Posted on 06/14/2009 9:41:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
String theory “philosophy” challenged
--snip--
The big bang is fundamental to cosmic evolution or the idea that somehow the universe made itself. The article majored on the varying ideas that emanate from big bang philosophy, such as dark energy and dark matter etc. that are used to solve some of the “science” problems of the big bang. It then went on to say that string theory is just another one of these ideas with no basis in experimental science...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Evolutionary ideas like string theory start from a worldview framework that there is no God.”
—That is one of the funniest things I have ever read!
“The big bang, and string theory which is being used to support it, are ideological attempts to explain away the appearance of design in the universe (no first cause etc.) and therefore explain the universe without God.”
—I’ve never seen anyone try to use string theory to support the Big Bang. Sure, string theorists attempt to EXPLAIN the Big Bang using their theory – just like they try to use the theory to explain particles, matter, energy, gravity, etc – but scientists often like to try to apply their theory to stuff – they’re funny that way. Applying a theory in this way is also how one comes up with tests for a theory (a common charge against string theory is how hard it is to test, and even that it’s untestable – and so they are keen to find ways to test the theory. Perhaps a collision of branes can cause a Big Bang; if so, what implications would that have on the WMAP pics? Might the theory be tested this way?)
How is it anti-God or anti-design to attempt to tie together quantum physics and general relativity into a single consistent mathematical theory/model? That’s all string theory is. That’s about as anti-God/anti-design as Newton explaining the moon’s orbit and falling apples into a single theory.
“But equally the evolutionist and indeed the string theory advocate would also say that it is unscientific to investigate the universe with the assumption that God is Creator.”
—Considering that so many do, that’s an odd comment. He should really do about 30 seconds of research before writing an article.
i have always believed that the “big bang” was the noise made by God when he clapped his hands and created the univers. i cannot understand why some people must insist it was either one way or the other but not both.
I love Sheldon! But I would never attempt to argue with him. A friend tried to explain string theory to me once. I just don’t get it.
I sat and listened to a discussion of string theory for an hour and a half or thereabouts once and the BS meter was absolutely pegged the entire time.
Yeah, you must have been thinking about Slipons.
==Funny; I thought it correctly defined Biblical creation.
It most certainly does not. Indeed, Stephen Hawking et al have admitted that they *deliberately* built their atheist assumptions into the modern Big Bang theory so as to eliminate the idea that our galaxy occupies a special place in the Universe. They also admitted that they built in their atheist assumptions, even though the Universe appears isotropic, which, they confess, would “ordinarily” imply that we occupy a very special place in the Universe, such as being at or near its center. But instead, the modern Big Bangers decided to insert what Hawkings and Ellis call an “admixture of ideology” into their cosmological equations so as to make our galaxy as non-special as possible, even though their observations suggested just the opposite. Most people are not aware of the the slight of hand they pulled, and the sooner the word gets out the better!
All the best—GGG
LOL. More wit from the back of the classroom. ;-)
==How is it anti-God or anti-design to attempt to tie together quantum physics and general relativity into a single consistent mathematical theory/model? That’s all string theory is. That’s about as anti-God/anti-design as Newton explaining the moon’s orbit and falling apples into a single theory.
According Leonard Susskind, widely considered by string theorists to be the father of string theory, without string theory “...we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.”
Just like the Darwinists insist that Biology is the study of complicated things that give the illusion of having been designed for a purpose, or the modern big bangers claim that our universe gives off the illusion of having been designed for a purpose, or the string theorists who attempt to come up with a mathematical theory of everything to escape design and purpose, it’s all just an attempt by the enemies of God to banish Him from His own creation. This has been admitted by Darwinists such as Dawkins, Hawking et al with respect to the big bang, and Susskind has let the cat out of the bag with respect to string theory. And yet, somehow these practitioners of materialist religion get to call their nature worship “science.”
The motivation behind science doesn't change the nature of science. Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
As I linked to before, string theory is showing promise with super fluids. To say that string theory isn't science because you don't like the philosophy or motivation behind its development is childish, petty, and doesn't help your cause.
==The motivation behind science doesn’t change the nature of science.
Oh, ok, so does that mean that you are in full support of the work of Creation and Intelligent Design scientists?
Oh my.
Oh, ok, so does that mean that you are in full support of the work of Creation and Intelligent Design scientists?The REAL question is at which stage the Intelligent Design scientists attempt to 'define' (literally: describe God's 'thought process' when he created 'the world') the mind of God in this process; I say they are putting God 'in a box' (literally: conforming him and his methods to that extent that humans can conceive, and that is limited since we are 'limited' in our intellect and ability in contrast to God) when they do this ...
Yup....moreover, they also blabber endless noise about "repeatable, verifiable, predictable" when demanding creationists "prove" their theory, meanwhile turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to their ilk when it comes to string and multiverse theory.
As I've said before, if the people with so many multiple hang-ups with God shrieked a fraction about global warming, and various nonsense that actually DOES harm science, they'd maybe have a shred of legitimacy.
But they don't.
Definitely not guilty!
Thanks for the ping!
Never said that. Never implied that. I was supporting a science that was showing promise in expanding human understanding. Calling science a religion is just as bad as calling religion a science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.