Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[Justatruthseeker]

Sounds like are completely ignoring the relativistic reality of the frame of reference LM is talking about.

Sounds to me like you and LM are both ignoring the fact you know the twins clocks are slowing as he accelerates.... we all understand the twin can't tell his clocks are changing. But you, if you understand Relativity, know without a doubt the twins clocks are changing as he accelerates. So you are willingly ignoring what you know to be true, for the perspective of someone who can't even tell his clocks are changing. Even when he returns to the stationary frame it's made quite clear to him he was wrong.

As a matter of fact the twin in motion is so wrong he thinks the stationary twins clocks are slowing, yet the stationary twins clocks never change, he is stationary and the control in the experiment to show it was acceleration which caused clocks to change. The twin in motion can't perceive anything correctly.

EDIT: So why are you persisting in the mindset of the twin in motion when you know he is wrong about everything he thinks is true?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was referring to the last six commandments, as they deal directly with the social structure. The difference being that God said, "No, really. You are going to keep these commandments." Breaking our similar laws has risen to an art form.



The commandments were given so that Israel would change it's behavior from that of the nations around it. Just look at adultery today. While it may be justification for divorce it is hardly illegal.



So I need a committee to study my beliefs before I can accept them as knowledge?



My point was that science often publishes their beliefs/theories/hypothesis before proving them. They are parsed as if they are valid, and many actually believe them to be. God publishes his knowledge and leaves it up to us to prove it. I have proven to my satisfaction that God's knowledge is true and useful knowledge for man.

The long and short of it is that mankind will not solve his problems using the scientific method. It is only by applying God's laws that we can save ourselves. Sadly that option is quickly fading.

I pretty much agree with most of what you said except the last part.

Science will bring the revaluation to come when through the study of what was made Gods invisible attributes will be made known so that all excuses will be removed. Then once all those excuses are removed by their own methods, the end will come. Romans 1:20

You just have to put up with the pseudoscience and excuses until that time finally arrives.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It can be argued that keeping the commandments has a demonstrably beneficial effect in society, especially when carried into the true intent of those laws. Also, beliefs become knowledge (albeit spiritual) when understood and successfully applied.

Doesn't science constantly publish their unproven beliefs far in advance of any proof that they are valid? Then when they fall flat they play the "scientific method" card and all is well.

Sounds like claims of dark matter, then when over 12 experiments bring null results, ignore those results and keep preaching as fact what was just falsified.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I pretty much agree with most of what you said except the last part.

Science will bring the revaluation to come when through the study of what was made Gods invisible attributes will be made known so that all excuses will be removed. Then once all those excuses are removed by their own methods, the end will come. Romans 1:20

You just have to put up with the pseudoscience and excuses until that time finally arrives.

I can agree with that (albeit grudgingly).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sounds like claims of dark matter, then when over 12 experiments bring null results, ignore those results and keep preaching as fact what was just falsified.

I'm a big fan of "string theory".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Off course. The explanations of the facts change as we gather more facts and learn more about the world. The facts themselves however, don't change.

But your claiming the explanations of those facts which constantly change are facts....

They once stated it was fact the earth was the center of the solar system, maths and all to prove it. The once said the facts showed the Milky Way was the entire universe.

So not only do the explanations change, but what you believe are facts change as knowledge advances.

The underlying idea here is that when a certain model of explanation does NOT match the (newly gathered) facts of reality, we don't assume that reality is "wrong"...

Yet the reality isn't what you believe it to be if that model or explanation does not match. In fact if your explanation and model is wrong, then what you believe to be reality is wrong.

Reality is correct - our explanatory models are what is wrong if they don't match reality.

But it's your explanatory models that are wrong in which you decide what is reality.

After all, what does "true" mean, if not "in accordance with reality"?

Yet after 12 null results you refuse to accept the reality and won't abandon your flawed models....

Contrast that with religious beliefs........
There's a reason why it is called "dogma".

Agreed, such as 12 null results and your dogma of refusing to accept the scientific results.....

If the facts of reality don't match the religious stories, then it is assumed (by fundamentalists at least) that reality must be wrong. And that's how you get silly statements like "satan put all those fossils in the ground to make it LOOK as if god didn't do it".

That's also how we get silly statements that Relativity is 99% correct, then needs 96% ad hoc theory added to it to make it correct. Because you won't surrendered those flawed models of dark matter. And won't accept that GR only applies to non ionized matter, .1% of the universe, planetary systems.

Not saying that you made such claims, but I actually had a discussion once with a really radical creationists who indeed said that... that if reality doesn't agree with the bible, that it is just the devil playing tricks on you.

Is that like saying if someone diss agrees with what's written in scientific literature he is wrong, when by your own words the model itself is subject to change and is not the reality?

Those are the extreme cases. There are degrees there off course. The most "moderate" degree being that "if the bible doesn't match reality, then we must be misunderstanding the bible"

So since none of the 12 experiments in the search for dark matter showed Nything, then it must be your misunderstanding of reality, right?

However, there is 1 thing that both the most rational "moderates" as well as the most extreme fundamentalists have in common... and that is the idea that the bible IS correct, no matter what. There's no chance whatsoever that the bible is wrong and that christianity is just as false as all other religions.

Oh no, I have no doubts at all the English translations of the original Hebrew contain many mistakes....

That's the key difference between science and religious "explanations".

And yet you won't abandon your false beliefs of dark matter despite 12 null results. It has become a religion.

If something in science doesn't match reality, it's thrown out like yesterday's paper.

And yet despite 12 null results you refuse to throw it out like yesterday's paper.....

EDIT: just realised that I replied to a post of a year ago. Sorry bout that.

misunderstandins apparently haven't changed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm a big fan of "string theory".

So we're a lot of those hoping it would be their salvation, sadly it too went kaput, except for like dark matter and 12 null results when they refuse to accept the very experiments they perform.

Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas

 

[Aman777]

Sounds like claims of dark matter, then when over 12 experiments bring null results, ignore those results and keep preaching as fact what was just falsified.

Dark matter tries to explain what holds the Universe together. It's dark because they can't explain it. God did, thousands of years ago, speaking of Jesus:

Col 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dark matter tries to explain what holds the Universe together. It's dark because they can't explain it.

It's dark because they refuse to open their eyes and see those plasma halos around every galaxy right where there dark matter was supposed to be. Then treat that plasma just like non ionized matter and wonder why they need 96% Fairie Dust.

This despite over 200 years of laboratory experiments with plasma in which nothing but electromagnetic theory and particle physics is used to describe its behavior.

As long as they continue to use the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter it will always be dark to them.

God who is energy/mind is simply in all and to which all will return. So of course electromagnetic interactions are the dominating force in the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was referring to the last six commandments, as they deal directly with the social structure.

None of which are original to christianity. They also fall awefully short. They fail to cover general discrimination (racism, facism, sexism...), they fail to speak out against* slavery (in fact, the bible explicitly condones slavery).

I could rewrite the 10 commandments right now and do a much better job.
Remove the first 4 and already you have a better set of rules, in fact.

Then add "don't consider people to be property" and "don't judge people by their reproductive parts or skin color" and now you've improved on them exponentially.

The commandments were given so that Israel would change it's behavior from that of the nations around it. Just look at adultery today. While it may be justification for divorce it is hardly illegal.

Yeah.... we should go all biblical on them and stone them to death. That would make our society a true paradise.

So I need a committee to study my beliefs before I can accept them as knowledge?

You can believe whatever you want. I was just clarifying what the difference is between "beliefs" and "knowledge". That difference being that knowledge is demonstrable.

In the words of AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"

My point was that science often publishes their beliefs/theories/hypothesis before proving them.

If explanatory models could only be published after they are proven then no explanatory model would ever be published, because science doesn't deal in such absolutes.

And again, it is completely wrong and misleading to call hypothesis or theories "beliefs".

A hypothesis is not a belief. It is a proposed model of explanation for a set of facts within a well defined scope, that may or may not be accurate.

A theory is a hypothesis that got "promoted" after it's been succesfully tested and shown to be accurate and the best explanation available. Note that a theory is only ever considered "accurate" or "working" and never "proven".

A belief is the acceptance of any given idea as TRUE for whatever reason (and not necessarily a justified reason).

Once more: science doesn't deal in "beliefs". At best, science considers things likely or unlikely. There are degrees of certainty there. A hypothesis or theory is never considered "proven" or "true" - because there is always that chance that future evidence or discoveries might force us to re-evaluate any given hypothesis or theory. No matter how solid and accurate a theory seems to be.

It's called "intellectual honesty".

They are parsed as if they are valid

They are not.

, and many actually believe them to be

People believe all kinds of things. But science doesn't deal in beliefs.

God publishes his knowledge and leaves it up to us to prove it

Maybe god should meet his own burden of proof then.

I have proven to my satisfaction that God's knowledge is true and useful knowledge for man.

If you say so.

The long and short of it is that mankind will not solve his problems using the scientific method. It is only by applying God's laws that we can save ourselves. Sadly that option is quickly fading.

Myeah.... reality suggests otherwise.
The higher the religiosity of a nation, the worse shape it seems to be in.


*EDIT: corrected typo

 

[OldWiseGuy]

None of which are original to christianity. They also fall awefully short. They fail to cover general discrimination (racism, facism, sexism...), they fail to condone slavery (in fact, the bible explicitly condones slavery).

I could rewrite the 10 commandments right now and do a much better job.
Remove the first 4 and already you have a better set of rules, in fact.

Then add "don't consider people to be property" and "don't judge people by their reproductive parts or skin color" and now you've improved on them exponentially.



Yeah.... we should go all biblical on them and stone them to death. That would make our society a true paradise.




You can believe whatever you want. I was just clarifying what the difference is between "beliefs" and "knowledge". That difference being that knowledge is demonstrable.

In the words of AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"



If explanatory models could only be published after they are proven then no explanatory model would ever be published, because science doesn't deal in such absolutes.

And again, it is completely wrong and misleading to call hypothesis or theories "beliefs".

A hypothesis is not a belief. It is a proposed model of explanation for a set of facts within a well defined scope, that may or may not be accurate.

A theory is a hypothesis that got "promoted" after it's been succesfully tested and shown to be accurate and the best explanation available. Note that a theory is only ever considered "accurate" or "working" and never "proven".

A belief is the acceptance of any given idea as TRUE for whatever reason (and not necessarily a justified reason).

Once more: science doesn't deal in "beliefs". At best, science considers things likely or unlikely. There are degrees of certainty there. A hypothesis or theory is never considered "proven" or "true" - because there is always that chance that future evidence or discoveries might force us to re-evaluate any given hypothesis or theory. No matter how solid and accurate a theory seems to be.

It's called "intellectual honesty".



They are not.



People believe all kinds of things. But science doesn't deal in beliefs.



Maybe god should meet his own burden of proof then.



If you say so.



Myeah.... reality suggests otherwise.
The higher the religiosity of a nation, the worse shape it seems to be in.

I won't respond tit for tat with you except to say that,

You obviously don't understand new covenant Christianity, which is evolving right along with science.

and,

while 'science' itself may not 'believe' in their theories many scientists do, and pursue them based on the belief that they are true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I won't respond tit for tat with you except to say that,

You obviously don't understand new covenant Christianity, which is evolving right along with science.

The commandments are from the OT. So are the other 603.
And you're the one who brought them up.

while 'science' itself may not 'believe' in their theories many scientists do, and pursue them based on the belief that they are true.

Not in the sense that you use the word "believe".
They might consider a certain hypothesis or theory the way to go for further investigation and/or very likely/accurate. But that's very different from believing that it is "the truth and nothing but the truth".

Science is all about tentative acceptance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The commandments are from the OT. So are the other 603.
And you're the one who brought them up.

I have always directed the topic to the NT fulfillment of the commands, not their literal meaning. Of course one shouldn't steal, but the fulfillment of the command is generosity towards others. Stealing the farthest thing from one's mind when giving to others. It's the difference between repentance and conversion. To the converted person stealing is 'ancient history', just like the commandment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not in the sense that you use the word "believe".
They might consider a certain hypothesis or theory the way to go for further investigation and/or very likely/accurate. But that's very different from believing that it is "the truth and nothing but the truth".

Science is all about tentative acceptance.

I'll concede that point, as the believer believes the proposition on it's face; no research needed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of which are original to christianity. They also fall awefully short. They fail to cover general discrimination (racism, facism, sexism...), they fail to speak out against* slavery (in fact, the bible explicitly condones slavery).

I could rewrite the 10 commandments right now and do a much better job.
Remove the first 4 and already you have a better set of rules, in fact.

Then add "don't consider people to be property" and "don't judge people by their reproductive parts or skin color" and now you've improved on them exponentially.



Yeah.... we should go all biblical on them and stone them to death. That would make our society a true paradise.




You can believe whatever you want. I was just clarifying what the difference is between "beliefs" and "knowledge". That difference being that knowledge is demonstrable.

In the words of AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"



If explanatory models could only be published after they are proven then no explanatory model would ever be published, because science doesn't deal in such absolutes.

And again, it is completely wrong and misleading to call hypothesis or theories "beliefs".

A hypothesis is not a belief. It is a proposed model of explanation for a set of facts within a well defined scope, that may or may not be accurate.

A theory is a hypothesis that got "promoted" after it's been succesfully tested and shown to be accurate and the best explanation available. Note that a theory is only ever considered "accurate" or "working" and never "proven".

A belief is the acceptance of any given idea as TRUE for whatever reason (and not necessarily a justified reason).

Once more: science doesn't deal in "beliefs". At best, science considers things likely or unlikely. There are degrees of certainty there. A hypothesis or theory is never considered "proven" or "true" - because there is always that chance that future evidence or discoveries might force us to re-evaluate any given hypothesis or theory. No matter how solid and accurate a theory seems to be.

It's called "intellectual honesty".



They are not.



People believe all kinds of things. But science doesn't deal in beliefs.



Maybe god should meet his own burden of proof then.



If you say so.



Myeah.... reality suggests otherwise.
The higher the religiosity of a nation, the worse shape it seems to be in.


*EDIT: corrected typo

Perhaps you better reread the passages on slavery. If one could not fulfill his debt he could enter into servitude to the one owed. And was to be treated with respect. What we call slavery today had nothing in common with the indentured servitude of the O.T.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not in the sense that you use the word "believe".
They might consider a certain hypothesis or theory the way to go for further investigation and/or very likely/accurate. But that's very different from believing that it is "the truth and nothing but the truth".

Science is all about tentative acceptance.

So despite 12 null results, why do they believe in dark matter still as the truth and nothing but the truth? Shall we go look at the posts in the dark matter section and see all the statements of fact, not tentative acceptance in the least, despite those 12 null results?

I hear your words, but they lack any substantive meaning in that it is accepted as truth, and nothing but the truth, despite those 12 null results.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps you better reread the passages on slavery. If one could not fulfill his debt he could enter into servitude to the one owed. And was to be treated with respect. What we call slavery today had nothing in common with the indentured servitude of the O.T.

And, in Jesus time most of the Roman world were slaves. Paul addressed Roman slavery as a fact of life at the time, neither approving or disapproving.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And, in Jesus time most of the Roman world were slaves. Paul addressed Roman slavery as a fact of life at the time, neither approving or disapproving.

While we read that St Paul expects slaves to obey their masters, his understanding of the matter is more complex. Rather than just giving slavery the nod and moving on, he tells masters that they should regard their slaves as brothers. In the Book of Philemon, he instructs Philemon to treat the slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ (Philemon 16). Paul tells masters to treat slaves with justice and fairness (Col. 4:1) and not to threaten them (Eph 6:9). All these are practical instructions for Christian living, but in his theology, Paul lays the seeds of the abolition of slavery. Through baptism, we are equal in the sight of God. In Galatians 3:28 he teaches, “For all of you who were baptized in Christ … there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free … but all are one in Christ.”

St. Paul’s treatment of slavery, then, can be summarized thus: “Slaves should obey their masters, but masters must treat them as brothers in the Lord, for in Christ there is no slave or free.” While the fact of slavery is accepted, St. Paul sees that in Christ, the chains of slavery are broken. The eventual abolition of slavery is therefore present in seed form in the teaching of St. Paul. This is a clear example of the right kind of development of doctrine - in which a final understanding blossoms forth from a seed that was planted in the first place in the New Testament.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of which are original to christianity. They also fall awefully short. They fail to cover general discrimination (racism, facism, sexism...), they fail to speak out against* slavery (in fact, the bible explicitly condones slavery).

I could rewrite the 10 commandments right now and do a much better job.
Remove the first 4 and already you have a better set of rules, in fact.

Then add "don't consider people to be property" and "don't judge people by their reproductive parts or skin color" and now you've improved on them exponentially.



Yeah.... we should go all biblical on them and stone them to death. That would make our society a true paradise.




You can believe whatever you want. I was just clarifying what the difference is between "beliefs" and "knowledge". That difference being that knowledge is demonstrable.

In the words of AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"



If explanatory models could only be published after they are proven then no explanatory model would ever be published, because science doesn't deal in such absolutes.

And again, it is completely wrong and misleading to call hypothesis or theories "beliefs".

A hypothesis is not a belief. It is a proposed model of explanation for a set of facts within a well defined scope, that may or may not be accurate.

A theory is a hypothesis that got "promoted" after it's been succesfully tested and shown to be accurate and the best explanation available. Note that a theory is only ever considered "accurate" or "working" and never "proven".

A belief is the acceptance of any given idea as TRUE for whatever reason (and not necessarily a justified reason).

Once more: science doesn't deal in "beliefs". At best, science considers things likely or unlikely. There are degrees of certainty there. A hypothesis or theory is never considered "proven" or "true" - because there is always that chance that future evidence or discoveries might force us to re-evaluate any given hypothesis or theory. No matter how solid and accurate a theory seems to be.

It's called "intellectual honesty".



They are not.



People believe all kinds of things. But science doesn't deal in beliefs.



Maybe god should meet his own burden of proof then.



If you say so.



Myeah.... reality suggests otherwise.
The higher the religiosity of a nation, the worse shape it seems to be in.


*EDIT: corrected typo

Except this nation was started by those who believed and became great because of that belief. Now we attempt to control the world by force instead of example because we have lost what we started with. Thousands starving and millions subsisting at the poverty level, skyrocketing crime rates, etc. so you might equate technology and military might with better off, but are we?

Don't equate wolves in sheeps clothing leading the flock in other countries and lining their pockets while their people starve as having anything to do with religion, regardless of which religion it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except this nation was started by those who believed and became great because of that belief. Now we attempt to control the world by force instead of example because we have lost what we started with. Thousands starving and millions subsisting at the poverty level, skyrocketing crime rates, etc. so you might equate technology and military might with better off, but are we?

Don't equate wolves in sheeps clothing leading the flock in other countries and lining their pockets while their people starve as having anything to do with religion, regardless of which religion it is.

When I said that there is a negative corrolation between the shape of a society and its religiosity, I was also considering the US.

It's among the most religious countries of the western world, but the society is in one of the worse shapes as well in terms of literacy, education, health, violence/crime rates, infant mortality, general life expectancy,...

I wasn't talking about how "rich" societies are or can be.