Posted on 04/10/2004 10:39:47 AM PDT by Tribune7
This Easter weekend, I answer one of the more disparaging questions I'm asked by secularists. That is: "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?" The answer begins with a proper definition of science.
Science is the study of nature through empirical evidence. A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations or experiments. Yet there are many observations in nature that cannot be scientifically tested. Take the creation of the natural world.
As explained by the big-bang theory, all the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg that inexplicably exploded. But nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it arrived. Neither has a single important prediction of this theory been confirmed. Even worse, it contradicts multiple principles, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass.
That means the big-bang theory is largely a faith-based idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
What exactly does that mean? I cannot travel to proxima centauri. Does that mean it is not in my universe?(If I cannot travel to something, I cannot travel to that something in any fashion)
Why can't you travel to proxima centauri, other than the fact that you haven't invented a convenient method of travel? If we sent you in the right direction in a Soyuz capsule, you--or at least your remains--would get there eventually, provided that you had enough energy to escape from the solar system at all.
We'd have to give you a much harder push to catch up with the distant quasars, because they are rushing away from us so fast, but in principle it's possible, let it be ever so hard in practice. No physics principle prevents you from going as close to the speed of light as you like. It may take you a gigantically large time to close the gap, and your practical window may already have closed (the universe may end in some fashion before you get there, so you should have started a very long time ago), but that's tough darts. I said "geometrically", not "practically".
(No more lawyering, now.)
Well, heck...what didn't?
Nor was I aware that sin was a substance that circulates in the blood and can contaminate other people through contact, as the author seems to believe.
Perhaps she should start with something easier to establish, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If he gave up lawyering the science threads, he'd have precious little left to do in them.
Why can't you approach this discussion in a reasoned manner?
He did.
Why can't you say you disagree with the premises that the article was written on?
He did.
The biggest problem in the debate over origins is the unwillingness of the debaters to look at both sides of the argument, and instead, to resort to ad hominem or disparaging insults.
You mean, like the way that the author of this piece disparages scientists?
The second biggest problem is the failure to recognize that the linch pins of the argument are in the presuppositions the debaters bring to the argument. Evolutionists and materialist presuppose a material universe with no possible explanations outside their realm of thinking.
No they don't.
Creationists presuppose that there is both matter and non-matter in the universe that can provide a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (cosmogony) and the origin of life (biogenesis).
That's not all they presuppose.
To dismiss one side or the other out of hand extinguishes the debate, at the worst, or at least, reduces the debate to hurling one "expert" against another.
As I wrote in a mini-essay in another thread, it's only the "creationists" who rely on "my expert can beat up your expert", while the scientists defer to the evidence as the final arbiter of disagreements.
Neat, suggesting that we look at it as if everything were shrinking. It's fun thinking: "Yeah, that probably is mathematically the same, but is it physically the same?" At the sub-atomic level I suspect not, but that's a side-issue.
However, for explanatory purposes (in my truly humble opinion) I'd prefer to stick with expansion, so as not to cause conceptual distractions. I haven't taught this subject, so I may be wrong, but at least to me it's easier to focus on the question of whether the expanding universe is expanding "into" something. That's where the hangup exists.
At each moment of the expansion, there's no "out there, beyond" the universe. It always occupies all the space there is. But distances keep growing. Anyway, that works for me.
This misrepresents the article. First, they found *another* link, not "the" link as if this fossil is the one-and-only bit of evidence linking fish to land animals. Second, you have absolutely no basis for presuming that the scientists involved were "secular". For all you (or we) know, they could easily be Christian, Jewish, or of some other faith. There are vast numbers of scientists who are also believers. Your presumption that any scientist finding any evidence of evolution must necessarily be "secularist" says much about your prejudices on this topic.
I was mocked and patronized by a few FReepers.
Not surprisingly, given some of your comments on that thread, such as:
"A real scientist knows that we don't know anything about anything..."Those are extreme and hyperbolic enough that they practically invite a good mocking. If you were under the impression that you were "mocked and patronized" merely for the fact that you are a believer, however, you are quite mistaken."I have one source for you. The Bible. Read it, and you won't need to read anymore."
"One thing I have learned as a critical thinking person is humans know absolutelty nothing."
"All theories and scientific truths have been proven false all through history..."
A couple people eluded that I couldn't believe in both the Bible and science!
No, they did not. I recall no such posts on that thread, and indeed I just now went back and reread all of your posts and all the posts to you on that thread. There was no such statement or implication made.
I was shocked to find out I had been wrong all my life (sarcasm, last sentence).
Oh... So you mean you weren't shocked to find that out?
I don't understand. Are you saying that there's something about the physical universe that is not describable mathematically?
I'd prefer to stick with expansion, so as not to cause conceptual distractions. I haven't taught this subject, so I may be wrong, but at least to me it's easier to focus on the question of whether the expanding universe is expanding "into" something.
But that in itself is a conceptual distraction. Again: the universe is not an object that exists in space, and which needs to take up more space as it grows. The universe is the space itself. It requires no medium in which it can float.
[Geek alert: there are several popular models that postulate the existence of additional physical dimensions, but these don't solve your conceptual problem. In some models these additional dimensions are themselves expanding, and in others, they are radically contracting! These models are denoted "AdS5" models, which means that the 5th dimension is "anti-deSitter". In such models, the universe as we see it is a 4-dimensional slice of a 5-dimensional space. The 5th dimension extends outwards from our slice, but it's constantly contracting back towards the slice. Any particle that makes an excursion into the 5th dimension is inexorably drawn by geometry back to this orbifold plane. So you see that although in such a model, our universe does exist in an external medium, there is no sense in which our universe "expands into" that medium. But expand it nevertheless does.]
No. But I'm saying that although I can accept that a cosmic contraction would mathematically be the same as cosmic expansion, I suspected that if everything really were shrinking we'd encounter difficulties. (Buffoon alert: I'm very deep into your area of expertise here, so I'm treading lightly.) I was specifically thinking of the fact that particles would be getting smaller, atomic nuclei would be smaller, reactions would occur over smaller distances, thus they'd occur faster (the speed of light wouldn't change). With no deep analysis of this, I was gussing (always a risk) that the observable consequences of a shrinking and speeded-up universe would be different than for an expanding universe.
She wasn't born of a virgin, that I'm aware of; and I don't know HOW it came to be that she was free from original sin. There is, however, an excellent book on the subject. Parts of it were recently made into a movie produced by Mel Gibson. The book is much better, however, and more complete.
I heartily recommend it to you! From the excellent research skills that you displayed in the Evo threads, I'm sure you would be more satisfied to research it yourself rather than take my word for it, anyway. *VBG*
ROTFL!!!!!!!
Just so.
That notwithstanding, Mary's blood mixing with Jesus' blood is a moot point from a theological point of view, since she was free of original sin.
That seems to be the reality of the moment. It was you that noted imprecision in the use of Universe by someone else. I merely pointed out your imprecision. The fact remains I cannot get to Proxima Centauri by any existing means. That is an irrefutable fact. Now if you wish to let someone state "If the universe is all that exists" without comment, I can allow ""Universe" as defined in BB cosmology translates to something more like "all that you can geometrically travel to"" without comment.
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.