Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.
This is probably the most profound thing I've ever seen you write.
If the math was wrong back then who is to say it isn't wrong now. I'm sure back then the math was believable, even more believable than it is today. But yet it was wrong. Believable but wrong. That pretty much sums up the big bang theory.
The big bang theory is one of the most empirically backed theories in cosmology.
I have no idea what's being lost in translation here, but you should perhaps evidence your claim. Your assertion is currently baseless.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain why science is wrong if it it accurately describes how death and decay are indeed part of nature. AVET cannot answer that question, since it would force him to reconsider one of his little pet paradigms (Science is bad because it describes nature and nature is bad) and we can't have that now can we??
Science does more than just 'describe'.
Science sets up standards and paradigms that lead to conclusions that are against Scripture.
In addition, it is evident that higher academia teaches (as least covertly) an anti-Biblical philosophy.
You guys' word choices are one of the biggest things that give that away.
The most science does is seek to understand observed phenomena.
Science sets up standards and paradigms that lead to conclusions that are against Scripture.
Given that scripture is theology, and that science is a means of understanding the world we observe, this is bound to happen (since both aim to do the same thing.) The difference lies in the evidence. Science will present theories, which only become facts when the theory is repeatedly observed to be true. This is not the case for theology, since the Bible itself is open to interpretation, and what someone personally believes.
I really don't know how many times you have to be told this before it sinks into your head:
It has nothing, NOTHING to do with belief. Nothing in science does.
Ok. So in science nothing is believed, right?
It has everything to do with what the logical analysis of that math says.
So was Fr. Lemaitre logical analysis of the big bang related math wrong? If not, why has his "explosive" big bang model been changed for one without a "bang"?
__________________
God exists, therefore you are wrong.
“Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
(Rom 3:4)
__________________
Last edited by Doveaman; 26th October 2009 at 06:35 PM.
Indeed. Science seeks to explain what we observe in nature, as well as describe.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Science sets up standards and paradigms that lead to conclusions that are against Scripture.
How many times does one need to do this before we all consider it a falsehood. You mean that "science sets up standards and paradigms that lead to conclusions that are against My Fallible Interpretation of Scripture." The only reason that happens is that you insist on reading The Bible like it was a science book, instead of a theology book.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
In addition, it is evident that higher academia teaches (as least covertly) an anti-Biblical philosophy.
Bull.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
You guys' word choices are one of the biggest things that give that away.
How about yours? How many times to we have to hear that evolution is a "fairytale for adults," or a "religious myth,' or how scientists are a bunch of lying, close-minded, money grubbing, incompetent fools who work for Satan?
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
It is a matter of acceptance, not belief. Scientific theories don't start becoming true only when people start believing in them - that makes it the exact opposite to faith.
So was Fr. Lemaitre logical analysis of the big bang related math wrong?
Not completely. There's usually a grain of truth in the initial proposition of a theory, otherwise they wouldn't be retained and improved upon.
If not, why has his "explosive big bang" model been changed to one without a "bang"?
I'm not all that certain about this "explosive big bang" quote you keep bandying about - Lemaitre never called it the big bang, it was done by someone else two decades later (again, you have been told this).
Analysing the math doesn't mean the theory has to be 100% correct. And improving the theory doesn't mean it's fundamentally flawed - that is what science does.
It is only a problem to those who misunderstand science and treat it like a religion, and their own opinions of religion are such that they think it has to be 100% correct first time round (ironically this is far from the case when it comes to their personal interpretations of the Bible).
Exactly... everything is proven, or held in question as a theory until it is proven. If it is proven incorrect, then Whoosh... theory absolved, and all the scientists that thought it was potentially so go "Oh! Well there you go, my bad... back to the lab."
So was Fr. Lemaitre logical analysis of the big bang related math wrong?
Absolutely! This is why Lemaitre's model of the big bang has been abolished, and a new model, that conforms to the mathematical analyses has taken its place. Truth's don't have to be outlined in every detail from the get go to be true. Truth's take time to expound upon. It take's time to find the whole truth in anything. Most people don't have things right the first time, and you act like 'cause Lemaitre's model was 'incorrect,' that the whole theory is incorrect.
How about yours? How many times to we have to hear that evolution is a "fairytale for adults," or a "religious myth,' or how scientists are a bunch of lying, close-minded, money grubbing, incompetent fools who work for Satan?
Don't forget "but who are still gifts from God."
I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could pick out common phrases from creationists and make similar deranged accusations of conspiracy.
Or at least we could, if this place weren't utterly devoid of creationists bar some who haven't gotten the joke yet
Linear Mode
