The tools of science

[Dark_Lite]

All these models do not appear because of YEC. But none of them positively disprove YEC as they appeared one after another. On the contrary, all of them provided more possibilities that the YEC could be true.

It is rare to have this situation in science.

If a theory depends on the universe being old, YECism is immediately thrown out the window.

 

[Gus2009]

Assumption based on unproven assumption about light speed. I am more interested in the tools you would actually use to examine deep space e.g. a telescope or fossils e.g. a microscope and why you think it is a reliable way to find things out about deep space or fossils.

This "light speed being constant" discussion was very briefly adressed in my naturalism post. http://www.christianforums.com/t7396044-3/. A poster named Lawtonfogle seemed have a solid understanding of the physics involved. Itd be nice if him or anyone else who is read in this subject could further clarify this issue. Its my understanding that light speed being constant is not so much an assumption as it is a necessity.

 

[teddyv]

I am a geologist. So I know well the meaning of uniformitarianism in geology. I never think it is true. On the contrary, I know it is not true in geology.

Another geologist here. Can you elaborate on this somewhat or is there an older thread that you talk about this in more detail?

 

[mindlight]

And since when has the nature of time changed? In relativity, perception of time is relative to gravitational forces. It's still governed by the same laws. Why doesn't the nature of light change? Because there's no logical basis for it. There's zero reason to assume it would. mindlight's hypothesis is that the light we see from stars is somehow magically quantumly entangled in just such a way that the light doesn't really travel for billions of years to reach the Earth. I'm not even entirely sure if that's possible in quantum mechanics. But let's say it was possible. The sheer statistical impossibility of every single light particle being in such a state that the universe is really 6,000 years old is such a low number it should probably be below zero. So how is that remedied? "God did it." That is not science.

There is no demonstrable pattern of such things happening elsewhere in the universe, and there is no possible way of even verifying that idea short of sending a probe into the intergalactic medium with some sort of light scooper-upper. Even if we did have the ability to do that, I'm sure the light there will be the same as the light here. What we are able to test on Earth and within our own solar system gives us evidence in the complete opposite direction.

The evidence is stacked purely against this hypothesis. Given that the first hypothesis failed after he talked to his friend about how quantum mechanics, this second hypothesis is only more of a desparate attempt of somehow rationalizing a 6,000 year old universe with the clear perception that our universe appears to be old. The problem is, God is not a God of the Gaps, and that the evidence destroyed any notion of a 6,000 year old universe long ago.

My fundamental view is that all discussion of deep space is speculative. Mainstream science will go with the theory that seems to best explain the way things appear. But the way things appear is based on observations made by telescopes so imprecise that they cannot even see the Apollo landers on the moon, an object quite close to us. Observations are made in the electromagnetic spectrum while at the same time scientists increasingly recognise the relative unimportance of this electromagnetic spectrum relative to what cannot be seen e.g. dark matter and energy. Theories are thus based on seeing things which cannot be tested in the same way that we can test things on earth.

My original attempt with Quantum entanglement failed because the theory current in Quantum mechanics assumes an original union to the synchronised pairs of photons. As you say to envisage a universe being created with that level of sychronisation built into it at billions of light years distance between paired photons is nothing short of miraculous and requires God to explain. It also departs from what Quantum mechanics is prepared to speculate about at this time using their merely naturalistic set of assumptions. Other theories exist about time dilation, a variable speed of light etc to explain why we can see starlight from stars so far away. They all introduce an element of doubt to mainstream theories but cannot be regarded as any more authoritative than the theory they attempt to doubt.

I believe in a 6000 year old universe because I think thats what scripture says. I trust that interpretation at this point, but its disproving would not lead me to lose my faith. It would just shift me to a different interpretation of the passage as I realised my first reading had been disproven.. However the so called evidence on this remains quite obviously speculative to me and is all based on the way things appear to be far far away. Deep space remains a mystery and humility about what can be said is the better policy in my view. Too many scientists have spent too long chatting to their colleagues behind locked doors confirming their theories to each other but failing to realise the growing credibility gap between the degree of certainty with which they speak and the relative paucity of real evidence on this.

I accept the universe appears old but the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself and does not yet remotely challenge a YEC view. The universe we see through a telescope reveals patterns that can be consistently described but could still be misunderstood.

 

[gluadys]

I believe in a 6000 year old universe because I think thats what scripture says. I trust that interpretation at this point, but its disproving would not lead me to lose my faith. It would just shift me to a different interpretation of the passage as I realised my first reading had been disproven..

That is good to hear. It must pain you to know that is not the case with many YECists. Some who post to this forum have said straight out that if it were proved to their satisfaction that the scientifically-established age of the earth is correct, or that humanity evolved from a precursor species, they would cease to be Christian.

I am glad to hear you would hold on to your faith.

However the so called evidence on this remains quite obviously speculative to me and is all based on the way things appear to be far far away. Deep space remains a mystery and humility about what can be said is the better policy in my view. Too many scientists have spent too long chatting to their colleagues behind locked doors confirming their theories to each other but failing to realise the growing credibility gap between the degree of certainty with which they speak and the relative paucity of real evidence on this.

I accept the universe appears old but the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself and does not yet remotely challenge a YEC view. The universe we see through a telescope reveals patterns that can be consistently described but could still be misunderstood.

I agree that in philosophy and in logic the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself. But can the same be said in theology?

If God made the universe and made us in it, why would he not want us to experience it as it is? Why would the appearance of things not be the best guide to what the thing in itself is? I don't mean to identify appearance of reality with reality, but if appearance--well-tested and corroborated by multiple observers and through multiple tests--is not a reliable guide to what God created----then what is?

What else do we have to display the power and glory of God to us than the creation as it appears to us?

 

[mindlight]

This "light speed being constant" discussion was very briefly adressed in my naturalism post. http://www.christianforums.com/t7396044-3/. A poster named Lawtonfogle seemed have a solid understanding of the physics involved. Itd be nice if him or anyone else who is read in this subject could further clarify this issue. Its my understanding that light speed being constant is not so much an assumption as it is a necessity.

That link did not work. This idea has a number of different angles as I understand it.

1) If light is not a constant over time, in certain catastrophic conditions or in places with different configurations to the ones we can test then calculations of time based on apparent trigonomic distance and viewing light having travelled at a constant rate become speculative.

2) If there is no evidence to prove that light is not a constant then can we envisage certain types of light travel that does not follow the normal rules. So for instance does light interact with certain types of dark matter_energy by simply jumping from its entry point to its output point for instance. Again since noone has any experimental data whatsoever it's all speculation.

3) Is the necessity of light being a constant to do with the ways in which theories have come to be constructed rather than with the realities they attempt to wrestle with?

 

[mindlight]

I agree that in philosophy and in logic the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself. But can the same be said in theology?

If God made the universe and made us in it, why would he not want us to experience it as it is? Why would the appearance of things not be the best guide to what the thing in itself is? I don't mean to identify appearance of reality with reality, but if appearance--well-tested and corroborated by multiple observers and through multiple tests--is not a reliable guide to what God created----then what is?

What else do we have to display the power and glory of God to us than the creation as it appears to us?

Theologically creation reveals only the power, wisdom and artistry of God. It took the person of Christ who dwelt amongst us to reveal the full extent and richness of Gods love, mercy and grace. The appearance of the thing in itself before this revelation was incomplete and left kings and honest men longing to know more. After this revelation all that was said before needs reappraisal.

Just as man , the created creature, images in a small way his Creator the understanding of God gives us concepts with which we can approach creation itself.

1) God is one and God is three - so also there is an integrity and a diversity to creation.

2) Jesus is the miraculous Almighty one through whom all things were made but so also he is the finite, fragile creature with the limited experience of a short life on planet Earth. If we focus on the Divine we see a universe which God could have created with a click of his fingers never mind 6 days. If we focus on the humanity we have speculative theories that attempt to explain on the basis of our limited experience of what God has created.

3) In the world of the OT the Jews read the political messiah prophecies with great enthusiasm and missed the ones about a Saviour who would dwell with them in humility and ultimately make the supreme sacrifice for them. So when their messiah came they did not recognise Him.

When we assess the appearance of a thing and attempt to understand its reality we can get it terribly wrong for a great many reasons.

1) We can overstress the consistenty of our theories and miss the diversity that these theories must also accomodate.

2) We can attribute divine certainty to what is merely human speculation.

3) We can read what we want to read and miss the thing that does not fit our values and which may actually overthrow our theories.

The overthrow of Ptolemy by Galilleo and Copernicus was a monumental shift from what had seemed apparent for so long to a deeper perception of the reality itself. But still the search continues - reality is not yet even within our grasp when we speak of the stars we only have the appearance of the thing and better and better theories about it. Some of these theories may well be completely off the mark.

I am reading a load of stuff about what it means to see, the effects of distortions (like the stick in water) and after images and mirror images for instance distort our perception of what is real. Across the gulf of the stars our vision cannot afford the philosophical distortions that we bring to the act of seeing. We see so little of and we see so imprecisely what is out there and have so little time to digest what we see. So when we do see a thing we need to be sure that we can trust what we see and see it as it is. Until we see we are only blind men staring into darkness seeing the occasional dots and flashes.

 

[gluadys]

Theologically creation reveals only the power, wisdom and artistry of God.

Nevertheless, it is still the creation as it appears to us that offers this revelation. Would it make any sense to offer an appearance of creation that is not consistent with the reality of creation to be revelatory of the Creator?

When we assess the appearance of a thing and attempt to understand its reality we can get it terribly wrong for a great many reasons.

1) We can overstress the consistenty of our theories and miss the diversity that these theories must also accomodate.

2) We can attribute divine certainty to what is merely human speculation.

3) We can read what we want to read and miss the thing that does not fit our values and which may actually overthrow our theories.

I don't know anyone in science today who is attempting 2). But if you were referring to the church's theological endorsement of the geocentric cosmology, you have a point. OTOH, I also think it is unfair to the ancients to refer to that as "merely human speculation". They had good reason---based on the evidence available--to hold to geocentrism. They were not just guessing blindly, and they had--for the time--valid questions to pose before accepting a paradigm shift.

As for 1) and 3) I can see these being difficulties when we assume research is done in a vacuum with each individual working on his/her own. But as you know, that is not the reality of scientific endeavour. That is why science is self-correcting, because one person's blind spots are compensated for by the different perspective of someone else. A new pair of eyes is always a possibility; a new way of thinking is always a possibility.

The overthrow of Ptolemy by Galilleo and Copernicus was a monumental shift from what had seemed apparent for so long to a deeper perception of the reality itself. But still the search continues - reality is not yet even within our grasp when we speak of the stars we only have the appearance of the thing and better and better theories about it. Some of these theories may well be completely off the mark.

But when do we go from knowing stuff more accurately within a current paradigm to a whole new paradigm? Furthermore, we should remember that a new paradigm tends to embrace a lot of the old paradigm. Going from Ptolomy to Copernicus did mean getting rid of solid crystalline spheres rotating around the earth, but it did not necessitate tossing out all the old ephemerides and tables of the orbits of the planets. Copernicus and Galileo did not show that their predecessors had been wrong about everything since the Chaldeans and Egyptians first began observing the heavens.

Nor did Einsten's work simply kick Newton's work aside. Rather it incorporated Newton's work within the larger scheme of relativity.

The fact that theories change--whether through more accurate observations or through a new paradigmatic explanation of what we see--doesn't mean a rejection of the world as it appears.

We see so little of and we see so imprecisely what is out there and have so little time to digest what we see. So when we do see a thing we need to be sure that we can trust what we see and see it as it is.

Which brings me back to where I began. I believe that we can trust what we see, and that we see it more or less the way it is, because we can trust that God wants us to see creation as it is. So the way the world appears is a trustworthy guide to what it is.

Sure, we have a lot more to explore. We are like the person who has put together about 10 pieces of a million-piece jigsaw puzzle. We think we know at least our little corner of the visible universe, but as we place more pieces we see that what we thought was not quite right. Sometimes we have to adjust where we put pieces and set them into a new relation with each other. And sometimes, we get a whole new perspective as a new idea falls into place. But every step toward completing the puzzle relies on the pieces we have being a reliable guide to what we have yet to find.

 

[juvenissun]

Another geologist here. Can you elaborate on this somewhat or is there an older thread that you talk about this in more detail?

On a grand scale, catastrophism makes more significant changes.
On a small scale, most processes varied their parameters all the time.

So, uniformitarianism is like the average value of a data set and does not mean much in real application.

 

[juvenissun]

If a theory depends on the universe being old, YECism is immediately thrown out the window.

Of course, A or -A. It can't be both.

But, that is human logic. It is obviously not everything. For theological scientist, A and -A is certainly not an empty set. For example, a YEC can accept OEC. But evolution is more than just OECism. That becomes a problem.

 

[laconicstudent]

But evolution is more than just OECism. That becomes a problem.

I fail to see how, it is compatible with the rest of modern science.

 

[juvenissun]

That is good to hear. It must pain you to know that is not the case with many YECists. Some who post to this forum have said straight out that if it were proved to their satisfaction that the scientifically-established age of the earth is correct, or that humanity evolved from a precursor species, they would cease to be Christian.

I am glad to hear you would hold on to your faith.





I agree that in philosophy and in logic the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself. But can the same be said in theology?

If God made the universe and made us in it, why would he not want us to experience it as it is? Why would the appearance of things not be the best guide to what the thing in itself is? I don't mean to identify appearance of reality with reality, but if appearance--well-tested and corroborated by multiple observers and through multiple tests--is not a reliable guide to what God created----then what is?

What else do we have to display the power and glory of God to us than the creation as it appears to us?

The answer to your question must be one beyond science, otherwise, there would be no answer.

Job is a righteous person, why would God give him hard time as if he were a criminal?

 

[juvenissun]

I fail to see how, it is compatible with the rest of modern science.

For example, we were not evolved from ? (chimp, ape ?)

 

[laconicstudent]

For example, we were not evolved from ? (chimp, ape ?)

Um, of course we didn't evolve from chimps or apes.... we diverged from other extant primates around 5-7 million years ago.....

 

[gluadys]

The answer to your question must be one beyond science, otherwise, there would be no answer.

That is why I called it a theological question. Do you have a theological answer?

Job is a righteous person, why would God give him hard time as if he were a criminal?

It is Job who calls God to account and demands he defend himself. So who is being treated as a criminal?

 

[juvenissun]

That is why I called it a theological question. Do you have a theological answer?



It is Job who calls God to account and demands he defend himself. So who is being treated as a criminal?

It is Job. He does not question God with authority, but only begs for an explanation.

So, with all the physics laws prevailed in the universe, we do not question God on not clearly showing us the YEC physics, but only ask Him what is His purpose of not doing so.

 

[juvenissun]

Um, of course we didn't evolve from chimps or apes.... we diverged from other extant primates around 5-7 million years ago.....

do you know the name of the animal we evolved from?

 

[laconicstudent]

do you know the name of the animal we evolved from?

Researchers say Ouranopithecus macedoniensis or Nakalipithecus nakayamai.

 

[laconicstudent]

So, with all the physics laws prevailed in the universe, we do not question God on not clearly showing us the YEC physics, but only ask Him what is His purpose of not doing so.

On the other hand, I think a true relationship comes with questioning and a desire to know, not just blind accepting.


This is acceptable as a religious belief, but its poor science. If YEC physics aren't present, then the universe is obviously not young by scientific understanding. Therefore, YEC is a purely religious belief and has not the slightest basis in science.

 

[juvenissun]

On the other hand, I think a true relationship comes with questioning and a desire to know, not just blind accepting.


This is acceptable as a religious belief, but its poor science. If YEC physics aren't present, then the universe is obviously not young by scientific understanding. Therefore, YEC is a purely religious belief and has not the slightest basis in science.

YEC is not based on science. But science can not prove YEC is wrong.