Does science actually admit "design"?

[Halbhh]

The debate centers around the evidence of creation, not faith.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

"They" are the atheistic scientists.

I think this is right on a subtle level. If a scientist can contemplate nature more openly without ideology, this can indeed aid us at times to wonder how it can be so elegant and amazing (no matter the depth of knowledge of physics even for instance). (even Einstein's mystical awe of the "music of the spheres" (not only rhetorical at all, but his real view) is in the end still somewhat an ideology also) This is today rather subtle though. For many just the less informed understanding alone that indeed the laws of nature, physics, work really consistently to explain how things work and how they evolved over time seems enough to counter their misunderstanding of what Genesis chapter 1 is represented (by 3rd parties) to say, the misrepresentation of that chapter as being only history as if only about such as mere trivial numerical quantity of mere time duration (!?), instead of something deeper and sublime (the true depth and sublimity it has for those that believe that can humbly read with true openness to hear it new).

Still, easy proof that was effortless to know would preclude and empty out the chance for faith, the real goal. (We'd mostly be down at the level of merely doubting Thomas at his worst even, a great loss compared to what is God's will.)

Consider -- if God had revealed in Genesis an exact age of Earth like for instance this way:

"...and Earth I made 4 and 1/2 thousands of thousands of thousands of years ago."
(not in scripture, but an example to consider a point)

Then, once science found strong evidence that indeed the Earth was about 4.5 billion years old (as we've seen some evidence for since the 1950s), then from that point in time onward the formation of faith would be beside the point. No one could doubt. The most cynical and hard hearted even could simply know God exists and "turn and repent and be saved" even though Christ specially said this is not what is wanted.

Faith is what is wanted. Christ said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Faith is very much more valuable than knowledge.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think this is right on a subtle level. If a scientist can contemplate nature more openly without ideology, this can indeed aid us at times to wonder how it can be so elegant and amazing (no matter the depth of knowledge of physics even for instance). (even Einstein's mystical awe of the "music of the spheres" (not only rhetorical at all, but his real view) is in the end still somewhat an ideology also) This is today rather subtle though. For many just the less informed understanding alone that indeed the laws of nature, physics, work really consistently to explain how things work and how they evolved over time seems enough to counter their misunderstanding of what Genesis chapter 1 is represented (by 3rd parties) to say, the misrepresentation of that chapter as being only history as if only about such as mere trivial numerical quantity of mere time duration (!?), instead of something deeper and sublime (the true depth and sublimity it has for those that believe that can humbly read with true openness to hear it new).

Still, easy proof that was effortless to know would preclude and empty out the chance for faith, the real goal. (We'd mostly be down at the level of merely doubting Thomas at his worst even, a great loss compared to what is God's will.)

Consider -- if God had revealed in Genesis an exact age of Earth like for instance this way:

"...and Earth I made 4 and 1/2 thousands of thousands of thousands of years ago."
(not in scripture, but an example to consider a point)

Then, once science found strong evidence that indeed the Earth was about 4.5 billion years old (as we've seen some evidence for since the 1950s), then from that point in time onward the formation of faith would be beside the point. No one could doubt. The most cynical and hard hearted even could simply know God exists and "turn and repent and be saved" even though Christ specially said this is not what is wanted.

Faith is what is wanted. Christ said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Faith is very much more valuable than knowledge.

But time is subjective and slows down when things speed up (stretched out the heavens). So my question is, if you used the slower rate of today's clocks to calculate what happened faster in the past, would you arrive at the correct answer, without adjusting for time dilation?

 

[inquiring mind]

Where did the Asian and African comer from in the first place, since Adam and Eve were nearly identical middle easterners?

You avoid that big time.

Maybe Lucy-type man and Adamic-type man are not of the same origin and not in a progressive line at all... maybe they are of two different origins and times with a gap between. God wouldn’t have to completely destroy everything else to start over if that was his desire.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe Lucy-type man and Adamic-type man are not of the same origin and not in a progressive line at all... maybe they are of two different origins and times with a gap between. God wouldn’t have to completely destroy everything else to start over if that was his desire.

Or Lucy is just another ape, misinterpreted as was Piltdown man.

After all, the knee was found 3 miles away, and just assumed to belong to this creature.

And regardless, a Poodle looks nothing like its ancestor, the wolf. But yet a Poodle is till a canine, just like the wolf, not a separate species.

 

[Halbhh]

But time is subjective and slows down when things speed up (stretched out the heavens). So my question is, if you used the slower rate of today's clocks to calculate what happened faster in the past, would you arrive at the correct answer, without adjusting for time dilation?

Not quite sure what you are asking, but of course one goal in good science (which isn't always achieved of course) is to be truly objective, so that we don't have a 'correct answer' ahead of time, except that only we have a theoretical answer at times to compare results with, painstakingly, but which we are ideally delighted to invalidate (the theory), should that happen. It's considered a great day to shoot down an expected result convincingly (in a way that can be repeated independently), because that opens up a new avenue to explore.

 

[Halbhh]

Or Lucy is just another ape, misinterpreted as was Piltdown man.

After all, the knee was found 3 miles away, and just assumed to belong to this creature.

And regardless, a Poodle looks nothing like its ancestor, the wolf. But yet a Poodle is till a canine, just like the wolf, not a separate species.

Not exactly what you are discussing, but there was a fun NOVA episode recently documenting with video the retrieval from in place of a much more recent (modern human) full set of bones recovered *with* extinct species bones nearby also, really interesting, in a Yucatán cave --

First Face of America — NOVA | PBS

And this reminded me also of another pretty complete set(s) of bones more ancient also, in a remarkable recent find in South Africa --

Dawn of Humanity — NOVA | PBS
much closer to what you were discussing I think

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not quite sure what you are asking, but of course one goal in good science (which isn't always achieved of course) is to be truly objective, so that we don't have a 'correct answer' ahead of time, except that only we have a theoretical answer at times to compare results with, painstakingly, but which we are ideally delighted to invalidate (the theory), should that happen. It's considered a great day to shoot down an expected result convincingly (in a way that can be repeated independently), because that opens up a new avenue to explore.

But science understands the universe began expansion faster than c and is continuing to increase. They understand that increase in velocity causes clocks to slow. Yet despite this understanding, continue to use the rate of today's clocks to calculate events in the past, which according to their own theory, would have occurred on a increased timescale, due to the fact of clocks slowing with that increase in speed.

So if one used slower clocks to calculate faster events in the past, one would arrive at a conclusion of age magnitudes greater than what actually happened, would they not? I.e. if for every tick of your clock today, 100 ticks occurred in the past, then by using that slower clock to calculate, you would arrive at the belief the event took billions of years instead of thousands.

The opposite of slowing clocks is clocks speeding up. if they slow with increases in velocity, then they must have ticked faster the further back one goes in time. This affects the atomic decay rate too, so that those decay rates also happened faster, and so reliance on them as a dating technique would give an answer off by billions of years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not exactly what you are discussing, but there was a fun NOVA episode recently documenting with video the retrieval from in place of a much more recent (modern human) full set of bones recovered *with* extinct species bones nearby also, really interesting, in a Yucatán cave --

First Face of America — NOVA | PBS

And this reminded me also of another pretty complete set(s) of bones more ancient also, in a remarkable recent find in South Africa --

Dawn of Humanity — NOVA | PBS

Yes, they really dont know all that much about even the history of the human race, and its the best documented. But that wont stop them from making all sorts of fanciful factual claims, that years later turn out to be not quite so factual as once presented.

Nevermind that a lot of them may have to be wiped from the textbooks.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

Redrawing Humanity's Family Tree

315,000-Year-Old Fossils From Morocco Could Be Earliest Recorded Homo Sapiens

 

[Mr Darcy]

LOL

I have a question. I'm new here and I noticed that I can't use the "Funny" rating unless the post I'm responding to was obviously meant to be funny. I think it's called goading. It was a "new change" to the rules in the messages at the top of the page. I noticed it because it seemed kinda odd.

But isn't posting "LOL" the same thing? I'm just trying to get a feel for the culture.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have a question. I'm new here and I noticed that I can't use the "Funny" rating unless the post I'm responding to was obviously meant to be funny. I think it's called goading. It was a "new change" to the rules in the messages at the top of the page. I noticed it because it seemed kinda odd.

But isn't posting "LOL" the same thing? I'm just trying to get a feel for the culture.

No, goading only applies if you are a creationist. If your an evolutionist, you are free to insult and goad others all you like. In fact, it is their only recourse and favorite tactic, since they lack any actual science to back them up.

(Actually they are the only ones that will do it, then run to mom and dad when it is returned in kind.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm a 'quick study'. I don't have to stay up nights agonizing over things like a college student cramming for an exam. Just a cursory perusal confirms elaborate, purposeful design.

But you didn't study it. You just quickly read it. That's not studying.

 

[Mr Darcy]

No, goading only applies if you are a creationist. If your an evolutionist, you are free to insult and goad others all you like. In fact, it is their only recourse and favorite tactic, since they lack any actual science to back them up.

(Actually they are the only ones that will do it, then run to mom and dad when it is returned in kind.)

Well, I really came to the site to discuss Christian stuff and I leave the scientific and political stuff to other forum sites anyway. I just thought I was seeing the spirit, if not the letter of the law being violated. And if I really wanted to get "technical", since everyone can see your post, isn't it a form of "goading" too?

I'm tellin' mom!

 

[Halbhh]

But science understands the universe began expansion faster than c and is continuing to increase. They understand that increase in velocity causes clocks to slow. Yet despite this understanding, continue to use the rate of today's clocks to calculate events in the past, which according to their own theory, would have occurred on a increased timescale, due to the fact of clocks slowing with that increase in speed.

So if one used slower clocks to calculate faster events in the past, one would arrive at a conclusion of age magnitudes greater than what actually happened, would they not? I.e. if for every tick of your clock today, 100 ticks occurred in the past, then by using that slower clock to calculate, you would arrive at the belief the event too billions of years instead of thousands.

The opposite of slowing clocks is clocks speeding up. if they slow with increases in velocity, then they must have ticked faster the further back one goes in time. This affects the atomic decay rate too, so that those decay rates also happened faster, and so reliance on them as a dating technique would give an answer off by billions of years.

Ok, now I get what you are asking.

When I think about certainties in modern cosmology (a decades long hobby reading interest), though, in terms of it's firmly known distances and time scales, I understand it in a way similar to how it was discovered -- from establishing clearly and with total certainty (actual!) the exact distances to nearby stars, by parallax, and working outwards from that.

Parallax is how nearby stars appear to move against the background of very distant stars/galaxies due to the different angle of observing them at points 6 months apart in time due to the diameter of Earth's orbit. (we can all observe parallax in 10 seconds by holding up a pencil or finger near our face and moving our head left or right and seeing how the finger/pencil appears to move against a more distant background). This is just geometry, and so for nearby stars it's accurate to high precision. And unambiguous. Not poorly or vaguely know, but easily and clearly and absolute known with certainty.

With modern telescopes we can observe even small amounts of parallax, and now with the Hubble space telescope and an advanced technique we have reasonably good parallax even out to the more and more fuzzy limits of the technique, less and less accurate at greater distances, but useful still out to on the order of 10,000 light years:
In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can now precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements.
Parallax - Wikipedia

Next, comes a very consistent and reliable set of classes of certain stars called Cepheid variables.
Cepheid variable - Wikipedia

Because these classes of stars reliably and consistently have a periodic brightening and dimming where the period depends on the mass of the star, and also the absolute brightness also depends on the mass of the star, we have a known relationship between the period of brightening of a Cepheid and it's absolute brightness. Since the apparent brightness is just the absolute brightness falling off by the square of distance, we can then measure the period of a class of Cepheids to get their distance if we know the distance of some Cepheids by parallax.

And we do. For example, the North Star! Polaris.

Polaris - Wikipedia

See? Thus we can calibrate the Cepheid distances to the known parallax of some, thus extend our tape measure reliably out vastly further than 10,000 light years by observing more dim (more distant) Cepheids.

Next comes type 1A Supernovae, another highly consistent class of brightness when you narrow it down to the certain type. With known brightness compared to apparent brightness, you can then get distance.

It's amazing and wonderful stuff, and has some uncertainties, and continuing refinement, but it's showing us reliably that these stellar objects are vastly far away, in clear certainty, and that therefore the light from them we observe has traveled (a space expansion adjusted) great distance....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I really came to the site to discuss Christian stuff and I leave the scientific and political stuff to other forum sites anyway. I just thought I was seeing the spirit, if not the letter of the law being violated. And if I really wanted to get "technical", since everyone can see your post, isn't it a form of "goading" too?

I'm tellin' mom!

Sure it is, but even firefighters, who prefer to use water, understand that sometimes one must fight fire with fire.....

 

[Halbhh]

By the way, this amazing, wonderful Universe...

Is His design, we must think, if we believe in God as the Creator.

If we believe God created, then logically it follows that the laws of nature -- physics -- are His design.

The Universe is merely physics in action.

That doesn't mean God cannot intervene of course! For instance, to me, it seems highly likely that when certain large asteroids hit Earth in the distant past, that God chose whether to allow such large ones to hit, and when and how, by screening, or perhaps even choosing one. Just an idea. An illustration of how He might chose to intervene in the processes of nature.

A large enough asteroid to destroy humanity, or our precursors, would not have, and will not, hit Earth. Because that would be against His plan for us.

Instead, the one that did hit 66 million years ago was just right -- just the right size -- to open up the way for us!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, now I get what you are asking.

When I think about certainties in modern cosmology (a decades long hobby reading interest), though, in terms of it's firmly known distances and time scales, I understand it in a way similar to how it was discovered -- from establishing clearly and with total certainty (actual!) the exact distances to nearby stars, by parallax, and working outwards from that.

Parallax is how nearby stars appear to move against the background of very distant stars/galaxies due to the different angle of observing them at points 6 months apart in time due to the diameter of Earth's orbit. (we can all observe parallax in 10 seconds by holding up a pencil or finger near our face and moving our head left or right and seeing how the finger/pencil appears to move against a more distant background). This is just geometry, and so for nearby stars it's accurate to high precision. And unambiguous. Not poorly or vaguely know, but easily and clearly and absolute known with certainty.

With modern telescopes we can observe even small amounts of parallax, and now with the Hubble space telescope and an advanced technique we have reasonably good parallax even out to the more and more fuzzy limits of the technique, less and less accurate at greater distances, but useful still out to on the order of 10,000 light years:
In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can now precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements.
Parallax - Wikipedia

Next, comes a very consistent and reliable set of classes of certain stars called Cepheid variables.
Cepheid variable - Wikipedia

Because these classes of stars reliably and consistently have a periodic brightening and dimming where the period depends on the mass of the star, and also the absolute brightness also depends on the mass of the star, we have a known relationship between the period of brightening of a Cepheid and it's absolute brightness. Since the apparent brightness is just the absolute brightness falling off by the square of distance, we can then measure the period of a class of Cepheids to get their distance if we know the distance of some Cepheids by parallax.

And we do. For example, the North Star! Polaris.

Polaris - Wikipedia

See? Thus we can calibrate the Cepheid distances to the known parallax of some, thus extent our tape measure reliably out vastly further than 10,000 light years, by observing more dim (more distant) Cepheids.

Next comes type 1A Supernovae.

It's amazing and wonderful stuff, and has some uncertainties, and continuing refinement, but it's showing us reliably that these stellar objects are vastly far away, in clear certainty, and that therefore the light from them we observe has traveled (a space expansion adjusted) great distance....

Except those standard candles have been found to be not so standard after all.

NASA - Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All

Supernova’s messy birth casts doubt on reliability of astronomical yardstick

And don't let them fol you. Over 25% of all parallax measurements are in the negative, meaning the background star is closer than the object in question. But all the negative measurements are dismissed as systematic errors. And we use "relative" parallax to measure, which can give incorrect measurements by 1,000's of magnitudes. Combined with a 25% negative measurement value, shows their distances beyond a few hundred parsecs is unreliable.

Their belief in distance is based upon their erroneous belief in redshift. Hubble's law demand that distance be directly correlated to recessional velocity. Yet they can't have recessional velocity because their belief in redshift would mean galaxies are approaching the speed of c. So when that belief in redshift was falsified as technology increased and z-values kept rising, they changed it to magical expanding nothing.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

But most just ignore all the falsifying evidence.

 

[Halbhh]

Except those standard candles have been found to be not so standard after all.

NASA - Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All

Supernova’s messy birth casts doubt on reliability of astronomical yardstick

And don't let them fol you. Over 25% of all parallax measurements are in the negative, meaning the background star is closer than the object in question. But all the negative measurements are dismissed as systematic errors. And we use "relative" parallax to measure, which can give incorrect measurements by 1,000's of magnitudes. Combined with a 25% negative measurement value, shows their distances beyond a few hundred parsecs is unreliable.

Their belief in distance is based upon their erroneous belief in redshift. Hubble's law demand that distance be directly correlated to recessional velocity. Yet they can't have recessional velocity because their belief in redshift would mean galaxies are approaching the speed of c. So when that belief in redshift was falsified as technology increased and z-values kept rising, they changed it to magical expanding nothing.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

But most just ignore all the falsifying evidence.

Without even looking I already am familiar with endless revisions of distance estimates and standard candles. Did you notice above I mentioned reading in that field is a hobby interest? (By the way, you first link is sound (reliable), and please read on.)

It's even worse than just a lot of revision on basic and more simple stuff like refinements in all 3 of distant parallaxes, Cepheid brightnesses, and also subcategories of type 1A supernovae for instance.

Even worse than that normal process of continuing changes and refinement and revision.

We don't even know what about 95% of all the Universe seems to be in even a basic way -- we think from various suggestive evidence that some unknown hypothetical matter we are temporarily calling "dark matter" because it emits no light, cannot be observed, but only inferred by calculation by gravitational effects...is out there. But we haven't much of a clue what it is, or even for sure that it even exists.

Several speculative hypotheses about what dark matter might be have already failed.

We don't even know for sure it exists, but instead could be an artifact of some other flaw in our understanding in other areas of physics.

Even moreso the case for the hypothetical unknown currently called 'dark energy' (hypothesized as the cause for space expansion acceleration), again because it neither emits nor absorbs light, so it's dark. This is even more uncertain and speculative.

What isn't known vastly outweighs what is known.

That's the normal.

I've been reading this stuff, following it, for over 35 years. I've seen a bunch of hypothesis bite the dust. I don't mean 10 or 20.

But, the order of magnitude of the distance to Cepheids -- that has not changed.

.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We don't even know what about 95% of all the Universe seems to be in even a basic way -- we think from various suggestive evidence that some unknown hypothetical matter we are temporarily calling "dark matter" because it emits no light, cannot be observed, but only inferred by calculation by gravitational effects...is out there. But we haven't much of a clue what it is, or even for sure that it even exists.

.

That's because they are using the wrong physics for what 99.9% of the universe is composed of. It is plasma, not non-ionized matter (solids, liquids and gasses) So despite the fact that not one single laboratory experiment with plasma for over 200+ years has used anything but electromagnetic theory and particle physics to describe plasma behavior, astronomers still try to sledgehammer gravity as the dominating force. Of course they require all that Fairie Dust to make their calculations pan out, they are using the wrong physics to start with.

In case you have never really thought about it, GR is 99.9% accurate in describing the behavior of non-ionized matter (solids, liquids and gasses), planetary systems, only .1% of the universe. But the second one moves outside the solar system, what was once 99.9% accurate suddenly needs 95% ad-hoc theory added to it to make it even fit a semblance of reality. This is because plasma is dominated by the electromagnetic forces, not plasma. Until astronomers start using the correct physics for the correct states of matter, they will continue to need all those epicycles to make their theories work.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Sure it is, but even firefighters, who prefer to use water, understand that sometimes one must fight fire with fire.....

Hey, I've never turned anyone in for anything like that. EVER. But that warning I read when I first came here was just so odd, it really stuck. I've never seen it's equivalent anywhere in any forum, and I've been doing this now for over 20 years, but I'm hijacking this thread....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hey, I've never turned anyone in for anything like that. EVER. But that warning I read when I first came here was just so odd, it really stuck. I've never seen it's equivalent anywhere in any forum, and I've been doing this now for over 20 years, but I'm hijacking this thread....

Stick around. Justatruthseeker is telling a stinking porky at saying that only people who support evolution (be they Christian or atheist) are guilty of goading. Last year there were some incredibly nasty individuals, of all stripes, who were incredibly rude and horrible on this forum.