Satan And Science

[jskains]

Here is a concept. Red Shift. We assume that the Red Shift theory is constant throughout the universe. I think I can assume it is possible that if we could somehow do some sort of accurate yardstick measurement at the distances we are exclusively using Red Shift right now that we could find it totally wrong. What if that shift is affected by unknown forces we have yet to discover and that certain distances we have assumed are totally wrong?

So yes, I think I am allowed to make the assumption that we make a lot of theories from our tiny rock in the middle of the Universe and not be simply a foil hat guy.

Your proving the value of Satan using science to push people away from God. People like you are so devoted that you'll defend the art-form at all costs.

JMS

Edited May 18, 2011 by jskains

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

Science by definition must be falsifiable. The hard work comes in in doing it.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Mormon theology is easy to understand, virtually everyone can understand it. But to be considered a Mormon Theologian is a bit more detailed.

[Jeff K.]

Based on this forum, also often a bit derailed.

[cinepro]

Here is a concept. Red Shift. We assume that the Red Shift theory is constant throughout the universe. I think I can assume it is possible that if we could somehow do some sort of accurate yardstick measurement at the distances we are exclusively using Red Shift right now that we could find it totally wrong. What if that shift is affected by unknown forces we have yet to discover and that certain distances we have assumed are totally wrong?

Is that what this is talking about?

A special relativistic redshift formula (and its classical approximation) can be used to calculate the redshift of a nearby object when spacetime is flat. However, many cases such as black holes and Big Bang cosmology require that redshifts be calculated using general relativity.[3] Special relativistic, gravitational, and cosmological redshifts can be understood under the umbrella of frame transformation laws. There exist other physical processes that can lead to a shift in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, including scattering and optical effects; however, the resulting changes are distinguishable from true redshift and not generally referred as such (see section on physical optics and radiative transfer).

So when you said "we assume that the Red Shift theory is constant throughout the universe", how did you intend for your statement to relate to the variables talked about in that paragraph?

I'm also boggled by your statement:

What if that shift is affected by unknown forces we have yet to discover and that certain distances we have assumed are totally wrong?

How does it work to invent an "unknown force" whose only purpose is to invalidate a theory? If this were a valid argument, you may have just laid waste to the foundations of science, religion and rational thought all at once.

Because after all, when you read the Book of Mormon it might not be "The Spirit" that you feel but instead it's an unknown force* that mimics The Spirit but testifies to falsity.

*This is probably the same unknown force that messes with redshift. It does both things.

Edited May 19, 2011 by cinepro

[Franktalk]

Here is a concept. Red Shift. We assume that the Red Shift theory is constant throughout the universe. I think I can assume it is possible that if we could somehow do some sort of accurate yardstick measurement at the distances we are exclusively using Red Shift right now that we could find it totally wrong. What if that shift is affected by unknown forces we have yet to discover and that certain distances we have assumed are totally wrong?

So yes, I think I am allowed to make the assumption that we make a lot of theories from our tiny rock in the middle of the Universe and not be simply a foil hat guy.

Your proving the value of Satan using science to push people away from God. People like you are so devoted that you'll defend the art-form at all costs.

JMS

You keep thinking that all theories are not valid. The history of science is filled with theories that over time were overturned and replaced. It is more likely that current theories will be overturned instead of holding their own in the future. In fact there are a few alternate theories out there right now on this very subject of red shift. Some very compelling. But since the theory does not involve long ages it is rejected by all of the ivory tower guys. Do not settle for man's knowledge on anything, question everything including scripture. If anyone says you are to just accept something then walk away from that person. The only true source of truth is the Holy Ghost. Here is some interesting reading.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5349.pdf

Many people have spent years getting this theory to this point. I am sure many more years will be required to topple Hubble.

[keith_brian]

Archeology comes to mind. It's a 2D view of a 3D issue and it is easy for someone to be swayed from one interpretation to another. Also Astrophysics. I think we make a lot of determinations for a massive universe from a tiny rock and I can't help but believe there is a lot of politics and interpretations in the results of the data. It's influencing those interpretations that I think could be Devil inspired.

JMS

Hi,

I am new to this board, but great topic.

I am a believer in science, and I have a question for jskains. I have copied here six titles and abstracts from the current issue of The Astrophysical Journal, and I was wondering if you could point out in which articles these scientist have been deceived by Satan. Also, if you could be specific enough to elaborate on exactly how they've been deceived by Satan (i.e. which data Satan has falsified, which data analysis methods Satan has corrupted, in what ways he has corrupted them) with regard to these six articles, I am sure that the scientists involved would appreciate your help.

No one likes to be deceived, and I think that, if we can assist the scientific community in trying to somehow compensate for the deception caused by Satan, it would advance the field immeasurably.

Thank you for your help.

FIRST SKY MAP OF THE INNER HELIOSHEATH TEMPERATURE USING IBEX SPECTRA

G. Livadiotis1, D. J. McComas1,2, M. A. Dayeh1, H. O. Funsten3, and N. A. Schwadron4

1 Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA; glivadiotis@swri.edu

2 University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Physics & Astronomy, San Antonio, TX, USA

3 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Center for Space Science and Exploration, Los Alamos, NM, USA

4 University of New Hampshire, Space Science Center, Durham, NH, USA

Received 2011 January 17; accepted 2011 March 10; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

Analysis of the IBEX-Hi Energetic Neutral Atom spectra reveals, for the first time, the sky map of the source ion

temperatures. The solar wind exists in non-equilibrium stationary states and can be described by kappa distributions.

The high-energy asymptotic behavior of kappa distributions leads to a power law of the flux versus energy spectrum,

while its specific formulation derives the temperature and kappa index that govern these distributions. We find that

the observed temperature in most directions is about a million degrees, in agreement with most heliospheric models

for the inner heliosheath. Thus, the termination shock is stronger in most places than revealed by the Voyagers’

observations at their two unique crossing points. The global sky maps indicate low-temperature regions in various

directions, including toward Voyager 2 where the temperature is an order of magnitude lower, consistent with in

situ Voyager observations. Interestingly, the vast majority of measured kappa indices are between ∼1.5 and ∼2.5,

consistent with the far-equilibrium “cavity” of minimum entropy discovered by Livadiotis & McComas. The sky

maps suggest that the Ribbon is a string of localized regions, while its thermodynamical behavior differentiates

it from the global distributed flux. A simple model is developed to derive the density, heliosheath thickness, and

thermal pressure. We find that the Ribbon thermal pressure is ∼3.5 pDyn cm−2, roughly equal to the mechanical

pressure exerted by the Local Interstellar Medium.

EFFECTS OF CONFIGURATION INTERACTION FOR DIELECTRONIC RECOMBINATION

OF Na-LIKE IONS FORMING Mg-LIKE IONS

D.-H. Kwon1 and D. W. Savin

Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA

Received 2011 January 29; accepted 2011 March 24; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

Theoretical dielectronic recombination (DR) rate coefficient calculations can be sensitive to configuration interaction

(CI) between resonances with different captured electron principle quantum numbers n. Here we explore the

importance of this multi-n CI process for DR via 2l → 3l

core excitations and its effect on the total DR rate

coefficient. Results are presented for selected Na-like ions from Ca9+ to Zn19+. We find that including this multi-n

CI can reduce the DR rate coefficient by up to ∼10% at temperatures where an ion is predicted to form in collisional

ionization equilibrium and up to ∼15% at higher temperatures. To a first approximation, this will translate into a

corresponding increase in the ion abundance. Charge state distributions calculation seeking to be accurate to better

than 10% will thus need to take this effect into account.We also present simple fits to the calculated rate coefficients

for ease of incorporation into plasma models.

A MULTIBAND STUDY OF THE GALAXY POPULATIONS OF THE FIRST FOUR SUNYAEV–ZEL’DOVICH

EFFECT SELECTED GALAXY CLUSTERS

A. Zenteno1,2, J. Song3, S. Desai4,5, R. Armstrong5, J. J. Mohr1,2,6, C.-C. Ngeow4,7, W. A. Barkhouse8, S. S. Allam9,

K. Andersson1, G. Bazin1,2, B. A. Benson10, E. Bertin11, M. Brodwin12,20, E. J. Buckley-Geer9, S. M. Hansen13,21,

F. W. High10,14, H. Lin9, Y.-T. Lin15,16, J. Liu1,2,10, A. Rest17, R. C. Smith18, B. Stalder19,

A. A. Stark12, D. L. Tucker9, and Y. Yang4

1 Department of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 M¨unchen, Germany

2 Excellence Cluster Universe, Boltzmannstr. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany

3 Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 450 Church Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

4 Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois, 1002 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

5 National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, 1205 West Clark Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

6 Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstr. 85748 Garching, Germany

7 Graduate Institute of Astronomy, National Central University, No. 300 Jonghda Rd, Jhongli City 32001, Taiwan

8 Department of Physics & Astrophysics, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA

9 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA

10 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

11 Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR 7095 CNRS, Universit´e Pierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France

12 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

13 University of California Observatories & Department of Astronomy, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

14 Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

15 Institute for Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwa-no-ha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8568, Japan

16 Institute of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

17 Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

18 Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, La Serena, Chile

19 Department of Physics, Harvard University, 17 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Received 2010 November 21; accepted 2011 March 21; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

We present first results of an examination of the optical properties of the galaxy populations in Sunyaev–Zel’dovich

Effect (SZE) selected galaxy clusters.Using clusters selected by the South Pole Telescope survey and deep multiband

optical data from the Blanco Cosmology Survey, we measure the radial profile, the luminosity function (LF), the

blue fraction, and the halo occupation number (HON) of the galaxy populations of these four clusters with redshifts

ranging from 0.3 to 1. Our goal is to understand whether there are differences among the galaxy populations of these

SZE-selected clusters and previously studied clusters selected in the optical and the X-ray. The radial distributions

of galaxies in the four systems are consistent with Navarro–Frenk–White profiles with a galaxy concentration of 3

to 6. We show that the characteristic luminosities in griz bands are consistent with passively evolving populations

emerging from a single burst at redshift z = 3. The faint-end power-law slope of the LF is found to be on average

α ≈ −1.2 in griz. HONs (to m

∗ + 2) for these systems appear to be consistent with those based on X-ray-selected

clusters. The blue fraction estimated to 0.36 L

∗, for the three lower redshift systems, suggests an increase with

redshift, although with the current sample the uncertainties are still large. Overall, this pilot study of the first

four clusters provides no evidence that the galaxy populations in these systems differ significantly from those in

previously studied cluster populations selected in the X-ray or the optical.

ARCADE 2 OBSERVATIONS OF GALACTIC RADIO EMISSION

A. Kogut1, D. J. Fixsen1,2, S. M. Levin3, M. Limon4, P. M. Lubin5, P. Mirel1,6, M. Seiffert4,

J. Singal7, T. Villela8, E. Wollack1, and C. A. Wuensche8

1 Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA; Alan.J.Kogut@nasa.gov

2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Maryland, Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA

4 Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, 550W 120th Street, Mail Code 5247, New York, NY 10027-6902, USA

5 Department of Physics, Broida Hall, Mail Code 9530, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA

6 Wyle Information Systems, Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

7 Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

8 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Divis˜ao de Astrof´ısica, Caixa Postal 515, 12245-970, S˜ao Jos´e dos Campos, SP, Brazil

Received 2011 February 18; accepted 2011 March 28; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

We use absolutely calibrated data from the ARCADE 2 flight in 2006 July to model Galactic emission at

frequencies 3, 8, and 10 GHz. The spatial structure in the data is consistent with a superposition of free–free

and synchrotron emission. Emission with spatial morphology traced by the Haslam 408 MHz survey has spectral

index βsynch = −2.5±0.1, with free–free emission contributing 0.10±0.01 of the total Galactic plane emission in

the lowest ARCADE 2 band at 3.15 GHz.We estimate the total Galactic emission toward the polar caps using either

a simple plane-parallel model with csc |b| dependence or a model of high-latitude radio emission traced by the

COBE/FIRAS map of C ii emission. Both methods are consistent with a single power law over the frequency range

22 MHz to 10 GHz, with total Galactic emission toward the north polar cap TGal = 10.12 ± 0.90 K and spectral

index β = −2.55 ± 0.03 at reference frequency 0.31 GHz. Emission associated with the plane-parallel structure

accounts for only 30% of the observed high-latitude sky temperature, with the residual in either a Galactic halo or

an isotropic extragalactic background. The well-calibrated ARCADE 2 maps provide a new test for spinning dust

emission, based on the integrated intensity of emission from the Galactic plane instead of cross-correlations with

the thermal dust spatial morphology. The Galactic plane intensity measured by ARCADE 2 is fainter than predicted

by models without spinning dust and is consistent with spinning dust contributing 0.4 ± 0.1 of the Galactic plane

emission at 23 GHz.

ARCADE 2 MEASUREMENT OF THE ABSOLUTE SKY BRIGHTNESS AT 3–90 GHz

D. J. Fixsen1, A. Kogut2, S. Levin3, M. Limon4, P. Lubin5, P. Mirel6, M. Seiffert3, J. Singal7, E. Wollack2,

T. Villela8, and C. A. Wuensche8

1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Maryland, Code 665, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt MD 20771, USA; dale.j.fixsen@nasa.gov

2 Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA

4 Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, 550W 120th Street, Mail Code 5247, New York, NY 10027-6902, USA

5 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

6 Wyle Information Systems, 1600 International Drive, Suite 800, McLean, VA, USA

7 Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

8 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Divis˜ao de Astrof´ısica, Caixa Postal 515, 12245-970 S˜ao Jos´e dos Campos, SP, Brazil

Received 2011 February 18; accepted 2011 March 28; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

The ARCADE 2 instrument has measured the absolute temperature of the sky at frequencies 3, 8, 10, 30, and

90 GHz, using an open-aperture cryogenic instrument observing at balloon altitudes with no emissive windows

between the beam-forming optics and the sky. An external blackbody calibrator provides an in situ reference.

Systematic errors were greatly reduced by using differential radiometers and cooling all critical components to

physical temperatures approximating the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature. A linear model is

used to compare the output of each radiometer to a set of thermometers on the instrument. Small corrections are

made for the residual emission from the flight train, balloon, atmosphere, and foreground Galactic emission. The

ARCADE 2 data alone show an excess radio rise of 54 ± 6 mK at 3.3 GHz in addition to a CMB temperature

of 2.731 ± 0.004 K. Combining the ARCADE 2 data with data from the literature shows an excess power-law

spectrum of T = 24.1±2.1 (K) (ν/ν0)−2.599±0.036 from 22 MHz to 10 GHz (ν0 = 310 MHz) in addition to a CMB

temperature of 2.725 ± 0.001 K.

INTERPRETATION OF THE ARCADE 2 ABSOLUTE SKY BRIGHTNESS MEASUREMENT

M. Seiffert1, D. J. Fixsen2, A. Kogut2, S. M. Levin1, M. Limon3, P. M. Lubin4, P. Mirel5, J. Singal6,

T. Villela7, E. Wollack2, and C. A. Wuensche7

1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA; Michael.D.Seiffert@jpl.nasa.gov

2 University of Maryland, Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

3 Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, 550W 120th St., Mail Code 5247, New York, NY 10027-6902, USA

4 Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

5 Wyle Informations Systems, Code 665, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

6 Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

7 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Divis˜ao de Astrof´ısica, Caixa Postal 515, 12245-970-S˜ao Jos´e dos Campos, SP, Brazil

Received 2011 February 28; accepted 2011 March 28; published 2011 May 17

ABSTRACT

We use absolutely calibrated data between 3 and 90 GHz from the 2006 balloon flight of the ARCADE 2 instrument,

along with previous measurements at other frequencies, to constrain models of extragalactic emission. Such

emission is a combination of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) monopole, Galactic foreground emission,

the integrated contribution of radio emission from external galaxies, any spectral distortions present in the CMB,

and any other extragalactic source. After removal of estimates of foreground emission from our own Galaxy, and

an estimated contribution of external galaxies, we present fits to a combination of the flat-spectrum CMB and

potential spectral distortions in the CMB.We find 2σ upper limits to CMB spectral distortions ofμ < 6×10−4 and

|Yff| < 1×10−4.We also find a significant detection of a residual signal beyond that, which can be explained by the

CMB plus the integrated radio emission from galaxies estimated from existing surveys. This residual signal may

be due to an underestimated galactic foreground contribution, an unaccounted for contribution of a background of

radio sources, or some combination of both. The residual signal is consistent with emission in the form of a power

law with amplitude 18.4 ± 2.1 K at 0.31 GHz and a spectral index of −2.57 ± 0.05

Again, thank you for your help.

[Franktalk]

keith_brian,

This is not the place to bring in truckloads of data. I could cut and paste truckloads of data from YEC sites or other apologetic sites. Myself I have written thousands of pages of material. But I will respond in a general sense to your question.

When a scientist directly observes nature in some way and then gathers that data in a meaningful way then there is little opportunity for Satan to work his desires in that environment. But when people reach past the data and add their own feelings to their theories then I know that Satan has at least an opportunity at that point to influence the outcome.

Let us take an example to flush out what I am saying. When people in astrophysics first were able to observe the whole of the universe they discovered that the earth appeared to be in the center. Although this appeared to sit well with the faithful it did not sit well with many in science. They ignored the data and pondered that the earth should not have this unique place. So they added curved space to their results so that no matter where you were in the universe it would appear to that observer that they would be in the center just as it appears to us. Of course there is nothing to back up this change other than a desire to make the earth non-special. Do you see where this line of thought may have been influenced by Satan? I don't think it it is a reach at all. If you respond to what I say please write about you think and not a bunch of opinions of others. Anyone can cut and paste opinions from the net. It is a waste of time.

[jskains]

II'm also boggled by your statement:

If your "boggled", then your not trying. Redshift being modified by passing through some cloud, or degrading in value at super long distances. Who knows?

You act as if no one has ever said "this discovery changes everything we know".

Lets imagine the LDS Church claimed that the Brontosaurs never existed way back when. "But wait" you'd exclaim.. "We have bones right there!"

Schools taught of it, cartoons had characters based on it. Theories were created based on those bones existing. Studies were performed, ideas were passed. So much around the idea of this particular dino.

So people leave the Church, all angry that they had been lied to and science proved that Brontosaurs's did in-fact exists...

Then one day.... Oops! We accidentally put the head of one species on the body of another. Guess what folks? All those theories, all those ideas... Complete bunk. The bones were a mistake and the animal did in fact not exist.

But the damage was done. Many people left the Church.

While it simply could be a mistake, is it possible that Satan helped the mistake happen? Influence those involved to make the mistake?

I am not saying that he MUST have been involved, but certainly there is motive.

*Shrug*

JMS

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

If God or Satan controls the sciences/religion how could ANYTHING be demonstrated?

[Lightbearer]

I have a respect for science, but I do not put my faith or trust in it absolutely. I know that trusting in science is trusting in the arm of flesh. I am grateful that the wonders of science make it possible for me to type in my thoughts on this machine and I am able to communicate with billions of people all over the world almost in an instant suddenly. I am glad we have machines capable of traveling thousands of miles in a matter of hours, rather than months as it did 200 years ago. I am happy we have clean water, food, and medical care. I am glad I can cook a burrito in seconds and that I can talk to someone halfway around the globe on a phone that I can carry in my pocket... Yes science is amazing and all of these truths come from God. Of this I have no doubt. Some let the rantings of Darwin bother them and cause them to loose their faith, this is utter foolishness to me. This is where I think Satan comes into the picture, he manipulates the minds of men and causes them to think that we know more than He does... He puts on his magic show, and says see... see you have no proof of a worldwide flood that occurred 3,000 years ago! Or how could you believe in an Adam and Eve in a pristine world where death had not yet entered the world and did enter by their partaking of a forbidden fruit of a tree! Must be a parable or a symbolic story... How could you believe in a man parting the waters of a sea? That is impossible! Or how could you believe in one being resurrected? What proof do you have of the resurrection? The Greeks thought it foolishness! Maybe it is only symbolic? No literal bodily resurrection. For that matter what proof have you of the existence of spirits? Angels? Gold plates? Seer stones? Atonement for sins? Priesthood power?

And yet, faith and science can be compatible if one realizes that the scientific method does not work with things of the spirit. That "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." And that is the whole of my point, truth does not depend on what man can invent or devise or dictate what they think they know. If I had to give up science or my faith, it would be science which really is only the philosophies and teachings of men! I could not give up my faith no matter what "evidence" of science may seem to deny it. As Paul said:

(1 Timothy 6:20-21) "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

[Jeff K.]

keith_brian,

This is not the place to bring in truckloads of data. I could cut and paste truckloads of data from YEC sites or other apologetic sites. Myself I have written thousands of pages of material. But I will respond in a general sense to your question.

When a scientist directly observes nature in some way and then gathers that data in a meaningful way then there is little opportunity for Satan to work his desires in that environment. But when people reach past the data and add their own feelings to their theories then I know that Satan has at least an opportunity at that point to influence the outcome.

Let us take an example to flush out what I am saying. When people in astrophysics first were able to observe the whole of the universe they discovered that the earth appeared to be in the center. Although this appeared to sit well with the faithful it did not sit well with many in science. They ignored the data and pondered that the earth should not have this unique place. So they added curved space to their results so that no matter where you were in the universe it would appear to that observer that they would be in the center just as it appears to us. Of course there is nothing to back up this change other than a desire to make the earth non-special. Do you see where this line of thought may have been influenced by Satan? I don't think it it is a reach at all. If you respond to what I say please write about you think and not a bunch of opinions of others. Anyone can cut and paste opinions from the net. It is a waste of time.

I think science is a tool, not a motivation. Nuclear power is great, Atomic bombs aren't. How we use it is motivated outside of the science that is studied, it does not come from science itself. So my belief is that a hammer developed by science can be used to create homes, or it can a miniature mjolinor used to devestate entire regions with lightening. As such, it does not mean that Satan comes from the object created, rather that Satan utilized the object created for his own neferious purposes.

Scientists, as well as artists, and carpentars and coal miners, as a group can be motivated to develop one set of stanards or another. The tools they have an be used for good or ill based on the motivation of the group.

As I see it.

[thesometimesaint]

Lightbearer:

I have no "faith" in science either. But it does seem the best way to test the natural world/universe. As a very wise man once told me. I use science to tell how God did it, and the Scriptures to tell me the why.

[jskains]

jskains:

If God or Satan controls the sciences/religion how could ANYTHING be demonstrated?

One could conclude nothing is demonstratable anyways. If I told you that your best friend was actually dead and we replaced them with a DNA copy, and that the copy would itself not know the difference, could you disprove it?

If I told you that we have never reached the moon and it was all a hoax, could you truely disprove it? (You as a person).

If I told you elephants could actually fly, but they are so shy we have yet to catch one on video, could you disprove it yourself?

This is why conspiricy theories exist in the first place. Did aliens land on earth and the government conspired to cover it up? Did the Philidelphia Experiment actually occur? Does bigfoot exist?

Its because our own perception is both limited and manipulatable.

The Truman Show was interesting in that manipulation was used to make a single man believe he was a normal person in a normal word. And if someone walked up and told him everyone around him was just an actor, he'd have initially laughed. Remember how there were little influenced and manipluations the producers did to ensure he didn't do anything that would compromise his reality? Fear of water kept him from sailing away. Fear of the nuclear power plant kept him from driving to another town.

Sure for the plot, he discovered the phoniness of his reality, but if no one ever wanted to make that move to set him free, would he have ever known?

*Shrug*

JMS

[keith_brian]

keith_brian,

This is not the place to bring in truckloads of data. I could cut and paste truckloads of data from YEC sites or other apologetic sites. Myself I have written thousands of pages of material. But I will respond in a general sense to your question.

When a scientist directly observes nature in some way and then gathers that data in a meaningful way then there is little opportunity for Satan to work his desires in that environment. But when people reach past the data and add their own feelings to their theories then I know that Satan has at least an opportunity at that point to influence the outcome.

Let us take an example to flush out what I am saying. When people in astrophysics first were able to observe the whole of the universe they discovered that the earth appeared to be in the center. Although this appeared to sit well with the faithful it did not sit well with many in science. They ignored the data and pondered that the earth should not have this unique place. So they added curved space to their results so that no matter where you were in the universe it would appear to that observer that they would be in the center just as it appears to us. Of course there is nothing to back up this change other than a desire to make the earth non-special. Do you see where this line of thought may have been influenced by Satan? I don't think it it is a reach at all. If you respond to what I say please write about you think and not a bunch of opinions of others. Anyone can cut and paste opinions from the net. It is a waste of time.

So, you are a Young Earth Creationist, eh? I would just like to point out that every theory posed by the community of YECs has been OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by the entire scientific community throughout the world. This would include scientist who are privately religious, people whom one would think would be less susceptible to the influences of a malevolent god because of their faith in a benevolent (let's assume) god.

However, I guess this is ultimately the problem with science: it's based on abductive reasoning, which means that we can always construct an alternative theory of reality -- no matter how seemingly silly -- that is consistent with the observed variables of an experiment. For example, one could say that the sun is no in fact powered by nuclear fusion but by tiny, magical elves that live on the surface of the sun and shovel magical coal into the sun constantly with tiny magical shovels. Further, if anyone objected, you could just say that once a year the chief magical elf casts a spell over the sun to make it appear that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion to trick the gullible people of the earth.

There really is no way to ultimately disprove the magical elf theory, at least to the satisfaction of a believer in the magical elves.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, you are a Young Earth Creationist, eh?

I don't think I would have interpreted his comments quite like that. I think he was just saying that he could copy and paste info from sites like you have done. Oh well. Of course I will let him speak for himself. Most people I know are not YEC.

[keith_brian]

If your "boggled", then your not trying. Redshift being modified by passing through some cloud, or degrading in value at super long distances. Who knows?

You act as if no one has ever said "this discovery changes everything we know".

Lets imagine the LDS Church claimed that the Brontosaurs never existed way back when. "But wait" you'd exclaim.. "We have bones right there!"

Schools taught of it, cartoons had characters based on it. Theories were created based on those bones existing. Studies were performed, ideas were passed. So much around the idea of this particular dino.

So people leave the Church, all angry that they had been lied to and science proved that Brontosaurs's did in-fact exists...

Then one day.... Oops! We accidentally put the head of one species on the body of another. Guess what folks? All those theories, all those ideas... Complete bunk. The bones were a mistake and the animal did in fact not exist.

But the damage was done. Many people left the Church.

While it simply could be a mistake, is it possible that Satan helped the mistake happen? Influence those involved to make the mistake?

I am not saying that he MUST have been involved, but certainly there is motive.

*Shrug*

JMS

I would also like to clarify something for the general audience here, if I may. Science doesn't "throw out" the results of previous experiments, assuming that those experiments were performed correctly. It actually EXPANDS the results of those previous experiments.

Take quantum mechanics and special relativity, for example. According to popular culture, those theories "threw out" our understanding of Newtonian mechanics and Galilean relativity.

However, this is wrong. There was no "throwing out" of ideas here, but rather both theories expanded the previous ideas to areas where the physical models fail.

For example, special relativity extends mechanics to areas where the speeds of objects in an inertial reference frame are close to the speed of light, relative to another reference frame. Quantum mechanics extends extends our understanding of energy to the world of the very small, where energy levels become quantized. Both theories actually converge to the previous theories in situations where speeds are much less than the speed of light or for high energies.

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

IF that is the case. We'd be better off hiding in our caves, afraid of the dark and scary world outside of that cave. But I believe the world is understandable. That we can test what we believe against reality. It is not always easy or even comfortable to do.

The very fact that you and I are communicating over the "internets" says you believe the same.

[cinepro]

Lets imagine the LDS Church claimed that the Brontosaurs never existed way back when. "But wait" you'd exclaim.. "We have bones right there!"

Schools taught of it, cartoons had characters based on it. Theories were created based on those bones existing. Studies were performed, ideas were passed. So much around the idea of this particular dino.

So people leave the Church, all angry that they had been lied to and science proved that Brontosaurs's did in-fact exists...

Then one day.... Oops! We accidentally put the head of one species on the body of another. Guess what folks? All those theories, all those ideas... Complete bunk. The bones were a mistake and the animal did in fact not exist.

But the damage was done. Many people left the Church.

While it simply could be a mistake, is it possible that Satan helped the mistake happen? Influence those involved to make the mistake?

I am not saying that he MUST have been involved, but certainly there is motive.

*Shrug*

JMS

Why use a hypothetical? Can you share a real example? That would be much more valuable.

And FWIW, your hypothetical does have some flaws. First, the "Church" would never make such an easily falsifiable claim. The only things we are really sure about in the Church are well outside the bounds of any scientific test or discovery (at least, that's the ideal).

But if something has been taught that becomes testable, from what I can tell Church members are only too happy for the most part to either re-interpret what the Church has taught ("It was only their fallible opinion") or to stand steadfast and ignore the science.

So, in the case of the imaginarily misassembled brontosarus, I would expect the Church to stop saying they didn't exist once the bones were found, for apologists to argue that the leaders were speaking as fallible men when they said it, and for other LDS to insist that the Church leaders were right and science shouldn't be trusted. Then, when the bones were found to be wrong (although your theory is seriously insulting to the science of paleontology; why is the skull the defining characteristic of an entire species?), I would expect all the old teachings to be resurrected and trumpeted from the rooftops, with the apologists only too happy to show how the leaders were right all along.

[Franktalk]

So, you are a Young Earth Creationist, eh? I would just like to point out that every theory posed by the community of YECs has been OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by the entire scientific community throughout the world. This would include scientist who are privately religious, people whom one would think would be less susceptible to the influences of a malevolent god because of their faith in a benevolent (let's assume) god.

However, I guess this is ultimately the problem with science: it's based on abductive reasoning, which means that we can always construct an alternative theory of reality -- no matter how seemingly silly -- that is consistent with the observed variables of an experiment. For example, one could say that the sun is no in fact powered by nuclear fusion but by tiny, magical elves that live on the surface of the sun and shovel magical coal into the sun constantly with tiny magical shovels. Further, if anyone objected, you could just say that once a year the chief magical elf casts a spell over the sun to make it appear that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion to trick the gullible people of the earth.

There really is no way to ultimately disprove the magical elf theory, at least to the satisfaction of a believer in the magical elves.

I am not a YEC. Not that I don't think that the earth could be young. I just don't know. But the YEC crowd falls into the same trap as the science community. They try and take a natural based set of data and force a view of the world. By both groups excluding supernatural events both groups are non-Biblical. I appreciate their effort but I think the YEC group is misguided.

Your leap to magic elves is cute and is no way attached to anything I may have said. So if you wish to argue by made up fantasy then do so but it speaks volumes about you and not me. What you are really saying is that I have no connection to this world in any sense of reality and I am subject to personal flights of fantasy. I would suggest that just the opposite is true. I refuse to believe theories of science until it has been shown by huge amounts of indirect data and the theory fits in with other solid foundational work. But I suspect that you are easily swayed by the next comments coming from some professor you may not even know. I question everything can you say the same thing?

[Franktalk]

For example, special relativity extends mechanics to areas where the speeds of objects in an inertial reference frame are close to the speed of light, relative to another reference frame. Quantum mechanics extends extends our understanding of energy to the world of the very small, where energy levels become quantized. Both theories actually converge to the previous theories in situations where speeds are much less than the speed of light or for high energies.

Does it concern you that the universe is made up of non-deterministic material and only in the limits of large scale numbers does the universe appear to be deterministic? Does this have any effect on your view of the world in general?

If indeed you view the world as deterministic yet know that it can't be then just how do you justify your science based world view?

You do know that as a walk towards a closed door there is a chance that I will walk through the door without opening the door. This is described very well in science. Do you deny that possibility? The God of the Bible describes Himself as controlling the lot, this means He controls what we see as chance. What if this Person could shift all of the chance effects at an atomic level, that Person could walk through walls at any time based on their will. You yourself described the mechanism. Now you just need to make the leap to believing that such a Person could exist.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Franktalk

[keith_brian]

Does it concern you that the universe is made up of non-deterministic material and only in the limits of large scale numbers does the universe appear to be deterministic? Does this have any effect on your view of the world in general?

This is a hard statement to decipher as to your actual meaning, but if you're talking about the existence of probabilities in nature, then no, I am not distressed by this. In general, the probabilistic reality of nature would tend to bother Einstein if he were still alive much more than me. This realization is the source of his oft quoted by Mormon General Authorities quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." On this assumption, he would be wrong.

If indeed you view the world as deterministic yet know that it can't be then just how do you justify your science based world view?

I don't view the world as deterministic. It is the theists and their sentiment that God controls everything who are guilty of that. Scientists have developed many tools, including Gaussian distributions and the Law of Large Numbers, to deal with a non-determinate universe.

You do know that as a walk towards a closed door there is a chance that I will walk through the door without opening the door.

Yep, it's called quantum tunneling; although, for macroscopic objects the probability of doing so is vanishingly small -- which is why it's never observed in nature.

This is described very well in science.

I agree, though not so much in religion . . .

Do you deny that possibility?

Nope

The God of the Bible describes Himself as controlling the lot, this means He controls what we see as chance.

And this sentiment, that God controls everything, is completely inconsistent with your previously expressed ideas about quantum mechanics.

For example, read about the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox on Wikipedia

What if this Person could shift all of the chance effects at an atomic level, that Person could walk through walls at any time based on their will. You yourself described the mechanism. Now you just need to make the leap to believing that such a Person could exist.

Sure, I will accept the POSSIBILITY of such a being (or beings) existing. However, I will not accept that they DO exist without evidence.

Look, I could believe in any number of things. I could believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or werewolves, tree nymphs, Thor, space aliens, or an infinite number of other possible things as well. However, why should I? You're the one making the bold claim that these fantasic, mythical creatures exist (either some or all of them). To me, the universe works just fine if I don't assume that they exist. So, help me out here. Show me some scientific proof.

Btw, I do like your reasoning with quantum mechanics. Isn't science awesome, especially the weird world of quantum mechanics?

[Franktalk]

keith_brian ,

You see religion as deterministic because the will of God can affect the physical world? That's a first for me to hear. You must realize that the will of God can act on one part of nature and not another so by definition different things happen to the same set of natural settings so it can't be deterministic. I see the will of God breaking the deterministic mold not making it.

You speak of evidence. But instead of evidence which is observation you need to consider why things are the way they are. In science we have many direct observations but many more indirect observations. Then on top of that we have theories as to why things happen the way they do. But as each part of a system is figured out we lose the why and just get the observation. So by evidence are you saying that you just believe what your senses tell you? But we have many tools that observe beyond what we can actually sense our self. Do you include these tools as part of your ability to sense the world? Can you say that your evidence is actually just information? Information obtained by direct and indirect means. So is it fair to say that you reject all information that is obtained by methods that don't include the senses or equipment that man has made to observe beyond our senses?

Let us take the sense of touch. We all say we can feel something with our nerves. But is that the whole picture? We have cells which react to a variety of different stimuli and send signals down nerves to our brain. There these electrical signals are wired in a way that we "sense" pain or pressure, etc. So what is really happening is we have a processor of signals which we think of as the sense of touch. Do you agree so far? Can we not follow that line of reasoning with all of our senses? I think we can. So we could view our senses as information and that information is input into our brain. This is what you consider evidence. Now is not pure thought in the brain the same as the signals from nerve cells and the like? At some point signals are signals the only difference is the source. Now we all have our own thoughts and we must have many signals not tied to the senses. Can we not include our own thoughts as evidence? After all most of the really great advancements in science came from thought experiments and not from the laboratory. So can we extend our acceptance of information to thoughts? Are some thoughts really new information and could be considered evidence? So now I ask the question; where do new thoughts come from that have not been thought of before? After all if our brain is wired then how can we have a new thought? How can we relate things that have never been related before? It is clear that learning is just memory and observation. But where does reaching past learning come from? Can we not say that the brain has an ability that the parts don't predict? And if that is true how many layers of thought processes are in the brain? How many are there but need to be exercised before we even realize they are there. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people that say they feel the spirit actually do feel the spirit? What if this level of thought is unlocked by just believing it is there.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with God affecting the physical world. He just uses natural methods to do so. Even if we don't entirely understand those methods.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with God affecting the physical world. He just uses natural methods to do so. Even if we don't entirely understand those methods.

What "naturalistic" process is involved in the resurrection?