on it.

And thus I do not argue that the Bible contains the inspired Word of God but in most cases it is not the literal Word of God. It is what someone wrote down and to the best of their ability. And then that in many cases has been edited and rewritten over the centuries...thus the myriad translations of the Bible we see today.
Click to expand...
This is pure conjecture on your part. You don't know how God would have revealed it to Moses. I stated that I loathe to engage in conjecture, but you apparently have no issue whatsoever with whatever conjecture comes to your mind. If anything is filtered by the human mind, it is what you have speculated.
 
MemeFan said:
It doesn't write, correct.

But I'm certain there are many who like me would feel more special if humans are only intelligent species in universe.
Click to expand...
While this is true, we must be cautious about basing our beliefs on how it makes us feel.
 
Why would all of that exist out there, if there is no one there to use it? I doubt that God is wasteful.

We have barely scratched the surface of exploring the galaxy.
 
Last edited:
Maia said:
Why would of that exist out there, if there is no one there to use it? I doubt that God is wasteful.

We have barely scratched the surface of exploring the galaxy.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a book entitled, "Is God a Moral Monster". We don't judge God; He judges us.

Isaiah 55:8-9 says:

8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Click to expand...
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
Watch the video.
Click to expand...

I did and what he posted was an argument and not proof.

He's actually quite wrong about a number of things. He criticizes the environment created in the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment as not occurring anywhere in the world today yet he leaves out that the experiment replicated the pre-biotic conditions of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water.

Oxygen (O2) being a byproduct of biotic life would not have been present in a pre-biotic environment. Ergo, the experiment would be flawed if it used our current atmosphere as its environment.

He's quite wrong about dismissing the results of Miller-Urey because they produced some organic molecules while the remainder of their test medium was not turned into organic molecules. He criticizes Miller and Urey for using pure compounds yet then he castigates them because their pure compounds did not produce pure results? That's not even an argument.

It's like castigating a gold miner because one ton of ore only produces ten ounces of gold! Is the gold miner a failure because most of what he produces is spoils? Of course not. That's simply not an argument at all let alone a scientific argument.

Earlier in this exchange I told you that I do not need to disprove the Hydroplate Theory because it is not my theory. The proponent of the theory needs to do a better job of substantiating his theory.

Seriously, it is a fool who sets out to disprove someone else's theory as substantiation for their own theory.

He is wrong therefore I am right is a conditional argument and it is logically flawed. I am not necessarily right just because someone else is wrong.

The logical paradox that can occur in such arguments is that one can create a dependency in which the false statement must exist in order to substantiate the claim.

Make your own argument and let it stand scrutiny. If there's a sound rational basis for the notion then it will stand scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Mark C said:
Understand, please, that when it comes to REAL 'science' - there is NO SUCH THING as "proof" - just evidence to support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Good. Then understand what I said:

MeganC said:
Seriously, it is a fool who sets out to disprove someone else's theory as substantiation for their own theory.
Click to expand...
 
Mark C said:
Understand, please, that when it comes to REAL 'science' - there is NO SUCH THING as "proof" - just evidence to support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Heliocentrism has been proven.
Joseph Lister's theories on bacterial infection and antiseptic procedures have been abundantly proven.
The theory of heavier-than-air flight has been abundantly proven.
The atomic fission and fusion theories that led to the advent of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons have been proven.
The theory that space flight was possible has been proven.
The theory of inoculating people against smallpox has been proven.
The theory of internal combustion engines has been proven.
The theory of alternating current electricity has been proven.
Isaac Newton's theories about gravity, motion, and inertia were proven and are now regarded as laws.
William Harvey's theory that blood circulates in the body was proven.
Gregor Mendel's theories about heredity and inheritance have been proven and underlined by the competing and disastrous theories of Trofim Lysenko, one of those fools whose own theory was constructed over an imagined disproof and denunciation of Mendel's theories.

REAL science can prove the above theories over and over. The results are reproducible.

A few days ago I was up at 41,000 feet traveling at .75 Mach, both things that sensible people thought impossible and absurd just 121 years ago.

REAL science put me up there at that velocity. And I assure you it wasn't just a theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top