Does science actually admit "design"?

[Justatruthseeker]

I was thinking about this question you asked someone else there for a moment. Consider -- even if God simply made physics (the key to all of nature), alone, and then all the Universe unfolded even to this day from that physics, like a flower from a seed (and this is indeed how I think about 99.99999...something% of the Universe has functioned, including much about our Earth), then still this is still an 'intelligent design' -- even either way, with or without interventions (though I hypothesize interventions in the course of life and Earth is reasonably likely; for instance, I think He chose the asteroid that hit 66 million years ago , to be of a certain size, not too little, not too big -- just a guess, but it's my guess.).

We cannot prove nor disprove several of some various differing possible answers, really, so far as I can see. There are many ways to guess about details not specified in Genesis chapter 1, many theories that can fit the scripture perfectly, and no way to prove nor disprove quite a few of them. Neither do they matter for faith. Faith is instead about believing in God, not a particular theory of creationism against other theories of creationism. God would be able to do extraordinary things, even something so amazing (if He choose) as creating a Universe to look older than it is, creating light traveling towards Earth as if emitting vastly longer ago (in that scenario) than it's actual age. Even that cannot be disproved. So, it's potentially just....what music do you prefer. No choice among these matters to authentic faith, which is instead what Christ said in the New Testament in particular, to believe in Him, risen, and to come again!

I only have one problem with creating a universe that looks older than it is. It is unnecessary. If God stretched out the heavens, and time slows as acceleration increases, and the universe is continuing to accelerate, then time would continue to slow. So by using clocks which now tick at a slower rate to calculate into the past where time happened faster, one would of course come to the wrong conclusions about age, without correcting for time dilation.

 

[Ophiolite]

God would be able to do extraordinary things, even something so amazing (if He choose) as creating a Universe to look older than it is, creating light traveling towards Earth as if emitting vastly longer ago (in that scenario) than it's actual age. Even that cannot be disproved.

If we grant the possibility of an omnipotent, or near omnipotent deity, then of course he, she or it, could have done all of these things. The questions then would be, why would such a deity do this? Why deliberately lie? (I'm also reasonably sure the concept was roundly rejected by theologians a century and half ago.)

P.S. Please, no one respond to my rhetorical questions with the observation that "God works in mysterious ways".

 

[Ophiolite]

That's your inference.

It assuredly is, so we do agree on some things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If we grant the possibility of an omnipotent, or near omnipotent deity, then of course he, she or it, could have done all of these things. The questions then would be, why would such a deity do this? Why deliberately lie? (I'm also reasonably sure the concept was roundly rejected by theologians a century and half ago.)

P.S. Please, no one respond to my rhetorical questions with the observation that "God works in mysterious ways".

God works in mysterious.... joking, joking.

See post above. There is no need to postulate this, just accept the science of proven time dilation.

 

[Halbhh]

If we grant the possibility of an omnipotent, or near omnipotent deity, then of course he, she or it, could have done all of these things. The questions then would be, why would such a deity do this? Why deliberately lie? (I'm also reasonably sure the concept was roundly rejected by theologians a century and half ago.)

P.S. Please, no one respond to my rhetorical questions with the observation that "God works in mysterious ways".

Sorry, I can't think of a verse this would contradict. Which are you thinking of? It's not actually what I think happened (hope I didn't confuse anyone with that extreme example), but merely an example of the many possibilities, how varied the possibilities would be. I hope the bigger point isn't missed. We don't have to guess all details. Rather, we try to find out more, within the limits of what we can discover, in science. My guess is that our modern theories of cosmology (which are interesting to me so that I've read plenty about them) are at least partly correct, and likely the real age of the Universe is well over 10 bn years (note that the current mainstream view of 13.8 could get revised again).

 

[Halbhh]

God works in mysterious.... joking, joking.

See post above. There is no need to postulate this, just accept the science of proven time dilation.

Did you read through my earlier post about parallax? It's not a waste of your time I promise.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, I can't think of a verse this would contradict. Which are you thinking of?

I'm not thinking of any verse. I simply reason that to create a false impression of the past is, by definition a lie (a falsification). I prefer my Gods to be better than me, not deceitful, like one out of the Greek pantheon.

It's not actually what I think happened (hope I didn't confuse anyone with that extreme example), but merely an example of the many possibilities, how varied the possibilities would be.

Understood. It is just that I consider that particular example to be both invidious and theologically questionable.

I hope the bigger point isn't missed. We don't have to guess all details. Rather, we try to find out more, within the limits of what we can discover, in science.

Considering we have only spent a handful of centuries seriously working on the details, we have already come a long way.

My guess is that our modern theories of cosmology (which are interesting to me so that I've read plenty about them) are at least partly correct, and likely the real age of the Universe is well over 10 bn years (note that the current mainstream view of 13.8 could get revised again).

I've read the usual dozen or two popular works on cosmology and the occassional research paper and I have to say I can't get fired up over any of it. That's a purely personal viewpoint. Planetary formation, macroevolutionary trends, geochronology, basalts, extinction events, those are the sort of topics I can get passionate about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did you read through my earlier post about parallax? It's not a waste of your time I promise.

Did you read mine where 25% of all parallax measurements are negative, indicating the background stars are closer than the object of interest. But all negative results are discarded as systematic errors because they dont fit with theory. Absolute parallax was given up a long time ago by telescope because it was too difficult. Only stars within a few parsecs have been measured by absolute parallax, the rest are all relative parallax. Which as pointed out has 25% showing the opposite of what they want and so are discarded as systematic errors. That's how science works, dismiss the data that doesn't agree with your theory as an error.

And it is relative parallax, which can give results thousands of orders of magnitude off. The results are correlated to redshift, which again is an incorrect belief.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Halbhh]

Did you read mine where 25% of all parallax measurements are negative, indicating the background stars are closer than the object of interest. But all negative results are discarded as systematic errors because they dont fit with theory.

No, but i will, where is it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, but i will, where is it?

Right after your in response to yours.

 

[Halbhh]

Right after your in response to yours.

Looked at a few again, don't see it. What is the post #?

 

[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.

Where you wrote: "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."

Is it possible you are hearing somewhere of the so-called 'negative parallax' expected when a very distant supernova is seen through a foreground object like a cluster? It's because the supernova is so very distant that the intervening cluster is much closer and therefore there is of course a parallax! See? Unlike the typical situation of a nearby star against the background, the very distant supernova is for parallax effectively the background, and a cluster can be close enough to us to have a parallax against that background, and thus against the supernova. Then the opposite of the usual happens -- instead of one 'star' moving against the background of surrounding visual stars as in normal parallax, instead the surrounding visual group of stars moves against the one 'star' (the cluster shifts compared to the supernova).

Another source of so-called 'error' (imprecise terminology in a way) can happen for a nearer star is if we can't/don't correct for that star itself moving significantly during the 6 or 18 or 30, etc., months, due to it's own velocity. In such cases, repeated measurements are required to determine the proper motion of the star, so that it can be figured out.

Parallax itself is only geometry. But all stars are individually moving also, with various velocities unequal to each other.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or in one's intelligence.

I remember saying to a guy that was actually really smart that though he may be the smartest one here, we are all basically ants on the ant hill. And though he may be the smartest ant, he's still just an ant.

Point being?

 

[DogmaHunter]

God works in mysterious.... joking, joking.

See post above. There is no need to postulate this, just accept the science of proven time dilation.

Science doesn't support your nonsense, at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read slowly and carefully, digesting information as I go.

But you obviously haven't studied.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Point being?

He seemed to think that the pursuit of science is the highest pursuit of man, and at least in his case he worshiped science similarly to how many people in the world worship their creator.

Point being, minkind is limited. Even einstein was limited. We are all limited. And at the end of the day, "science" is just a man made word for one of the many activities of man. Like baseball, running, writing, and worshiping our creator. They can all be in harmony, but none of them are superior to any of the others execpt one: search for understanding of our creator. It gets to answering the most powerful question in the mind of man.

Why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

He seemed to think that the pursuit of science is the highest pursuit of man, and at least in his case he worshiped science similarly to how many people in the world worship their creator.

I'ld say that science is the best tool we have to find out how stuff works.
You can call that "worship" if you want, but I don't see how that is meaningful.

Point being, minkind is limited. Even einstein was limited. We are all limited.

Sure. So?

And at the end of the day, "science" is just a man made word for one of the many activities of man.

An activity, that is very succesfull at getting usefull answer to questions about reality.

Like baseball, running, writing, and worshiping our creator. They can all be in harmony, but none of them are superior to any of the others

I don't see how you can call one "superior" to the other, considering all of them have very different purposes.

Baseball, for example, is not about finding out how the world works. That's about entertainment and sports.

However, if you would ask the question "which of these is the best way to learn about reality?", then the answer obviously is science.

execpt one: search for understanding of our creator. It gets to answering the most powerful question in the mind of man.
why?

I disagree. Religion claims to answer questions, but I submit that there isn't a single question about the world that religion provides a meaningfull answer to.

Case in point... whenever science and religion go "head to head", so to speak, on any given subject.... religion never wins.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where you wrote: "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."

Is it possible you are hearing somewhere of the so-called 'negative parallax' expected when a very distant supernova is seen through a foreground object like a cluster? It's because the supernova is so very distant that the intervening cluster is much closer and therefore there is of course a parallax! See? Unlike the typical situation of a nearby star against the background, the very distant supernova is for parallax effectively the background, and a cluster can be close enough to us to have a parallax against that background, and thus against the supernova. Then the opposite of the usual happens -- instead of one 'star' moving against the background of surrounding visual stars as in normal parallax, instead the surrounding visual group of stars moves against the one 'star' (the cluster shifts compared to the supernova).

Another source of so-called 'error' (imprecise terminology in a way) can happen for a nearer star is if we can't/don't correct for that star itself moving significantly during the 6 or 18 or 30, etc., months, due to it's own velocity. In such cases, repeated measurements are required to determine the proper motion of the star, so that it can be figured out.

Parallax itself is only geometry. But all stars are individually moving also, with various velocities unequal to each other.

Think about what you are saying. If the background stars are at their claimed distances, then in 6 months or even 5 years, their velocity through space would matter not at all compared to their position in the sky in relation to us and would have no effect on parallax. The further an object is, the less it’s apparent position in the sky would change. Only objects closer than believed to be would be affected by their velocity in relation to us.

Also have you ever considered stellar aberration? Relativity claims that the only velocity that matters is the velocity between source and observer. But stellar aberration does not take this into account at all. Only the velocity of the earth matters in reality.

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity

 

[Shemjaza]

For one, what makes you think they were middle Easteners?

For another what makes you think they were nearly identical? Adam was created perfect, i.e. every racial genome already existed within him. Half was used to create Eve. Therefore we start with two non-identical beings. Each with half of a perfect genome. The two shall become one flesh (i.e. a new life)

But I am sure you have already forgotten that over 100 breeds of dogs were brought about from one wolf stock. How easily evolutionists forget this when they question how humans can do the same thing to themselves they did with dogs. Yet wonder in awe how a mere 12 to 15 races came about, while claiming to understand how 100 breeds of dogs happened..... I find this selective memory, astonishing....

I don't avoid it, you just refuse to remember dogs every time you ask.

Human variation: source, mutation
Dog variation: source, mutation

It's really not that hard.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I disagree. Religion claims to answer questions, but I submit that there isn't a single question about the world that religion provides a meaningfull answer to.

Case in point... whenever science and religion go "head to head", so to speak, on any given subject.... religion never wins.

That’s what every scientists said about rabbits chewing their cud when the Bible told them they did, but all were wrong. That’s what every archeologist said, until now the Bible is used as one of the most archeological accurate sources.

Perhaps it’s their interpretations at the start that are flawed. If I look at something with the wrong interpretation of it, I am sure I am going to come to the wrong conclusions.