Posted on 05/25/2009 9:31:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Is 'String' the next big thing?: Theories about cosmic evolution dangle by a thread
by Gary Bates
Most people have heard of the expression ‘the big bang’. Its usage is so prevalent among mainstream scientists and the media that it has become the accepted ‘fact’ for how the universe began. However, there are an increasing number of secular scientists who are sceptical of this theory of cosmic evolution, and much of their scepticism has been caused by increasing discoveries that fly in the face of big bang theory. In May 2004 ‘An Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ signed by dozens of secular scientists was advertised in the renowned New Scientist. At the time of writing this article, the total number of scientists signing the letter who are sceptical of the big bang has increased to over 400.[1]
One of the great problems for those who believe that the universe came into existence by itself is...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
No, that's Darwinism, the earthly part of evolutionary theory. And Darwinism also is failed theory.
So how does that make me wrong? Everything exists at the exact same time as everything else. Time is relative. it's you that keeps confusing relative time with travel time.
And how would you falsify your assumption?
Nope. Darwinism is evolution, although there are other competing theories of evolution. The term is often used loosely, by both advocates and opponents, to describe theories of origin of the universe or of life, but this is a misuse of the term.
General relativity theory would say time passage is slower in a stronger gravitational versus a weaker one, thus the rate of time passage would be slower on the earth relative to the satellite.
Special relativity theory posits that a clock moving relative to another on earth would appear to run slower to an observer on earth.
Since the two do not exactly cancel out each other adjustments are constantly being made to account for the slight difference.
What cannot be doubted is that the satellite GPS system operates according the above.
[[How would you invent a hypothesis that includes God, and how would you test that hypothesis?]]
You present enough evidence to come to a logical beyond reasonable doubt conlcusion based o nthe evidences- Just as in the case of evolution, ID provides such evidence, as well as showing htat nature is incapable macroevolution.
[[Hawking does not exclude God from the picture, which you would know if you’d listened to any of his lectures.]]
I have, and yeah he does- He believes we are accidents of nature- that excludes God from the picture
[[To be fully accurate, evolution simply does not address issues such as those discussed in this article. It covers how life spread and diversifies here on earth, while nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life, the earth or the universe]]
“Confusing ‘origins science’ with ‘operational science’; the real origins of science
Scientific American also repeats the common claim that evolution and ‘methodological naturalism’ are the basis for modern advances in science:
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. [SA 85]
This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science.3 Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.
Operational science has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, e.g., putting men on the moon and curing diseases. And it’s vital to note that many historians, of a wide number of religious persuasions, from Christians to atheists, point out that the founders of operational science were motivated by their belief that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if atheism or polytheism were true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.
Genesis 1:28 gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism that teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, not rely on man-made philosophies as did the ancient Greeks.
These founding scientists, like modern creationists, regarded ‘natural laws’ as descriptions of the way God upholds His creation in a regular and repeatable way (Col. 1:15–17), while miracles are God’s way of upholding His creation in a special way for special reasons. Because creation finished at the end of day 6 (Gen. 2:1–3), creationists following the Bible would expect that God has since mostly worked through ‘natural laws’ except where He has revealed in the Bible that He used a miracle. And since ‘natural laws’ are descriptive, they cannot prescribe what cannot happen, so they cannot rule out miracles. Scientific laws do not cause or forbid anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline.
Because creation finished at the end of day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present, despite Scientific American’s scare tactics. This can be shown in a letter I wrote to an inquirer who believed that atoms had to be held together by miraculous means:
‘Natural laws’ also help us make predictions about future events. In the case of the atom, the explanation of the electrons staying in their orbitals is the positive electric charge and large mass of the nucleus. This enables us to make predictions about how strongly a particular electron is held by a particular atom, for example, making the science of chemistry possible. While this is certainly an example of Colossians 1:17, simply saying ‘God upholds the electron’ doesn’t help us make predictions.
And in my days as a university teaching assistant before joining CMI, I marked an examination answer wrong because it said ‘God made it so’ for a question about the frequency of infrared spectral lines, instead of discussing atomic masses and force constants.
So, Scientific American is wrong to imply that creationists are in any way hindered in real operational scientific research, either in theory or in practice.
In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus, it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause4) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.
The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through common silly assertions such as:
… evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.5
However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-1-argument-creationism-is-religion-not-science
When you jump from operational lab science to speculating about macroevolution- you leave the realm of science and engage in hypothetical science, and doing so you need to include origins if you are goign to make hte case that species evolved one from another- you can’t exclude origins of hte species simpyl because there is no rational explanation- you MUST show how life began and how it was possible to for nature to move species beyond hteir own kinds- stating that macroevolution ‘study’ doesn’t include origins is a copout
You left out one very important point- establishement of religion means forcing it on everyone- like hte church in england did- the government may infact choose any religion they like, and may even go so far as to support it financially over other religions- however it may not force anyone to accept it by order or mandate- far left liberals howeverhave mangled the original intent of constitution, which was to prevent government fro mforcing religion on anyone
Why?
Darwin himself was very clear he had no theories on this point and didn't seem to be bothered by it.
Evolution, in the original and reasonable sense of the term, involves how organisms change over time. How the organisms came into existence in the first place is outside its field of study.
[[Hell, you cant test God as a hypothesis, and test for him with an experiment, that silly!]]
Well then, I guess we’d better throw out every branch of forensic science and forensic testimony that establishes ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that crimes or actions or events were infact intelligently designed and executed as opposed to naturally ‘designed’ and executed.
[[Darwin himself was very clear he had no theories on this point and didn’t seem to be bothered by it.]]
He was bothered by it, and voiced his concerns as well. Why must origins be included in a hypothesis about macroevolution? Because if, as I said, you wish to establish life naturally evovles species beyond hteir own kinds, you must show hte mechanisms behind the process, and htose mechanisms woudl thus have to have a natural beginning from chemicals, as that would have been all that was available to nature ‘in hte beginning’
If you wish to state that scientists choose to ignore origins, that would be fine- but it’s simpyl not correct to state that the ‘study’ of macroevolution excludes origins explanations
[[Evolution, in the original and reasonable sense of the term, involves how organisms change over time.]]
That is hte operational study of Microevolution- microevolution is a verifiable, testable, process- Macroevolution however is not- it’s nothign but a hypothesis, which quite frankly violates several key scientific principles
[[Those who support Intelligent Design should be reserved with either embracing on condemning physics at this level, because arguments can be made for many competing theories that are essentially neutral to the concept of Intelligent Design. Importantly, they are also neutral to the idea of their not being Intelligent Design as well.]]
There is no reason to be reserved— the goal is not to ‘prove God’, but to present enough evidence to show a very strong probability, a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ probability, that qan i9ntelligence is needed for hte act, causation, design, or complexity. ID is not in the business of ‘proving God’- that is not their requirement nor goal- their only two objectives, purely speaking, are to both provide enough evidence to show a beyond reasonable doubt case for hte need for an Intelligence, AND to provide enough evidence to hsow that nature simply is incapable of the organized irreducible complexity seen in nature
The argument can and should, expand into physics as well, as the many neutral cases you mention, as well as the cases that are biased toward the need for ID, and agaisnt the idea nature caused it, also add a great deal of weight to the contention that an intelligent designer was needed
Someone else will have to regale you with the change in half life of subatomic particles when they are accelerated to near light speed, verses when they are at rest. Time does indeed move slower, as observed by the "at rest" observer for objects moving at near light speed. Proved fact. Observed. Repeated.
“You can’t *seriously* believe that time runs slower 250 miles high, than it does on the ground.” [excerpt]I believe they have done experiments and found that time slows near large masses.
The Founders, unlike modern politicians, esp. of the Left, were great students of history, and the religious civil wars of England were recent history to them. England had finally reached a condition where the govt. still supported the Anglican Church, but people were able to worship in other churches. The Anglican Church became something of a joke, with pastors' employment being referred to as a "living," much like a civil service job. The holder of the living might have little competence or motivation to be a good pastor, but he had to have the right social and political connections, much like the politically-appointed hacks in govt. positions.
[[The establishment clause of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress making anylaw regarding establishment of religion. I.e. it could not set up an established church for the nation as a whole,]]
That is correct- however, the government choosing to worship one religion is not setting up a religion for the whole country because it is not forcing anyone to abide by that religion’s constitutions- in england, there were penalties for not belonging to the church of england- and htose not belongign to the church were penalized in courts as well- that is an government establishment of church- that is a case of government mandates regardign religious affiliation being enforced and executed by the government- in other words, it forced peopel to either join, or suffer hte consequences both judicially, and civily
At the beginning I wondered if you knew the difference, since I often find people who don’t. Since you do, I accept what you say.
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.