Theory....again

[McBell]

you dont even know what a straw man is lol... your use of it is what's comical

I will not regurgitate information in my own words when someone else has already taken the time and effort to make the document. I would instead, prefer to let you read what I sponsor. What's wrong with that? Are you so stupid that you think that is a straw man?

You're ridiculing yourself. hehe

In your haste to be insulting, you failed to comprehend.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

maybe you should try eating those words now?

Why? Because you don't understand them?

By the way: who is Rodney Whitefield and to what peer-reviewed journals has he contributed?

 

[Scimitar]

insulting? where? present your proof here.

Or remain silent

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would instead, prefer to let you read what I sponsor.

Even if that is its sole claim to credibility. You really should stop while you're behind.

 

[Scimitar]

You want me to stop - while I'm ahead - be honest - you're about as transparent as the layer i'm working on inside of photoshop.

You know whats funny?

NOT 1 OF YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE THE ARTICLES WHICH CLAIM THE YOM IS A PERIOD LENGTHIER THAN A STANDARD 24 HOUR DAY

So yes, I'm ahead, and you're engaged in wishful thinking processes

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You want me to stop -

Actually I could care less.

You know whats funny?

As a matter of fact, yes.

NOT 1 OF YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE THE ARTICLES WHICH CLAIM THE YOM IS A PERIOD LENGTHIER THAN A STANDARD 24 HOUR DAY

This is as juvenile as it is ignorant.

In truth, I am not an Hebraist nor have I ever claimed to be. So here I find myself confronted by a dump of apologetics by someone named Rodney Whitefield. I ask: "Who is Rodney Whitefield and to what peer-reviewed journals has he contributed?" and you are conspicuously quiet.

Given this capitulation I find myself left with your apologist on the one hand and, on the other, the scholarship behind the JPS and NRSV translations, the scholarship of Everett Fox, Robert Alter, Richard Elliott Friedman, and Victor P. Hamilton (NICOT), along with any number of other sources that I and others could site. The choice is not difficult.

So yes, I'm ahead, and you're engaged in wishful thinking processes

Only in you're own mind, yet one more pathetic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Scimitar]

You want to make the argument from authority?

Previously when i've done that, I've been accused of arguing from the point of authorityon other forums lol

I've argued from the point of authority 3 times now, and all you want is specific peer reviewed articles.

You know how long it takes to peer review a submitted article on average?

years... and this was only published in 2006. Who knows, maybe its in the process as we speak?

You're very selective with information - almost akin to cutting ones nose in order to spite ones face eh? good luck with that.

 

[McBell]

insulting? where? present your proof here.

Or remain silent

Post #100.

Have you figured out your strawman yet?
Or are you still wrenching your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back?

 

[Thief]

Islamic understanding of the 6 days of creation:

Did you know that the "Relativity of Time" was announced over 1400 yrs ago

Throughout history, “time” was assumed to apply equally in every imaginable spot in the universe and in every medium. If we consider this conception, we can see the radical change that the above verses brought. The Quran said that, according to circumstances, the “day” concept might equal even up to fifty thousand years. These verses which must have encountered objections have been elucidated in the twentieth century and shed light on important truths.

The theory of relativity is Einstein’s best known discovery. However, many people whose interests are not in any way related to physics are at a loss to understand what this theory signifies. The Quran had already touched on these facts 1400 years ago. Einstein’s theory of relativity has two main divisions, namely the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity.

According to Einstein, time would pass more slowly for somebody driving a vehicle at a speed close to the velocity of light. In a medium in which an inhabitant of the earth passes one hundred days, it may take a person fifty days to displace at a speed nearing the propagation speed of light. This finding is the most interesting fact of the relativity theory. Time slows down in direct proportion with speed. Time is therefore a relative conception, as indicated in the Quran. Hours differ and days are conceived differently according to the medium, place and speed involved.

The general theory of relativity deals with gravitational fields and tries to demonstrate that time is slower in the fields of greater gravitation. A man walking on the surface of the sun will see that his clock runs more slowly, as do the biological and anatomical functions and all the motions in terms of his atoms. Recent experiments have corroborated this fact. One of these experiments was conducted in the British National Institute of Physics. John Laverty, researcher, synchronized two clocks indicating the exact time (two clocks of optimum perfection; error of precision in the course of a space of time of 300,000 years would be not more than 1 second). One of these clocks was kept at a laboratory in London; the other was taken aboard an airplane shuttling between London and China. The high altitude at which the aircraft flies is subject to a lower gravitational force. In other words, time was expected to pass at a faster rate aboard a plane in conformity with the general relativity theory. There is not so great a difference in terms of gravity between someone treading upon the earth and someone flying in the air. This difference could only be established by a precision instrument. It was established that the clock aboard the aircraft had a greater speed, one per fifty five billion seconds. This experiment is one of the proofs of the relativity of time. According to the prevailing prejudice, there should not be any difference between the two clocks. This supports the dispelling of prejudices as foreseen in the Quran. Had it been possible to make this experiment on a planet with greater gravitational force, there would be no need for precision instruments to measure the difference, since normal watches could do the job.

THE USE OF THE WORD “DAY” IN THE QURAN

V4- To Him ascend the angels and the spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
70-The Heights, V4 [70 SURAh AL-MAARIJ, V 4]

V5- He regulates all affairs from the heaven to the earth. Then they ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is a thousand years as you count.
32-The Prostration, V5 [032 SURAH AS-SAJDAH, V5]

Verse 5 of the sura The Prostration and Verse 4 of the sura The Heights not only point to the relativity of time, but give also a clear meaning of the Arabic word “yawm” (which translates to the word - "day or period or age, dependant on context") that denotes not only the space of time of one day - which comprises 24 hours - but also a certain period of time. This makes it easier to understand the six “yawm”s mentioned in the Quran (See: 7-The Purgatory, 54; 11-Hud, 7; 10- Jonah, 3; 25-The Distinguisher, 59; 32-The Prostration, 4; 57-Iron, 4.) Before the creation of the universe and the world there was no notion of “day,” a period of 24 hours. Therefore, the six “yawm”s must be understood as six “periods or ages, and not 6X24hours.”


A NOTE TO CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ABOUT "TIME"

This gives a clue to the Jews and Christians for the interpretation of the Biblical account according to which the world was created in six days. Findings in the domain of space physics show that the universe and our world passed through many stages, from a gaseous state to galaxies, to the formation of the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, and of waters and metals. The fact that the Quran refers to the stages that the process of creation went through is also better understood by modern cosmology.

If we remember the stories of creation of ancient Egypt, China and India, we encounter wild fancies such as a universe standing on a tortoise or as an eternally existing entity. None of the past civilizations had made any reference to the stages of this evolution. This message of the Quran contributes to a correct interpretation of Biblical exegeses of the concept of day. The message in the Bible that reads: “And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.” (Genesis 2, 2) was thus corrected, as fatigue was certainly out of the question for God.

V38- We created the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them in six days, and no fatigue touched us.
50-Qaf, V38 [50-Sura Qaf, V38]

CONTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY

Einstein postulated that the concept of time was relative. For Kant time was an innate function of reason. He contended that the perception of time was an a priori category. Einstein’s physics was henceforth the science that integrated time and space, so that, instead of space we had now space-time.

There is something that must not escape attention, however: the perception of time is achieved by the intellect. Since according to our estimation, just as the special relativity theory establishes that velocity makes time relative and the general relativity theory postulates that gravity makes time relative, one should elaborate on “the intellect’s relativity” which posits that the intellect’s perception manner would render the relative perception of time. Like a key that fits the lock, our intellect also has the capacity of perceiving time and the universe. That is (1) time exists in the universe, (2) and the intellect is created with a priori abilities to perceive time and the universe. The two processes are coexistent, just like the coexistence of the world seen by us and the eyes.

It seems to us only fair to add the intellect’s perception factor to Einstein’s concepts relating velocity and gravity and time. Comprehension of time’s relativity will contribute to a better understanding of the Quran. For instance, it is said in the Quran that the dead will think when resurrected that their span on the earth had been very brief. Once time’s relativity has been conceived, the puzzling question of the time to elapse from one’s death till the Day of Judgement will be clear. Such questions for the inquisitive mind that sees the time upon the earth as the only valid time regardless of the attending circumstances will find their answer, once time’s relativity is understood. Given the fact that a deceased person is outside the confines of the temporal dimensions of the earth, the time to elapse after his death, regardless of its actual duration, would be of no consequence.

V45- On the day when He gathers them, it will appear to them as if they had tarried an hour of a day...
10-Jonah, V45 [010 SURAH YUNUS, V45]

V112- He said: “How many years did you stay on earth?”
V113- They said: “We stayed a day or part of a day, ask those who account.”
23-The Believers, V112-V113 [23 SURAH AL-MOMINOON, V112-V113]

ANYONE AMONG US TIRED OF WAITING FOR EONS?

The reason why the fifteen billion years that elapsed from the moment the universe was created until the creation of man was made clear by time’s relativity. In a different context, fifteen billion years may be conceived as one minute or even less. The length of its duration depends on our perception and standpoint.

Scientists, based on the most recent and accurate calculations, assert that approximately fifteen billion years have elapsed since the creation of the universe until this very moment. Is there anyone who feels tired of waiting for eons? The evident answer being in the negative, the time the departed will have to wait as from their decease until resurrection will not cause anxiety in them. Comprehension of time’s relativity renders possible the solution of many problems believed to be beyond the grasp of the intellect.

more to follow

This I found interesting.
but as it takes this thread to a specific direction and digresses from the main topic....
Shall we indulge to a new thread?

Send me a pm and we can set it up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You want to make the argument from authority?

Previously when i've done that, I've been accused of arguing from the point of authorityon other forums lol

I've argued from the point of authority 3 times now, and all you want is specific peer reviewed articles.

You know how long it takes to peer review a submitted article on average?

years... and this was only published in 2006. Who knows, maybe its in the process as we speak?

You're very selective with information - almost akin to cutting ones nose in order to spite ones face eh? good luck with that.

You're babbling. It's unseemly. Now, again:

Who is Rodney Whitefield and to what peer-reviewed journals has he contributed? What are his relevant credentials?​

 

[Thief]

Back to topic....

Theory is a good explanation....nothing more.
Proof is the result of a science experiment.

Science can SPECULATE the 'point' of existence called a singularity.
Science can make explanation up to that 'point'.

So....with the 'point' made....

WHAT set the universe in motion?

If you insist that it 'just happened' you would be wrong.
Nothing just happens.
Cause and effect are not to be separated.

I say....Spirit first.

Now if you would like to ask what set God in motion.....
THAT would be a discussion of faith.

I think you would need to believe in God for that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Back to topic....

Theory is a good explanation....nothing more.
Proof is the result of a science experiment.

Science can SPECULATE the 'point' of existence called a singularity.
Science can make explanation up to that 'point'.

So....with the 'point' made....

WHAT set the universe in motion?

If you insist that it 'just happened' you would be wrong.
Nothing just happens.
Cause and effect are not to be separated.

I say....Spirit first.

Now if you would like to ask what set God in motion.....
THAT would be a discussion of faith.

I think you would need to believe in God for that.

You realize that you are using definitions that are not even remotely scientific, I hope.

And also that in so doing you are at least implicitly authorizing anyone who desires to to sumarily disregard any claims of scientific grounds that you make.

 

[McBell]

Nothing just happens.
Cause and effect are not to be separated.

So once again we circle back to:

What caused God?​

 

[Thief]

So once again we circle back to:

What caused God?​

Good question?.....got any theories?

 

[Thief]

You realize that you are using definitions that are not even remotely scientific, I hope.

And also that in so doing you are at least implicitly authorizing anyone who desires to to sumarily disregard any claims of scientific grounds that you make.

Got an experiment?

 

[LuisDantas]

About what?

 

[Thief]

About what?

God......

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

NOT 1 OF YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE THE ARTICLES WHICH CLAIM THE YOM IS A PERIOD LENGTHIER THAN A STANDARD 24 HOUR DAY

In truth, I am not an Hebraist nor have I ever claimed to be. So here I find myself confronted by a dump of apologetics by someone named Rodney Whitefield. I ask: "Who is Rodney Whitefield and to what peer-reviewed journals has he contributed?" and you are conspicuously quiet.

Given this capitulation I find myself left with your apologist on the one hand and, on the other, the scholarship behind the JPS and NRSV translations, the scholarship of Everett Fox, Robert Alter, Richard Elliott Friedman, and Victor P. Hamilton (NICOT), along with any number of other sources that I and others could site. The choice is not difficult.

You want to make the argument from authority?

Please learn what you're talking about. The only one here employing a fallacious Fallacy: Appeal to Authority is you.

 

[gnostic]

Back to topic....

Theory is a good explanation....nothing more.
Proof is the result of a science experiment.

Science can SPECULATE the 'point' of existence called a singularity.
Science can make explanation up to that 'point'.

Those are pathetic definitions and examples, and like LuisDantas said, there are nothing "scientific" in them.

You are still using informal and casual definition to theory, which has no bearing to scientific theory.

And you don't have any understanding to the term "proof".

Mestemia have quoted "scientific theory" way back in post 4, from the Wikipedia:

Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory.

Did you understand any of part of this section wiki article?

In this quote you have only reply & concentrated on "not absolute proof of the truth" in your reply:

I lke that part about.....NOT absolute proof.

And the discussion forms solid AFTER theory is PROVEN.....then we are discussing FACT.

Do you remember these 2 earlier posts?

Well, the clearly demonstrated that you have no understanding what it mean when the wiki said "not absolute proof".

You have to understand that the term "proof" doesn't mean "evidence", in the world of maths and science.

In the court of law, the terms "proof" & "evidence" are use interchangeably, hence they mean virtually the same things, though in forensic science they are actually looking for "evidences", not "proof".

But in mathematics and science, their definitions are completely different.

Here are the definitions, and in my own words:

In science and mathematics, proof is a mathematical statement or theorem of deductive argument or deductive reasoning.

In science, particularly in physical science, evidences are more important or relevant than proof. It is evidence that either support or refute a hypothesis or theory. Evidences are something that can be examined and tested physically. Evidence required to be empirical and rely on the principle or reasoning to be inference.
​

Do you see the differences between the two?

Science & evidences, and mathematics & proof, are governed by different principles or processes:

Science => inference => empirical => evidence
Mathematics => deductive => proof
​

You do understand the differences between inference/inductive and deductive reasoning, don't you?

You wrote:

Proof is the result of a science experiment.

No, this is incorrect. Empirical or scientific evidences are the result of science experiment. Proof is a mathematical statement or mathematical model of a theory or hypothesis.

An example of mathematical proof is like Einstein's famous equation in Special Relativity:

E = mc2, where E is energy, m = mass, and c = speed of light. That's proof, not evidence.​

Of course, mathematics are found and used in physical science, especially in physics, astronomy, and in many fields of applied science) but it is not "proof" that prove a hypothesis or theory to be true. Physical science relied on empirical evidences and empirical data to prove or to verify what is true.

That the reason why the wiki article say that scientific theory use "they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion."

I have emphasised "strong evidence" above, because that's what most physical science required.

For someone who supposedly have good academic and higher than average IQ, you have a blind spots, and you don't do any good research what you don't really understand. You really shouldn't be debating about theory or proof or evidence, if you don't understand them in scientific or mathematical context. Doing so, would only make you look or sound foolish.

Stop covering your eyes with your hand. :cover:

Footnotes:

Of course, there exception. Some scientific theories don't rely on empirical evidences, because evidences are not available and more on mathematical models (or mathematical proofs), but these are only a fraction of all the theories, such as Superstring theory, M-theory, theoretical astrophysics. Any field of science (most of them in branch of physics) that use the term "theoretic", mean it uses mathematical models not empirical evidences.

 

[LuisDantas]

God......

I can't even begin to figure one, except perhaps some kind of praying for his manifestation.

Is that a problem?