This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is this picture as silly as it appears to be?

#21ThuggernautzPosted 2/15/2013 8:32:03 AM
the_hedonist posted...
Note that I am actually asking a question. This is not merely rhetorical. I am woefully ignorant in scientific matters, and I am always trying to learn more. So if someone who has more of a scientific or astronomical inclination, I would be delighted to learn something new.


Well, sure. But making claims about unobserved things is folly. That's like asking how many 'woozles in the wozzles' are there? Not only that, but that same logic you used could be applied to almost anything. Gravity? What if there's some other unobserved force acting on objects, can't state that gravity is very accurate. We could speculate all day about alternate or adjacent universes, or hypothetical FTL expansion of stars beyond the observable universe; but it is baseless speculation and serves no purpose unless you can find some evidence for it.

Having said that, yes, we cannot say that our estimation of the stars is going to be very accurate; certainly not to the level of observation and measurement of gravity. However, both gravity and number of stars fall victim to this criticism of accuracy. If you were an ultra-pedant, you could say that any measurement of gravity or mass is only valid to the 100th decimal place... sound familiar? All indications point to a finite universe, though, meaning a finite number of stars. That's not innumerable, it's just that we don't know the exact number yet.
#22lastheroPosted 2/15/2013 8:55:25 AM
DoGCyN posted...
I also agree that the Bible doesn't seem to be really trying to teach science...however... the fact that a great many things in the Bible line up with science thousands of years before these things were discovered is pretty amazing all on its own.


Great many things such as what?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#23ThuggernautzPosted 2/15/2013 9:03:35 AM
lasthero posted...
DoGCyN posted...
I also agree that the Bible doesn't seem to be really trying to teach science...however... the fact that a great many things in the Bible line up with science thousands of years before these things were discovered is pretty amazing all on its own.


Great many things such as what?


And also, why did this revelation only come about after scientists discovered it? Why were the religious not aware of these amazing 'discoveries' and promoting them, until they were actually discovered?
#24OzymandiasIVPosted 2/15/2013 9:37:04 AM(edited)
From: the_hedonist | Posted: 2/15/2013 9:30:25 AM | #018
Meaning that, quite possibly, there are objects (including stars) that are so far away that the light hasn't had the chance to reach us yet?


I'm fairly certain that that is true. I studied astronomy a bit in my undergrad as a point of interest. The observable universe is expanding, and by that, they mean light from objects further away is finally reaching us for the first time. And there are additional problems to this. Light just now reaching Earth is going to be ancient, so any stars we detect out on the fringes of the observable universe might not be there anymore, and other stars may have formed elsewhere whose light hasn't had time to reach us yet.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#25OzymandiasIVPosted 2/15/2013 9:36:40 AM
From: Thuggernautz | Posted: 2/15/2013 10:32:03 AM | #021
Well, sure. But making claims about unobserved things is folly. That's like asking how many 'woozles in the wozzles' are there?


Not really. There's no context for the nonsense woozles and wozzles, but we know that there are stars in the universe, and that the observable universe is getting larger and larger. And by mentioning this, no one is attempting to predict how many stars exist outside the observable universe, just that there are, in all likelihood, several more stars out there than the 9 sextillion in the observable universe.

Not only that, but that same logic you used could be applied to almost anything. Gravity? What if there's some other unobserved force acting on objects, can't state that gravity is very accurate.


That's not the same thing either. That would be like me asking you to count the number of peanuts in a jar from a large shipment, and then when I mention that there are more boxes with more jars of peanuts, you tell me there might as well be another unobserved force acting on objects aside from gravity. You see how silly that is? We know there are more stars out there. We have a basis for that. There's no basis to say there's an unobserved force acting in tangent with gravity.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#26ThuggernautzPosted 2/15/2013 9:39:43 AM
OzymandiasIV posted...

I'm fairly certain that that is true, if my two astronomy courses taught me anything. The observable universe is expanding, and by that, they mean light from objects further away is finally reaching us for the first time. And there are additional problems to this. Light just now reaching Earth is going to be ancient, so any stars we detect out on the fringes of the observable universe might not be there anymore, and other stars may have formed elsewhere whose light hasn't had time to reach us yet.


One very interesting thing in Prof. Lawrence Krauss' lectures are that due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, there will come a time when all stars are essentially moving away from us so fast that their light will never reach us. Were scientists to observe the skies in that situation, they would see no stars and come to the conclusion that Earth was the only body in the universe.

Still, there is a number of stars that exist which can be observed from our position (constantly fluctuating), we simply need to refine the accuracy of said number. Innumerable implies there is absolutely no way to know or even begin to estimate a number, which I contend is not true.
#27ThuggernautzPosted 2/15/2013 9:46:43 AM
OzymandiasIV posted...

Not really. There's no context for the nonsense woozles and wozzles, but we know that there are stars in the universe, and that the observable universe is getting larger and larger. And by mentioning this, no one is attempting to predict how many stars exist outside the observable universe, just that there are, in all likelihood, several more stars out there than the 9 sextillion in the observable universe.


Yes, but the number is not unknowable; which is what innumerable implies. If it's used hyperbolically though, sure, I would agree.


That's not the same thing either. That would be like me asking you to count the number of peanuts in a jar from a large shipment, and then when I mention that there are more boxes with more jars of peanuts, you tell me there might as well be another unobserved force acting on objects aside from gravity. You see how silly that is? We know there are more stars out there. We have a basis for that. There's no basis to say there's an unobserved force acting in tangent with gravity.


Sure, I retract my example as being incorrect. My issue is with the use of the word innumerable. The number of stars at any given time, even outside of the observable universe (from the viewpoint of Earth) is theoretically knowable, and not innumerable in the strictest definition of the word. As hyperbole though, I agree with the term.
#28the_hedonistPosted 2/17/2013 8:45:18 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
the_hedonist posted...
Note that I am actually asking a question. This is not merely rhetorical. I am woefully ignorant in scientific matters, and I am always trying to learn more. So if someone who has more of a scientific or astronomical inclination, I would be delighted to learn something new.


Well, sure. But making claims about unobserved things is folly. That's like asking how many 'woozles in the wozzles' are there? Not only that, but that same logic you used could be applied to almost anything. Gravity? What if there's some other unobserved force acting on objects, can't state that gravity is very accurate. We could speculate all day about alternate or adjacent universes, or hypothetical FTL expansion of stars beyond the observable universe; but it is baseless speculation and serves no purpose unless you can find some evidence for it.

Having said that, yes, we cannot say that our estimation of the stars is going to be very accurate; certainly not to the level of observation and measurement of gravity. However, both gravity and number of stars fall victim to this criticism of accuracy. If you were an ultra-pedant, you could say that any measurement of gravity or mass is only valid to the 100th decimal place... sound familiar? All indications point to a finite universe, though, meaning a finite number of stars. That's not innumerable, it's just that we don't know the exact number yet.


If you are going to disagree that the verse is truthful (as it seems you are doing in your last sentence), it seems that you are the pedant here. To say that the stars are "innumerable" does not necessarily mean: it is 100% impossible that the stars will ever be numbered. Within the confines of the English language (and I would assume this is true of most languages), we often speak of things that are practically impossible as being impossible. Meaning, in practical terms, it is impossible to number the stars today. There are so many stars that we can't number them! And that is a very true statement. There are many ways to understand one statement. I think we can understand the statement not to be literally true, meaning the text can very conceivably be correct.

But if you want to play the pedantic game, even if we are to understand the text in a literal sense, it is difficult to understand how we will ever number all the stars. Even if the universe is finite, it does not mean that it is within our ability to find out everything there is to know about it. Perhaps if we we are able to develop technology that is faster than the speed of light? I have heard that is impossible. Even in that case, could there not still conceivably be more stars or objects that are so far away that we do not know they exist, even if we were able to comb the edges of the currect observable universe, we would simply make what we can observe a much larger thing.

And to say that we have an estimate of the number of stars is not the same as saying that we have numbered the stars. If all we can do is estimate, then it is a true statement to say that the stars are innumerable, even if we only mean that there are innumerable today.

But, again, I do not think the Bible was trying to teach science. I think they were probably just standing in awe of the heavens and saying, "wow! God made so many stars! We cannot even count them!" I do not think it was speaking in a literal sense.
---
"Why should I gain from His reward? I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart - His wounds have paid my ransom."
#29DoGCyNPosted 2/18/2013 12:41:36 PM
lasthero posted...
DoGCyN posted...
I also agree that the Bible doesn't seem to be really trying to teach science...however... the fact that a great many things in the Bible line up with science thousands of years before these things were discovered is pretty amazing all on its own.


Great many things such as what?


Things like the earth being round, clean wounds with running water, etc. These things matching up with what we have today way before actually being proven. Call it coincidence if you'd like.

Thugg posted...
And also, why did this revelation only come about after scientists discovered it?


Because it wasn't known. We can now piece it together in such a way that it seems rather odd that this would be known in such a time period...and rather amazing.

Why were the religious not aware of these amazing 'discoveries' and promoting them, until they were actually discovered?


It may have struck these persons as "amazing" but they weren't really going to go around saying "the earth is round!" would they? And then scientifically try to prove it? Or...maybe they did. Who knows. The fact is they were more into talking about whatever God had to say.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#30hunter_gohanPosted 2/18/2013 3:23:04 PM
DoGCyN posted...
Things like the earth being round, clean wounds with running water, etc. These things matching up with what we have today way before actually being proven. Call it coincidence if you'd like.


Round flat disc != slightly pear shaped oblate spheroid.

This quarter I'm holding is round.

A quick google search brought up the latter as claim 6 here:

http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm

Really? Is it really Leviticus 15 where you're getting this crap?

The same book which is apparently talking about leprosy? Which isn't actually very contagious at all and you can't get rid of with merely water?

The book which gives the exact same treatment for getting semen on things? Semen, which is generally sterile. Which then goes on to pretty much say the exact same thing it just did about lepers about women on their periods? Please tell this is not where you're getting that from.

Because it wasn't known. We can now piece it together in such a way that it seems rather odd that this would be known in such a time period...and rather amazing.


You mean you can ad-hoc twist some passages to kind of resemble something that is true? If it was speaking such truths they would be found out by reading it, not by finding out the truth first and then finding a passage you can twist just enough to kinda make it mean what you want it to.

It may have struck these persons as "amazing" but they weren't really going to go around saying "the earth is round!" would they? And then scientifically try to prove it? Or...maybe they did.


Well yes that's exactly what the Pagan Eratosthenes did. He didn't just show the earth to be a spheroid. He measured the damn circumference to within a 2% error if he used the Egyptian stadion.(He was in Egypt the entire time he did this). The early Jews? Well no they kinda thought the universe looked like this:

http://etb-cosmology.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-hebrew-conception-of-universe.html

Who knows. The fact is they were more into talking about whatever God had to say.


Or you're ignoring what they actually said since you know it to be wrong and simply reinterpreting passages to bend them into being "correct".
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.