Definition of Science/Truth

[d taylor]

When the Bibles speaks of Gods creation heaven and earth (notice the Bible never states God created a universe) and the actions of created things like the sun, moon, stars.

The actions spoken of, that these created things preform. Are in direct opposition to sciences claims/ statements about the sun, moon, stars and how they preform and also actually what they are.

Example Bible the sun and moon are created lights to give light on the earth. Stars are also created lights that also give light, they are assigned a course/circuit that they travel over the earth. As the sun and moon also have a circuit or course that they travel over the earth.

They (sun,moon and stars) are also created as a time keeping system and a navigational system.

Really the Bible and science's descriptions have nothing in common. Except they both speak of a sun, moon and stars, science adds in planets and an outer space and many more science so called truths that are in direct opposition of the Bible.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Is something like this video what you're looking for?

This short 3/12 min video is a great animation of how digital information directs protein synthesis.

It asks where did the information come from?

What does the process of protein synthesis have to do with the definitions of "science" and "truth?"

 

[MrsFoundit]

Such as ?

Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Hawkings concept of model dependent reality is the death knell for universal laws.

Admittedly enough, it's merely my opinion but I think Hawking, for obvious reasons, spent entirely to much time in his own head and is therefore suspect in his ability to grasp practical reality. He struck me as expressing himself very much like a spoiled child genius run amok, at least in his TV documentaries.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Admittedly enough, it's merely my opinion but I think Hawking, for obvious reasons, spent entirely to much time in his own head and is therefore suspect in his ability to grasp practical reality. He struck me as expressing himself very much like a spoiled child genius run amok, at least in his TV documentaries.

Perhaps some good points, yes.
If he had espoused truth and Scripture, no one who endorsed him might have endorsed him - he likely would not have gotten support to do anything much.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Perhaps some good points, yes.
If he had espoused truth and Scripture, no one who endorsed him might have endorsed him - he likely would not have gotten support to do anything much.

You don't think the evangelicals would have scooped him up? C'mon!

 

[klutedavid]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Here is a definition of science.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

This definition assumes that there exists an entity identified as a natural world. We cannot know whether or not this world is a natural world, as the knowledge we possess is not absolute.

The discipline of science assumes that sufficient evidence exists and can be studied, and by which we can understand the world.

That we have the intellectual capacity to understand this evidence and to develop theories, that attempt to explain the processes and events that occur in the natural world.

Ultimately, science is always a belief system and a belief system based on a set of assumptions.

 

[Halbhh]

Quantum uncertainty isn’t an illusion of randomness, it is actually random. And bell experiments show it isn’t inability to observe where things are, they don’t exist till observed.

Point is , the basis of objective existence and uniqueness have collapsed, as single electron interference patterns show.

All of the philosophical paradoxes fall if you stop believing it is other than a model, so continuity of existence no longer matters.

Hawkings concept of model dependent reality is the death knell for universal laws.

Strictly speaking so far the Bell Test results to date (last I read a couple of months ago) still only tell us that determinism is very unlikely, but don't give us a full certainty yet to rule out a possible determinism and even a 'super determinism'. We aren't to that level of certainty yet there. But personally I do think it is indeterministic, yes.

About being only a model, I'm not quite certain what you mean.

This may not be at all what you meant, but if it happens you mean it's an arbitrary model and there are other equally good or better ones out there that would be totally unalike and not simplify to our existing ones in approximation (thus something else very unlike the Schrodinger Wave Equation), I think the accuracy by which we can predict results says our accepted QM basics are instead aligned exactly to what is real (though not as a certainty complete). It's at minimum an approximation of exact physics laws which are immutable, is my guess. (but God can overrule known physics anytime He wants is my guess also)

 

[klutedavid]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Truth is defined as Jesus Christ; the way, the truth, and the life.

The real problem is that the creation event occurred over a duration of time and involved a series of processes and events. This gives the illusion that we can observe and explain these creative events across deep time.

Ultimately, science will never know the origin of the universe, the origin of life, nor the reason for our existence.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

"Science is the collection of knowledge apart from God" according to a late friend of mine. For most scientists, there is an underlying assumption that there is no God. By God's definition (not mine!) that makes them fools. For those who worship science, especially Christians, that should be a wake up call.

Once an individual has decided there is no God, it leaves a knowledge vacuum. The material world is here. Like it or not, the material world is preaching the gospel. Unbelievers want to shut out the sound, as Stephen's murderers shut out his voice. The theory of evolution is purpose made for the unbeliever. He can rationalise God away and enjoy life in his fantasy bubble. Anyone who threatens to burst the bubble is met with hostility and insult. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare.

Truth is exactly that. It is absolute. Truth is not at all what an individual believes, wants to believe or what the world wants you to believe. All truth is in the Lord Jesus. He is the Truth. It drives unbelievers nuts, but I accept God's word even in the face of what seems a contradiction. I do not need to understand in order to believe. Who can understand God? One day all will be clear. But not right now.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Simply add the adjective/clarifier "worldly/carnal/fleshly" before the word science and it is truth.

The claim is based on observations over a period of 60 years. Much (not all) of the science community starts with a premise that there is no God. That is being reinforced by an education system that calls any belief in God religion (it is not) and refuses to accept spiritual reality as even a possibility. Young people are turning away from the idea of Creation to embrace evolution. When evolution is taught as if it is fact, and no alternative is proffered, what do you expect? I stand by the definition.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The claim is based on observations over a period of 60 years. Much (not all) of the science community starts with a premise that there is no God. That is being reinforced by an education system that calls any belief in God religion (it is not) and refuses to accept spiritual reality as even a possibility. Young people are turning away from the idea of Creation to embrace evolution. When evolution is taught as if it is fact, and no alternative is proffered, what do you expect? I stand by the definition.

No argument in my post you quoted. The "expect" is what happened even long before evolution started being thought of - so even more, 'science' today is worldly, carnal, etc , opposed to the Creator, teaching that in schools, "and no alternative is proffered (nor accepted!?) "

 

[Elisha's Bear]

All truth is in the Lord Jesus. He is the Truth. It drives unbelievers nuts, but I accept God's word even in the face of what seems a contradiction. I do not need to understand in order to believe.

Amen, Brother! Credo UT Intelligam!

 

[Brightmoon]

If science can do this, how come new discoveries within it can replace previously accepted ideas?

i can give you an example . Mesonychids are extinct whale cousins . The fossil record is incomplete. They used to think that mesonychids were whale ancestors but due to finding more fossils they understood that they were only closely related cousins . Notice it doesn’t discard any of the facts -(the fossils ) it just adds more detailed knowledge gained by the additional fossils to what we already knew for certain ( that whales and mesonychids were close relatives )

 

[Mountainmike]

The statement of model is fundamental in a philosophical context of what science is.
Indeed it is shared by hawking in his concept of model dependent reality.
( which in essence states no single model can ever model behaviour.!!)
It needs several giving different answers and knowing which to pick.
Ouch!

In essence, are the laws part of what the universe IS, are they part of the fabric of it?

Answer resounding no.

They are part of a model that exists purely on paper minds and computers that seem to align with what observations of it normally do seen in our limited window on it.

Philosophically it is a fundamental distinction.

Is dark matter something that is actually there?
No . It’s a modelling error with dimensions of mass.

Strictly speaking so far the Bell Test results to date (last I read a couple of months ago) still only tell us that determinism is very unlikely, but don't give us a full certainty yet to rule out a possible determinism and even a 'super determinism'. We aren't to that level of certainty yet there. But personally I do think it is indeterministic, yes.

About being only a model, I'm not quite certain what you mean.

This may not be at all what you meant, but if it happens you mean it's an arbitrary model and there are other equally good or better ones out there that would be totally unalike and not simplify to our existing ones in approximation (thus something else very unlike the Schrodinger Wave Equation), I think the accuracy by which we can predict results says our accepted QM basics are instead aligned exactly to what is real (though not as a certainty complete). It's at minimum an approximation of exact physics laws which are immutable, is my guess. (but God can overrule known physics anytime He wants is my guess also)

 

[Halbhh]

The statement of model is fundamental in a philosophical context of what science is.
Indeed it is shared by hawking in his concept of model dependent reality.
( which in essence states no single model can ever model behaviour.!!)
It needs several giving different answers and knowing which to pick.
Ouch!

In essence, are the laws part of what the universe IS, are they part of the fabric of it?

Answer resounding no.

They are part of a model that exists purely on paper minds and computers that seem to align with what observations of it normally do seen in our limited window on it.

Philosophically it is a fundamental distinction.

Is dark matter something that is actually there?
No . It’s a modelling error with dimensions of mass.

Ok, head spinning slightly. (maybe I need a break from the computer screen, lol) I feel like we entered the world of Plato or something like that (of which I know some, but not extensively). heh heh. Fun stuff.

I enjoyed trying to understand what you are saying.

For me, the.......'model' (ok, I can't quite make myself use that word.... For me, the 'laws' that Newton had, which we later understand as only an approximation of the more complete theories of special and general relativity from Einstein, these are...................give us exact correspondances to highly precise measurable value of tangible things, very specific things, like the motion of a planet, say Mercury, around the Sun. Precise stuff. (sure, there are instruments involved to do that observing, measuring) Or precise to the level of our ability to observe. So, that makes the equations not a 'model' in the sense of replaceable, but something....more like we found at least a....surface of the actual...thing.

I mean, to me, real.

Like you are standing in a dark room and reach out your hand and touch the hide of something, tangible, that even if you can't see the rest of it, what you are touching is literally tangible. It's as real as real can get.

But!....I do totally accept that nonetheless the mind is indeed modeling reality, which is out there, reducing and simplifying and making models of it, which are themselves not real, but imagined.

Definitely.

It's just not that way in physics always, see, is my view. If I can put a weight on a scale and keep getting the same outcome (number) over and over and over, then I've....touched reality. The Real, if you like.

 

[MrsFoundit]

i can give you an example .

I provided an example and it is not an example of a minor detail correction.

 

[Job 33:6]

As a scientist, I view science as...the practice of the scientific method.

When you can see, touch, taste, hear and smell, are all things that other people can touch, taste, smell, hear and see too.

People from all over the world can go to Rome and can see Michaelangelo's sistine chapel. And we can objectively agree, scientifically, that there is a building with paint in it, and nobody can disagree because it is physical reality.

Now, with that said, truth involves things beyond what we can see. For example, dark matter appears to exist. We can't see it, we can only see it's affects. But this is just an example of things that exist that we cannot see. Ultra violet light is another example. Radon gas is another. All things we cannot see which we know exist.

We use other forms of observation to determine they exist. For example, computer sensors can detect radon. And anyone around planet Earth can make computer sensors to detect radon or ultraviolet light.

God hypothetically can exist beyond sciences ability to detect Him. He can be truthfully existent without direct observation. And so we faithfully believe without science and without true knowledge, until He returns.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

My definition of truth= Jesus Christ
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

My definition of science= The study of how God created everything.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeatable phenomenon. It is about how humans can determine a truth to a level beyond doubt.

Alfred North Whitehead, an influential mathematician and author who lived in the previous century, said the following: “Fifty-seven years ago it was when I was a young man in the University of Cambridge. I was taught science and mathematics by brilliant men and I did well in them; since the turn of the century I have lived to see every one of the basic assumptions of both set aside. . . . And yet, in the face of that, the discoverers of the new hypotheses in science are declaring, ‘Now at last, we have certitude.’ ”—A. N. Whitehead, Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead.