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...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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...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.
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.
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.”
"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."
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.
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
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?
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.
An interesting article on how this issue needs to be addressed; by the scientists themselves.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...
Interesting article, thanks.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?
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.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/
This is a science forum, so that's appropriate. We can discuss what the evidence of the earth says about itself.
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?
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.
I'm not stopping others discussing science. However, the entire message board is 'Christian Forums' so I think some Christian input is in order.
Genesis was written to be taken literally.
The author, probably Mosses believed it was literal.
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.
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.
Genesis was written to be taken literally.
How do you know that?
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?
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.
This assumes that rates of decay have always been what we see now.The atoms in some chemical elements have different forms, called isotopes. These isotopes break down at a constant rate over time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?