Natural Cretion vs God - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 03:57 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Natural Cretion vs God

Many creationist arguments revovle around the big bang theory coming from nothing it can't happen etc etc. But since God always was and always is, why is he so special to escape scrutiny as to where he is from?
SlowLX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 04:05 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
BTW please forgive the simple typo's my keyboard is on it's last leg, and I don't always check before I post.
SlowLX is offline  
post #3 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 05:10 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 906
I don't think he escapes it but rather no one has the answer or can even comprehend this line of thinking.

For me its like when I watch those Discovery Channel movies about space...I start freaking out...my mind goes from complete and utter awe....to feeling so small....to thinking about God...and then I get to thinking about where God came from etc...and my mind just goes numb....death is in there as well...

All things created you are seprate from...like if I build a computer for instance...I design it...lay it out...put it together...start it and it runs with out me...I am seprate from it...and my being or where I came from is really of no consquence to the computer...all it nows is it is alive and running.....
(I know the above it a bad metaphor but...well I have no excuse)
SVT93Style is offline  
 
post #4 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 05:39 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
I just find it funny they poke fun at the big bang theory which requires a certian amount of faith in your science, yet the same principle is the basis for theism
SlowLX is offline  
post #5 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 05:42 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
I just find it funny they poke fun at the big bang theory which requires a certian amount of faith in your science, yet the same principle is the basis for theism
I am confused...could you eloborate more....
"your science"
SVT93Style is offline  
post #6 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 05:46 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT93Style
I am confused...could you eloborate more....
"your science"
not directed at anyone just wondering as to their twosided reasoning
"your science" is directed at anyone who puts their belief on the creation of life in a big bang type theory.
SlowLX is offline  
post #7 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 07:01 PM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
A couple of points from me....
Science requires proof, faith requires none. Math & physics back up the big bang theory (note: theory, since no one was there).

I believe in a higher power, a creator.....but I don't believe the bible is 100% accurate, it may be 20% accurate. I believe in the big bang & evolution.....but I believe the big bang was initiated because God snapped his fingers.

Scott
White trash wagon is offline  
post #8 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-03-2007, 07:26 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
Science requires proof, faith requires none.
Have to disagree

Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
I believe in a higher power, a creator.....but I don't believe the bible is 100% accurate, it may be 20% accurate. I believe in the big bang & evolution.....but I believe the big bang was initiated because God snapped his fingers.
Scott
How do arrive at these conclusions?
Thanks
SVT93Style is offline  
post #9 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 03:19 AM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
A couple of points from me....
Science requires proof, faith requires none. Math & physics back up the big bang theory (note: theory, since no one was there).

I believe in a higher power, a creator.....but I don't believe the bible is 100% accurate, it may be 20% accurate. I believe in the big bang & evolution.....but I believe the big bang was initiated because God snapped his fingers.

Scott
it doesn't answer why many church goer's try and "disprove" the big bang because it came from nothing, yet they ignore that fact that God had to come from nothing.
SlowLX is offline  
post #10 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 07:21 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
Many creationist arguments revovle around the big bang theory coming from nothing it can't happen etc etc. But since God always was and always is, why is he so special to escape scrutiny as to where he is from?
"I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14)

Being a person of faith, I need no further explanation.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #11 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 09:43 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
it doesn't answer why many church goer's try and "disprove" the big bang because it came from nothing, yet they ignore that fact that God had to come from nothing.

God did not come from "nothing". You are ascribing human limitations to Him. We are finite, and only gauge things in beginning and end. We know no other way. God always has been, and has no beginning or end....in fact, He tells us he is both (simultaneously!)

It is easy to put our own limitations on God.. in fact, this is a key factor in unanswered prayer.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #12 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 11:12 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
Many creationist arguments revovle around the big bang theory coming from nothing it can't happen etc etc. But since God always was and always is, why is he so special to escape scrutiny as to where he is from?
It's not that he escapes scrutiny as to to where he comes from. Philosophically (and even scientifically), EVERYTHING must have a beginning, EXCEPT the SOURCE of all things. Therefore, when you get back to the source of where everything started, you find something or someone that is eternal and has always existed. Most philosophers come to this conclusion, from what I understand. Scientists should learn more philosophy. Philosophers learn a lot of science. Scientists could learn a thing or two from the philosophers.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #13 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 11:24 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
A couple of points from me....
Science requires proof, faith requires none. Math & physics back up the big bang theory (note: theory, since no one was there).

I believe in a higher power, a creator.....but I don't believe the bible is 100% accurate, it may be 20% accurate. I believe in the big bang & evolution.....but I believe the big bang was initiated because God snapped his fingers.

Scott
As I have studied science and history over the years, I find that the more I learn, the more it proves the Bible. You would not believe how many incredibly scientific statements or things are pointed out in the Bible. But you read right over them until they're pointed out or you understand a different interpretation/theory. They suddenly jump out at you after you understand that kind of thing.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #14 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 12:27 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
It's not that he escapes scrutiny as to to where he comes from. Philosophically (and even scientifically), EVERYTHING must have a beginning, EXCEPT the SOURCE of all things. Therefore, when you get back to the source of where everything started, you find something or someone that is eternal and has always existed. Most philosophers come to this conclusion, from what I understand. Scientists should learn more philosophy. Philosophers learn a lot of science. Scientists could learn a thing or two from the philosophers.
Yet the original 4 elements HAVE to come from something Forget that science and math that advanced is over 99.9 percent of the populations head and we'll most likely never know...
SlowLX is offline  
post #15 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 01:41 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
Yet the original 4 elements HAVE to come from something Forget that science and math that advanced is over 99.9 percent of the populations head and we'll most likely never know...
Right, they have to come from something. So, if you track everything back, philosophically and even scientifically, if everything MUST come from somewhere (a source), then you have to logically follow everything back to an eternal source. There must be something that has ALWAYS existed in order for everything else to have a beginning by being created by this source. It's just how it must be. Things don't just always exist, as we see in the laws of physics. The only thing that just exists is the source of all things. That's why God's name, Yahweh, means "I Exist" or "I AM." That's a power name right there. He says He is the "first and the last" too. Also a very powerful statement or title. He always exists and always has existed. I believe He is the logical source of all things. Pretty simple. Very scientifically logical too, actually. But it's something improveable, though...that's the problem. But logically...it must be this way. There no other logical or reasonable explanation.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-04-2007, 01:48 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
Right, they have to come from something. So, if you track everything back, philosophically and even scientifically, if everything MUST come from somewhere (a source), then you have to logically follow everything back to an eternal source. There must be something that has ALWAYS existed in order for everything else to have a beginning by being created by this source. It's just how it must be. Things don't just always exist, as we see in the laws of physics. The only thing that just exists is the source of all things. That's why God's name, Yahweh, means "I Exist" or "I AM." That's a power name right there. He says He is the "first and the last" too. Also a very powerful statement or title. He always exists and always has existed. I believe He is the logical source of all things. Pretty simple. Very scientifically logical too, actually. But it's something improveable, though...that's the problem. But logically...it must be this way. There no other logical or reasonable explanation.
so hypothetically there is no God...then these elements are they your "always were and always is"?
SlowLX is offline  
post #17 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-05-2007, 10:43 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
so hypothetically there is no God...then these elements are they your "always were and always is"?
No, the elements were created ex nihilo
Fastback is offline  
post #18 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-06-2007, 07:35 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
A couple of points from me....
Science requires proof, faith requires none. Math & physics back up the big bang theory (note: theory, since no one was there).

I believe in a higher power, a creator.....but I don't believe the bible is 100% accurate, it may be 20% accurate. I believe in the big bang & evolution.....but I believe the big bang was initiated because God snapped his fingers.

Scott
The truth is that Science is built on Faith.

True knowledge is that which is observed from your own senses. Most of our science is not true knowledge. Only a few people have done the experiments to prove the Earth is round or have seen the curvature from space. We have to accept science on faith or we would never have time to continue to develop our understanding of the world around us. A scientist does not have the time to recreate every experiment.

Faith is that which you believe without true knowledge.

What this means is that the majority of science we know is faith and not knowledge.

These are philisophical terms and are very important to understand.

Now the Big Bang is a theory because it is based on mathematics. If an experiment could be performed to prove it, it would be a Law. A hypothesis would be an educated guess without the mathematics to back it up. Anyone who reads an article about the Big Bang or Evolution and accepts it as truth is working on faith not true knowledge.

Maybe, just maybe, that is why Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, was instrumental in the Big Bang theory. After all, he deals in issues of Faith.

Anyone who looks into it will discover that the majority of Christians are not creationists.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #19 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-06-2007, 09:01 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
so hypothetically there is no God...then these elements are they your "always were and always is"?
No, that makes absolutely no sense. Where did the structure of the elements come from? Why do they react the way they do? Where did the laws of physics come from? Why is there such incredible order to the universe and everything in it? That kind of stuff wasn't just "here" always. It has a beginning at some point.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #20 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-06-2007, 09:08 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
The truth is that Science is built on Faith.

True knowledge is that which is observed from your own senses. Most of our science is not true knowledge. Only a few people have done the experiments to prove the Earth is round or have seen the curvature from space. We have to accept science on faith or we would never have time to continue to develop our understanding of the world around us. A scientist does not have the time to recreate every experiment.

Faith is that which you believe without true knowledge.

What this means is that the majority of science we know is faith and not knowledge.

These are philisophical terms and are very important to understand.

Now the Big Bang is a theory because it is based on mathematics. If an experiment could be performed to prove it, it would be a Law. A hypothesis would be an educated guess without the mathematics to back it up. Anyone who reads an article about the Big Bang or Evolution and accepts it as truth is working on faith not true knowledge.

Maybe, just maybe, that is why Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, was instrumental in the Big Bang theory. After all, he deals in issues of Faith.

Anyone who looks into it will discover that the majority of Christians are not creationists.
You are correct. Science is largely about faith. The only scientific things that aren't faith based are the Laws of physics and the tangible things we can prove without a doubt. The rest is interpretation and must be taken on faith alone. Anytime you get into the world of theory (evolution or big bang or pangea or dinosaurs and when they existed), you must take all of this on faith. Dating methods all are horribly wrong and operate on inaccurate platforms that provide completely random numbers. We have absolutely no way to date anything, and therefore, cannot even substantiate dates for our theories. It's amazing how inept science really is.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #21 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-06-2007, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
No, that makes absolutely no sense. Where did the structure of the elements come from? Why do they react the way they do? Where did the laws of physics come from? Why is there such incredible order to the universe and everything in it? That kind of stuff wasn't just "here" always. It has a beginning at some point.
thats just as illogical as say God always was always is, physics is created by man so that we can understand the scientific aspect of something way over our heads. Just as many people apply religion to the begining of the universe. You provide me with evidence either way, if it was proven there was no God people would make physics their God. People can't comprehend that they might be alone and have to come comfort.
SlowLX is offline  
post #22 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-07-2007, 08:27 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
thats just as illogical as say God always was always is, physics is created by man so that we can understand the scientific aspect of something way over our heads. Just as many people apply religion to the begining of the universe. You provide me with evidence either way, if it was proven there was no God people would make physics their God. People can't comprehend that they might be alone and have to come comfort.
OK, there's absolutely no reasoning in what you just said. Physics is not "created by man." That's about the most ridiculous statement I've heard yet. You deserve the Darwin award this year. Physics are PROVEN LAWS. We didn't just magically think up the laws of physics. They are the purest form of science, completely absent of theory, and completely comprised of absolute fact and proveability.

Due to this display of complete ignorance of science, I'm not sure I can ever respond to your posts again in good conscience, because you're obviously just grasping at straws to reason out a way that there is no God.

As I said before, it is not illogical at all to deduce that there MUST be an eternal source that created all things. We KNOW it's logical, because most philosophers that attempt this line of reasoning come up with the fact that there must be an eternal source. It is the only explanation for existence in any form.

The reason people believe in a Creator, besides the fact that they had to come from somewhere, is because it is logical, and it shows a purpose to life. There IS purpose. If something is created, it is created for a purpose. If one takes away creation (a beginning of things), they remove purpose as well. Then, life begins to have no meaning and you just do what it takes to tolerate it. Belief in God is not a necessity. It is a logical deduction.

Many years ago, when people found tribes in Africa completely untouched by civilization, they did research studies on the children around the age of 7. They asked them, "Do you believe in a higher power of some sort?" Now remember, these cultures in particular they were finding don't teach a God or anything like that. But 100% of the children said, "Yes, they know there's a higher power, but they cannot explain it and know nothing of it." The Bible says that all men will look at creation (nature) and will be without excuse, because creation declares a creator. These kids understood this at age 7 with no influence from anyone telling them there's a God. You've managed to completely ignore this truth. 95% of the world believes in a God of some sort. You're in the 5% minority or illogical deduction or flat out rebellion. Good job there, Einstein.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #23 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-07-2007, 01:25 PM
Punk Ass Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 97
Simple?

Bing Bang = There Was Nothing And It Blew Up ..???....then After Millions Of Years Something Crawled Out Of The Soup, Found Something To Eat And A Mate???? Easier For Me To Have Faith In God
lefty1300 is offline  
post #24 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-07-2007, 01:38 PM Thread Starter
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
OK, there's absolutely no reasoning in what you just said. Physics is not "created by man." That's about the most ridiculous statement I've heard yet. You deserve the Darwin award this year. Physics are PROVEN LAWS. We didn't just magically think up the laws of physics. They are the purest form of science, completely absent of theory, and completely comprised of absolute fact and proveability.

Due to this display of complete ignorance of science, I'm not sure I can ever respond to your posts again in good conscience, because you're obviously just grasping at straws to reason out a way that there is no God.

As I said before, it is not illogical at all to deduce that there MUST be an eternal source that created all things. We KNOW it's logical, because most philosophers that attempt this line of reasoning come up with the fact that there must be an eternal source. It is the only explanation for existence in any form.

The reason people believe in a Creator, besides the fact that they had to come from somewhere, is because it is logical, and it shows a purpose to life. There IS purpose. If something is created, it is created for a purpose. If one takes away creation (a beginning of things), they remove purpose as well. Then, life begins to have no meaning and you just do what it takes to tolerate it. Belief in God is not a necessity. It is a logical deduction.

Many years ago, when people found tribes in Africa completely untouched by civilization, they did research studies on the children around the age of 7. They asked them, "Do you believe in a higher power of some sort?" Now remember, these cultures in particular they were finding don't teach a God or anything like that. But 100% of the children said, "Yes, they know there's a higher power, but they cannot explain it and know nothing of it." The Bible says that all men will look at creation (nature) and will be without excuse, because creation declares a creator. These kids understood this at age 7 with no influence from anyone telling them there's a God. You've managed to completely ignore this truth. 95% of the world believes in a God of some sort. You're in the 5% minority or illogical deduction or flat out rebellion. Good job there, Einstein.
weve been down this road so many times, you seem to think im not theistic for some odd reason. As well as you have yet to provide any legit reasoning for your double standards as to an ultimate creator vs physics being the ultimate creation/tool of creation. and you obviously can't grasp the sarcasm in my post poking fun of your reasoning in saying there must be a god even though theres no legit proof. Yet discounting science becuase theres not enough proof
SlowLX is offline  
post #25 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-08-2007, 08:06 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
weve been down this road so many times, you seem to think im not theistic for some odd reason. As well as you have yet to provide any legit reasoning for your double standards as to an ultimate creator vs physics being the ultimate creation/tool of creation. and you obviously can't grasp the sarcasm in my post poking fun of your reasoning in saying there must be a god even though theres no legit proof. Yet discounting science becuase theres not enough proof
Do you actually think I disconnect science?

I have no double standard. It is absolutely illogical and ridiculous to say that physics is the TOOL of creation, because the physics are PART OF the creation. They are laws WITHIN creation that mediate the created things. The laws themselves were created as well. It makes no sense to say that the laws of physics themselves are the tools. They have no intelligence of any kind and no creation power. How does that make sense?? No one logical or reasonable comes to this conclusion...

As sarcasm goes, it's the internet in written word and emotion/body language/inflection are not present, so yeah...lots of people mistake sarcasm for seriousness. That's why a lot of people put (sarcastis) in their comments. Otherwise, if context doesn't show it, that's your inability to make it obvious enough.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #26 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 02:39 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
The truth is that Science is built on Faith.

True knowledge is that which is observed from your own senses. Most of our science is not true knowledge.

.......

Faith is that which you believe without true knowledge.

What this means is that the majority of science we know is faith and not knowledge.

These are philisophical terms and are very important to understand.
Your arguments are wrong.
Science is not based on faith. Science is not based on "true knowledge". The definitions of the words prove otherwise.

http://www.m-w.com/

Faith
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs


Belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


Science
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws


Knowledge
2 a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
3archaic : sexual intercourse
4 a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind barchaic : a branch of learning

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
post #27 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 03:35 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
You are correct, but you are not applying your understanding to the issue.

Unless you specifically perform the proof, you are taking the word of other people on faith. Scientists put faith in scientific journals. Most science is by definition built on faith. As I said, scientists have to believe in each other or they would never have the time to re-prove each others experiments. There would not be enough time in a persons life to discover new science is they spend their time proving old.

Knowledge comes from the senses not from reading a book about someone elses work.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #28 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You are correct, but you are not applying your understanding to the issue.

Unless you specifically perform the proof, you are taking the word of other people on faith. Scientists put faith in scientific journals. Most science is by definition built on faith. As I said, scientists have to believe in each other or they would never have the time to re-prove each others experiments. There would not be enough time in a persons life to discover new science is they spend their time proving old.

Knowledge comes from the senses not from reading a book about someone elses work.
Your arguments are still incorrect.
Scientists do not put faith in each other or journals.
Science is not by definition built on faith.
Knowledge can be gained from understanding. Understanding can be obtained from reading.

Scientific Journal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal
Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.

When you read a journal, you do not believe what you read because you have faith in the scientist who wrote it. Nonetheless, you can trust the conclusions because others have already tested the conclusions and reached the same results. You don't have to do the experiment yourself to trust that the conclusion is correct, but you do need to know that other scientist have repeated the result.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #29 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 04:47 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowLX
Many creationist arguments revovle around the big bang theory coming from nothing it can't happen etc etc. But since God always was and always is, why is he so special to escape scrutiny as to where he is from?
Something coming from nothing is not the Big Bang Theory. All the theory really states is that the universe is expanding from a single source. The theory does not explain what the source was or why it occurred. The theory does not state what caused it. I doubt if it even states where or when it occurred. All that other stuff is speculation. Yes, scientists speculate all the time, but speculation and theory are different things.

The Big Bang theory is testable and has been tested many times. It can be stated with confidence that the universe is indeed expanding.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #30 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 10:32 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You are correct, but you are not applying your understanding to the issue.

Unless you specifically perform the proof, you are taking the word of other people on faith. Scientists put faith in scientific journals. Most science is by definition built on faith. As I said, scientists have to believe in each other or they would never have the time to re-prove each others experiments. There would not be enough time in a persons life to discover new science is they spend their time proving old.

Knowledge comes from the senses not from reading a book about someone elses work.
On the contrary. What do you think Peer Review is?? It's when other scientists perform the same experiments that the original scientist performed in order to confirm his findings. That's not faith.

However, the interpretation of the scientific data IS something that's not proven. Interpretation is a theory based upon the data found in an experiment. But it's just that...a theory. And theories are faith based. Science, TRUE science, is based on facts that you can reproduce to prove conclusively. There should be a separate field of study called THEORY instead of science in order to separate the two so people aren't fooled and don't think interpretations are the only explanations for extrapolated data.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #31 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-10-2007, 10:37 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Something coming from nothing is not the Big Bang Theory. All the theory really states is that the universe is expanding from a single source. The theory does not explain what the source was or why it occurred. The theory does not state what caused it. I doubt if it even states where or when it occurred. All that other stuff is speculation. Yes, scientists speculate all the time, but speculation and theory are different things.

The Big Bang theory is testable and has been tested many times. It can be stated with confidence that the universe is indeed expanding.
The Big Bang theory has not been tested, nor can it be proven at all. Just because we see an expanding or contracting universe proves nothing and tests nothing. It's all dependent upon how scientists interpret what they see. For instance, when Hubble first went up, scientists were silent on it for 9 months, becuase they thought they'd see an expanding universe, but what they thought they discovered was a retracting universe which they assumed they saw the outer edge of. Come to find out, Hubble cannot even see the edge of the universe, so we have no idea if it's expanding or contracting, really.

The Big Bang has nothing to back it up. We have never been able to compress matter into a tiny little ball and watch it explode into a bunch of larger matter and suddenly have its own laws of physics.

And if one things for sure, it's that MANY MANY scientists profess that the Big Bang is not a good theory at all, and they are looking for a much better explanation. It's one of the most shaky theories out there, actually, and scientists are very split on it.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #32 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 08:45 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
The Big Bang theory has not been tested, nor can it be proven at all. .......

The Big Bang has nothing to back it up. .......

And if one things for sure, it's that MANY MANY scientists profess that the Big Bang is not a good theory at all, and they are looking for a much better explanation. It's one of the most shaky theories out there, actually, and scientists are very split on it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...B7F0147&page=1
Misconceptions about the Big Bang
The big bang model is based on observations of expansion, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of the universe and the clumping of matter. Like all scientific ideas, the model may one day be superseded. But it fits the current data better than any other model we have.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology.../expanding.htm
The Expanding Universe
The expansion of the universe is now seen as one of the great scientific discoveries, and Hubble generally gets the credit. More precisely, however, Hubble established an empirical formula that led the great majority of scentists to believe in the expansion.

Many observations have confirmed the model of an expanding universe that Hubble's relationship validated.

I hold by my previous statement:
The Big Bang theory is testable and has been tested many times. It can be stated with confidence that the universe is indeed expanding.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #33 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 09:21 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
Science, TRUE science, is based on facts that you can reproduce to prove conclusively. There should be a separate field of study called THEORY instead of science in order to separate the two so people aren't fooled and don't think interpretations are the only explanations for extrapolated data.
There is no such thing as "true science" as you've stated. Well, at least not in the scientific community. Truth and "prove conclusively" are not scientific terms.

Developing theories is a part of science. As far as interpretations go, I think people just need to understand the processes of science. When the process is understood, things like "only explanation" can be clearly seen as unscientific.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #34 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 01:43 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
There is no such thing as "true science" as you've stated. Well, at least not in the scientific community. Truth and "prove conclusively" are not scientific terms.

Developing theories is a part of science. As far as interpretations go, I think people just need to understand the processes of science. When the process is understood, things like "only explanation" can be clearly seen as unscientific.
Wow, where do you get this stuff??

I guarantee you that "true science" is completely absent of theory, and only deals in proofs, like the laws of physics which are unchanging. Gravity is a fact. Period. It's not a theory. It is 100% a proveable fact. That's real science. Then, there is scientific theory, which is not foundationally "science," but rather, it's theories based in scientific findings to attempt to explain how things came to be the way they are or certain phenomena. But they are theory because they cannot be proven. Period. But physics can be proven everytime. See the difference?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #35 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...B7F0147&page=1
Misconceptions about the Big Bang
The big bang model is based on observations of expansion, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of the universe and the clumping of matter. Like all scientific ideas, the model may one day be superseded. But it fits the current data better than any other model we have.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology.../expanding.htm
The Expanding Universe
The expansion of the universe is now seen as one of the great scientific discoveries, and Hubble generally gets the credit. More precisely, however, Hubble established an empirical formula that led the great majority of scentists to believe in the expansion.

Many observations have confirmed the model of an expanding universe that Hubble's relationship validated.

I hold by my previous statement:
The Big Bang theory is testable and has been tested many times. It can be stated with confidence that the universe is indeed expanding.
Well, you believe that stuff all you want. But one of the statements posted right there said that the Big Bang may be superceded, but is "the best explanation we have right now." That right there says that they've proven absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Here's another statement from that one:
"The big bang model is based on observations of expansion, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of the universe and the clumping of matter."

Right there, you just disproved your statement that the Big Bang is reproduceable and proveable. They said the model is based on OBSERVATIONS of expansion, cosmic microwave background, chemical composition of the universe and the clumping of matter. That's not reproduceability. It's just a theory they've formulated out of what data they have. It's their best guess, and they admit that! Show me one experiment where someone has recreated a Big Bang and proven it.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #36 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 03:10 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Your arguments are still incorrect.
Scientists do not put faith in each other or journals.
Science is not by definition built on faith.
Knowledge can be gained from understanding. Understanding can be obtained from reading.

Scientific Journal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal
Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.

When you read a journal, you do not believe what you read because you have faith in the scientist who wrote it. Nonetheless, you can trust the conclusions because others have already tested the conclusions and reached the same results. You don't have to do the experiment yourself to trust that the conclusion is correct, but you do need to know that other scientist have repeated the result.
Again, you are falling into a loop of faith. You are trusting the work of the peer review board. You have faith in their results.

Unless you personally perform the verification, you are working on faith and not true knowledge.

The only people with True Knowledge are the ones performing the test. Everyone reading the results is working on faith.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #37 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 03:41 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Again, you are falling into a loop of faith. You are trusting the work of the peer review board. You have faith in their results.

Unless you personally perform the verification, you are working on faith and not true knowledge.

The only people with True Knowledge are the ones performing the test. Everyone reading the results is working on faith.
I guess you need to define a few terms for me to understand your argument.

Please define: faith and true knowledge.
Please use a quoted internet source relevant to the topic of science, not your own words.

I'm pretty sure this statement is flawed:
The only people with True Knowledge are the ones performing the test. Everyone reading the results is working on faith.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>

Last edited by jones4stangs; 12-11-2007 at 04:40 PM.
jones4stangs is offline  
post #38 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 04:28 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
Wow, where do you get this stuff??

I guarantee you that "true science" is completely absent of theory, and only deals in proofs, like the laws of physics which are unchanging. Gravity is a fact. Period. It's not a theory. It is 100% a proveable fact. That's real science. Then, there is scientific theory, which is not foundationally "science," but rather, it's theories based in scientific findings to attempt to explain how things came to be the way they are or certain phenomena. But they are theory because they cannot be proven. Period. But physics can be proven everytime. See the difference?
I think you are stating your opinion. I think your opinion is incorrect. Please try to support your opinion with a link or two.

Theories are a vital and normal part of science. Theories are testable.

Here's a few more counter points.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/E...Vol-1/e1-3.htm
Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.
law: a characteristic of the universes that seems fundamental to the workings of he universe.
theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.
fact: a theory that has been validated close to certainty.


Take notice of the language used (tries, seems, validated, close to). This is the language of science. These terms are not the language of science: true, unchanging, 100% (at least not like you are using them)

How does the following statements strike you?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...y/gravity.html
....the theoretical physicist Albert Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. The first showed that Newton's Three Laws of Motion were only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approached that of light. The second showed that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down when gravitation becames very strong.

Special Relativity
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is valid for systems that are not accelerating. Since from Newton's second law an acceleration implies a force, special relativity is valid only when no forces act. Thus, it cannot be used generally when there is a gravitational field present (as we shall see below in conjunction with the Principle of Equivalence, it can be used over a sufficiently localized region of spacetime).


Our understanding of gravity is based on scientific theory.

Take a read through this:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...elativity.html
General relativity is a theory of gravitation and to understand the background to the theory we have to look at how theories of gravitation developed.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>

Last edited by jones4stangs; 12-11-2007 at 04:43 PM.
jones4stangs is offline  
post #39 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
I think you are stating your opinion. I think your opinion is incorrect. Please try to support your opinion with a link or two.

Theories are a vital and normal part of science. Theories are testable.
That's like asking me to prove that a wall is in front of me and is tangible. You know full well the wall is there and if you walk into it you will hit it. Just like with gravity or friction or any of those laws of physics....you know full well if you test them, they will happen, because they are LAWS of physics, not THEORIES of physics.

And by the way, "theories" are one of the steps of the scientific method. But a theory never becomes a fact if it is not reproducable and proveable. You'll notice that evolutionists had to actually alter the scientific method so that they could be taken seriously with their experiments. You should look it up sometime. I read an article one day where this evolutionist was trying to prove something, and then goes into how one must understand the redefined steps of the scientific method so that theories can be shown true. LOL My wife was furious when she heard this, because she has to use the ACTUAL scientific method at work everyday with her research, and it's extremely hard to get something through the method to prove it as fact. She can't stand when scientists pull crap like this to appear as if their work is factual, and evolutionists are the ones that HAVE to modify the scientific method for this purpose. Therefore, I guess she can't stand the way they do research, because she does it the correct way, and must do so to keep a job and get ACCURATE research data.

I'm done debating you. You just throw out random things from random websites to twist the truth around to sound like its in your favor. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game with you. Please excuse me if I don't respond to your posts anymore.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Last edited by BrianC; 12-12-2007 at 03:44 PM.
BrianC is offline  
post #40 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
I guess you need to define a few terms for me to understand your argument.

Please define: faith and true knowledge.
Please use a quoted internet source relevant to the topic of science, not your own words.

I'm pretty sure this statement is flawed:
The only people with True Knowledge are the ones performing the test. Everyone reading the results is working on faith.
I had some errors. The correct term is proper knowledge and not true knowledge.

Science starts with Philosophy so it is very important to have a good understanding of the terms, and in my case to get the terms right. It is good to use the dictionary, but it does have its limitations. Obviously, you would not use a dictionary to describe quantum mechanics.

A good description of knowledge and belief (which is built on faith) can be found in the book The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Rizzi p11-12.

“In common usage, knowledge can mean anything we take as relatively certain for what ever reason. We call this knowledge in the improper sense. I have knowledge proper only when I come to the conclusion based on facts and principles that I have personally “seen” and, if required, based on a chain of reasoning that I have walked through myself. Belief in the generic sense means having a level of probable, but not certain, conviction that is usually largely based on the word of another. In this sense, improper knowledge is thus a species of belief. Belief in the proper sense means trusting the word of another.

The purpose of the book is to return people to a true understanding of science. Dr. Rizzi is a physicist and not just a philosopher. He wrote the book because he noticed a deficiency among his fellow scientists.

Most science that we "know" is actually belief. We do not "know" these things because we have not come to the conclusion from our own experience but on the word of another even if it is a trustworthy source such as a science journal.

The book gives an example of Alan Sokal who purposely wrote an unfounded paper to a science journal which got published. He then published in another journal that the paper was made-up.

We have to have faith in our science or we would not have time to develop anything new becasuse our time would be spent re-proving old work. My point is to show that our science is transmitted from one person to another not through proper knowledge but through belief of what is recorded in our books.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #41 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-14-2007, 11:46 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I had some errors. The correct term is proper knowledge and not true knowledge.

Science starts with Philosophy so it is very important to have a good understanding of the terms, and in my case to get the terms right. It is good to use the dictionary, but it does have its limitations. Obviously, you would not use a dictionary to describe quantum mechanics.

A good description of knowledge and belief (which is built on faith) can be found in the book The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Rizzi p11-12.

“In common usage, knowledge can mean anything we take as relatively certain for what ever reason. We call this knowledge in the improper sense. I have knowledge proper only when I come to the conclusion based on facts and principles that I have personally “seen” and, if required, based on a chain of reasoning that I have walked through myself. Belief in the generic sense means having a level of probable, but not certain, conviction that is usually largely based on the word of another. In this sense, improper knowledge is thus a species of belief. Belief in the proper sense means trusting the word of another.

The purpose of the book is to return people to a true understanding of science. Dr. Rizzi is a physicist and not just a philosopher. He wrote the book because he noticed a deficiency among his fellow scientists.

Most science that we "know" is actually belief. We do not "know" these things because we have not come to the conclusion from our own experience but on the word of another even if it is a trustworthy source such as a science journal.

The book gives an example of Alan Sokal who purposely wrote an unfounded paper to a science journal which got published. He then published in another journal that the paper was made-up.

We have to have faith in our science or we would not have time to develop anything new becasuse our time would be spent re-proving old work. My point is to show that our science is transmitted from one person to another not through proper knowledge but through belief of what is recorded in our books.
The proper knowledge stuff sounds fine to me. I get it.

However, the topics under discussions are Big Bang Theory verse Christian faith. Did you not bring up the whole "true knowledge"/"proper knowledge" to try to equate "believing in science" to "believing in gods"? As if, accepting the conclusions of the Big Bang Theory is no different than accepting The Bible. As if, science is no different than religion.

I would agree with the following statements.

What this means is that the majority of science we know is based on a species of belief and not proper knowledge.

Anyone who reads an article about the Big Bang or Evolution and accepts it as valid is working on a species of belief not proper knowledge.


I think the common definitions I provided make clear distinctions between faith and science. What your usage of improper knowledge fails to account for is the possibility of changing one's improper knowledge into proper knowledge. This mean nothing more than having the ability to prove what you belief. The methods used to prove science and prove religion are not the same.

To accept the Big Bang Theory, you need to be able to show the universe is expanding. This has been done through science.

To accept Christianity, you need to be able to belief Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. This has been done through faith.

This is where you went wrong:
belief (which is built on faith)

The correct statement is:
faith is built on belief

You can't go through the quote you provided and replace belief with faith. Nor did the author use the term faith to explain forms of knowledge.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #42 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-14-2007, 01:18 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
You have me on a good correction there. I overstepped the bounds between belief and faith.

The mathmatics shows it expanding, but we don't "know" what it is expanding from and we can not re-creat it to prove it.

The scientist who do the math have "proper knowledge" of the event, unless someone an error can be found in the their.

I am playing devil's advicate for people like white trash who read something in Time magazine and believe tshey have knowledge. This is not knowledge.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #43 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-16-2007, 05:58 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I had some errors. The correct term is proper knowledge and not true knowledge.

Science starts with Philosophy so it is very important to have a good understanding of the terms, and in my case to get the terms right. It is good to use the dictionary, but it does have its limitations. Obviously, you would not use a dictionary to describe quantum mechanics.

A good description of knowledge and belief (which is built on faith) can be found in the book The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Rizzi p11-12.

“In common usage, knowledge can mean anything we take as relatively certain for what ever reason. We call this knowledge in the improper sense. I have knowledge proper only when I come to the conclusion based on facts and principles that I have personally “seen” and, if required, based on a chain of reasoning that I have walked through myself. Belief in the generic sense means having a level of probable, but not certain, conviction that is usually largely based on the word of another. In this sense, improper knowledge is thus a species of belief. Belief in the proper sense means trusting the word of another.

The purpose of the book is to return people to a true understanding of science. Dr. Rizzi is a physicist and not just a philosopher. He wrote the book because he noticed a deficiency among his fellow scientists.

Most science that we "know" is actually belief. We do not "know" these things because we have not come to the conclusion from our own experience but on the word of another even if it is a trustworthy source such as a science journal.

The book gives an example of Alan Sokal who purposely wrote an unfounded paper to a science journal which got published. He then published in another journal that the paper was made-up.

We have to have faith in our science or we would not have time to develop anything new becasuse our time would be spent re-proving old work. My point is to show that our science is transmitted from one person to another not through proper knowledge but through belief of what is recorded in our books.
You make an excellent point that I've harped on for years. That people don't need to blindly trust scientists and their interpretations of the scientific data extrapolated from research studies and experiments.

The best method I've found is looking for research from one scientist, then finding another scientist that is not acquainted in any way with the original scientist who has done the same experiment to prove the data is correct. NEVER take their interpretations as the truth, but always look at the facts for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If two confirm the same results, at least you have proper testing from different directions, a form of peer review.

And most importantly, learn both theories for life, the young and the old earth theory, and learn them well. Then take all of the data you acquire and run it through both theories to see which fits best. In my experience, the Creation model is always superior to the evolution model, and no matter what evidence is found on the earth, the Creation model always stays the same because the evidence fits into that model perfectly. But the evolution model constantly has adjustments and changes, which to me says, "This theory must not be correct if it's constantly wrong or having to adjust to fit in scientific data so that it can be somewhat reputible." That's just my experience so far...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #44 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-16-2007, 06:06 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You have me on a good correction there. I overstepped the bounds between belief and faith.

The mathmatics shows it expanding, but we don't "know" what it is expanding from and we can not re-creat it to prove it.

The scientist who do the math have "proper knowledge" of the event, unless someone an error can be found in the their.

I am playing devil's advicate for people like white trash who read something in Time magazine and believe tshey have knowledge. This is not knowledge.
I agree. People who read articles and don't do any research for themselves are just parrots for other people's beliefs on subjects.

And you make the same point that everyone needs to realize... that unless you were there at the beginning, you haven't a clue as to how things started. Just because we see the evidence of a universe expanding, supposedly, then we assume there was a big pang that caused it to expand.

But what if the universe has an elastic characteristic to it and it used to be 20% smaller? And what if it just varies between the 20% smaller size and a size slightly bigger than it is now? What if it just keeps getting a little bigger and a little smaller? What if scientists in 400 years find that it's shrinking back again?

(scientists claim that time and space are interwoven, and if you stretch space, time accelorates withing that block of space)

What if an all powerful God created time and space and wove them together and in order to make time progress, He had to not only spin the universe, but make it expand as well, and that's why we have the statement many times that "God stretched the heavens." Maybe the expansion is the result of the heavens stretching.

What confuses me is that the original theory was that the universe is expanding, and then I heard the story of Hubble, and how there were 9 months of silence when Hubble was launched due to the scientists seeing that they were wrong and the universe was actually retracting not expanding. Time Magazine even documents the progress of the Hubble back somewhere around '90-'92. I forget exactly. I read about it a while back. I think you can still go on Time.com and find their old archives and read about it if I'm not mistaken. How did they claim they'd proved it was retracting at that time? I don't like the amount of misinformation out there and sometimes you can't figure out what's true and what's not. Pretty annoying...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome