Will the Religions Ever be Completely Driven out by the Sciences?

[Native]

Why didn't you mention the observed galactic rotation curve and it's inconsistency with Kepler's 2nd law in the first place, as I had no idea what you were talking about initially?

I didn´t because it wasn´t my prime focus and point. It was you who twisted my comments above about the mythical and modern explanation of the creation of the Solar System and turned these to deal with gravity matters. My point was to deal with "science v. religion" in order to compare modern and ancient understanding of the creation in generally. (NOT the creationists approach!)

It was in this connection i wrote:

The Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation and rotation, but this fact is completely overlooked in modern theories of the Solar System formation.

Modern science does not specifically include the formation of the Solar System in its theories and this is a huge cosmological problem in several ways. In many mythical cultural explanations of the creation, the Solar system IS included in the formational processes of the Milky Way, which is why the mythical explanation of the creation is more logical than those of modern science.

You replied:

The fact that the rotation curve is flat is 'explained' by one of two possible competing theories, one is the existence of Dark Matter the other is Emergent gravity, the latter is more favourable since it does not require exotic non interacting particles we can't directly detect, although the explanation gets a little technical in the article. (This is the second time I have posted this link on Emergent Gravity, on this forum since I joined last week, I suggest everyone has a look at it, who has any interest in the subject.)

This is exactly one of the main problems: As our Solar Systems is an integrated part of the galactic rotation - as all the other stars in the galactic flat curve - modern science have to accept the fact that gravity doesn´t work as assumed in modern cosmology.

If finding "dark matter" in the galaxy, cosmologists still have to explain how the orbital motions in our Solar System works different from the galactic rotation which demands "dark matter" or "Emergent Gravity". This is an insolvable problem which never will go away if not thinking outside the Standard Cosmology boxes.

I tell you what isn't responsible for the flat rotation curve of the galaxy, magical thinking or some sentient entity.

Funny you should mention this I take "dark matter" as just that: Magical thinking! - and I too don´t believe in "divine entities"

Ancient Myths of Creation states that: Everything in our Milky Way galaxy is primarily formed in the center of the Milky Way and left the center out via the galactic bars and further out in the galactic arms in a pattern which can be illustrated as a rotating two arm garden sprinkler.

This formational process gives you the observed flat galactic rotation pattern - and at the same time it provides the correct cosmological explanation of the Solar System formation. With this explanation, derived and deduced from ancient myths and illustrated by a modern scientific image of the Milky Way, you don´t need "dark matter" or other metaphysical inventions.

My conclusion in this matter is:
Ancient myths of creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System explains far better and more logical the process of the cosmic formation in our local part of the Universe.

 

[Dennis Kean]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: What will the relationship of the religions to the sciences be in 100 years? Will religions become increasingly aligned with the sciences by discarding notions that are contradicted by the sciences?

I am afraid not! Science is the soft and weak part. It took science many millennia to get to the point of the first verse of the Bible record. In 1973, Scientific American posts on the front page the following words:

"In the Beginning..."

Until that time the best and brightest human minds concocted the Steady State Universe Theory, a crude and hardly significant idea by a dyslexic man who could not tell the difference between his right and left shoe and one who would publish blunder after blunder. The Russian mathematicians had a field day every time Einstein published something with mathematics in his paper. Contrary to public impressions, Einstein was very bad at math. So, he Married Mileva and Yugoslavian mathematician. Smart move!

Ah the glory of science to actually get close enough to the first words of the Biblical record ... Ha ha ha. 1973 was a wonderful year for science and religion to find peace and start a new chapter. Many atheistically bent scientists were in awe and glanced at the Bible as a curiosity.

Unfortunately, in religion, fanatical morons took over and could not see past their tiny minds that the Big Bang proved the idea of cause, the first step in suggesting that the thought of God is not nuts. But like all missed-opportune-times, the glance of science bounced off the sky and man regained self confidence naming the Big Bang as the most thoroughly tested and properly proved theory of all time. Ah the glory of science to hit it right on the head for once. Science never came closer to such glory before nor will it ever cross that road again. If only it would have included the next word of the Bible, perhaps that some more insights may have rained down on our stupor.

"In the Beginning, God..."

Yeah, we seem to have so many marvels, today, but I can just imagine what would have followed next if a shred of self-doubt would have settled in the minds of the proud thinkers seeking for their own personal glory. Why, they may have understood that in the beginning God created the universe and then the earth came together from the debris of other suns and finally our sun blazed and turned on when the pressure exceeded the maintenance level of the burn. Let's read it in the original manual:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

See the extra spaces after "heaven"? If it was a fable, it got it just right? Read the rest of Genesis 1 and then decide...

Next, the evidence for the sun turn on point and the blaze which lasts typically, for a star of our sun's size, is 4 days. On two occasions, recent astronomers have seen a star come into existence very bright and lasting for 4 days. After 4 days, the brightness subsided to a small point like many other stars which burned off its outer layer and stabilized the inner engine with the maintenance burn. One of those two occasion was spotted in the 19th century and the other took place in the 1940s. Both lasted about 4 days to burn off the excess pressure build up needed to trigger the burn via pressure.

And notice, how on the 4th day, the birth of the sun is spoken of.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Suddenly, Genesis makes more sense. And what raised the waters which enshrouded the earth to that time? Clearly, the initial flash of the sun had an immediate effect on the Earth by separating the waters and revealing the ground beneath the water by evaporation. Hello! The fable of Genesis seems to be working in science without a flaw.

So, science is a child's play. It needs to grow up past the first 20 verses of Genesis, before it can gain some serious foothold. And at this rate we will need another few millennia.

But the time is coming when science will become far less productive for the average man to become a tool of selfishness and greed.. Wealth is a disincentive to share the knowledge and disproportionate wealth makes man even more selfish until genocide becomes the insurance necessary for the survival of the fittest. So the God, whom science could have discovered eventually, the God of creation, will end the terror by intercepting the planned genocide to restore the order on this forsaken land.

The Bible is well above science and science needs to do some catching up to do to come up for air.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am afraid not! Science is the soft and weak part. It took science many millennia to get to the point of the first verse of the Bible record. In 1973, Scientific American posts on the front page the following words:

"In the Beginning..."

Until that time the best and brightest human minds concocted the Steady State Universe Theory, a crude and hardly significant idea by a dyslexic man who could not tell the difference between his right and left shoe and one who would publish blunder after blunder. The Russian mathematicians had a field day every time Einstein published something with mathematics in his paper. Contrary to public impressions, Einstein was very bad at math. So, he Married Mileva and Yugoslavian mathematician. Smart move!

Ah the glory of science to actually get close enough to the first words of the Biblical record ... Ha ha ha. 1973 was a wonderful year for science and religion to find peace and start a new chapter. Many atheistically bent scientists were in awe and glanced at the Bible as a curiosity.

Unfortunately, in religion, fanatical morons took over and could not see past their tiny minds that the Big Bang proved the idea of cause, the first step in suggesting that the thought of God is not nuts. But like all missed-opportune-times, the glance of science bounced off the sky and man regained self confidence naming the Big Bang as the most thoroughly tested and properly proved theory of all time. Ah the glory of science to hit it right on the head for once. Science never came closer to such glory before nor will it ever cross that road again. If only it would have included the next word of the Bible, perhaps that some more insights may have rained down on our stupor.

"In the Beginning, God..."

Yeah, we seem to have so many marvels, today, but I can just imagine what would have followed next if a shred of self-doubt would have settled in the minds of the proud thinkers seeking for their own personal glory. Why, they may have understood that in the beginning God created the universe and then the earth came together from the debris of other suns and finally our sun blazed and turned on when the pressure exceeded the maintenance level of the burn. Let's read it in the original manual:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

See the extra spaces after "heaven"? If it was a fable, it got it just right? Read the rest of Genesis 1 and then decide...

Next, the evidence for the sun turn on point and the blaze which lasts typically, for a star of our sun's size, is 4 days. On two occasions, recent astronomers have seen a star come into existence very bright and lasting for 4 days. After 4 days, the brightness subsided to a small point like many other stars which burned off its outer layer and stabilized the inner engine with the maintenance burn. One of those two occasion was spotted in the 19th century and the other took place in the 1940s. Both lasted about 4 days to burn off the excess pressure build up needed to trigger the burn via pressure.

And notice, how on the 4th day, the birth of the sun is spoken of.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Suddenly, Genesis makes more sense. And what raised the waters which enshrouded the earth to that time? Clearly, the initial flash of the sun had an immediate effect on the Earth by separating the waters and revealing the ground beneath the water by evaporation. Hello! The fable of Genesis seems to be working in science without a flaw.

So, science is a child's play. It needs to grow up past the first 20 verses of Genesis, before it can gain some serious foothold. And at this rate we will need another few millennia.

But the time is coming when science will become far less productive for the average man to become a tool of selfishness and greed.. Wealth is a disincentive to share the knowledge and disproportionate wealth makes man even more selfish until genocide becomes the insurance necessary for the survival of the fittest. So the God, whom science could have discovered eventually, the God of creation, will end the terror by intercepting the planned genocide to restore the order on this forsaken land.

The Bible is well above science and science needs to do some catching up to do to come up for air.

How is "In the beginning" any more prophetic than "Once upon a time"?

You note that "Suddenly, Genesis makes more sense," ironically after listing a variety of scriptures that completely miss the proper history of the universe, sun, earth, and moon.

Notice that when you do so, you are implicitly acknowledging that science, not scripture, is the arbiter of truth in these matters. Apologists scour the scriptures looking for passages as you have that they can claim correctly anticipated subsequent scientific discovery however vague, poetic, and unhelpful the passage, while ignoring those that are clearly incorrect, or redefining the words in them to try to make them correct. When you do that, you are treating science as the gold standard. You are using the scientific pronouncements to cherry pick scripture in the hope of saying, "The Bible got it right."

But the Bible didn't get it right. It includes a long list of errors such as those that you listed from Genesis 1, and omits a long list of features that have been discovered. The Genesis version completely overlooked the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. It appears that about all that the Genesis creation story has in common with the scientific account is the same thing that every other creation myth got right: The universe (appears to have) had a beginning.

If you were using your Bible as the arbiter of truth, you might have commented, "The scientists failed to identify the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below" or some other error in the Bible. But you knew better, didn't you? Science was your guide, not the Bible.

Incidentally, what you did there - ignoring all of the errors of commission and omission in Genesis relative to the scientific theory - is called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred."

 

[Corvus]

If finding "dark matter" in the galaxy, cosmologists still have to explain how the orbital motions in our Solar System works different from the galactic rotation which demands "dark matter" or "Emergent Gravity". This is an insolvable problem which never will go away if not thinking outside the Standard Cosmology boxes.

Basically and simply, Dark Matter it is argued collects only around galaxies, forming Dark Matter halos. It is this additional mass that accounts for the observed flat rotation curve of galaxies. You don't seem to understand. That is the distinction between galaxies and star systems, the latter do not have a halo of mass to interfere with Kepler's laws.

''
The rotational/orbital speeds of galaxies/stars do not follow the rules found in other orbital systems such as stars/planets and planets/moons that have most of their mass at the centre. Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances. In contrast, the orbital velocities of planets in solar systems and moons orbiting planets decline with distance. In the latter cases, this reflects the mass distributions within those systems. The mass estimations for galaxies based on the light they emit are far too low to explain the velocity observations.[4]

The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the distribution of stars in spirals and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity. A solution to this conundrum is to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and to assume its distribution from the galaxy's center out to its halo.[citation needed]

Though dark matter is by far the most accepted explanation of the rotation problem, other proposals have been offered with varying degrees of success. Of the possible alternatives, the most notable is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which involves modifying the laws of gravity.[5]'' Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia plus Emergent gravity, which also EXPLAINS the observed rotation curve,

 

[Corvus]

The Bible is well above science and science needs to do some catching up to do to come up for air.

The Bible as a source of valid factual information, is effectively worthless.

 

[Corvus]

This formational process gives you the observed flat galactic rotation pattern - and at the same time it provides the correct cosmological explanation of the Solar System formation. With this explanation, derived and deduced from ancient myths and illustrated by a modern scientific image of the Milky Way, you don´t need "dark matter" or other metaphysical invention

What on Earth are you talking about? Absurd nonsense.

The main driver in this galaxy is Saggitarius A, this massive black hole at the center of the galaxy which recycles material into the farthest reaches of the Milky Way. Thanks to accretion discs and accompanying emission jets formed while the black hole feeds on gas and other matter, periodically.

 

[Corvus]

So, science is a child's play. It needs to grow up past the first 20 verses of Genesis, before it can gain some serious foothold. And at this rate we will need another few millennia.

Must be the most amusing post I have ever read. Science is factual, Genesis is not. BTW Christianity has had 2000 years to make the world a better place, a good run but time to call it a day, the scientists are here now, with cures for cancer and whatever else you set your mind to, step aside Jesus, out of the way Allah, you are superfluous to requirements.

 

[Corvus]

Next, the evidence for the sun turn on point and the blaze which lasts typically, for a star of our sun's size, is 4 days. On two occasions, recent astronomers have seen a star come into existence very bright and lasting for 4 days. After 4 days, the brightness subsided to a small point like many other stars which burned off its outer layer and stabilized the inner engine with the maintenance burn. One of those two occasion was spotted in the 19th century and the other took place in the 1940s. Both lasted about 4 days to burn off the excess pressure build up needed to trigger the burn via pressure.

The above is indecipherable gibberish. Which has no connection with science.

 

[Corvus]

I didn´t because it wasn´t my prime focus and point. It was you who twisted my comments above about the mythical and modern explanation of the creation of the Solar System and turned these to deal with gravity matters

I most certainly did not twist anyone's comments. Would you like to revisit the exact conversation?

 

[Native]

Basically and simply, Dark Matter it is argued collects only around galaxies, forming Dark Matter halos. It is this additional mass that accounts for the observed flat rotation curve of galaxies. You don't seem to understand. That is the distinction between galaxies and star systems, the latter do not have a halo of mass to interfere with Kepler's laws.

It is very clear from this fabricated and very speculative reply that Standard Cosmology have had lots of time doing the Standard Cosmological after-rationalization´s and adding further loose assumptions since the observation of the abnormal galactic rotation curve.

Quote from - Dark matter halo - Wikipedia
"A dark matter halo is a hypothetical component of a galaxy that envelops the galactic disc and extends well beyond the edge of the visible galaxy. The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of stars and gas in galaxies".

It seems that you´ve got your informations about "dark matter halo´s" incorrect! Don´t you understand what you´re quoting?

The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of stars and gas in galaxies.

If so, both the orbital motion in the Solar System and in the galaxies should be the same rotational pattern if governed by the same hypothetical force.

As said before: This is an insolvabe question and it demands severe thinking outside the square Standard Cosmology boxes.

 

[Native]

Thanks to accretion discs and accompanying emission jets formed while the black hole feeds on gas and other matter, periodically.

What constitutes these emission jets?

 

[Native]

I most certainly did not twist anyone's comments. Would you like to revisit the exact conversation?

Dear oh, dear Keep entertaining yourself. If you don´t understand my points after repeating these two times, I don´t care.

 

[Native]

Must be the most amusing post I have ever read. Science is factual, Genesis is not.

How do you know? Are you an expert on the numerous cultural Myths of Creation?

 

[Corvus]

How do you know? Are you an expert on the numerous cultural Myths of Creation?

I am proud to say I am neither an expert on Myths of Creation, Faries or Unicorns.


I know because science is based on empirical evidence, creation myths are not.

 

[Corvus]

It is very clear from this fabricated and very speculative reply that Standard Cosmology have had lots of time doing the Standard Cosmological after-rationalization´s and adding further loose assumptions since the observation of the abnormal galactic rotation curve.

I haven't fabricated anything.

The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of stars and gas in galaxies.

If so, both the orbital motion in the Solar System and in the galaxies should be the same rotational pattern if governed by the same hypothetical force.

This is your problem, you simply do not understand the subject at all. The solar system is not surrounded by a Halo of Dark matter, the galaxy is, it is only the galaxy and galactic structure as a whole that is effected by it's Dark Matter composition. The force that governs these interactions is the gravitational force, which is exactly the same for galaxies and solar systems. The fact you underlined what you thought was a relevant point reveals the true extent of your confusion. The effect on the motion of all stars and planets in the galaxy as a whole, caused by the presence of Dark Matter is to make the orbits of outlying stars faster than the inner orbital bodies. This in effect means that there is a flat rotation curve. They all appear to rotate in synch, not so In a planetary system, where the Dark Matter does not directly effect the rotational curve, and Kepler's rule is obeyed instead, that inner bodies orbit faster than outer bodies.

 

[Corvus]

''The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between the observed rotation of galaxies and the predictions of current physical theories. Attempts to resolve the galaxy rotation problem have included the hypothesis of dark matter and the hypothesis known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

In the beginning of the 1980s, the first observational evidence was reported that galaxies do not spin as expected according to then current theories. A galaxy is a collection of stars orbiting the bulge (the center of the galaxy). Since the orbit of stars is driven solely by the gravitational force, it was expected that stars at the edge would have an orbital period much larger than those near the bulge. For example, the Earth which is 150 million kilometers away from the Sun completes an orbit in one year, while it takes Saturn 30 years to do the same at a distance of 1.4 billion kilometers.

A similar behavior was expected from galaxies, even if the distribution of stars is more cloud-like. However, it became more and more apparent that stars at the edge of a galaxy move faster than expected.

Astronomers call this phenomenon the "flattening of galaxies' rotation curve". Kids.Net.Au - Encyclopedia > Galaxy rotation problem

Another perhaps simpler way of explaining of what I am trying to tell you.

 

[Corvus]

Dear oh, dear Keep entertaining yourself. If you don´t understand my points after repeating these two times, I don´t care.

You are an entirely illogical person to debate with. You speak from a position of ignorance (on this subject) and then seem unduly aggrieved & surprised when challenged.
I am not here to win debates or feel superior, I don't need others to tell me I am clever, I know what my IQ is accounting for natural degrading due to neuron loss. I am happy to elucidate, and be elucidated, so far you haven't told me much about the creation myths you are familiar with. If you wish do so, I assure you I will not criticize or deride, since I have asked you personally to tell me what they are. Relevant to galaxy and solar system formation etc.

 

[Corvus]

What constitutes these emission jets?

Extremely energetic high frequency electromagnetic radiation, emanating from two opposite poles of the black hole, which pushes material out of the galactic core and into the wider galaxy, into two opposite directions, like a mixer. Seeding the galaxy with fresh hydrogen and other gaseous elements, leading to new star formation and elemental fecundity etc. This only happens while the back hole is feeding from infalling matter, to create an accretion disc. The compositional matter of the disc is heated to billions of degrees Celsius by extreme friction of the matter particles involved, which in turn generates the high frequency EM jets. Below: Artistic Impression of a close up view of a black hole complete with accretion disc and jets of extremely high energy photons.

 

[Dennis Kean]

The above is indecipherable gibberish. Which has no connection with science.

Take an astronomy course and the lights will go on!

 

[Dennis Kean]

Must be the most amusing post I have ever read. Science is factual, Genesis is not. BTW Christianity has had 2000 years to make the world a better place, a good run but time to call it a day, the scientists are here now, with cures for cancer and whatever else you set your mind to, step aside Jesus, out of the way Allah, you are superfluous to requirements.

***edited***

Slow down with your religion, fella! Science is as far as could be from cancer cures. There is no general solution for cancer yet. And in fact there is a religious group who takes God's advice on diet seriously, (not the Jews). They live from 10 to 30 years longer than the rest of the population. My mother's side of the family were all members of those who live longer. Three brothers and my mother lived well into their late nineties. My father's side, save for my Dad who died in his nineties, my uncles died as follows... 32, 51, 63. Science is showing to be more of a killer than a solution for cancer or any serious diseases. Malaria is still with us. Viral infections are rampant without solutions and you want to take a tone of intimidation with me... ha ha ha.

Like I said, your science beliefs are religious by nature. And here is a promise which God gave to those who take his advice:

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:
Deu 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Deu 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

Now that is a real fact, my friend, not your assumptions which you wish were true. For every disease which science appears to have found a cure, 5 more infections arise far more virulent. Even pneumonia is unsolvable. Antibiotics have driven the bacteria and viruses into a frenzy which makes them resistant to them. How is that a credit to science?

Wake up out of your dream.