Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 12, 2019

sjastro said:
Let me make a general comment about these articles you refer to.
They are examples of popsci articles written for the general public.
Popsci articles can vary from faithfully reproducing the science to exaggeration and sensationalism.
Your links sit somewhere between the extremes.

The first one is fairly restrained although the title “There’s Growing Evidence That the Universe Is Connected by Giant Structures” is somewhat premature as the article goes onto to state this needs to be independently confirmed and more data is required.

The second link is less credible as it portrays speculation as fact.
Anne seeing you stuck at the event horizon is a prediction of the Schwarzschild metric which describes the distortion of spacetime time around massive bodies such as planets, stars and non rotating black holes and is an extreme example of gravitational time dilation, the lesser effects of which have been observed on Earth from the Rebka-Pound experiment to GPS satellite time corrections.
While this part of the article is “reasonably accurate” the rest is not.
Burning up on the event horizon due to Hawking radiation sounds convincing but has never been observed yet the article presents it as a fact.
The rest of the article dealing with the information and firewall paradoxes and entanglement is also based on the assumption that Hawking radiation exists.
In fact there are papers that question whether Hawking radiation exists in the first place.

This is what science is all about.
A cynical definition of a current scientific theory is that it is less wrong than the theory that preceded it.
There are four separate theories for gravity, the strong nuclear force, weak force and electromagnetism.
The problem here is to explain the formation and abundance of elements in the Universe at least three of the forces (strong, weak and electromagnetism) need to be unified in the early universe as explained by a GUT (Grand Unified Theory).

The scientists are getting there; the weak and electromagnetic forces have been unified to form an electroweak force in particle accelerators by the detection of W and Z bosons as predicted by theory.
The problem with testing a GUT is that the energy levels are way beyond what is possible with current particle accelerators.
Unifying gravity is a far greater problem; not only because it requires far larger energy levels than for a GUT but forming the theory itself is problematical using quantum field theory.

There does seem to be an ever-increasing number of PR releases and media stories hyping amazing new discoveries when the papers they're based on are about hypotheses for further investigation or simply speculative...

coffee4u · Nov 12, 2019

JackRT said:
A deceptive universe implies a deceptive Creator and that is a very dangerous theology because it suggests that the Creator is not to be trusted.

To me it means the opposite. It means a person has to put their faith in the creator and his words even when man's knowledge shows results being in direct contrast to it. If science backed up and prooved God or creation, what then of faith? God doesn't want belief based on facts or evidence from man's knowledge because that would make faith easy. It's not meant to be easy, its meant to be hard. Being a Christian isn't easy, it's difficult. When he said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven he wasn't only referring to monetary wealth, but also rich in mans 'knowledge'. He said a man must come like a little child in faith.
Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Dislike the premise all you like, that doesn't change it.

Adam and Eve were certainly adults and the trees were full-grown trees with fruit and as for the stars, god set them in place. So yes, everything would have had the appearance of some age.

JackRT · Nov 12, 2019

When faith and reality come into conflict cognitive dissonance is created. One possibility is the complete denial of reality but in the end reality cannot be denied and the cognitive dissonance remains.

46AND2 · Nov 12, 2019

coffee4u said:
To me it means the opposite. It means a person has to put their faith in the creator and his words even when man's knowledge shows results being in direct contrast to it. If science backed up and prooved God or creation, what then of faith? God doesn't want belief based on facts or evidence from man's knowledge because that would make faith easy. It's not meant to be easy, its meant to be hard. Being a Christian isn't easy, it's difficult. When he said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven he wasn't only referring to monetary wealth, but also rich in mans 'knowledge'. He said a man must come like a little child in faith.
Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Dislike the premise all you like, that doesn't change it.

Adam and Eve were certainly adults and the trees were full-grown trees with fruit and as for the stars, god set them in place. So yes, everything would have had the appearance of some age.

Then why even argue against science methods for determining the age of the earth and evolution? Clearly, if these things APPEAR to be true, then our methods SHOULD work.

In other words, why argue against the APPEARANCE of these things, when it doesn't matter for you, anyway, since that is what is expected...to test your faith or something.

Seems to me, your arguments should be entirely theologically based, rather than attacking the methodology and inferences of science.

coffee4u · Nov 13, 2019

Because it does matter to me when Christians are lead astray. Most Biblical doctrine goes back to the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. My arguments are mostly theologically based but atheists such as yourself keep asking me science questions. I've said it many times, the Bible is not a science book, it doesn't give every detail, but it is a framework of truth. I only disagree when science disagrees with the framework. The age of the earth given by science contradicts the Bible. Millions of years of death does not fit with no death before sin. If death has always been a part and a mechanism simply of the world making itself, that mocks the doctrine that says death came in because of sin by one man and was dealt with by one man-Jesus, on a person to person basis. The Bible says death is an enemy and will be defeated completely at a time appointed by God. That we will not know the day or the hour.

If Adam wasn't an actual man when God says he is, then how can Jesus also be a literal man as God says he was? Tossing out one part makes a mockery of the other part and many Christians don't seem to realize this. It all hangs together or it all falls apart. A house built on a crumbling foundation may look good but it won't last or withstand the world-beating on it.

Matthew 7:24-27
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

46AND2 · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
Because it does matter to me when Christians are lead astray. Most Biblical doctrine goes back to the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. My arguments are mostly theologically based but atheists such as yourself keep asking me science questions. I've said it many times, the Bible is not a science book, it doesn't give every detail, but it is a framework of truth. I only disagree when science disagrees with the framework. The age of the earth given by science contradicts the Bible. Millions of years of death does not fit with no death before sin. If death has always been a part and a mechanism simply of the world making itself, that mocks the doctrine that says death came in because of sin by one man and was dealt with by one man-Jesus, on a person to person basis. The Bible says death is an enemy and will be defeated completely at a time appointed by God. That we will not know the day or the hour.

If Adam wasn't an actual man when God says he is, then how can Jesus also be a literal man as God says he was? Tossing out one part makes a mockery of the other part and many Christians don't seem to realize this. It all hangs together or it all falls apart. A house built on a crumbling foundation may look good but it won't last or withstand the world-beating on it.

Matthew 7:24-27
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

You are missing the point. If the earth was created with the appearance of age, then our measurements SHOULD BE consistent with that. To argue against those measurements is the same thing as arguing against your claim that the earth was created with the appearance of age.

Let me illustrate; here is a quote by YEC Todd Wood:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

————————————-

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true, and it doesn’t mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."

Frankly, arguing against deep time and evolution is more likely to lead people astray than if you were to take a position like he does. And you would also not be contradicting yourself by saying the earth was made with the appearance of old age, while simultaneously arguing against that appearance.

But honestly, the fact that you think Christians are being led astray because god created the earth with the appearance of something it is not should tell you something.

coffee4u · Nov 13, 2019

46AND2 said:
You are missing the point. If the earth was created with the appearance of age, then our measurements SHOULD BE consistent with that. To argue against those measurements is the same thing as arguing against your claim that the earth was created with the appearance of age.

You mistake what I am saying completely.

By age I mean trees were bearing fruit and that Adam and Eve were adults.

Christians are being led astray by evolution not by God. Which is why I said the whole thing (the Bible) hangs together, but people like to believe one part (Jesus died for their sins) but not another (literal creation) Which is why I referenced the verse on the house built on the rock vs the sand. It's saying If your faith is not built on all of Gods word it is like a house built on sand that will crumble and wash away. Combining the Bible with evolution is like trying to mix the rock and the sand.

Of course it's not teetering, it's based on materialistic principles. Man can believe the world created every last complex system by itself free from God. No wonder people are drawn to it, no accounting to an almighty God, man determines his own fate. Science can only test the here and now and determines the past by asuming it was the same, God says it wasn't.

2 Thessalonians: 2-11-12
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

essentialsaltes · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
My arguments are mostly theologically based but atheists such as yourself keep asking me science questions.

This is a science forum, so that's appropriate. We can discuss what the evidence of the earth says about itself.

I've said it many times, the Bible is not a science book

Fantastic! Some seem to think it is.

If Adam wasn't an actual man when God says he is, then how can Jesus also be a literal man as God says he was?

Because the authors of the Bible could be wrong about one thing, and right about another?
Because Genesis is more like a parable than a testimony?

essentialsaltes · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
Of course it's not teetering, it's based on materialistic principles.

So was Lamarckism.
So was the phlogiston theory.
So was the plum pudding model of the atom.

Why have these 'rock solid' ideas based on materialistic principles been discarded in the dustbin?

Because we test our ideas against reality. Some ideas are in discord with reality, so they must be discarded or modified. Other ideas are in accord with reality, so they are retained until any new evidence suggests that we must reconsider them.

pitabread · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
Man can believe the world created every last complex system by itself free from God. No wonder people are drawn to it, no accounting to an almighty God, man determines his own fate.

Don't assume that belief in a creator in-and-of-itself automatically includes a bunch of theistic baggage.

46AND2 · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
. Science can only test the here and now and determines the past by asuming it was the same, God says it wasn't.

Ok, let me approach this differently...This argument here is a different one entirely. This is not saying that the earth was created with the appearance of age, it is saying that the earth aged differently. So which is it?

What is it about scientists observations about the age of the earth that they are mistaking for the passage of time, but is actually built-in age?

sjastro · Nov 13, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
There does seem to be an ever-increasing number of PR releases and media stories hyping amazing new discoveries when the papers they're based on are about hypotheses for further investigation or simply speculative...

An interesting article on how this issue needs to be addressed; by the scientists themselves.
Accurate science or accessible science in the media – why not both?

For some light relief when it comes to the popular science presenters, public perceptions count as well in the most unexpected ways.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/attractive-scientists-viewed-less-competent-public/ :scratch:

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 13, 2019

sjastro said:
An interesting article on how this issue needs to be addressed; by the scientists themselves.
Accurate science or accessible science in the media – why not both?

Interesting article, thanks.

For some light relief when it comes to the popular science presenters, public perceptions count as well in the most unexpected ways.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/attractive-scientists-viewed-less-competent-public/

Perhaps people think that being good-looking can be a short-cut to plum jobs, especially on TV, so they weigh that into their competence estimates.

coffee4u · Nov 13, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
This is a science forum, so that's appropriate. We can discuss what the evidence of the earth says about itself.

I'm not stopping others discussing science. However, the entire message board is 'Christian Forums' so I think some Christian input is in order.

Because the authors of the Bible could be wrong about one thing, and right about another? Because Genesis is more like a parable than a testimony?

No.

Genesis was written to be taken literally. The author, probably Mosses believed it was literal. Also as I mentioned there is a lot of doctrine that only makes sense if it is taken literally. The Bible certainly has poetry and metaphor which people love to point out, but the first chapter of Genesis is not that. When Jesus refers back to Adam, Mosses and Genesis he wasn't using poetry, he was stating a fact that he assumed the listens were all aware of. The same way if you mention Carl Sagan, while you could use his name as a metaphor if you wanted to, the man himself is a real person and you assume your reader already knows that.

coffee4u · Nov 13, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
So was Lamarckism.
So was the phlogiston theory.
So was the plum pudding model of the atom.

Why have these 'rock solid' ideas based on materialistic principles been discarded in the dustbin?

Because we test our ideas against reality. Some ideas are in discord with reality, so they must be discarded or modified. Other ideas are in accord with reality, so they are retained until any new evidence suggests that we must reconsider them.

You all never seem to know when I am talking about the Bible/Christians or talking about evolution/evolutionists. Do I have to start each paragraph by saying (This is about the Bible) and (This is about evolutionists) I thought it was easy to tell, sorry if it is not.

The bit about materialistic principles I was talking about evolution.

Reality can change. You only have the here and now and assume this is how it has always been.

essentialsaltes · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
I'm not stopping others discussing science. However, the entire message board is 'Christian Forums' so I think some Christian input is in order.

Sure, but in the context of theology, I really have no opinion about whether the Bible says that Jesus' essence is similar to or the same as the essence of the God of the Bible. I'm just not likely to talk about theological topics, or respond to Christian theology, because I just have no opinion or interest in most cases.

Genesis was written to be taken literally.

How do you know that?

The author, probably Mosses believed it was literal.

How do you know that?

When Jesus refers back to Adam, Mosses and Genesis he wasn't using poetry, he was stating a fact that he assumed the listens were all aware of. The same way if you mention Carl Sagan, while you could use his name as a metaphor if you wanted to, the man himself is a real person and you assume your reader already knows that.

I'm sure I could make references to Batman and people would understand my meaning without Batman being a real person.

pitabread · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
Genesis was written to be taken literally.

On what basis?

essentialsaltes · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
You all never seem to know when I am talking about the Bible/Christians or talking about evolution/evolutionists. Do I have to start each paragraph by saying (This is about the Bible) and (This is about evolutionists) I thought it was easy to tell, sorry if it is not.

The bit about materialistic principles I was talking about evolution.

No, I understood you perfectly. The three things I mentioned were not 'biblical'. They were materialistic science. You said that evolution is not teetering because it is materialistic science. I gave examples of materialistic science that teetered over and broke on the floor and nobody talks about them seriously anymore.

The reasons evolution is not teetering is NOT because it is 'materialistic science', it is because there is lots of evidence for evolution.
These other materialist hypotheses have been discarded because the evidence contradicted them.

JackRT · Nov 13, 2019

coffee4u said:
Genesis was written to be taken literally.

essentialsaltes said:
How do you know that?

It's too bad that many Christians don't accept Rabbi Moses Maimonides' advice that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken as literal history --- they are folklore and borrowed myth to fill in the gap in the period before the Israelites' emergence as a self-aware cultural entity.

As I mature in my Christian faith I am coming to realize more and more that a very great deal of our sacred scripture is not to be read literally.

coffee4u · Nov 13, 2019

46AND2 said:
Ok, let me approach this differently...This argument here is a different one entirely. This is not saying that the earth was created with the appearance of age, it is saying that the earth aged differently. So which is it?

What is it about scientists observations about the age of the earth that they are mistaking for the passage of time, but is actually built-in age?

You assume by 'appearance of age' that I am talking about millions of years, I'm not, 20 years would do nicely for Adam, Eve and the garden. If you mean the stars, I think God could have easily put them in place and that mankind mistakenly thinks the light took that long to reach the earth. I don't believe that time is the same everywhere.

I am talking about the laws governing the earth. The Bible says there was no death before sin. There was no decay in creation, that happened after the fall. Then laws changed again at and after the flood. I believe these changes mess up any attempts at man to date things.

So taking this off an evolutionary page.

So, how do we know how old a fossil is? There are two main methods determining a fossils age, relative dating and absolute dating. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes, either within the fossil or more often the rocks associated with it.

So first assumption there is that the other rock and fossils show accurate dates which I contest.

Next is radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes.

The atoms in some chemical elements have different forms, called isotopes. These isotopes break down at a constant rate over time

This assumes that rates of decay have always been what we see now.

I believe due to the fall and the flood that nothing that gets measured as millions of years old is in fact over 10-20 thousand years old. This is what I believe is the strong delusion.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11)

Without the lense of God, mankind will believe whatever he wants to believe. Science appeals to the natural man because it can be done without God and it explains things in terms he can understand. Meanwhile, God is not understandable in a tangible way and uses miracles which can't be proven by facts. I can say things such as 'I felt God lead me that way' but that is something only I know and feel I can't give facts on it. This is why God gave us his word so that we could know that this isn't how things were at all. People claim God is purposely deceiving, but he tells us right there in print so it's hardly hidden. God says that if man wants to know him, first they must believe that he is and seek him diligently. If not it also says that he gives men over to their wants. It's a choice between evidence of what science says or belief in God. Where it gets muddy is some people want God but also try to mix in evolution without seeming to realize how that destroys numerous points of Biblical doctrine.

Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads