I always keep God in my science, because I presume for God to tell me what I must do.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. (Prov 3:5-6).
Because gravity already means "whatever makes lumps of matter attract one another". It's meant that since Newton first suggested that what makes stuff fall down on earth is the same thing that makes planets go around the sun. It's highly unlikely that that sense of gravity is going to be replaced. What you should be asking is, why aren't they trying to replace General Relativity, which is the current best theory of gravity. And of course the answer is, they are trying. There have been any number of proposed replacements for GR, in part inspired by the ugliness of postulating dark matter.What I mean is that scientists claim that gravity is holding galaxies together, but there is not enough visible matter present to account for the gravity. So why conclude it is gravity that is holding the galaxies together? Why not look for an alternative to gravity that does not require you to invent new forms of matter that no one can even detect?
You are only learning now that no set of evidence is ever definitive? This fact isn't restricted to science: you can never be certain of anything, and new evidence may always force you to reconsider what you thought you knew. (Which is precisely why scientists usually avoid talking about "truth".) That's just part of life. What sets science apart is not that it somehow magically comes up with the permanently right explanation, but that it insists on testing ideas against empirical evidence whenever possible. The result is that science is much more reliable than any other way of understanding the natural world, even if it isn't perfectly reliable.If evidence can support an idea that is false, there is no reason to take science seriously when it claims an idea to be true because it is supported by evidence. It seems as if scientific evidence is not a reliable way to prove an idea to be true because scientific ideas supported by evidence are often false.
Something to add to creationism problems. Your god doesn't exist. Maybe you should start there and quit worrying about what science can find.Something to add to Big Bang problems….
The irony is staggering.
So you don't consider atomic theory to be true?
When we observe stars in the universe we see that some stars at the edges of galaxies move too fast. Yet they are held in orbit around the center of these galaxies. So we infer that there must be more mass in the galaxies than we can see. The stars act as if they are following normal gravitational rules. So we don't infer that they are being held in place by God. That would be stupid. There's no evidence to suggest that a god or gods exist. There's no evidence to suggest that if they did exist in their spare time they imitate gravitational pull. So why in the world would we assume such a thing? Oh, right... because you're so desperate to have someone, anyone validate your belief.What I mean is that scientists claim that gravity is holding galaxies together, but there is not enough visible matter present to account for the gravity. So why conclude it is gravity that is holding the galaxies together? Why not look for an alternative to gravity that does not require you to invent new forms of matter that no one can even detect?
You mean like finding a fossil on a mountain top and assuming it's because of a tremendous flood and not the upheaval of tectonic plates over millions of years? It's not the evidence that supports a false idea. The evidence is what it is. It's the person that interprets the evidence.If evidence can support an idea that is false,
That's why we work to find more and more evidence to support our hypothesis. Right now dark matter is a hypothesis. We know there's more matter out there than we can account for. We don't know where it is or what form it takes. Science right now claims dark matter MAY exist. When we can prove it we'll let you know.there is no reason to take science seriously when it claims an idea to be true because it is supported by evidence.
It seems as if the person interpreting the data (you) is screwed up. And that's why the evidence is being misinterpreted. The fact is that there's more gravity out there than we can account for. Now we're trying to account for it. Dark matter is one way we're hypothesizing it may be. Another is that gravity is a force that comes into this universe from another. Which is why it's so strong over such long distances yet so weak compared to other forces. That's the short version.It seems as if scientific evidence is not a reliable way to prove an idea to be true because scientific ideas supported by evidence are often false.
Still, they're much smaller than mustard seeds. ;-)I didn't see any irony.
No, it was wrong. Atoms turned out to be neither indestructible nor indivisible. They're a bundle of quarks and leptons held together by gluons and photons and even so they are small enough to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. Treating them as indestructible particles is a useful approximation, very useful but not quite the truth. If I want certain absolute truth, I'll look to mathematics rather than science.
Gravity remains a problem not because of mass or lack of mass, there could be unseen forces at play. Gravity is the single most puzzling issue. Now one can attribute this force to any unseen matter they want, nearby universes, God, whatever. In all fairness it can be either or some thing else. Science and God are not at odds with each other, so why are we trying to make it that way?*
I sincerely hope you're kidding.
*bolded mine
Since definitions are arbitrary, of course it can "find" one, by creating one. Is there some reason it should be looking for one? Would this be a useful concept to define rigorously?Can it find a definition for matter?
Not at all. But of course any one with a closed mind might think otherwise.
Indeed, but that's not what's meant by atomic theory. That was the old theory, just as the old theory of the Earth was flat, then spherical, then 'squashed' spherical. Modern atomic theory states, ultimately, that atoms exist. Do you believe atoms exist?No, it was wrong. Atoms turned out to be neither indestructible nor indivisible. They're a bundle of quarks and leptons held together by gluons and photons and even so they are small enough to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. Treating them as indestructible particles is a useful approximation, very useful but not quite the truth.
Do you believe HIV causes AIDS? Smoking causes cancer? The Earth isn't flat? There was a total solar eclipse in 1999?If I want certain absolute truth, I'll look to mathematics rather than science.
A literal rendering of any biblical passage even remotely mentioning any aspect of what can be observed by the scientific method is wrong at just about every turn. An allegorical interpretation does allow a theist a little wiggle room perhaps, but not much. Our current understanding of the physical world is much more amazing than these ancient writers could have ever known. Our current theories are the best explanation for anything scientific at this point in time. To somehow think the bible congruous with current knowledge or supports science, is, well, laughable. It is only when one opens their mind are they able to see reality for what it really is, and that any attempt to rectify biblical descriptions and our current understanding of science is fatuous.
That's your opinion. Another is that God and science are at odds. One need only look at the furore religious folks cause whenever there's some paradigm shift. Evolution, heliocentrism, 'Old Earth', even Relativity. It seems that taking one's religion too seriously interferes with one's ability to accept new science - God is indeed at odds with science.Not at all. But of course any one with a closed mind might think otherwise.
That's your opinion. Another is that God and science are at odds. One need only look at the furore religious folks cause whenever there's some paradigm shift. Evolution, heliocentrism, 'Old Earth', even Relativity. It seems that taking one's religion too seriously interferes with one's ability to accept new science - God is indeed at odds with science.
Do you beat your spouse often?You assume much with out understanding what I mean, do u do that often?
Do you beat your spouse often?
Who's stereotyping? I didn't say all religious types kick up a fuss, I said a fuss is inevitably kicked up by religious types. God is at odds with science inasmuch as science inevitably contradicts some religious belief or other. Do you deny that the science deniers, those who rejected (or still reject) the idea of a round Earth, heliocentrism, and evolution, were and are predominantly religious?Of course and since we are stereotyping another opinion would be Witches should be burned to the stake, one just needs to look at the history of witches.
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?