Highly acclaimed by whom? They’re kooks. Gotta love the timing though. Land of the Lost comes out next week.

I am going to open an anti-plate techtonics museaum… Do you think I could get some press? Plate Techtonics is nothing more than a myth.

And don’t forget all that cell theory and vaccine rubbish. We all know little toads and spirits cause disease, not microbes.

Congratulations! A fitting tribute to the historical Genesis genealogies, and confirmed by the historical, miracle-working, resurrected Jesus Christ.

Cell theory basically invalidates all chance for spontaneous biochemical evolution of life.

Cute little uninformed rant though.

Scott, are you SURE you want to open this can of worms?

Basically, the “creation museum” celebrates a very narrow version of biblical literalism that states that the creation took place over a 6 day period some 6000 years ago.

There are NO facts to support this.

It is a celebration of IGNORANCE, and is that something to celebrate?

Heck, even historical archeology doesn’t support this view.

I mean, forget the progression of information in DNA, genes coming from nowhere, order from disorder…er nonexistence. Evolution doesn’t happen if organized functional proteins don’t exist, get together to arrange themselve properly, somehow get encoded for in a yet to exist nucleotide sequencing language and then survive past the first generation by procreating without a mechanism to do so.

Regardless of a viewpoint on the origin of species, you don’t get life from evolution, it had to be here before it could evolve.

There is support and clarification in the Qur’an for what the Hebrew Bible says. The Qur’an states the the heavens and earth were created in 6 ‘yaums’, ‘yaum’ being the word for ‘day’. However it also says, right after, that these ‘yaum’ were as if ‘one thousand of earth years’, which is idiomatically saying a very long time period. Muslims translate this to mean that heavens and earth were created in six ‘aeons’ or six stages. We have discussed this in our Jewish-Muslim scripture study group. The point is that the Bible is stating something of value that is being misunderstood. Our error, perhaps, is not comprehending the nature of language and the limitations of translation.

It’s amazing throughout the centuries, that “science” has disproven NOTHING in the Bible.

There is room in literal biblical christianity for this view also. It goes by the name “long-day” creationism, has its critics and advocates, but is widely considered an acceptable interpretation.

Really? Other than Michael Behe, and cranks like Ham, Hovind, and few others, no one seriously believes that. But hey, don’t take my word for it. There are countless research reports, papers, presentations, professional journal articles, etc. you can look at that support and build on evolutionary theory at the molecular and cellular level. The Wash U biology library would be a good start.

http://library.wustl.edu/units/biology/

And thanks for the compliment. I haven’t been called cute in quite a while.

What I find amazing are the parallels, much more than the discrepancies.

A few examples:

If you read Genesis (or any of the other historical/religious creation stories), and build yourself a chart of the sequence of events…you’ll come to a surprise: Scientific research says the same things happened in the same sequence.

In Genesis 1:11, and again in 1:24, the text actually reads in this way: “Let the EARTH bring forth…..” Let’s take that literally, and consider the statement of the paleontologists on what has come to be called the Cambrian Explosion. Basically, in a twinkling of a cosmic eye, the Earth was suddenly full of life. No life, then much life, and all kinds of life. Something happened back there in the primordial soup that suddenly, life appeared. “let the EARTH bring forth life” indeed.

The math is beyond me, but a wonderful book I read titled, “The Science of God”, did the math and pointed out that there is a good correlation between the words of Genesis about the 6 days, and the implications of Relativity. Basically, a person’s measure of time depends on the relative motion of the events measured. If you propose that the “six days” refer to God’s perspective (outside the universe, unbounded by time), and the 15 billion years since the Big Bang as our perspective (inside the universe, bounded by time) and take into account that measurements of time depend on the velocity of the event. This is getting confusing already, but suffice it to say that it can be shown by direct use of Relativistic mathematics that the two statements ARE equivalent. To GOD, 6 days passed, because GOD is not inside the expanding, cooling, slowing universe. To US, being INSIDE the universe, much more time than this has passed. Kind of the ultimate proof of Relativity.

Don’t ever forget, either, that the “Big Bang” was first proposed by religious thinkers who were rejecting the “steady state universe” and said that there HAD to be a moment of creation.

Oh, I’d like to comment on one fairly common idea that is out there, that totally flies into the face of 2000 years of Christian Theology. In order for the ‘young earthers’ to be right, they have to rationalize and say that God made the fossils and prehistory “look old” to confuse us. This concept completely rejects the idea that God does not change, and that God is ALWAYS consistent.

This museum must have a kick arse gift shop. Imagine the bumper stickers!
Forget the scientific debate for a moment, does anyone have any real historical evidence that Jesus actually existed? Gospels don’t count. They are hearsay.

hs: relativity does not enter into it, since it applies to the relative motion of two objects within a spacetime continuum. God, existing outside of the spacetime continuum, would not experience any such effects. Nice try, though.

mikew: Cell biology has nothing to do with abiogenesis since the earliest replicators did not have any cells, and for that matter, were not strictly alive in the full sense of the word. In any case, it is irrelevant to the actual fact of evolution, and that fact is a clear guarantee that the Creation Museum will always remain a stupid joke.

Combining “creation”, which requires a vision of the future, and “museum”, which displays artifacts from the past, in the name “Creation Museum” is an oxymoron.

That is about all I am getting from this post but, I guess, I should be glad someone is getting excited about creation. However, it seems to me, if you want a personal relationship with God, it is far better to start with Jesus than genesis.

Yes, nothing in the bible has been disproven. That is why heliocentrism can only be taught as a theory, not fact. See Matthew 4:8. You can’t see all the kingdoms of the earth from any mountain, no matter how high - unless, of course, the earth is bowl-shaped, not ball-shaped.

Simian

Myself, I like the south pacific creation story the best, where the world is carried on the back of a giant sea turtles. Sea turtles are cool. Fire spitting avenging constantly warring invisible people in the sky aren’t cool. Sorry, it’s a matter of taste. Sue me.

Sigh, “Only a Theory”.

That one makes me angry. It says a whole lot about the IGNORANCE of the person making the statement. IGNORANCE about what the word means.

In science, THEORY is a very specific term. It is a statement that says, “To the best of our understanding, THIS is how it works”. Theories are always changing as new evidence is uncovered. There is a huge difference between a good theory, however, and an “idea”. For a good theory to exist, there must be corroborating evidence. The more evidence there is, the better it becomes. A good theory also always suggests avenues for new study and new research, and makes predictions about what that new research will find.

To Simian’s comment: No, no one has ever placed themselves in a physical perspective to SEE the plane of the ecliptic. We lack the technology to do so. However, the evidence of several hundred years of telescopic observations suggests that Ptolemy’s (and the Church’s) Geocentric Universe is impossible. To make it work, too many things have to do things like reverse direction suddenly, or change how fast they are moving depending on where the calendar is falling. By the way, the Old Testament is definitely written from a Geocentric perspective. (the sun ROSE). It appears that the sun rises, and even today we have to convince ourselves that it does not. A challenge: go somewhere (a lake works well) where you can face west at sunset and watch the sun move below the horizon. As you do it, start telling yourself that the sun is not moving. Suddenly, you’ll feel yourself falling backwards as your mind works through the implication that the earth is rotating under your feet.

A good theory, ultimately, follows the precept of Occam’s Razor: That the best explanation of an event or an observation is (a) the simplest one and (b) the one that does NOT require divine intervention to take place.

Call science ungodly if you like, but never confuse the actions of God with Dogma. There are many scientists out there (me included) who see a grand harmony, who don’t require God to fill in the gaps of our understanding, but who see a Universe and a Planet full of the works of God, and who are dedicating their lives to answering the “How” and “When” and “What” questions. To answer the “Why” and “Who” questions is the province of religion.

Jorg, Might I suggest you look for the book I mentioned. It explains it WAY better than I can.

The point is that if you apply the math and understand that velocity and temperature are equivalent, that if you posit that the writer of Genesis was making observations from “outside” the universe then the six days fit perfectly with our observations from “inside” that give us some 15 billion years.

My perspective remains: the Creation Museum is a celebration of ignorance. It’s not a laughing matter to teach one’s children a lie in the name of faith. We spend a great deal of energy around here shaking our heads at the medievalist outlook of the Taliban, while we celebrate our own version of it.

John mentioned that not one thing in the Holy Bible has been proven wrong. Perhaps that is true. What is certainly also true is what man has thought the Bible to say has been proven wrong often enough and very emphatically. There was a man named Galileo who was put to death for making the claim that Earth revolves around the Sun and not, as was church doctrine, the other way around. It took about five hundred years (in the 1960s) for the Vatican to finally acknowledge that Galileo was right and killing him was wrong.

Today we keep hearing the mantra of life begins at conception, an issue being vociferously pushed by the Vatican, while science shows no support this argument (yes I know the quick come back is that it has ‘potential’, if all goes well. But as has been pointed out often enough that ‘potential’ exists in every speck of matter and so does not bestow on the fertilized zygote any special status. While this debate goes on ad naseum it takes attention away for trying to do something real and practical about reducing the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. This is again a situation of misunderstanding the Bible and luddite behavior in the face of all opposing evidence. Not to put too fine a point on it, I hope we don’t have to wait another 500 years before this ‘mistake’ is finally admitted to.

Hello Scott Lamb,

I have visited the “highly acclaimed” North Pole museums and Santa’s Villages located in numerous bergs about this country and others. I have not actually visited the North Pole, but based solely on the evidence provided by these esteemed exhibits, I am certain that I would find a million elves busily crafting toys for good little girls and boys.

Of course, if I bothered to step outside the myth and incorporate genuine evidence then I would know that it’s all just fanciful make-believe.

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Lamb, have you visited the Creation Museum of Answers? If so, please tell us how they defend Lot’s incestual relationship with his daughters that resulted in the birth of two sons who eventually became Jewish Kings? Does the exhibit glorify, condemn, or ignore this Biblical epilogue to “God’s” destruction of those twin nests of wickedness and sinning, Soddom and Gomorrah?

There is a reason why founder Ken Ham acknowledges his position in a “post-Christian culture”. It’s because he knows it’s all a fraud that sensible folks are discovering and admitting. But like any showman, he’s willing to capitalize while proving that fools and their money are easily parted.

Galileo was placed under house arrest until his death, not executed.

Wikipedia (not always the best resource) states that Galileo was finally forgiven by the Vatican in 1992. Or rather JP II. B XVI may not hold the same viewpoints.

Simian

hs,

My comment about Matthew 4:8 has nothing to do with geocentrism. It has everything to do with the shape of the earth. It is not possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth from any point on (or even outside) the earth. Presumably, if a person believes in the literal truth of the bible, they should also believe that what is recorded as happening to Jesus is literal. Jesus was taken to the top of a tall mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth.

Does a “true Christian” have to believe in an earth shape that allows all the kingdoms of the earth be seen from a tall mountain in the middle east?

Simian

Hello “JohnR”,

Regarding your assertion in post#9, page#1 at 2:41pm May 22 “that “science” has disproven NOTHING in the Bible.”

How certain are you of your superlative truism? Are you willing, or able, to back your contention? I have some evidence to show that you are flat wrong, “JohnR”; let’s see if you have the courage to respond and admit it.

Review the words of “the Lord” in Genesis 30:37-39. Here, “Jacob” uses the “usual method” of producing animals (goats and sheep) with specific physical traits and markings. The method described by “God” is to place striped and spotted leaves in front of animals as they are mating. In this manner, the offspring become streaked or speckled or spotted. It’s “The Word of God”; do you deny it?

Science shows that animal reproduction (particularly among complex, multi-cellular mammals, such as goats and sheep) depends upon strands of DNA in chromosomes donated by both the male and female when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm. Science shows that physical traits in offspring absolutely do not depend on the visual patterns observed by the animals during copulation. Science, while not directly concluding “therefore, this research debunks Genesis 30:37-39″, has clearly done so.

Of course, maybe you think visual patterns observed during mating control physical traits in offspring anyway, just because “God” says so and because you have clear and convincing evidence to back your contention? Perhaps you believe “white” people are conceived when their parents copulate during the day, and “black” people are made during the night? If so, please provide your evidence. I’m sure the great body of animal breeders, cell biologists, and those who depend on them for scientific advice will be in awe of your revelations! You would cause Gregor Mendel would choke on his peas!

More likely, you are just brainwashed and don’t really know what jibberish is actually contained in the Bible.

simian, you asked if “I” think one has to be, in essence, a Biblical Literalist to be a ‘good christian’. In a word, NO. An EMPHATIC NO, in fact.

You see, much of the Bible is written in metaphorical and figurative language. Further, to be a true literalist, one would have to be able to read the original ancient Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic, and Greek and understand the nuances of those languages. After all, one of the principles of translation is that the translator brings his or her own bias to the translation. A translation is actually an interpretation.

I agree, the Bible presupposes a Ptolemaic universe that is geocentric, with a flat earth, and came into existence around the year 4000 BC. None of that appears to be true.

Now, there IS a sizable group of fundamentalist Christians in the US who are very outspoken on the need to interpret the text literally, and these are the ones who highly acclaim the so-called creation museum. I’ve made my opinion clear on that subject.

Does the museum cease to exist if we stop believing in it? I wonder if they are hiring>

Hello “StirringThePot”,

Read the whole chapter from a Bible. Unfortunately this is never done; taking the whole revelation into consideration (I guess it’s too big a book for people to study). Jacob has been accused of stealing Laban’s flock. He seperates the flock into those with and without blemish. He sends the ones with blemish away and tends to the ones without. He breeds them and some offspring come out with blemishes. You can’t get animals with blemishes from two animals without bleamishes? You can’t get a blue eyed child from two browned eyed parents with recessive genes? Of course you can, that’s elementary genetics. Think through it next time, your brain is like a soup dish: wide and shallow!

Hello “hs”,

Regarding your remarks in post#6, page#3 at 3:31 pm May 25…

You asserted, “much of the Bible is written in metaphorical and figurative language.” You seemed to think that in order “to be a true literalist, one would have to be able to read the original ancient Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic, and Greek and understand the nuances of those languages.” And finally “one of the principles of translation is that the translator brings his or her own bias to the translation. A translation is actually an interpretation.”

Your explanation provides evidence that “God” is fiction for a number of reasons. You believe in a “God” constructed of metaphor and figurative language, while admitting that other folks interpret (or misinterpret) a “God” who expresses itself literally using plain talk. Immediately, this indicates that there are at least two different kinds of “God” emerging from the same documents. Which is correct?

Your “God” has been, is, can be, and will be “interpreted” or “translated” in different ways at different times to suit the circumstances, while the Literalists assume that “God’s Word” is absolute. Nonetheless, folks from both groups continuously argue and bicker among themselves and with each other over the correct interpretation of Bible passages, the only remnants of “God’s Supposed Word”. Who is correct? Obviously, no one knows. It’s all just speculation, and the lack of evidence of any truth to either camps’ speculation is evidence itself that both sides are talking about make-believe (or imaginary) dieties, not real ones.

There is something tempting about your argument that “much of the Bible is metaphorical and figurative” because it solves a number of difficulties. But who says which parts exactly?

If I wanted to know, for instance, if Moses actually met “God” in person on a number of occasions as the Bible (”The Word of God”) says, who would I consult to determine if this happened literally, or just metaphorically? Maybe you, maybe someone else? Can you describe how one metaphorically meets “God” in person? I’m guessing that a “metaphorical meeting” is not an “actual meeting”, and thus a description provides additional evidence that “God” is just an imaginary character. Please examine your interpretation of “Moses met God” and decide if meetings happened literally or metaphorically. Better yet, can you share your conclusion(s)?

I wonder, too, how the translators might have misinterpreted “Moses staff turned into a snake”? That should have been fairly straightforward to understand and translate without injecting bias. I wonder what you think the original literal meaning was, and how it morphed into the “figurative magic” that we have had for the past thousand years or so? Also, what is your translation or interpretation? And, is there any evidence that yours is the correct one, or do I just conclude that the Moses staff, indeed the whole story of Moses in Exodus is just a fictional, dramatized exaggeration of some possibly historical events?

Stirring the Pot,

I am not the person you addressed this to, nor am I religious believer, but I have some input.

There is a full spectrum of Christians: everything from “it is in the bible, so it must be literally true” to those that do not believe in an afterlife, and may not believe in a Jesus that existed physically.

Unfortunately, those who think a literal belief in the bible is necessary to be a “Christian” have dominated the scene for the past 3 decades or so.

I have a great deal of respect for those who believe the bible “contains the words of god” - the view that the bible is the work of man, an arbitrary collection of books, and one that changed over time, but that there is some divine wisdom within it. One of the people who believed in some version of Christianity, but understood much of it was bunk was a strong ally of mine in promoting science and religious plurality. He pointed out there were something like 18 creation myths or portions of creation myths in the bible. He would evaluate “creation science” by stating that “science is about discoveries and progress, ‘creation science’ has made no discoveries and made no progress”. Heck, he flat-out stated that there was nothing “new” about Christianity: give him a decent library and a half hour, and he can find earlier versions of anything in the bible or any ritual performed in a church. Yet, he considered himself Christian.

I tend to confront those who believe in the literal truth of everything in the bible. “even those parts that contradict the other parts” to paraphrase Ned Flanders. Those who believe in a version of a religion that can accept that scientific truth is as close to truth we can get, I have not complaint about.

Simian

STP: you and I have locked horns before. I ask you one simple question: what do YOU believe?

Hello “Simian”,

Thanks for your remarks in post#1, page#3 at 6:32 am May 26.

No need for a overly polite entry in to a public conversation. Everyone is welcome, and most certainly if they are honest and civil. Thanks for joining in!

In parg#2, you suggest that there is a “full spectrum of Christians” from literalists to some that deny an afterlife. I’m not sure if afterlife deniers actually qualify as “Christian”, because I was under the impression that to be a “Christian” one had to believe that Jesus “death” allowed one (or all) to “live forever”. While I’m unsure of this extreme of your spectrum, it’s evident that there are a huge variety of Believers. Here’s another spectral dimension: some Believers are at peace with themselves, their “God(s)”, their neighbors, and tolerant of individuals and groups with competing views, while at the opposite extreme adherents are so rabidly self-righteous they easily justify war upon “non-believers”.

Religion is used in a variety of ways by individuals and leaders to motivivate, organize, and manipulate. It does so by using stories, psychology, trickery, among the many devices of social engineering to exploit human weaknesses. Some find comfort, some a tool for leadership, others fertile ground for exploitation. Science cultivates repeatable, verifiable evidence to explain natural phenomena and produce and exploit solutions with predictable outcomes.

Challenging religion easy, but getting straight answers from Believers approaches the impossible. They don’t know what they’re talking about, so they can’t tell you. Also, since none have a firm grasp, they all seem to have different answers to the same question. Challenging science is often much more difficult, but find the right expert, and explanations are definitive where the evidence is clear and an honest “cannot say” where evidence is lacking. Believers thrive on lack of evidence.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#1, page#3 at 4:29 pm May 26.

Have we “locked horns”? Oh, ha, ha, the joke’s on me… I don’t have any horns, and probably you lack them too;. You’re just being “metaphorical”, right?

Wow, I ask several questions, but your response is to duck by asking one instead? Like I just observed to “Simian”, getting answers from Believers is next to impossible. However, from me they’re easy.

But, “hs”, haven’t I already made is clear as glass what I believe? I believe what the abundance of evidence suggests. So for instance, a sun-centered solar system, not earth-centric. Regarding the existence of “God” (the “money question”, right?), “God” is imaginary, a fictional character invented by humanity as a moral authority. Contrary to Believers, though, my belief arises from the evidence. All of it compels this conclusion, none of it suggests that “God” is real. Surely this explanation is simply a refresher.

Now, back to some unanswered questions I recently posed to you…

How do you determine which parts of the Bible are accurately “the Word of God”, and which are simply metaphorical substitutions. Who decides/decided? Does introducing metaphorical interpretation introduce or reduce distortion, and more or less than translation?

Did “God” meet “Moses” in person? If not what was the metaphor? Did “God” work literally or metaphorically turn Moses’ staff into a snake? If not literally, then what is the metaphor?

You probably sense a trap, so I’ll tell what it is aforehand: You are going to answer with one answer (that you either were told, or you make up) while some other Believer will have a different answer (that was either learned or made up), and then I will say, yet again: here is more evidence that Believers are inconsistent and don’t know what they are talking about. It is more evidence that “God” is just an imaginary being because there are no clear, definitive answers even in the passages of the hallmark documents.

No motivation to step into a trap? Maybe here is some: I am earnestly seeking evidence for the existence of a real “God”. You have heard me ask for it before. Maybe your explanation will offer some. Probably not, but here’s a chance. I’m still searching despite the utter lack of success so far. Please help!

Well, Stirring, allow me to answer a question with another question: what kind of evidence will you accept as proof of the existence of God?

I am convinced that God exists. In the same way, I suppose, that I can be convinced that a brilliant painter and sculptor named Michelangelo Buonoratti existed some 500 years ago. Can his existence be PROVEN in court of law? No, not at all. There are, after all, no witnesses alive today who actually saw him with chisel in hand. And yet, we have much evidence of his handiwork.

Like all analogies and metaphors, this one has obvious flaws and shortcomings.

After all, using logical proof, God cannot be proven to exist (or to not exist either). I want to be careful here with my language. I do not subscribe to what might be called “God of the gaps” Theology, where God is invoked to explain all those things we cannot explain. (One of the great failings of so-called “Intelligent Design”)

At this point, STP, I will accept that I cannot provide the kind of proof you are demanding. I will refrain from holding your position to the level of ridicule you insist on holding over those who believe.

This is getting quite far afield of the original posting on this thread, however, a word about the interpretation of ancient texts:

There is an entire branch of philosophy called hermeneutics, or the philosophy of translation. This study persuasively argues that because of the shades of meaning that exist in one language over another one, it is impossible to translate any text from one language to another without bias. Without, in fact, loosing something of value. Consider: if you have ever heard a recorded or live performance of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, I’m certain you noted that the Chorale is sung in 18th century German. As far as I know, it has never been performed in English, and for many good reasons. For one, getting the meter to work in the poetic German would be almost impossible, as well as fitting it properly to the music.

Second, my understanding of Biblical Interpretation is guided by a basic principle: There is much in the text that is important, valuable, and beneficial. If I read it and study it searching for those things, then the questions, for example, of whether Moses was a real historical figure are no longer as important. I understand and accept, for example, that the text of what we label the “Law and the Histories”, were probably not written down in their final form until after the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of Ezra the scribe. Before that, there may have been some written text, but most of it was passed on as Oral Tradition. So, I read that material with the understanding that it was, in fact, oral history. Genesis is neither a science nor a history text.

Last, but not least, at the end of the day, whether or not God exists is ultimately a matter of faith, not reason. Either a person believes, or does not believe. A person who believes is rarely going to be convinced to stop believing because of some reason or other. By the same token, the person who does not believe is rarely going to be convinced to come to belief by study or logic. The theological principles I hold to indicate that Faith is a gift at any rate. Some are granted the gift, and some are not.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#4, page#3 at 9:36 pm May 26.

You wonder what kind of evidence I will “accept”. “hs”, any that you provide! Of course, low quality evidence is much less convincing than than high quality evidence! What’s the difference? Low quality evidence is hearsay, speculation, wishful thinking, make-believe; it is not verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal, or falsifiable. High quality evidence possesses these latter attributes, and thus is more convincing. Show what convinced you! Maybe it will convince me, too!

Where in my posts have I ever “demanded proof”? All I seek is evidence. Obviously, “proof” is a threshold that is unlikely to be reached. Indeed, I once proved that a particular attribute assumed for “God” (omniscience) was mutually exclusive with a particular attribute assumed for creatures (free will). You rejected it out of hand because you did not like the results, so I know that proof is neither convincing nor forthcoming. (Of course, it was a proof that required clear thinking and several steps. Maybe my language lacked clarity?)

Evidence, on the other hand can guide reasonable folks toward reasonable, if tentative, conclusions. There is an abundance of evidence indicating that “God” is imaginary, and virtually none (except hearsay, speculation, wishful thinking, and make-believe) suggesting that “God” is real. “God”, if real, could easily remedy this situation. His complete and total absence (except by ancient anecdote) is compelling evidence of his imaginary existence on its own. Indeed, “God’s” complete and total absence calls for yet another story! Myriad explanations have been crafted; how many do you want recounted?

Proving the truth of former lives of historical figures is easier than you suggest. Eye witnesses are unneccesary; there is abundant and convincing forensic evidence! In the case of Michelangelo the artist, there is a vast store of contemporary records and enduring products. The preponderance of evidence is clear. While he “still lives” in some abstract sense, it is not expected that the artist will produce further works to “prove” his existence was real. Furthermore, he is not regularly employed as the basis of human morality. Yet Believers regularly claim “God” really is alive and active and everywhere and acting and reacting and involved with human affairs, and the moral authority establishing the standard for human behavior. If true, clear and convincing evidence should abound! Yet where is it? According to the stories, “God” met with people on a regular basis. Where is “God” now? Did “God” die like an ordinary creature? Surely not! The answer is simple: “God” is a fictional character, little different from, say, Luke Skywalker, or Hercules, or Zeus, or Santa Claus, except by assigned attributes and functional institutional support by zealots, acolytes, and Believers.

That’s why, when asked, Believers must go to extraordinary lengths to explain why “God” is absent, yet still real; and why inconsistencies and contradictions are either labeled as “meaningless” or “nonexistent”, thus safely brushed aside and ignored. That’s why some Believers claim “oh, the stories aren’t literally true; they are simply metaphors”. It’s why you have such difficulty providing answers to simple questions regarding the source documents of your supposed wisdom. It’s why you change the subject and dodge answers. You want to believe it’s all real and true (whatever “it” is), but you sense the ridiculousness and weakness of your position when it’s held up for scrutiny.

Sound a bit judgemental? Of course! I am judging and concluding on the basis of evidence in my possession. Do you have any to the contrary? You claim you do, yet you never display it! What else can I conclude?

I understand your discussion about the flaws of translation and necessity of faith and all. Ultimately, people believe what they want, regardless the truth of the matter. (Ask Galileo why he was imprisoned!) The trouble is, people are more easily manipulated when they believe that falsehoods are true. That’s why it’s important do determine if “God” is real or simply imaginary. If real, then some behaviors are better than others; if imaginary, then different behaviors are better. If real, then certain expectations are valid, if imaginary, then other expectations are valid. We can talk a lifetime (humanity has already done so) about what is “good” and “right”, but the framework used to produce the answers must be accurate, consistent, and reliable in order act as a credible authority to produce quality answers.

It’s abundantly clear to those who are rational and employ evidence to formulate conclusions that “God” is merely a fictional character, incapable of performing actual miracles or asserting active control over human affairs. Those who say otherwise are trying to manipulate people for their own ends. Sure, there is plenty of social value contained in the Biblical stories, just as there is plenty of social value contained in Aesop’s Fables. I find nothing wrong with using fictional characters to teach morality, however the basis for morality should not rest upon the dictates of fictional characters because this merely represents the morality of the authors. Obviously, there is something wrong when fictional characters are employed by crafty orators to manipulate human behaviors. Aesop’s characters are not abused in this manner, so they are seldom the target of scrutiny. “God” is regularly abused in this manner, so it is important for his true nature to be exposed. Will you help; or will you perpetuate the insanity?

STP:

Faith is a choice. I choose to believe that there is a God. You choose to believe that there is no God.

I have had situations in my life that you would consider coincidence or chance, that I choose to attribute to the actions of a Power Greater than Myself.

I have known many people, myself included, who were struggling mightily with life situations that were completely beyond my, or seemingly anyone else’s power to control or heal. Then, I was faced with a proposition: there MIGHT exist a Power Greater than Myself that COULD do exactly that. All that was asked of me was to consider the possibility and acknowledge that “I” was unable to do these things on my own.

You know what? It has worked for a number of years, and for many years for many others like me.

Now, is that “proof”? Nope. But it works for me.

hs,

hs,

Thanks for your work on this post. I find it useful. Good stuff.

STP,

I assume you are a non-believer. Who are you to judge who is and who is not a Christian? It is easy enough to find the dogma of any given denomination, it is much tougher to determine the beliefs of any given person. As I have met people who label themselves Christian, believe in some sort of deity, believe in some of the messages of Jesus (though may not believe in his physical existence), I have to say such people do exist.

I find the viewpoint that you, as a non-believer (again, I am making an assumption here) can define what it is to be a Christian to be every bit as arrogant as a Christian who defines all atheists as amoral because they don’t see how non-believers can be moral.

People believe all sorts or odd things, various groups exploit people. Why single out religion as a problem? I happen to believe that hard work, knowledge, and skill are the basis for professional advancement. This flies in the face of experience - who your parents are and the contacts they start actually matter much more than what is internal to you. Yet, I hold the belief. Not because of the world works, but because it is the way I feel it must work, and will work to make the world move closer to this ideal.

Simian

Often we must rely on the listening of others to hear what we are saying.

STP is a believer. The belief is in an imaginary God. The request is for more than this. STP’s ruthless persistence in this matter is faith.

For me, the creation museum occurrs as a lack of faith in our scientists.

The Greeks acknowledged this ageless tragedy of being human, that our greatest strength is our greatest weakness.

Dear Another,

Lack of faith in our scientists?!? Research the “Nebraska Man”. “Scientists” found a tooth and constructed a jaw from the tooth, then they constructed a skull from the jaw and came up with a new species. Unfortunately it was the tooth of a pig. Throughout the years there have been plenty of “scientists” who have propogaded their own agendas

John R.,

Certainly, I grant you all of that, in everything. That does not have to be a reason to dismiss people, professions, or beliefs.

This is where I list evey misdeed of every person for every profession and walk of life and use it to disgard anything that does not align with my own?

That is not faith.

what disturbs me more, in that line of thinking, is our religious leaders lack of faith and patience in allowing God’s word to prove itself.

The misuse of knowledge to further an agenda has always been a temptation. It may be that in modern times the abuse is becoming more pervasive as we rely more on information to make choices.

Dear Another,

There is supposed to be faith in science? We should accept everything in science without proving it repeatedly? Those scientists who misrepresent their findings should be believed in the future on first glance? Which church leaders are you refering to? I think you are combining my post with inference to religion. My post was merely a response to your assertion that the Creation Museum demonstrated a “lack of faith in scientists”.

faith - confidence or trust in a person or thing.

It is with faith that all things come to past.

One quote from the site: “Biblical history is the key to understanding dinosaurs.”

What are they doing to the Bible?

I guess I’ll put it on the shelf next to my Farmer’s Almanac.

Dear Another,

I guess, since you nor StirThePot will answer a direct question, I now know what the sound of one hand clapping is……………

Sorry, assumed they were rhetorical.

There is supposed to be faith in science? Faith in all things. Faith is a powerful tool apart from a belief in God. Faith is a choice. Choose powerfully. God promises to provide.

We should accept everything in science without proving it repeatedly? Absolutely not, prove it and prove it again. What we know will always be changing. Faith and proof are distinct. Faith is the source of all outcomes.

Those scientists who isrepresent their findings should be believed in the future on first glance? Absolutely not, that would be silly and irresponsible. Hold everyone to their integrity. That is distinct from attempting to dismiss them, their passion, and their contribution.

Which church leaders are you refering to? In general, the weakness of leadership is to maintain the past. Breakthroughs in most things happen on the fringe. Leadership requires great training and discipline to be in the presence of transformation in that it is not the source of it, only the representation of it. The temptation for authority is to maintain the past. The future is where possibility resides.

My post was merely a response to your assertion that the Creation Museum demonstrated a “lack of faith in scientists”. Religion appears to be taking on science in an attempt to align it with the Bible. It is unnecessary and inauthentic. Patience would be a better choice, in my view.

For example, the Catholic church commissioned a study that agreed in 1992 (I think) that the earth orbits the sun. In 1990 they were still unprepared to make this assertion.

“Let it be.” -Paul McCartney.

Dear Another,

I thought that science should be based on facts and devoid of faith. Isn’t faith the belief in the unseen?

What we know will always be changing? The Laws of thermodynamics have changed?

Faith is the source of all outcomes? Again, I thought science was supposed to be based in fact.

The weakness of church leadership is to maintain the past? So there are no theological absolutes?

What we know is always changing in the sense that we’re always learning MORE, and sometimes the things we learn today are significant enough that the things we ascertained to be true in the past get superseded by today’s knowledge.

To me, faith in science means faith in the process. The process being fundamentally self-correcting over time. If I publish a result, and someone else can’t duplicate my result, then my results get called into question, and either get overridden or strengthened, depending on what else is learned.

To me, the Church gets into trouble when it writes physical observations about the universe into doctrine. Once something becomes doctrine, changing it is virtually impossible. Why does the place of the earth in the universe MATTER in a religious sense? Why is it (in the case of the Creation museum) so all fired important that the universe be 6000 years old? Why is it so hard to admit what we don’t know? Most scientists will acknowledge the huge discrepancy between what we know, and what we don’t know. Each new discovery reveals (conservatively) 10 things that we don’t know. After all, ultimately, creation, and the beginnings of life, and the workings of things, are all mysteries. And, we may never know all the answers. But, what is wrong with asking the questions, KNOWING that there is no answer?

I started to respond to all, and then shortened it to the fun one.

What we know will always be changing? The Laws of thermodynamics have changed?

We once considered them universal as they applied to the known world. We now know they may not apply at the sub atomic level while they do at the molecular and cellular level.

More importantly, there is speculation that consciousess occurrs at the quantum level, and may prove to be free of the forward flow of time and high probability on which thermodynamics depends. If we attain (or reattain from when stripped from us by God when we were driven from Eden) freedom from the flow of time the laws of thermodynamics will end up displayed (unchanged) in museums next to the steam engine.

To what I said. Knowledge is by definition experienced and therefore unchanged.

What we know, is constantly changing, both in fact and point of view.

Okay, here is another one.

A theological absolute - “God is.”

Is it knowledge or truth?

Spoken as knowledge (past) and universal as in there is no choice in the matter, the impact is lost, there is no faith in the outcome, and those that hear it are not touched by the spirit.

Spoken as truth, authentically as and for yourself, nothing added,and those that hear it are moved that you have this for yourself. We are moved by the spirit in you.

This is the distinction of jargon and authenticity, knowledge and being.

Many leaders believe they deal in knowledge. The power is in the being.

A Bible museum, cool!

A Creation museum! There is an agenda, and by definition inauthentic.

Authentic is a sharing for sharing sake. No agenda. A free and safe place for choice.

Share the Bible, faith. Take on proving the Bible, not so much.

“God is.”" A powerful demonstration of the disinction of knowing the truth or being the truth.

Faith is the source of all outcomes? Again, I thought science was supposed to be based in fact.

Technicians deal in facts.

Scientists deal in what is possible.

Hello “hs”,

Thank you for the favor of a reply in post#6, page#4 at 4:43pm, May27.

I understand that you believe some things about “God”, and you do so merely because of “faith”. In other words, you have no evidence to support your beliefs, but there is some thing about them that compels you to accept them, nonetheless. Evidently, whether “God” is powerful enough to turn a staff into a snake and then back into a staff is irrelevant. I suppose your method of determining the veracity of Biblical stories, advice, suggestions, and laws is irrelevant, too… you just believe what you want to believe. That’s OK for some, and apparently OK for you, too.

But wait! I thought you were “a pretty rational person” and “liked evidence”? In fact, you once explained how you were “convinced that God DOES exist, and the evidence is all around.” I was hoping you could provide some.

As you may recall, I agree that “the evidence is all around” indicates that “God” does indeed exist, and I offer the most accurate interpretation of what it shows: “God” is imaginary. The question remains on the table if any of “the evidence all around” indicates that “God” is real. You seem to believe some does because, possibly, “a Power Greater than ["hs"]” made some things happen. Please show the evidence? But first, ask yourself, “Is my perception of the procession of events actual evidence of “God’s” real existence and intervention, or could this procession have occurred without a supernatural being?” If only possible by supernatural intervention, then I’m very interested. I’m sure others are, too.

Actually, since you admit in parg#2 of your post that I (and therefore probably other skeptics and critical thinkers) would consider coincidental, then you probably have nothing novel or valid to offer. Too bad for all… no evidence. You aren’t being rational by “choosing to attribute it to the actions of a Power Greater”, just indulging in simple-minded fantasy. I know some folks are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, so you just grabbed one that is convenient and socially acceptable, regardless its truth.

In fact, that’s part of what the Creation Museum is all about… realizing a fiction in order to make it more socially acceptable. Five years from now, half a million cherubs dunked in the koolaid can confront their history, geology, and biology teachers and say, “I know for a fact that dinosaurs and humans inhabited the earth together as recently as 6000 years ago! I saw it with my own eyes!” Too bad for human culture that such a lack of critical thinking is tolerated, much less capitalized upon.

Hello “Simian”,

Thank you for the favor of a reply in post#9, page#4 at 6:14am, May 28.

I certainly do not Believe (which is my shorthand for not believing that “God” is real, or that any depictions of supernatural activity in the Bible or elsewhere are true and accurate). I could be convinced otherwise, but I am skeptical by nature and make conclusions by examining the evidence that is available to me. Naturally, I attached greater importance to evidence that is of higher quality: that which is unequivocal, verifiable, and repeatable. Stories based upon hearsay, wishful thinking, speculation are of the lowest quality, and I often reject any conclusion based solely on this quality of evidence. You probably do too. A popular skeptic once claimed “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This should be the standard for all religious propositions.

Just as an aside, many folks (you included) confuse “assumption” and “conclusion”. In this case, you concluded that I am a non-believer because you have read some of my remarks. You would have assumed it if you had no evidence to help you decide but needed a place to start. Until now, you have possibly assumed that you were correct, but even this is doubtful, since you have probable read enough of my remarks confirming and strengthening your original conclusion. Regardless, here is your confirmation: by all common definitions, I am a non-believer, and do not care to argue the point.

Nonetheless, I possess beliefs about “God”, they just happen to be radically different than those of Believers… I believe “God” is an imaginary being, and arrive at that conclusion as a result of examining and interpreting evidence. Believers hear some stories, and perhaps experience some extraordinary experiences, then conclude that “God” is real. I have been asking Believers about it for a long time, yet not one has ever provided any evidence whatsoever that “God” is a real being. It all supports the conclusion that “God” is an imaginary, fictional, being, instead. When confronted with contradictory evidence, Believers ignore it or craft clever explanations (often different explanations for the same thing!), again, all without ever offering any evidence.

You expressed a disdain for my “arrogance” at attempting to “define what it is to be a Christian”. Pardon me if I tried and failed! I doubt that any assembly of self-ascribed Christians could arrive at a definitive description, though I am sure that some belief that “Jesus” was/is real and did/does things as described in the Bible is an essential element.

By the way, I am not sure where I actually attempted to define “what is to be a Christian”. If you found it once, then I’m sure you can find it again. Please direct my attention to it… I looked (though only a cursory search) and couldn’t find it. Perhaps this is a case of misinterpretation, or an example of my flippancy? I’d like to correct, clarify, or amplify my writing, so please help.

Finally, you wondered why I single out religion as a problem. First, I criticize religion here because (as I’m sure you noticed) this, and companion threads, are offered in the Civil Religion section. However, I mainly criticize religion because it is a fraud that is self-perpetuating because it preys upon ignorance and gullibility. Sure, it offers some valid and well-intentioned guidance, but it requires people and society to suspend their search for correct explanations of natural phenomena, and to follow it leadership without skepticism. This places themselves and all of humanity at risk. Perhaps there was a time (and maybe are times at the present) where suspension of critical thought is the better choice, but religion has largely outlived its usefulness. It’s time for a new “God”, one that admits unequivocally that it is the product of humanity and merely serves to teach examples of ideal morality.

Hello “John R.”,

Thank you for the favor of your reply in post#8, page#3 at 3:50am May 26.

As I expected, you lack the courage to admit that science actually has disproven something in the Bible, even though you supplied the proof yourself! Science has explained the mechanics of reproduction and perpetuation of traits to offspring, including the influence of random mutation much more thoroughly and accurately than Jacob’s naïve positioning of striped foliage in front of mating animals to accomplish the same effect.

While you wagged your finger at me for not reading the “whole chapter”, I wonder if you would do it yourself (as I did before posting my example in the first place). You imply there are counterexamples to my interpretation of “God’s” lesson through Jacob’s story regarding how to influence physical traits of offspring in animal husbandry. We seem to agree on the science, just disagree on the “facts” of genetic reproduction as described in Genesis 30:37-39. Please, support your contentions. Or wag your finger some more.

Science has disproven something in the Bible in direct opposition to your bold challenge in post#9, page#1 at 2:41pm May 22. Your credibility erodes.

Thanks you for the favor of a reference in post#5, page#5 at 10:29 am, May 29. It is true that I did not reply to your direct question, but I admit that I did not see it. I spotted what I interpret as rhetorical questions in post#8, page#3, because a) they are simply statements followed with interrogatory punctuation, b) you answered them yourself, and c) they serve to make my point! Maybe you have some other “direct question” in mind? Please point it out! I’m ready to respond, though maybe not on your schedule.

Oh, I just checked my cupboard, and I have a soup dish with your picture on it. Indeed, like any ordinary soup dish, it is wide and shallow, just as you described. It’s also cracked and empty. I suppose I could mend it, but it probably still won’t hold water. Care to help?

I believe people are intelligent and trusting.

I believe people have a passion to know and a relentless desire to comprehend. I believe people place great trust, power, and responsibility in their leaders.

I believe that cynicism and resignation are the inherent outcome of being human. I believe it is an inherent nature of humans to want to be right and to make others wrong.

STP: I regret that I am unable to give you the “evidence” you require. My reasons for faith have specific details, that I am not about to post in this public space.

This will be my last comment directed to you. In the future, should you choose to respond to a post of mine, I will do my very best to keep silent. You see, I consider you to be the worst kind of fool. Not only to you question those you disagree with, you also find it necessary to mock them. Perhaps mocking is inevitable. I do not, however, have to dignify it with response and debate.

As my final comment, consider this: One of us is wrong. That much is certain. If I’m wrong, I will have lost nothing of value. If I’m right, then I have gained much in this life, and stand to gain even more in the next. However, if you’re right, you may feel you have gained some in this life, I don’t know. However, if you’re wrong, not only are you wasting your life by these expositions of “wisdom”, but you’re also going to loose everything in the life to come.

I prefer my choice to yours.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of you reply in post#6, page#6 at 9:48pm May 30.

I recognize Pascal’s Wager, even if it has been debunked and shown to be a fool’s wager. Yet even if you are wrong about the nature of “God” and some unfounded promises about “life after death”, you can still gain by Believing. Many folks do. There is a certain comfort in confidence. I can assure you.

Did I “mock” you? How was that? Mostly, I ask questions (and a lot more than ever get answered!) and I offer opinions, including opinions about the opinions of others, and sometimes I do poke fun at their opinions and the folks making them. Lighten up! Poke a little fun in return!

But if you want to be serious, offer some serious evidence. Did you have a personal, private encounter with “God”? Then why not even say “I won’t give any details, but it was unequivocally God”? I’m guessing you didn’t because you thought about my suggestion and realized you couldn’t! Despite the source(s) of your assistance being in question, I am glad that you worked your way through your adversity.

You aren’t complaining about the reference to your own admission that you are “a rational person who likes evidence”, are you? Admittedly, I think it’s rather curious, funny actually, that someone would make a claim like that, then retreat to a position of “belief by faith” when the questions get past the “easy” stage. Yep, I understand how reminders of earlier statements could be interpreted as “mocking”, particularly in a fresh dialog. You have to be true to yourself all the time around here!

Personally, I don’t think “God” turned Moses staff into a snake, and I don’t believe that Moses did so to impress the Pharaoh, and I don’t think the Pharaoh’s magicians repeated the feat. Maybe some folks performed some illusions like contemporary “magicians”, or more likely, the stories in Exodus are just some exciting fiction. You never actually said what you thought about them specifically, but my guess is you don’t believe them to be true either.

After you think about it, I wonder if you could explain how you decide just what’s true and what’s just fiction in the Bible. I am genuinely curious.

STP, your mantra is a double negative.

“There is no real “God,” and you can not prove it.”

Its intent is to loop unpon itself. You have found the perfect riddle for yourself to justify being right about something.

All that you share as evidence to justify your position are considerations most believers have worked though very early on in their faith. You have as well, with a different result. I get it.

You are asking to be convinced knowing you already have been. It is disingenious. Do the work, find the proof, and then share the proof of God, otherwise your desire for proof of God is a canard and you are here to make other’s wrong.

Your argument and proof that there is no God has been made. If shared as a personal belief and commitment it is complete. If not, it has another intent. From this side of the conversation, there seems to be no new ground taken for you in it.

This may help, your strategy is similar to Ali’s “rope a dope.” Taunt the oposition into defeating/exhausting themselves. Ali is a great boxer, and that aspect of his game was never necessary.

After I swore I would not respond again to STP, I find myself pushed to do it.

God has made God’s self real to me in ways that I cannot explain in this space. I have seen what I consider to be God’s work in my life and in the lives of people I know and love. Have I had a dramatic conversion event in my life? Have I had the experience of climbing up out of a wheelchair and walking? Or similar? No, I have not. Do I believe and accept that those events ARE real? Absolutely.

I will not be baited into a blogspace conversation about Biblical Exegesis and the veracity of the miracle stories of the Bible. I said earlier in this thread that Genesis is not a science nor an historical text. I stand by that statement. The miracles are not the point. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” John 20:29b

I find myself stirred by the irony that today, May 31, is Pentecost. A day that is celebrated in Christian Churches around the world as the day that fire and wind appeared among the believers, and the world changed as a result of that fire and wind. Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them have ALWAYS been marginalized by the church of their day, frequently imprisoned or killed for their belief and actions. And yet, they are the ones who ultimately changed the world.

Hello “hs”,

Regarding your post#10, page#2 at 11:06am May 23…

You asserted “velocity and temperature are equivalent”. Common sense indicates that these phenomena are not equivalent. In fact, when I consult my thermometer alone, I am unable to tell whether I am moving or not, much less how fast. Furthermore, after consulting the literature (in this case, a website: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html), I find that temperature is a base unit of measure (normally “degrees Fahrenheit” or “degrees Kelvin”), while velocity is a derived measure expressed as a ratio of two other base units, length divided by time (such as “miles per hour”, or “meters per second”). Is there some “math” that I forgot to apply?

This should be an area of straightforward, evidence-based discussion; not one charged with personal opinion. Can you please clarify what you mean by “velocity and temperature are equivalent”? I see that understanding this “equivalence” is important in some speculative reconciliation between Genesis scales and physical time scales, but I am not asking for you to explain that. (I am sure that Gerald Schroeder makes a gallant effort in his books, already!) I am simply curious what you mean by “temperature and velocity are equivalent”, if that’s what you mean at all, because the clear and convincing scientific evidence suggests they are not.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#9, page#6 at 8:27am May 31.

I tend to agree with parts of your claim that “Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them have ALWAYS been marginalized by the church of their day, frequently imprisoned or killed for their belief and actions.” There have been periods of time. Yet, you would probably admit that even casual scrutiny of medieval history shows that many who actually “burned hot” were non-believers accused of “witchcraft” and other sins by Believers and the Churches that supported them. Furthermore, I am uncertain which Believers are being marginalized by the church(es) today? Consequently, my biggest issue is your enhanced use of the superlative “ALWAYS”.

On a more philosophical plane, I wonder why “Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them” are successfully “marginalized” in the first place? If “God” were real and as genuinely powerful as claimed, wouldn’t Believers have prevailed “ALWAYS”, rather than the other way around?

I know you don’t contend that Old Testament “miracles” are true. You wrote that you believe them to be “metaphorical”. What about New Testament “miracles”? Could the various stories simply be fiction, or perhaps embellishments of ordinary events? After all, in modern times doctors “touch” patients (then time elapses while the patient follows the treatment) and they are healed! No miracles here, just people applying knowledge of what works most of the time.

Both libraries, Old and New, are chock full of books containing advice (”direct from God”, according to those who “burn hot” with the “fire of God”) about how to conduct ourselves individually and collectively. Obviously, some of it is valid and useful because many successful individuals and societies employ uncannily similar advice to guide their activities. Personally, I don’t believe biblical advice is followed solely because “God” said so, rather that the advice has been shown to be valuable for civil, peaceful, cooperative, respectful coexistence. In fact other biblical advice is eschewed precisely because it detracts from those goals. The question (still on the table) is “how do you, “hs”, decide which of God’s advice to follow and which to ignore?”

RE: the equivalency of temperature and velocity.

Boyle’s Law, and the more general gas laws within the big picture of thermodynamics indicates that temperature is a measurement of relative molecular movement. The faster molecules move, the higher the temperature. This understanding undergirds our understanding of pretty much all the physical phenomena we relate to heat and energy movement.

In fact, absolute 0 (zero K) is defined as the point where all molecular movement ceases.

Molecular movement is imaginary. There is no evidence that it is real.

Gravity is not real, only imaginary. Evidence exists only that apples fall from trees, and planets orbit about each other in predictable ways.

Gravity exists only as imagined, and only in agreement within language. There is no evidence that it exists as real.

Science is a fraud perpetrated by the intellectually skilled elite upon the poor and ignorant masses to take advantage of them.

It is nothing more that a philosophical parlor trick.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of yet another reply in post#2, page#7 at , May 31.

I am grateful for your clarification regarding the “equivalence” of temperature and velocity. Now I can help you resolve either your confusion, or misrepresentation.

In fact, the temperature and velocity are not equivalent as you stated, but rather they are related, particularly when matters of atomic particle motion in gases are an issue. As it turns out, their relationship is not even linear. Velocity changes with the square of temperature: average velocity of particles (or more precisely, the root mean square average velocity) equals the square root of (3 times the molar gas constant times temperature divided by the molar mass of the gas).

Furthermore, this is also a misrepresentation of “Boyle’s Law” which describes the relationships between gas pressure and volume at a constant temperature. It was about a hundred years after Robert Boyle’s discovery before James Maxwell theorized the relationship between velocity, particle mass, and temperature.

When you “do the math”, you realize that temperature and velocity are not equivalent. If you, or Gerald Schroeder, struggle to reconcile “God” with scientific observation by employing a temperature/velocity equivalence, then your conclusions are flawed.

However, mostly likely you just misspoke and I’m making a bigger issue out of this than necessary. One of my flaws is that I’m a stickler for accuracy.

Seriously interested to know.

Is molecular motion “zero” equivalent to temperature “zero?” Is this a true statement.

Does hs adequately edit with the use of the adjective “equivalency” in reference to the mathmatical relationship in question?

Another, allow me to respond to your last questions.

First, on the subject of Absolute Zero, here is a wikipedia link. It’s not a bad article, even though it IS limited by being in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

In this article, it points out that temperature is an entropy measurement, and absolute zero is the point where the entropy of a system reaches zero. It is theoretically impossible to get there, however, because it would violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: If a particle was at absolute rest, both it’s position (fixed) and it’s velocity (zero) would be known. There is a great deal more.

On my use of ‘equivalence’ in discussing temperature and velocity. I admit I was less than precise in my language. The fundamental relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume of gasses is expressed in the ideal gas equation PV=nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=the quantity of gas involved in moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature.

One can see from this classic equation the relationship between pressure, volume, and temperature…and it’s one that while it assumes an ideal gas, it works most of the time for many of the real gasses that exist out there. Further study in thermodynamics reveals a generalized model that posits that molecular motion is what creates pressure and temperature: More motion causes more collisions with the walls of the vessel (pressure goes up) and more collisions with other particles within the system (temperature goes up). Adding energy to the system (heat) just makes things move all the faster.

So, in that sense, one can say that there is a definitive relationship between temperature, pressure, and velocity of the molecules involved. Equivalence was a poor word choice, but one that works for most lay people. Allow me to point out that I could now go into a long involved discussion about the difference between accuracy and precision, and why those particular terms that are frequently interchanged are really about very different things.

Still and all, the point I think my early post about temperature and velocity was trying to make was this: It is possible, through application of relativistic math and an understanding of time dilation as a function of relative velocity to posit that to a particle INSIDE the universe immediately after the Big Bang that time would move very, very slowly because of the near light velocities involved and the very high temperatures present at that moment. To an observer OUTSIDE the universe (God?) the first period of expansion would last barely an eyeblink. This was a discussion of how the six days of genesis and the 16 billion years or so of time passage from the big bang could in fact be equivalent.

Got all that?

No, but to your point, I get what your are sharing without it.

I am not a scientist or mathematician. This query is of another realm.

Is “equivalency” (reflexive, symetrical, and transitive) an accurate (albeit generalized) mathematical term for decribing the mathematical equation in question?

For me, the use of the = sign, makes it an equation (equivalency) in the simplest terms. I am asking if it is correct in mathematical jargon.

Yes or no.

Another, I apologize. Sometimes I have the tendency to describe how a clock works when asked the time.

Are temperature and molecular motion equivalent? In a word, no. A better statement is that the velocity of molecular motion can be inferred from temperature measurements. Know the temperature, know how fast things are moving at the molecular or atomic (or subatomic for that matter) level.

Thank you for your patience. I am somewhat dense in these matters.

I understand that the relationship between molecular action and temperature is not equal and has factors to balance the description.

This was a question regarding the distinction, mathematically, between and “equivalent” relationship and an “equivalency” relationship. I am still not clear, but left for another time….