Tags
Bible Hub
30 Friday Dec 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
See, there's this thing called biology...
%d
30 Friday Dec 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Thanks for Sharing!
LikeLike
You know, of course, that there wasn’t actually any “light” for the first 400 million years of this particular universe. Before that time (before the age of stars) there was just a quark-gluon plasma.
LikeLike
Why would I even attempt to discuss such things with a random bit of biological goo that sprung forth from nothingness? Isn’t that a bit like trying to reason with a table lamp?
LikeLiked by 7 people
Merry Christmas to you, too, Inanity 😉
But you do see that small needle in your cosmogony, right?
There was no “light” (which is photons) for the first 400 million years of this univesre.
That other awkward needle is that the Universe is 13.82 billion years old. The earth (which, according to your cosmogony, was created at the same time as the universe) is 4.54 billion years old, and is (together with the sun and all the other planets and comets and asteroids and knobs of debris in our solar system) the residue a 3rd (or perhaps 2nd) generation star (a supermassive star) that went supernova about 5 billion years ago.
But hey, what’s 9.28 billion years in a pantomime dreamed up in the 7th Century BCE, huh?
LikeLike
Hahaha! IB, you make me laugh.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
John, since we know you’re not goo, that you actually have an eternal soul, I don’t mind addressing this issue. First, whatever science says about the beginning of the universe(s) is conjecture. No one was there to apply the scientific method or to record data. Second, because God is God, He can override any “natural laws” since He’s the founder and sustainer of them. Third, it’s just possible that God brought all things into being, fully formed. Hence, Adam looked like a full grown man though he was a “newborn”; trees had multiple rings throughout the wood, as if they’d been in existence for years; mountains looked as if they’d been formed over millions of years; and light as if it emerged after billions of years.
Your problem isn’t with the idea of light. Your problem is with the idea of God. If God, then light. If God, then creation. If God, then judgment, and so on. Without God, there needs to be a multitude of theories and philosophies, each one a little more ludicrous because it must answer questions it cannot answer and make sense when it doesn’t.
Why do you find it so hard to believe God exists, John, when all the big questions–where did we come from, why are we here, what are we to do, where are we going, how are we to relate to each other and to our world–are answered in Him?
Becky
LikeLiked by 6 people
No one was there to apply the scientific method or to record data.
Ah.
Do you know what Doppler shift is?
Second, because God is God, He can override any “natural laws” since He’s the founder and sustainer of them.
Ah. Why would he do that, to deliberately trick people?
Third, it’s just possible that God brought all things into being, fully formed. Hence, Adam looked like a full grown man though he was a “newborn” trees had multiple rings throughout the wood, as if they’d been in existence for years; mountains looked as if they’d been formed over millions of years; and light as if it emerged after billions of years.
Ah. Again, why would he do that, to deliberately trick people?
LikeLike
John,
If you and I went out to the highway, we could use a radar gun to determine the speed of the passing cars and trucks. Then I could sit down with a map and tell you exactly where they were an hour ago and where they will be an hour from now based on their speed and direction.
“But, wait, don’t the cars have drivers who start them and stop them and steer them?”
The radar gun cannot detect the presence of any drivers. It would be unscientific to assume the presence of drivers without proof from the radar gun that they exist.
Yes, I can measure the speed of light, examine the doppler shift, and evaluate the location and relative speed of a source of light as compared to my present location. That does not logically demonstrate that the light-emitting object was not created a short time ago, complete with rays of light that reach my location. No one is trying to trick me or you; he just wanted us to be able to see the stars. J.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hi Salvage
And what we see is a universe that is 13.82 billion years old.
That is, of course, unless you, like Becky, are proposing that Yhwh deliberately altered the laws of interaction just to mess with people… to deliberately decieve them.
I’d call that thoroughly wicked, malevolent, wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
Hi, John,
How can you see the age of the universe? Projecting the age of the universe based on observations of distant objects and the background radiation (which might or might not be the “Big Bang”) requires assumptions like that of the driverless cars on the highway. Some time soon, I will develop that analogy further. Meanwhile, describing God as wicked and malevolent because he does not follow the rules you have written for him is a stretch. In fact, I’m willing to guess that he says the same about you. J.
PS If Becky and I are convinced through scientific evidence and written accounts that the known universe is a singularity that sprang into being ten thousand years ago by divine command, how can you, or anyone else, scientifically prove that we are wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No assumptions. You do realise we look back through history the further we peer out, don’t you?
We can see right to Inflation (which is still a hypothesis, as is the BB), beyond which all physics breaks down and we truly have no idea whatsoever as to what was going on before. Are we the product of a collapsing 5th dimensional star? Perhaps…
You believe the universe is 10,000 years old, huh?
Interesting… I hope you don’t have any contact with children.
LikeLike
John, you are ascribing motivation to God as if the only reason He would have for making a completed world/universe(s) would be “to mess with us.” How about something more practical. Humans survive better on a planet suited for them. Adults survive better than infants, or goo, for that matter. What if God just happened to love His creation so much He wanted to give the best, most perfect place, so He fashioned a finished product, not an embryo of what would be. His purpose would hardly be because He wanteds to mess with us. In fact, He particularly told us about His work of creation. So, I can confidently rule out the motive you’ve chosen to give God—a motive that may fit with what a human might do, but not one that’s in any way reflective of God’s character.
Here’s something else to think about. How can you measure time before the creation of the means we use to measure it? What did a billion years look like before there was an earth to go around a sun? Or a person to calculate it? So when God spoke light into existence, perhaps it was instantaneous, but by whose standards? Perhaps it was a billion years in developing, but by whose standards? We weren’t there. And any conjecture (which is the answer to your Doppler question) presupposes a consistent measurement of time, before the creation of such a measurement.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salvageable, you ask “how can you prove…that we are wrong?” That’s an excellent question, but may I ask a similar question?
If it happens that you are wrong about the Earth being 10,000 years old and about beams of light being instantly created between us and stars that are millions of light years away, etc., how could know that you are wrong? How can we test these hypotheses? If you particular view of the history of the planet or universe is inaccurate, how can we tell?
LikeLike
Becky,
How is a world in which a newly created tree has a thousand rings better than a world in which a newly created has no rings? How is a world in which a newly created mountain appears to be millions of years old better than a world in which a newly created mountain does not appear to be millions of years old? I don’t see the benefit of creating thing with such an appearance of age, but I do see how it would create confusion and doubt. So why do it this way?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know? You have got to be kidding.
Almost all investment literature warns potential investors that past performance is no guarantee of future results. That’s because we cannot reliably project the profitably of a company into the future. We don’t know enough, and that’s a relatively simple problem.
Even with the best scientific data, determining what happened in the distant past presents similar issues. At best, anything we “know” what was going on billions of years ago from scientific data is purely speculative. Even the notion we get from the Doppler shift, that the universe is flying apart is speculative. We have no way of sending probes to other stars to verify what our instruments are telling us. Therefore, to say “you know” is purely an act of misplaced faith in science. It is not even in accord with the scientific method.
So how did God create everything? The Bible provides a brief explanation intended primarily to answer one question. Who did it? Then the Bible moves on to the sin of Adam and Eve and the story of our salvation. You don’t want to believe? That’s your choice, but any suggestion that you know with scientific certainty how the universe came to be is ludicrous.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi CT
So you believe Yhwh deliberately altered the laws of interation, too?
Why would he do that?
LikeLike
@JZ
Laws of what? If you are going to try to put words in my mouth, could you at least spell them correctly. I make enough spelling errors on my own. I don’t need any help.
😆
LikeLike
Interaction, the fundamental laws of interaction.
Conservation and symmetry, continuity and transfer, classical mechanics and motion, gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, photonics, to name a few.
At one earth atmosphere water will freeze at 0°C and boil at 100°C. Sulphur will boil at 444.6°C, iron at 1,538 °C, copper at 1,085 °C, and mercury will boil at -38.83 °C, every time. Without any resistance, an object on earth will fall at 9.81 meters per second, and
light will travel at 299,792,458 meters per second.
We know the speed of light. It does not alter. It’s how we know how big and how old the observable universe is.
The question was, do you, like Salvage and Becky, believe Yhwh altered these fundamental laws of interaction so as to give the impression of a Universe that is 13.82 billion years old, but is really only 5,000 years old.
Do you believe that, too?
LikeLike
@JZ
BTW. The speed of light varies. The speed of light depends upon what the light is going through. If you think you know what is between us and distant stars, you are kidding yourself. The assumption of a complete vacuum, especially as stars get farther and farther way, may not be entirely accurate, and that would definitely screw up the theory. As it is, we just don’t know.
Salvageable also has a point. I like seeing the stars. Don’t you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps you should read a little more into recent work in this field, CT. The variations through vacuum are miniscule. If true (there’s presently only one paper which offers experimental data) it’s interesting, sure, and I think it has some merit, but it’s not about to reveal a 5,000 year old universe.
LikeLike
@JZ
Do you ever consider how absurd your statements are?
You know this about about interstellar space, thousands, even billions of light-years away?
You have no problem asserting as fact something you have no way of knowing, but you ridicule any evidence for the existence of God. All you do is make yourself laughable.
We can barely get a few people off this planet. It takes enormous effort for us to send probes to the planets in our solar system, and we have not even been doing this long. But we know about what lies between faraway galaxies in miniscule detail? That’s a hoot!
LikeLike
Do you know what Vacuum is, CT?
Here’s a hint, it’s not matter.
So, do you believe the universe is 5,000 years old? (or was it 10,000?)
LikeLike
@JZ
There is an old saw: “Nature abhors a vacuum.” There is a perfect vacuum? That is the issue. Then that old saw is untrue.
I don’t know exactly how or how long ago God created everything. Never claimed I did. I just don’t see any reason to believe your mythology instead of the Bible, which I do believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s “mythology” about the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photos, CT?
What’s “Mythology” about Doppler Shift?
LikeLike
@JZ
You complicate matters too much. Everyone does.
When we believe something just because we want to believe, without sufficient reason or proof, we believe a myth.
The Greeks and the Romans exercised both logic and reason to a considerable degree. Still they believed in gods of their own creation. You do the same. We all suffer that temptation to some degree.
Is Christianity a belief in a God of our own creation? I do not believe it is. I believe God inspired his prophets, sent His Son, and taught His apostles.
You emphatically and dogmatically believe otherwise? You are willing to go out of your way to ridicule us? Well, the reason for that is obvious. It is your ego insisting that everyone should believe what you believe.
Christ Jesus does want us to spread His Gospel, but that is it. Whether you or others believe is between you and God. I cannot make anyone put their faith in Christ Jesus, and I would suffer condemnation from my Lord if I tried.
Christianity is unique; it is founded on the power of God’s love for us, not on the power of Christ’s followers.
And what you believe? I guess you think it is founded upon science. That cannot be much comfort. There is so much to know. There is so little that we do know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You made the claim, CT, so please now back your words up.
You do believe what you wrote, don’t you?
To repeat:
What’s “Mythology” about the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photos, CT?
What’s “Mythology” about Doppler Shift?
LikeLike
@JZ
You are the one making claims based upon science, not me. You have the burden of proof, not me.
You offered the Doppler shift as some sort of proof for YOUR THEORY of creation. I merely pointed out that when we scale up the science behind Doppler shift to intergalactic distances, we are speculating. It is guesswork, educated and interesting guesswork, but not more than that.
Still, because you want to believe in your theory of creation you insist upon putting your faith in things you cannot actually prove. That is how mythology is made.
LikeLike
You called it all “mythology”
Either back it up or fade away… Your choice.
LikeLike
There is a sales technique call a hard-sell. That seems to be your method.
Christians “sell” Jesus with a soft-sell. Often we just pray and hope people will come to their senses.
As it is, I have no idea what else I need to say. It is up to you to allow yourself to be convinced.
LikeLike
Why are you still talking?
LikeLike
Quite true. The thing is faith can’t be explained or it is no longer faith. In many cases science refuses to accept the evidence that’s all around. But ultimately we must choose to believe the Word or not. No one can be forced and in this time Scripture predicts that few will believe. God always confirms His Word. I saw that in the ministry of William Branham. Check out branham.org if you have a chance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yall watch out!!John repeating himself and using bold face now! He means it this time.
John, check your ego at the door. Your posturing and trying to sit in judgment of the way God has chosen to do things makes you look like a flailing fool.
Sad, really
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you believe the universe is 5,000 years old, Wally?
LikeLike
No
But one for you now. How’s about you produce some contemporary, eyewitness accounts of the events of the formation of the Earth that you described earlier. You know, that guy who wrote all this done those 13.82 billion years ago..
That’s the sort of proof you demand from me and others all of the time. So, again, lets’ see some contemporary eyewitness accounts of those events from the folks who were there 13.82 billion years ago. Better yet, some peer reviewed studies of his or her(or their, I suppose), findings.
We shall await those accounts, Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The universe is 13.82 billion years old. The earth is 4.54 billion years old. We measure this by the age of the rocks and can compare that data to metorites (debris) left over from the formation of this solar system. Guess what? It matches!
As for the expansion/age of the universe, you, Wally, can go tonight to an observatory and see it for yourself on a small scale in pretty blues and reds. Alternatively, you can just google Hubble Deep (and Ultra Deep) Field photos.
Hope this helps.
LikeLike
Hi John
Ok. So, no contemporary eyewitness accounts? No prob.
I see that you have simply weighed evidence available and made a decision concerning it, even though you don’t have “proof.” I get that.
Now, let’s go onward if we may. Do ALL reputable scientists agree with this conclusion concerning the age of the universe and the Earth, or is their divergence within the scientific community about this issue?
I have to assume agreement is universal, because you have stated this as unmovable fact.
If there is NOT universal agreement, perhaps you could detail the qualifications of the various parties, and how you then determined that one set of data was better than another, and how you arrived at your particular conclusion.
Thanks! This is quite enlightening!
LikeLiked by 1 person
no contemporary eyewitness
Did you miss the part where I said you, Wally, could go tonight (this very night, Wally) to an observatory and see it for yourself in pretty blues and reds?
You, Wally, can be a contemporary witness.
Perhaps you should actually read comments.
Just a suggestion.
By following that suggestion you just might not embarrass yourself so badly… by perhaps actually googling “Hubble Deep Field” before spewing further (albeit hilarious) nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, ok. I’m a moron. That’s a compelling argument on your part.
Anyway, my other question? Do ALL reputable scientists agree with your postion? If not, who does..who does not…and how did you evaluate their qualifications to determine your ultimate decision as to who was right.
I hope for your sake, that they ALL agree. After all..if they don’t all agree, that might just mean the whole thing is not valid.
Or, so I have been told.
I don’t really know, being a a moron and all..
🙂
LikeLike
Do ALL reputable scientists agree with your postion [Sic]
Do you know of any physics, geology, astronomy faculties on the planet teaching something different?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well…actually..um…I asked YOU the question.
Do they? Is there COMPLETE consensus in the scientific community regarding what you have stated the age of the universe to be? It’s a simple question John. Further if there is NOT 100 percent consensus, then how did YOU evaluate the data to arrive at your particular conclusion?
Go ahead, John. Shock the entire blog world…and answer a direct question in a direct way.
I have to assume since you possess the wherewithal to sit in judgment of God, that surely you can answer such a simple question as this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And like I said…
Do you know of any physics, geology, astronomy faculties on the planet teaching something different?
LikeLike
John
I asked you that LOL. Good grief. Surely you know the answer! It’s your position. I don’t plan on conducting research to support YOUR position!
That’s…as you say…hilarious
If you decline to answer, that’s cool.
I have better things to than chase you down for an answer. There is stuff under my fingernails I can pick out, or something.
LikeLike
And to repeat:
If you know of any physics, geology, astronomy faculties on the planet teaching something different then be sure to let me know, OK.
I do not know of any.
I’d call that consensus position, wouldn’t you, Wally?
LikeLike
So…the answer to my question is probably “no”
You just don’t want to say it.
That’s cool, John.
The real issue here, anyway is how we arrive at our worldviews and reach decisions concerning the data put before us.
You have no proof
I have no proof.
We both have evidences
We both weigh the evidence.
We both accept by faith many things. Most notably the reliability of our evidence and the sources of our evidence. Since neither of us was present at the formation of the universe, we ultimately arrive at our conclusions based on….faith.
You, John, are a man of faith. Misplaced faith, but faith nonetheless.
Peace to you John, I have wasted enough time with you this morning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have no proof
Yes, I do. Your willful ignorance will not fly here, Wally.
Please search Hubble Ultra Deep Field and you can go from there.
I have no proof.
You have a cosmogony which is demonstrably false.
We both have evidences.
I do.
You don’t.
Period.
We both weigh the evidence.
No, you don’t. That is the definition of willful ignorance
LikeLike
Hey jzande
You are receiving some seriously good input here from believers. You may want to carefully consider what is staring you in the face. Also, do you notice how you are not receiving pornographic content in return?
That aside, your heroes of ‘science’ who at whose feet you prostrate, are missing one important ingredient, and in the which your entire house of delusional cards fall as useless.
That ingredient? Time. Your measuring rod of ‘years’ is broken, since….days and years are components held by the Timekeeper. Godlessness and evolution have no answer for ‘time,’ thus making your point about ahem, zabillions of bagillions of ‘years’ suspect.
Your ‘time’ and guestamates are outside reality, for without a 24hr period to measure time, you are lost as fog in your glorified opinion. Hope this helps.And yes, it was God who introduced the 24 hr. period. Before that……….? ah yes, there is your dilemma.
And as a bonus, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day unto the great Holder of all seconds.. But back to the heading:
God SAID: let there be light……….and it was so..
The Lord SAID to the raging seas: Peace be still…………..
Of course all nature bows to the Creator. Why don’t you?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Wally
Most universities receive oodles of government funding. That includes research grants from the Federal Government. As you might imagine, having single source of research funding creates an issue. The competence of any researcher who questions conventional wisdom is suspect. That is particularly true if his doubts sound like they might have a religious basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, that is probably true Tom. I guess it generates a certain level of “Group think,” huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep!
We would be far better off if the Federal Government confined itself to funding weapons research.
The influence the Feds have on our universities is extremely damaging to the mission of universities. The main mission of universities use to have to do with the education of Godly people. That sure does not happen anymore.
Frankly, I don’t even think we should have public universities, and the idea of the government providing students loans is just idiotic. Why do taxpayers have to finance the education of people who, if they actually learn anything, will make more money than they do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
CT,
Have you ever served on a grant proposal review committee?
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, you commented to me, not CT. He may or may not see that comment
LikeLike
Wally, since my comment appears right below one of his (the one in which he says that the government should not fund biomedical research), I would expect that CT would have no problem seeing the comment that I addressed to him.
LikeLike
OK…just trying to help. Some folks only get direct comments through notifications…in fact, that is why I responded, because I got a notification.
LikeLike
Wally, I appreciate your efforts, but I don’t receive any notifications about any comments ever, and I’m able to see all of the comments just fine. Since CT posted comments after the comment of mine in question, I would guess that he’s had a chance to see it.
LikeLike
@David
I did not claim to be anybody with special knowledge. So let’s not make it about me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CT, you made certain claims about federal funding of research and its effects on science and on the determination of competency of scientists. You made these claims, so it is about you.
Now, you say you have no special knowledge about how the funding of research grants works. So, I’m not sure how you are supporting your claims. Further, it seems unlikely that you fully understand the impact of federal funding of biomedical research (to name just one area of science).
My father was a poor man working on an electronics factory assembly line. The government paid for his education at a public university. As a result, he went on to have a 40 year career as a systems engineer at NASA. And you think that none of this should have happened
LikeLiked by 1 person
@David
Look at what you did. You made it personal. Because you considered it an attack on you, you turned around and attacked me. Hence, when I refused to answer your question, you justified yourself by explaining your own personal interest. Yet all that has nothing to do with whether the Federal Government should fund research.
As a matter of fact, when NASA was in its heyday and landed a man on the moon, it was basically a defense project designed to counter the USSR’s ICBM threat and propaganda. Then it became Socialism in space, and it has accomplished less and less.
LikeLike
CT, no, I did not consider it a personal attack on me. Odd that you would see a question about your qualifications to make certain claims as an “attack.”
I presented the example of my father to demonstrate the importance and significance of public universities and federal assistance to students. The fact remains that you do not think that my father’s experience should have happened, but he is just one example of millions that I could have cited.
I did not attack you. You made claims about how federal funding of science research works. I asked about your qualifications to make these claims. Given your claims, this seems appropriate. You do not appear to have any qualifications to make these claims, nor do you seem to understand how the funding process works, so I would ask how you support these claims.
You also brought up the question of what types of research should be funded by the federal government. It’s clear that you do not understand the importance and significance of federally funded research in areas other than military weapons.
Finally, it’s clear that you know about as much about NASA as you do about the process by which research grants are awarded.
LikeLike
@David
When you insist that I be an expert, why should I have to justify my qualifications? When you insist upon government-fund research, you make taxpayers responsible for paying for that research. You make voters, whether they are taxpayers or not, diligent scholars or loiterers, responsible for selecting the politicians who decide how the government will “invest” research funds. Whether I am qualified to have an opinion or not, thanks to people such as yourself, I don’t have any choice. So get over it. If you want a productive discussion with another “expert” on research funding, you are just going to have accept your responsibility for certifying me as an expert.
As a matter of fact, it makes more sense for me to question your qualifications, and it doesn’t even have to be personal. I think it is rather obvious, given your own demand for my qualifications, that voters don’t have the qualifications to involve themselves in research funding except when necessity demands it.
LikeLike
CT,
I didn’t ask that you be an expert. I asked that you support your claims. Had you served on grant review panels, you would have been in a much better position to support your claims.
Well, I don’t really see anything here that supports your original claims about how federal funding of research works. Nor do I see any understanding of the importance and significance of non-weapons research and/or of public universities and/or of NASA.
You have opinions. You don’t like paying taxes. Got it.
LikeLike
@David
Who is kidding who? You asked for my qualifications. Now that has become absurd I have to support my claims? That is where you should have started.
As it is, what you have done is show the need for qualified people to decide who gets research funding. How should we decide who is qualified? Generally, when people are investing and spending their own money they take the time to become qualified. When they are spending someone else’s money, there is no telling how they will decide to “invest” it.
Consider.
1. If I spend someone else’s money on someone else (what government does), how careful and conscientious will I be?
2. If I spend someone else’s money on myself, how careful and conscientious will I be?
3. If I spend my own money on someone else, how careful and conscientious will I be?
4. If I spend my own money on myself, how careful and conscientious will I be?
Don’t you think that as a society we should avoid government taxation and spending whenever possible. Does it take an expert to figure out that government does not provide a good way to manage scarce resources?
LikeLike
CT,
When did asking about you qualifications become absurd? This was and remains a part of my request that you support your claims. It’s all a part of where I should have started.
How should we decide who sits on a grant review panel? It’s not that hard to do. It’s not that hard to figure out who the experts are. We do it all of the time. If you’ve been on such panels, you understand how this is done. It’s not a perfect process, but it works pretty well.
Do people really spend their own money all that wisely and only after they are “qualified?” The evidence would suggest otherwise.
Yes, I understand that you don’t like to pay taxes. You don’t like the idea of someone spending “other people’s money.” I get it. But should such concerns prevent us from pursuing the benefits of spending “other people’s money?”
I understand the principle expresses by vague phrases such as “whenever possible.” But this still does not demonstrate an understanding of the value, signifance and importance of federal spending on non-weapons research, public universities, loans and grants to students, etc. Vague principles and broad generalities are all well and good, but do you understand the value of, say, federal support for biomedical research?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@David
You do understand we are both blogging anonymously. Moreover, the mere fact someone sits on a grant review panel doesn’t make anyone an expert on whether the government should or should not be spending our money. It just makes it more likely that that someone will have a certain prejudice.
Let’s think this through. If I spend someone else’s money on someone else (what government does), how careful and conscientious will I be?
Who are we talking about? Not me, actually. We are talking about politicians spending the taxpayer’s money. We are talking about the government officials taking (force implied) money from us citizens whether we want to give it up or not. We are talking about politicians spending money they took from taxpayers on what they think appropriate as they think appropriate.
When politicians spend the taxpayer’s money, are they trying to get the most bang for the buck? Well, sort of. Generally they are seeking reelection. They want to maximize the incentive of donors to fund their campaigns.
1. They want as much money as possible spent in their state or congressional district.
2. They want to reward supportive corporations with contracts and supportive unions with jobs.
3. They want their name in the news media (So and so is working for a cure for cancer.). Do you remember how Al Gore invented the Internet?
4. They want the leverage the spending gives them. Consider how Federal dollars has allowed the government to distort the policies and politics at universities. That’s just another way to reward special interests.
As far as the average politician is concerned, whether government spending on research actually produces any useful scientific results is almost incidental. Since you brought it up, look at NASA. Our manned space program is in a shambles, and there is no excuse for it. Fortunately, the development of space launch vehicles is not necessarily something our government needs to be doing. That’s why President Ronald Reagan allowed DOD and commercial interests buy their own launchers.
We have plenty of commercial companies and non-profits ready to do good research. If our government taxed us less and got out of the business, there is little reason to doubt more people would donate money to projects they think promising.
Anyway, it seems you think you don’t spend your own money wisely. Fine. Give it to me, and I will take care of it for you.
LikeLike
CT,
It’s now clear that you have no idea how decisions are made with respect to science funding, the criteria for the awarding of grant money, the effect of the grant proposal review process on science, etc. You can speculate, you can imagine, you can make unsupported comments and claims, but in the end, you know very little about this subject. So, I’ll leave it at that.
Now, you’ve also expounded on all of the awful things that happen when we pay taxes, and in fact, you’ve convinced me! After reading your dissertation, I’ve concluded that we shouldn’t send ANY tax money to Washington! We shouldn’t let any politician do anything with our money! Ever! Look at the terrible way in which politicians operate! I say no more money for the federal government, and let’s just shut it down! (Look, Tom, I get it. You don’t want to pay taxes.)
But in the end, what you haven’t done is shown any understanding of the value, the benefits, the importance and the significance of things like public universities, federal grants and loans to students, funding of research into non-weapons related science, etc. You haven’t shown that you understand what all of this funding means to the lives of millions of actual people. Yes, there are things that commercial companies do very well, but there are also many things that the private sector alone does not do well at all. Had it been up to commercial companies, my father would have lived and died on the assembly line, and that’s just one example of millions.
Are there problems when we send tax money to the federal government? Of course there are. Any time that humans are involved, there will be problems. And you can stand on principle and be pure and say that as long as the process involves politicians, we shouldn’t spend tax money on public universities and areas of science such as biomedical research. But then we lose the knowledge which saves human lives. You can have your principles, I’ll take the benefits to real live people.
LikeLike
@David
Well, since you did not actually say anything to demonstrate the truth of you words, you may as well leave it at that.
What you are doing is trying to demonize me. Yet I have not taken an extreme position. I have just pointed out what everyone already knows. Government is inefficient and hard to control. George W. Bush gets elected and half the country gets demoralized. Barack Hussein Obama gets elected, and the other half gasps in disbelief. How can people be so stupid? Now Donald Trump ascends what is becoming a throne…..
What is the point of using the government to do thing it does poorly? The answer is simple. We are trying to bend others to our will. Whether they want to do so or not, we insist that others support our holy causes.
That’s why you are babbling about about how I don’t understand this, that, or anything else. You cannot find the words to defend what you want. The necessity for what you want does not exist. So those words don’t exist.
You also don’t know how demonize your opponent well enough yet. Do you really want more practice?
We have private schools, universities, research facilities, and so forth. If the non-defense research the federal government is funding is so important to you, then you and like-minded souls can donate some of your own money to pay for it. I might help. Then again, I have my own holy causes. So I might not, but you may not choose to help me either. Such is the nature of freedom. Whatever the case, neither of us has the right to enslave the other in the pursuit of our own private goals.
On the whole, freedom produces better results. When ensuring our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the paramount goal of our government, why give it things to do that we can do without the help of the government, particularly when doing so just corrupts our society?
LikeLike
I said that you don’t understand the process by which grants for scientific research are awarded because you don’t. For example, cancer research grants are NOT awarded by congressional district. You offered unsupported claims, and I pointed this out, It’s that simple.
You haven’t taken an extreme position? No federal funding for biomedical research? No public universities? Don’t know about Madison’s day, but today, that’s extreme. And you know, it’s not 1789 any more. You seem to want to turn Madison into a god.
So now using tax dollars to support education and scientific research is “enslavement?” Oy vey! I see that this is pointless. I leave you to your purity and your principles. My late father say “hi.”
LikeLike
@ David
I never said scientific grants are awarded by congressional district. Nevertheless, I suspect it is a good bet there are grants for scientific research conducted in almost all 435 congressional districts. Have you ever checked out all the locations where NASA has centers and wondered why => https://www.nasa.gov/about/sites/index.html? And that’s just NASA.
Is disagreeing with you an extreme position? I think not. Are plenty of parents willing either to home-school their children or pay the cost of a private school to avoid having their children indoctrinated in the public school system? Yes. Are the best universities in the country private versus public? Does private industry conduct biomedical research? Of course.
So yes, I am perfectly happy with my principles, and I don’t have any trouble with someone being pure. I just wish I had the moral purity to stick to my principles as well as I should.
As to your late father, that is kind of weird. Instead of trying to bludgeon strangers with his dead body, I suggest you allow the poor man his rest.
LikeLike
So there might be research dollars to all districts. Is this suprising or a sign of something nefarious? Who cares? What matters is who does the research, that is, how good are the scientists at the facilities. Are they doing good science? Politicians do not determine who gets an NSF or NIH or NASA grant (yes, NASA awards grants to university researchers). So, much of your concerns about politicians and research grants are unfounded and uninformed.
Yes, the position that you have taken is an extreme one. The fact that there are private schools or that private industry conducts research is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not the position of zero federal dollars for education or for biomedical research is an extreme one. This is not just a matter of my “private goals.” We’re talking about the hopes and goals of millions.
Yes, there are private schools. Can everyone afford to send their children to them, especially when we are talking about universities? Historically, how did the introduction of public schools at every level change the percentage of Americans who were able to get X number of years of education? What percentage of the population recieved a college education in the days when most of the colleges were private or when there was no federal support in the form of grants and loans? How has expanding educational opportunities benefited individual Americans and the country as a whole? I understand that you don’t wish to be enslaved, but maybe a little enslavement is not such a bad idea when you consider the benefits.
And here’s a dirty little secret. Private colleges and universities receive huge amounts of federal support, both direct and indirect. For example, scientists at private university compete for the same research dollars as those at public universities. Federal dollars enable colleges and universities to offer a lower tuition rate to poorer students. In practice, there are no private universities.
Yes, private industry does research. But private companies are severely constrained by the need to turn a profit. In addition, the discoveries of scientist working in private industry are private or proprietary. This is not good for science. And where and how do you suppose the scientist in private industry get their initial training as scientists? Guess. Further, there is no way that the private sector can match the amount of money that is provided by federal sources for research. No chance.
Bottom line, in any many areas, the federal government really can do much more than the private sector. But then again, I don’t want to be enslaving you.
Not trying to bludgeon anyone with my father’s dead body. Just trying to remind you that there real human beings who genuinely benefit when we are not wedded to purity. (And he’d be happy to be disturbed just to have a chance to chat with you.)
LikeLike
This debate is just buried here, and it little to do with our hostess’ post. So I created a post.
https://citizentom.com/2017/01/02/how-did-we-get-from-here-to-there/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Tom. I always appreciate a good discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that the discussion doesn’t have much to do with the original post.
I checked out your post, but I don’t see anything there that’s new, and I can’t think of much that I would add at this point. Not suprised to see that your a fan of Uncle Milty. I understand your position, I’ve had my say and don’t wish to be too repetitive (IB, thanks for not moderating, blocking or deleting), so I’ll probably call it a day. Probably.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm.. I can predict a number of possible verses generated in response to some of Wallys memes
LikeLike
If you were something besides random goo as pointed out by your fearless leader, I might feel insulted by that.
Oh…Have a nice day
🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
cool, thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not know this IB, thanks. You have just opened up a whole new world I think!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: On cars and science | Salvageable
i can’t figure out to use it. can you make a tutorial?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol!
No.
LikeLike
Ha ha! You read my mind to make a fluffy picture with a verse from Rev. 13 in it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only way I found to use it easily was to move the arrow one verse at a time, but to get to the New Testament would take forever. I finally changed the address bar. So it says http://biblepic.com/53/genesis_1-2.htm#.WGcnf4V4M7A. I took out genesis_1-2 and replaced it with the verse I wanted, and it worked.
Becky
LikeLike
i meant on changing the background…
LikeLike
Oh, sorry. Do you know an easier way to change the verse? I think the backgrounds are limited to those pictures they have at the top–all in public domain.
Becky
LikeLike
You know, IB, I just absolutely admire the faith of those who believe that this marvelous universe is the result of some cosmic accident….seen lots of accidents in my day, but no a single one was beautiful, like the beach or the Grand Canyon. Nope, I just don’t have enough faith. I’ll just accept the mystery of things my finite mind cannot grasp and leave them in the hands of my Creator.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s a really good point, I’ve never seen a lovely accident.
A bit funny and gross, and certainly not lovely, but when I was a kid it was bugs who really spoke to me about a deliberate and purposeful design. No maggots, we’d be left with dead things laying about for months. No dung beetles, we’d be six feet under in… Well, you get the idea.:-)
LikeLike
john, you are making one mistake in your arguments. You are assuming that the natural processes we observe today were always going on and the universe was formed by them. If someone traveled back in time and observed Adam and Eve shortly after they were created he would make the same mistake if he tried to estimate their ages. If he believed they had been conceived, spent nine months in their mothers’ wombs, were born and babies, and grew to adulthood, his estimate would be greater than their real ages. But if he notice that they didn’t have navels, he would realize that they didn’t come into existence this way so he would have to find another way of discovering their real ages. If we study our creation we can find some “missing navels” that show the earth is much younger than most people believe. You can learn about some of those missing navels here: https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/the-missing-navels/
Of course if he was firmly convinced that we were not created by God he would find some other explanation for their lack of navels. In the same way, those who refuse to acknowledge that we were created by God find ways to explain away all the evidence we find for his existence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Clyde,
It’s accurate to say that one must make some assumptions about how things worked in the past when attempting to determine what actually happened in the past.
However, this holds for all attempts to determine what happened in the past, including events which are foundational to Christianity. You can’t argue that Jesus rose from the dead without making assumptions about how the world worked in the past. You can’t claim that the resurrection actually happens without making the same “mistake” as John. So, do you really want to highlight this “mistake?”
LikeLike
@Clyde Herrin
I cannot say I agree, but the controversy is interesting. What struck me as funny is how the rebuttal conflict with each other.
The old earth guys:
1. Explain the faint sun paradox with the bombardment of primordial asteroids. Making the earth’s crust kind of hot.
2. Explain the surprisingly large amounts of Helium in Radioactive Rocks by saying the crust was not at constant temperature, but cooler. The young earth was cooler. Really.
3. Explain the relative absence of sediments on the seafloor using uniformitarian versus catastrophic model. Given that the dinosaurs were supposedly kill off about 30 million years ago by a bombardment of asteroids……
Just goes to show that trying to figure out what happen thousand of years ago is hard enough. Millions? Billions? That’s got to be speculative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good stuff, thanks for sharing that site
LikeLike
Pingback: HOW DID WE GET FROM HERE TO THERE? – Citizen Tom
I love Scripture art and am beginning to post some on my blog: JPROBINSON.ORG. Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Interesting
LikeLike
Good to know. Thanks. Greetings and Blessings to you! 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: On cars and science – Education