Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...d=585&u=/nm/20020807/sc_nm/science_light_dc_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...d=585&u=/nm/20020807/sc_nm/science_light_dc_1
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The speeee..e.e.e.ed of light
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Although "debunk" is way too strong of a word IMO, this has been in the works for a long time Nick. Yes, as we learn to measure things better and see more of the universe theories are changed. Just like Einstein's Relativity rewrote Newtons laws it was expected that Einstiens theory would be ammended too.
Although I feel for some of the creationist that had used a variable speed of light argument for some of their work. They are going to have to revise there theories much more than the changes you are going to see in realativity.
Although I feel for some of the creationist that had used a variable speed of light argument for some of their work. They are going to have to revise there theories much more than the changes you are going to see in realativity.
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Our understanding of the very fabric of the universe may be about to take another step. It does not mean everything we understood so far was wrong, just incomplete. Perhaps some of the conclusions were in error. Of course, that is assuming these observations stand up to scrutiny - even if they don't, and relavitiy stands unchanged, we have still learned something. Challenging accepted theories, and exploring new possibilities, that is what science is all about.
Upvote
0
This is also more evidence that there are no sacred cows in science. If the evidence shows Einstein to be wrong, then science concludes that Einstein was wrong (or at least incomplete). The same would happen if there were ever shown any evidence against the Theory of Evolution. Scientific theories stand and fall with evidence as we have seen time and again.
Choccy
Choccy
Upvote
0
Have you seen anyone do that? I haven't. *shrug*. The closest I've come, and it seems rather common, is to point out that science shows that everywhere we look, God isn't necessary.
Not necessary is not "against God", nor is it even really evidence that God doesn't exist (except in counter to the arguments from incredulity/design/whatnot).
Not necessary is not "against God", nor is it even really evidence that God doesn't exist (except in counter to the arguments from incredulity/design/whatnot).
Upvote
0
Trying to show that "God isn't necessary" on a Christian Forum, is the same as attacking God. Come on man, you gotta admit that!
Upvote
0
Apparantly I wasn't clear on the point. Science doesn't say anything about God, right? It just goes on trying to describe the world in purely naturalistic terms.
Now, if a theist points to some aspect of the Universe and claims it proves God, then an atheist can say "Well, there's a perfectly natural explanation for it" or even "I have no doubt, do to the track record of science on these things, that a natural explanation will be uncovered" thus negating the argument.
However, an atheist who says God isn't necessary to start the Universe, or to explain power tool, or whatever isn't making much of an argument. "Not necessary" says nothing about whether God exists or not.
As a defense to "God is necessary for this to exist, this exists, therefore God exists" it's quite workable. But it doesn't work the other way around.
Unless, of course, a religion makes a testable statement about the natural world. And frankly, if your religion claims something like...spiders have 10 legs and can play violen, it's hardly science's fault when biologists work out that spiders have 8 legs, and don't play the violen.
Now, if a theist points to some aspect of the Universe and claims it proves God, then an atheist can say "Well, there's a perfectly natural explanation for it" or even "I have no doubt, do to the track record of science on these things, that a natural explanation will be uncovered" thus negating the argument.
However, an atheist who says God isn't necessary to start the Universe, or to explain power tool, or whatever isn't making much of an argument. "Not necessary" says nothing about whether God exists or not.
As a defense to "God is necessary for this to exist, this exists, therefore God exists" it's quite workable. But it doesn't work the other way around.
Unless, of course, a religion makes a testable statement about the natural world. And frankly, if your religion claims something like...spiders have 10 legs and can play violen, it's hardly science's fault when biologists work out that spiders have 8 legs, and don't play the violen.
Upvote
0
Something in the science PROVING God is ridiculous....however, things in science that make more sense with God, make a case for considering God, which is all I want to do.
Upvote
0
Apart from YEC, I can only see science being a problem for and used against the so-called "God of the gaps" theories. When people use God to fill the holes in our current knowledge about the physical universe, they will automatically feel threatened when science tries to find natural explanations for such phenomena.
Choccy
Choccy
Upvote
0
Then you're misusing science. Science can say nothing about God, or it isn't science. So to claim "Science makes more sense with God" is to be using something other than science.
Using scientific facts and concepts as evidence in a proof of God is one thing, but that's not what you implied here. That would be "reality makes more sense with God, as witnessed by these things discovered/explained by science"
Upvote
0
Unless I'm missing your point I'm afraid you're setting yourself up or a huge dissapointment as our knowledge of the Universe we live in increase, and the things that previously made more sense to you with God suddenly has a purely naturalistic and well understood explanation.
I'm only guessing here, but if you feel that e.g. abiogenesis makes a lot more sense with God as an explanation, how will you react when (if) scientists manages to recreate abiogenesis in the lab?
Choccy
Upvote
0
Stormy
Senior Contributor
Now, How would this "life" not be brought on by intelligent design?
My mind does not contain any walled off spaces. I do not put anything past a heightened level of intelligence. I do not know the full capacity of the human so it would be wrong to call anything impossible. But you must realize that man is so very far from what you are saying.
However the more I read of the imaginary tale of life as seen through the mind of Darwin, the Bible becomes more and more credible. Darwin's evolution could account for the work within a specie. But even then it is lacking. To say that random mutation brought about order is not logical. It has been stated that desire cannot change the genetics and add wings. I look upon this Earth and see the product of One who had a deep desire to Create.
You say that God is "not needed". There will come a time when you cry out to God. You will find that you do need him.
I pray that he will listen.
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Choccy: "how will you react when (if) scientists manages [sic] to recreate abiogenesis in the lab?"
I will correctly deduce that they used their intelligence to do it.
I will correctly deduce that they used their intelligence to do it.
Upvote
0
Seems to me that Stormy doesn't quite understand evolution. Organisms don't evolve by just mutating. There are other steps.
When an organism mutates, natural selection is called into play. Natural selection decides, quite non-randomly, whether or not that organism can survive based on factors such as the organism's environment, niche, competitors, and how the mutation plays into those and other factors. Through this, a line of organisms who develop the most favorable mutations evolve into a better organism.
So you are quite right when you say that "random mutation brought about order is not logical." But read the whole story. I hope that I've educated someone about evolution, and demolished some of their misconceptions.
When an organism mutates, natural selection is called into play. Natural selection decides, quite non-randomly, whether or not that organism can survive based on factors such as the organism's environment, niche, competitors, and how the mutation plays into those and other factors. Through this, a line of organisms who develop the most favorable mutations evolve into a better organism.
So you are quite right when you say that "random mutation brought about order is not logical." But read the whole story. I hope that I've educated someone about evolution, and demolished some of their misconceptions.
Upvote
0
I think a lot of Christians misunderstand what science actually is and does. Science is areligious. It simply does not use religion. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but when scientists say "God isn't necessary", I think it means that they do not measure the miraculous nature of an event. A natural event is merely observed as a natural event, whether or not it's considered miraculous by a religious individual or group. Whether or not a natural event is a miracle has no effect upon observation. Personally, I consider the entire universe to be a miracle. But when observing and measuring it, I don't sit there and say, "Oh look, God just spawned a solar prominence!". I just observe, measure, record, analyze, etc. It's not an acceptance or rejection of God per se. It's simply... science. *shrugs*
Upvote
0
sbbqb7n16
Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Well actually... science is explaining how God did what He did.. whether the scientist knows that or not... apart from God there would be no science...
Colossians 1:17 " He is before all things and in Him all things hold together"
Claiming that science disproves God is severely misinterpretting the facts.
Colossians 1:17 " He is before all things and in Him all things hold together"
Claiming that science disproves God is severely misinterpretting the facts.
Upvote
0
Science is about exploring the universe, so to a Believer that might be true, but it is a statement of faith, not fact.
So what happens if science comes to a conclusion that contradicts your concept of God? Is the science wrong or your concept?
I would say it all depends on what concept of "God" is being used.
Upvote
0
I never said that science proves or disproves God. I don't think that's the role of science. The role of science is to investigate the natural phenomena of the universe. Consider Copernicus' theories. Even my beloved Reformer fathers were misinformed. Neither Luther nor Calvin would assent to the Copernican heliocentric theory, believing that Copernicus was going against Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And that is why I do not let religion dictate my scientific beliefs. Neither do I try to use science to support my theological position.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
