bornagainathiest

Regular Member
  • Content count

    7,007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

bornagainathiest last won the day on February 23

bornagainathiest had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,673 Holy Cow!

About bornagainathiest

  • Rank
    kcopS
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlU5xmKDLFI

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • More About Me
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._N._Sullivan
    --------------------------------------------
    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/149-science-and-miracles
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/14
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55867-communion/page-5#.VGcldfmsUuk # 82

    Well, it looks like I ate the BIG M.A.C.
    If he shows up again, that doesn't mean he escaped.
    All it means is that I DID eat him (and shat him out dead) but he's just too stubborn (and too stoopid) to notice!

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Mister Pappy → bornagainathiest
    Great work exposing Rayskidude. I want to personally say thank you.
    Oct 28 2010 06:18 PM
    --------------------------------------------------------
    It looks like this Lion ate Thumbelina too, but she will NEVER, EVER admit the fact! ;)
    --------------------------------------------------------
    And the troll.. formerly known as JayL! :)
    --------------------------------------------------------
    (Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Pages)
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
    ----------------------------------------------------
    (Daniel Eisenstein's non-technical explanation of BAO's)
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~deisenst/acousticpeak/acoustic.pdf
    ------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Eternal86.pdf
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/1987/T15/024/ (Eternally-Existing Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Linde. 1987)
    http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Eternal86.pdf (As above.)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9306035v3
    (From Big Bang Theory to a Theory of a Stationary Universe. Linde, Linde & Mezhlumian. revised 2006)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571
    (Eternal Inflation, Past and Future. Aguirre. 2007)
    "In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry."
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v74/i4/e043520
    (Eternal Observers and Bubble Abundances in the Landscape. Vanchurin & Vilenkin. 2006)
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v76/i12/e123512
    (Eternal Inflation, Bubble Collisions and the Persistence of Memory. Garriga, Guth & Vilenkin. 2007)
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v77/i4/e043526
    (Prediction and Explanation in the Multiverse. Garriga & Vilenkin. 2007)
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v82/i6/e063520
    (Boltzmann brains & the scale-factor cut off measure of the multiverse. De Simone, Guth, Linde, Noorbala, Salem & Vilenkin. 2010)
    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509184
    (Probabilities in the Inflationary Multiverse. Garriga, Schwartz-Perlov, Vilenkin & Winitzki. 2005)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1108.0665
    (Eternal Inflation, Global Time Cutoff Measures & A probability Paradox. Guth & Vanchurin. 2011.)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042
    (Inflation Without a Beginning: A Null Boundary Proposal. Aguirre & Gratton. 2003)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111191
    (Steady-State Eternal Inflation. Aguirre & Gratton. 2002) Geosdesically Complete.
    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/88692879/Eternal-Inflation-and-String-Theory-Landscape (Linde)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818152/Laura-Mersini-Houghton-Birth-of-the-Universe-from-the-Multiverse (2008)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4487
    (Determining the Outcome of Cosmic Bubble Collisions in Full General Relativity. Johnson, Peiris & Lehner. revised 2012)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2725
    (Hierarchical Bayesian Detection Algorithm for Early-Universe Relics in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Feeney, Johnson, McEwen, Mortlock & Peiris. 2012)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/
    http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/02/misquoting-physicists.html
    http://phys.org/news174921612.html (Physicists Linde and Vanchurin Calculate Number of Parallel Universes. 2009)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78816168/Andrei-Linde-and-Vitaly-Vanchurin-How-many-universes-are-in-the-multiverse
    http://energy.nobelprize.org/presentations/linde.pdf
    http://sententias.org/2013/01/14/inflationary-cosmology/ (Understanding Alan Guth's Inflationary Cosmology. 2013)
    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61382-what-we-see/page-1
    http://www.universetoday.com/87684/astronomy-without-a-telescope-bubblology/
    http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html
    http://universe-review.ca/F02-cosmicbg.htm#multiverse
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21866464
    http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~larry/PPT/mersini.pdf (Eridanus)
    http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51551
    (Simple But Challenging: The Universe According to Planck. 2013)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55125-bible-study/page-3 (Origin of Life)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55257-ordinaryclayill-never-change/
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54831-theistic-satanism-age-of-aquarius-discussion-continued/page-2 (#39)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54831-theistic-satanism-age-of-aquarius-discussion-continued/page-3 (#54)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54831-theistic-satanism-age-of-aquarius-discussion-continued/page-4 (#72)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54831-theistic-satanism-age-of-aquarius-discussion-continued/page-5 (#84)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52378-annoying-christian-thread-continued-here/page-4 (#76)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52378-annoying-christian-thread-continued-here/page-6 (#119 & #120)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52378-annoying-christian-thread-continued-here/page-7 (#130)
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52378-annoying-christian-thread-continued-here/page-10 (#185 & #186)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_best_explanation

    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54403-evangelical-paper-embraces-the-posibility-of-a-multiverse/

    ----------------------------------------------
    Evidence is not contingent upon an explanation, a valid and plausible explanation is contingent upon evidence however.
    ----------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------
    Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Note that to purposely cause disaster is to generate suffering, so translating "ra" as something besides evil just moves the problem a step back without solving it.

    ”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?” (Lam. 3:38).

    ”...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:3).

    ”...all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jer. 36:3).

    ”I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts....” (Ezek. 20:25-26).

    ”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).

    ”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

    See also: Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezek. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 34:24, and 2 Chron. 34:28
    -----------------------------------
    http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/188/
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/36537-to-all-of-gods-critics/page-57
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56417-what-if-tarot-is-real/page-15
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55257-ordinaryclayill-never-change/page-3
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50226-repenting-after-death/page-32
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/36725-god-vs-science/
    ---------------------------------------------
    26 May 10, p.30
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56440-questions-for-ordinaryclay/page-4 #61
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://biologos.org/about
    --------------------------
    http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
    --------------------------
    The three main principles upon which modern cosmology is based are:

    1. The universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen;
    2. The Copernican principle – the Earth is not in a special location within the Universe; and,
    3. The Cosmological principle – at any given time the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (uniform in all orientations) at large distances.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    "All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."
    David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84.
    By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9306035.pdf?origin=publication_detail
    -----------------------------------------
    At the beginning of the century many people tried to find a stationary solution of the Einstein equations, with the hope that General Relativity would resolve the inability of Newton’s theory to provide us with a stationary cosmological model. Einstein even introduced the cosmological constant into his theory for this purpose. The non-stationary character of the Big Bang theory advocated by Gamov on the basis of Friedmann cosmological models seemed very unpleasant to many scientists in the fifties. Then, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background turned the situation upside down. Physicists began to treat with contempt any attempts to find stationarity (remember the ‘steady-state’ model). After several decades of the reign of the Big Bang theory, the inflationary scenario appeared, which solved many of the intrinsic problems of the Big Bang cosmology and apparently removed the last doubts concerning its validity. However, it was realized soon afterwards, that inflation is even more dynamic than the old Big Bang theory.
    In inflationary cosmology, in addition to the ordinary classical evolution of the Universe governed by the Einstein
    equation, quantum mechanical evolution proves to be extremely important, being responsible for the large-scale
    structure formation and even for the global structure of the Universe. This quantum mechanical evolution can be
    approximately described by stochastic methods, and some of the solutions of the corresponding stochastic equations
    prove to be stationary! Surprisingly enough, after the dramatic development of the Big Bang theory during the last
    ten years, we are coming now to a new formulation of the stationary cosmology, on a new level of understanding
    and without losing a single achievement of our predecessors. The observable part of the Universe can be very well described by the homogeneous isotropic Big Bang model. However, on extremely large scales (far beyond the visible
    horizon) the Universe is very inhomogeneous. On even larger scales this inhomogeneity produces a kind of fractal
    structure, repeating itself on larger and larger time and length scales. The statistical properties of this structure are what we have found to be stationary.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19273.full?sid=7758d2c4-421c-44cb-b1ee-e5fca49608c4
    Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars (go to PNAS.ORG and search for 'Earth-size'
    --------------------------------------------------------
    True, Hebrew dates to about 900 BC. The Old Testament dates to the Babylonian captivity period or was at least redacted and edited in that period.

    Abram would have spoken a Nilo-Saharan language, he may have been familiar with Kushitic Akkadian of the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley from his childhood, and the Proto-Arabic spoken in Canaan.

    All of the earlier historic material, going back to Adam, would have passed through perhaps many developing languages over long periods of time. Genesis exhibits multiple stories overlaid onto each other.
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7839724-2/
    --------------------------------------------
    Our Cosmic Habitat

    Martin Rees

    Chapter 9 : The First Millisecond

    Page 127

    "An absolute limit to any credible backward extrapolation is set by quantum theory. The key concept of this theory is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, [or uncertainty principle] which tells us that the more accurately you want to locate or localize something, the more energetic are the quanta - the packets of energy - you need. There is a limit when the nergy is so concentrated that it risks imploding into a black hole. This limit is the Planck length: it's value is 10 -33 cm - smaller than a proton by about 19 powers of 10. This miniscule length, divided by the speed of light, defines the smallest measurable time interval, the Planck time, about 10-44 seconds."

    Page 132

    "Within about 10-36 seconds - a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - a microscopic patch could have inflated large enough to encompass everything we now see, and to establish the fine-tuned balance between gravitational and kinetic energy."

    Page 133

    "Inflation, once started, is likely to overshoot, leading to a flattened domain extending much further than the 10 billion light-year dimensions of our observable universe. The distance to the "edge" could be a number with millions of zeros."

    "In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somwhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes."
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/health-science/milky-way-galaxy-finds-home-in-laniakea-supercluster/2014/09/03/a3f28088-33a6-11e4-9f4d-24103cb8b742_video.html
    ---------------------------------
    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/14990.html
    ---------------------------------
    http://www.docvadis.es/jorge-cordero/document/jorge-cordero/estudio_de_los_efectos_terap_uticos_de_la_oraci_n_de_intercesi_n_proximal_en_discapacidades_auditiva_y_visual_en_la_zona_rural_de_mozambique/fr/metadata/files/0/file/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal.5.pdf
    ----------------------------------------------
    http://www.acperesearch.net/intercessory_prayer_studies.pdf
    ----------------------------------------
    http://norvig.com/prayer.html
    -----------------------------------
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7833104/ (#9, Shernren) B.A.O.s
    -----------------------------------
    http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
    -------------------------------------
    http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2014/6/06B104.full (Distinguishing between inflationary models using Planck CMB data)
    -------------------------------------
    http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/02/25/2015/should-these-scientific-ideas-be-retired.html?series=33
    (Sean Carrol)
    -------------------------------------
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/bu-bur021915.php (Higgs analog in superconductors)
    -------------------------------------
    Did the universe have a beginning?
    Vilenkin & Mithani, 2012.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf
    --------------------------------------
    http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023534
    What can the observation of nonzero curvature tell us?

    Alan H. Guth and Yasunori Nomura
    Phys. Rev. D 86, 023534 – Published 30 July 2012
    ---------------------------------------------------
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06227
    An ancient extrasolar system with five sub-Earth-size planets
    ------------------------------------------------------
    http://physics.aps.org/story/v27/st12
    http://journals.aps.org/general-relativity-centennial
    Guth/Albrecht/Steinhardt/So_Young Pi/Bardeen/Turner
    1981/82/82/83
    --------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71611-what-should-we-expect-during-a-time-of-grace/page-9#.VwrNnvkrJD8
    #172
    ---------------------------------------------------

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7W3XbDZqO4

    https://youtu.be/uexZbunD7Jg Flat Earth Debunked

    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71611-what-should-we-expect-during-a-time-of-grace/page-9#.V0oa9PkrJD8

    (# 177)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Questions For Christians # 59 (Ficino)
    Christians, What Would Make... # 52 (TrueScotsman)
    ----------------------------------------------
    Babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
    Gravity works because Jesus holds things together (Col 1:17)
    Germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
    Rainbows are caused by God putting a rainbow in the clouds, not by the refraction of sunlight. (Gen 9:12)
    Eagles catch their young with their wings if they fall out of the nest. (Deut 32:11)
    Bats are birds and not mammals. (Lev 11:13-19)
    -----------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/70711-breaking-news-mass-shooting-in-san-bernadino-california/page-11#.V_welPkrJD8
    ----------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71312-man-on-fire/page-4#.WB5kAGqLSpo
    ----------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54656-is-the-universe-finetuned-for-life-or-is-god-omnipotent/?page=10#comment-828233
    Intellectual dishonesty is the classic DNA of the xtian cultist especially of the apologist.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72381-trust-yourself/?page=6#comment-1106687

    I would hate a god like you describe. I would hate such a puppet master.
    God expressed more love and compassion than any being in the universe by granting us free will.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-atom-vs-the-godhead-holy-trinity.7859686/
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3894-Professor-Sir-Roger-Penrose-Oxford-University New Jerusalem on Mars
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76258-nasa-website-that-lays-out-the-evidence-for-climate-change-in-an-easy-to-understand-manner/?page=1
    Contrasting vs. Opposing
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174427-astrophysicists-create-the-first-accurate-map-of-the-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/01/08/boss-one-percent/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.dunlap.utoronto.ca/warm-jupiters-not-as-lonely-as-expected/
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/kepler20120613.html
    http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/occurrenceofearth-likeplanetsaroundgkmstars

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,311 profile views
  1. The American Scientific Affiliation

    http://network.asa3.org/ http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/index.html#About Science http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/index.html http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/index.html http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/network.asa3.org/resource/resmgr/OriginsResults.pdf . . . Question. If science is agnostic and is silent on the issues of religion and religious faith, why does this organization even exist? Question. If science is agnostic and is silent on the issues of religion and religious faith, how can members of the ASA who are scientists reconcile their agnostic work with their religious beliefs?
  2. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    End, "Logically apply it's findings..?" There is a problem if the 'logic' you use isn't the same logic that science itself uses. As I'll illustrate for you. 1. Science's remit is to investigate the natural universe without invoking the super-natural. If you use the findings of science to try and make connections with supernatural Christianity, then you are undoing that logic. The logic under which those findings were made. 2. Scientists do their work without bringing their private beliefs into it. If you use their work to try and make connections with your private beliefs then you are undoing the logic under which they did their work. 3. Before publishing, scientists submit their work for peer-review to try and eliminate their personal biases from it. If you use their their work to try and make connections with your Christianity, according to your personal biases, then you are undoing the logic of their work. Thanks, BAA.
  3. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    Prof, Perhaps End's unique take on subjectivity allows him to believe that reality does conform to his perceptions. Perhaps he thinks it's entirely justified for him to force science to conform to his perception. (Just speculating, btw.)
  4. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    Posted 8 hours ago 17 hours ago, bornagainathiest said: Yes. I have. And I've understood it properly too. (C'mon! Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it? Get real!) It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work. They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End. These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE. Why? Because science is agnostic. There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science. There is only faith-free, agnostic science. Period. Got it now? Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying? I'm showing no bias.... sorry you don't understand that in this situation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End, If you understand that science is always independent of religion, then when someone (like you) uses it to explain reality in terms of their religion, they are imposing their bias on it. So Yes, you are showing bias.
  5. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    Which experiment are you alluding to, End? Which study are you referring to? Please specify. If you take agnostic science and THEN use it to make connections with your religion, to explain reality THEN you are twisting something that is agnostic into something that isn't. Science has no religious bias when it is being performed and no religious bias when it is published. But if a Muslim, a Sikh or a Christian THEN sees connections between that science and their particular faith, they are imposing their beliefs on that agnostic science... AFTER THE FACT! That is what you are doing, End. Can't you see that? That is your particular bias you are IMPOSING on the otherwise agnostic science. Please tell me that you can see how this works!
  6. Yes, I agree. That would be a good way of proceeding, BO. Let me think some more about this over the weekend and I'll get back to you here, ok? Thanks, BAA.
  7. Yes, I know this. My bad. Sorry for not phrasing the question more clearly. Try this. 1. That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth. 2. That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth. 3. That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens. So perhaps a better question from me would be, how could these three points be experimentally tested... by you?
  8. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    The lack of understanding is yours. The cited article describes the only way that science can be conducted by people of different religions. The only way this can happen is if they treat science as an agnostic discipline that they all agree to follow without personal and private bias getting in the way. They leave their personal religious views at the door and then collect them (metaphorically speaking) when they leave their workplace. Privately they can draw whatever conclusion they like about their scientific work. But publicly they can do no such thing. That would be a flagrant breach of their necessary objectivity. It therefore follows that any scientific results they publish are also agnostic and totally divorced from any religious bias. Privately a scientist can express their religious views, but publicly they cannot and must not. A worked example of this from history is this scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam Salaam was a devout Muslim but he kept his private, religious beliefs totally separate from his public work. He never claimed that he saw the hand of Allah in his work. He never claimed that the writings of Mohammed in the Quran were vindicated by the findings of science. He kept his work and his religion - separate. By doing this he was able to work closely with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg ...who is an atheist from an Orthodox Jewish background and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Lee_Glashow ...who is a humanist. None of these three scientists let their personal beliefs interfere in any way with their scientific work. Which is exactly what the Matt Strassler article referred to. https://profmattstrassler.com/ If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch; there’s just one type. I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.” Science is agnostic because it is a tool that people of different faiths, religions and beliefs must use together. If they insist that science support only their particular beliefs, then they cannot work together and science grinds to a halt. Therefore, there's only one type of science for every one - agnostic science. . . . The fundamental mistake you are making is this. You take agnostic scientific information and see connections in it with your Christian beliefs. What is happening here is that YOU are making this connection, NOT the scientists who published that information. Do you see the difference? Their work was done without religious bias but when you see it you believe (by religious faith) that it confirms your Christian faith. So, who is behaving religiously in this equation? Only you. The scientists did their work without bringing their own religious beliefs into it, but when you see it you see it through the eyes of your faith. Of course you exercise your freedom to believe that science confirms your Christian faith! But what you can't do is to claim that the scientists doing the work know and also believe as you do. That's an absolute no-no! I'll ask again. Do you see the difference? Do you see that science itself is strictly agnostic, but you are the one who sees it as confirming your Christian faith? Please answer me. This is important. Thanks, BAA.
  9. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    Yes. I have. And I've understood it properly too. (C'mon! Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it? Get real!) It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work. They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End. These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE. Why? Because science is agnostic. There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science. There is only faith-free, agnostic science. Period. Got it now? Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying?
  10. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    It's in the job description. (Ask the Redneck Prof, RogueScholar or Bhim.) If you can't separate your religious faith from your scientific work, then you're simply not being professional. Someone... https://profmattstrassler.com/ If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch; there’s just one type. I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”
  11. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    No. Science doesn't do proof. How many times have you been told that... and not just by me? Your faith is causing you to see this correlation. It's not within science's remit to make any correlations with any religious belief. If a scientist does so, then they do so privately and personally, not professionally.
  12. Not bad. But don't forget that only math is 100% for sure. All other branches of science are less than 100% certain. So perhaps a better question from me would be, how could these three points be experimentally tested? Thanks, BAA.
  13. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    How can I possibly comment on that? And even if I did, I could only deal in the facts and not the religious correlations and connections you see by faith. All of that comes from within you. But the facts are separate. You falsely connect the facts to your faith because you desperately want to do so.
  14. Is Righteousness a Mechanism

    I have done. Science is agnostic regarding any religion.