Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The Speed of Light

114 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Because it can answer a legitimate concern scientifically that you nor almighty science have no answer for?  It is legitimate science and could answer a question.  Isn't that what science does?  Oh, as long as it gives answer to your bias and worldview does it count. 

Answering what you don't know with "God did it" only stifles learning - learning about God and learning about science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't think a God of the Gaps is being proposed.  I don't know enough about time dilation to make a substantive statement, although I know for practical purposes what the speed of light is in a vacuum.  A question comes to my mind is that whether there were enough masses close enough together to make any difference in the early universe or even now.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2.  This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2.  This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.

 

Hi Jerry, you said “It sickens me that creationists piggyback this kind of argument onto legitimate science and physics.  Bad for science and bad for Christianity.”

 

Let’s briefly examine Standard Cosmology history.

 

Step 1: You presuppose a uniformitarian reality, and apply those assumptions to reverse Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe. You end up with an unobserved conceptualization of the beginning of the universe – as a mass of heat and energy called a “cosmological egg”.

 

Step 2: Realizing that this “egg cosmology” model can be used to support the faith presupposition of an atheistic (or naturalistic) reality; you tweak and reframe the conceptualized model as a “Big Bang”. That is, an almost infinite singularity undergoes a rapid expansion (aka “Bang!”) into (i.e. forming) the observed universe. The most popular proposed origins of this singularity include; quantum fluctuations and multiverses – both of which are untestable, unfalsifible (and technically supernatural).

 

Step 3: You set the rate of expansion at 50km per second per mega-parsec to sit the mathematical model in line with current (1960s) observations. Anyone who dares disagree with this figure (of an unobserved process) is to be ruthlessly mocked. By this figure, the universe is 16 to 18 billion years old (i.e. 17 billion + or – 1 billion years).

 

Step 4: When observations collected over the next 30 years are found to be inconsistent with this initial figure, the mathematical model is re-tweaked so that the new figure (80km per second per mega-parsec) is consistent with observations. So now the universe is considered to be 13.71 billion years (+ or – 1%).

 

Step 5: You encounter 2 massive inconsistencies between the mathematical model and new (1980s) observations; the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem (I’ll let you look up the details).

 

So how are these problems reconciled?

What we do is conceptualize (i.e. imagine/invent) a super-rapid expansion event of the universe itself (which we shall call “Inflation”) occurring shortly after the initial Bang. With no plausible cause, the universe suddenly expanded at a rate thousands of times the speed of light, then suddenly and inexplicably slowed.

 

So how much Inflation is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved event (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Inflation), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Inflation makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

Step 6: You encounter another massive inconsistency between the mathematical model and the observations; there is not enough gravity in the universe to explain the motion and structure of galaxies.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Matter”) to provide the necessary gravity.

 

So how much “Dark Matter” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Matter), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Matter makes the model consistent with current observations. Initial estimates had Dark Matter making up ~94% of the known universe.

 

Step 7: The mathematical model has the expansion of the universe slowing down because the energy of Big Bang and Inflation is being slowly used up and countered by gravity. The problem is - all observations suggest that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Energy”) to provide the model with enough energy to accelerate the rate of universal expansion.

 

So how much “Dark Energy” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Energy), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Energy makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

 

- Now 40 years ago, the secular scientific community was supremely confident in their cosmology model; i.e. the model of a 17 billion year old universe with a Big Bang expansion rate of 50kms-1m-p-1 – and no Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Today, no one would take you seriously if your cosmology model excluded any of these newer conceptualizations. Which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong – but all serves to demonstrate how malleable and unfalsifiable the current cosmology model really is.

 

 

 

Now let’s examine Creationist Cosmology.

 

Step 1: You presuppose a Biblical theistic reality; which incorporates an eternal, supernatural Creator of the physical universe, and His scriptures delivered to humanity. These scriptures therefore form the basis of your model of reality.

 

Step 2: You encounter an alleged scientific inconsistency between secular scientific claims and Biblical claims; namely pertaining to cosmology and the age of the universe.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

We do three things;

1) Firstly we scrutinize the claims of secular science; pointing out the highly speculative, plastic and fundamentally unverifiable nature of the proposed model.

2) We then search out the scriptures and the scientific literature for possible solutions the alleged inconsistency.

3) We combine the implications of general relativity with the Biblical claim that God “stretched out the heavens” to conceptualize a force called Time Dilation; whereby stretching space also stretches time – so that billions of years can exist in outstretched parts of a 6000 year old creation.

 

So how much “Time Dilation” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved force (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Time Dilation), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Time Dilation makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

 

 

Since the same logical methodology is generally applied to both models, your propensity to consider only one model to be “legitimate science and physics” speaks more to your lack of objectivity, than to the legitimacy of the arguments themselves. The main differences I see in the models (apart from the obvious divergence in faith presupposition) is that the creationist model is more parsimonious, and that those who propose and advocate the creationist model are ready to acknowledge that it contains highly speculative elements – As opposed to the secular model where its advocates claim to “know” that their speculations are true, even though they have never been scientifically observed. And yet you somehow find a way to judge our position as exclusively “Bad for science”.

 

 

“Answering what you don't know with "God did it" only stifles learning - learning about God and learning about science.”

 

"God did it" is a pejorative oversimplification of our position; levelled at us by those who are unable to give unbiased consideration beyond their own limited set of axioms. It would be like me reducing the naturalistic position to "It did itself".

 

The existence of God is a logical possibility – regardless of whether one believes in God or not. Therefore, the arbitrary dismissal of God’s involvement in a claim is not rationally justified. Nevertheless, if we truly claimed that God did something based on nothing more than the absence of knowledge (as you are claiming), then the argument would be logically weak. However, since our claims are explicitly supported in our model, then our claim is justified (though not verified) by every rational standard.

 

 

“Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2.  This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.”

 

Creationist models detailing the math have been published – though not in secular journals.

 

It’s cute that people still see peer review as an infallible standard of scientific legitimacy – as though all scientific journals are objectively open to non-secular scientific implications. This trust is maintained in spite of secular journal editors having stated unequivocally that they are loath to consider any submissions for publication with creationist implications; Even though secular (i.e. non-creationist) science educators have lost careers for daring to suggest engagement with creationists; Even though scientists with healthy publication histories suddenly found even their non-creationist-related papers being rejected after coming out of the creationist closet; And even though the peer reviewed scientific literature itself is highly critical of the peer review process. For example;

 

Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. … In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.

(Mahoney MJ (1977) ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175(161))

[Available at: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1097087/908376224/name/mahoney.pdf ]

 

 

peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review) …

Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?’ (p178)

there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. …

we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused. …

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. …

peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. (p179)

(Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.)

[Available at: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf ]

 

 

Throughout the literature, charges of systematic bias—not just isolated incidents—are repeatedly aired … (p3)

the stringency and consistency with which peer review procedures are applied across this population are variable. … (p4)

There are many reasons to challenge this ideal notion of impartiality in peer review. … (p5)

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to gather, interpret, and remember evidence in ways that affirm rather than challenge one’s already held beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Historical and philosophical analyses have demonstrated the obstructive and constructive role that confirmation bias has played in the course of scientific inquiry, theorizing, and debate (Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1986; Solomon, 2001). In the context of peer review, confirmation bias is understood as reviewer bias against manuscripts describing results inconsistent with the theoretical perspective of the reviewer (Jelicic & Merckelbach, 2002). (p9)

(Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp. 2-17.)

[Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/pdf ]

 

In 2013, the journal Science conducted an investigation into peer review. They created a fake scientific manuscript with obvious errors and submitted it to 304 scientific journals. 157 were accepted for publication.

(Bohannon J (2013) ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’, Science, Vol. 342, pp. 60-65.)

 

 

I am not anti-peer review by any means. But it is clearly not the pillar of objectivity that your comment implies.

Edited by Tristen
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

To be fairly honest, Einstein's relativity as its been given might end up being kicked out the scientific door in favour of something entirely relative that causes less problems with quantum mechanics. There are physicists who reject the dimensional view of the universe, too.

 

It isn't as simple as what you say. Denser mass means more gravity, and slower time, but mass dense enough to make 6000 years look like billions? It's ridiculous.

 

We have history that dates back over 6000 years - life that dates back well over that time. The gravitational forces needed to make billions of years look like 6000, would be catastrophic to life. We would struggle to survive under even two or three times the Earth's gravity, never mind the G needed to create the time dilation effects you're proposing. 

 

In otherwords, we can't have 6000 years or more of human history if the gravity within those years was so great it would crush us.

Edited by BoddhiBody
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In other words, we can't have 6000 years or more of human history if the gravity within those years was so great it would crush us.

 

~

 

Beloved, Where Is Gravity Without It's Corresponding Mass?

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

And Where Is The Sun And The Moon And All The Stars Before Day Four?

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

 

The Biblical Truth

Is Kind Of Crushing To The Millions 

Of Fictitious Years Of Man's Evil Imagination Isn't It

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

In other words, we can't have 6000 years or more of human history if the gravity within those years was so great it would crush us.

 

~

 

Beloved, Where Is Gravity Without It's Corresponding Mass?

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

And Where Is The Sun And The Moon And All The Stars Before Day Four?

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

 

The Biblical Truth

Is Kind Of Crushing To The Millions 

Of Fictitious Years Of Man's Evil Imagination Isn't It

 

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2.  This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.

 

Hi Jerry, you said “It sickens me that creationists piggyback this kind of argument onto legitimate science and physics.  Bad for science and bad for Christianity.”

 

Let’s briefly examine Standard Cosmology history.

 

Step 1: You presuppose a uniformitarian reality, and apply those assumptions to reverse Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe. You end up with an unobserved conceptualization of the beginning of the universe – as a mass of heat and energy called a “cosmological egg”.

 

Step 2: Realizing that this “egg cosmology” model can be used to support the faith presupposition of an atheistic (or naturalistic) reality; you tweak and reframe the conceptualized model as a “Big Bang”. That is, an almost infinite singularity undergoes a rapid expansion (aka “Bang!”) into (i.e. forming) the observed universe. The most popular proposed origins of this singularity include; quantum fluctuations and multiverses – both of which are untestable, unfalsifible (and technically supernatural).

 

Step 3: You set the rate of expansion at 50km per second per mega-parsec to sit the mathematical model in line with current (1960s) observations. Anyone who dares disagree with this figure (of an unobserved process) is to be ruthlessly mocked. By this figure, the universe is 16 to 18 billion years old (i.e. 17 billion + or – 1 billion years).

 

Step 4: When observations collected over the next 30 years are found to be inconsistent with this initial figure, the mathematical model is re-tweaked so that the new figure (80km per second per mega-parsec) is consistent with observations. So now the universe is considered to be 13.71 billion years (+ or – 1%).

 

Step 5: You encounter 2 massive inconsistencies between the mathematical model and new (1980s) observations; the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem (I’ll let you look up the details).

 

So how are these problems reconciled?

What we do is conceptualize (i.e. imagine/invent) a super-rapid expansion event of the universe itself (which we shall call “Inflation”) occurring shortly after the initial Bang. With no plausible cause, the universe suddenly expanded at a rate thousands of times the speed of light, then suddenly and inexplicably slowed.

 

So how much Inflation is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved event (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Inflation), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Inflation makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

Step 6: You encounter another massive inconsistency between the mathematical model and the observations; there is not enough gravity in the universe to explain the motion and structure of galaxies.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Matter”) to provide the necessary gravity.

 

So how much “Dark Matter” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Matter), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Matter makes the model consistent with current observations. Initial estimates had Dark Matter making up ~94% of the known universe.

 

Step 7: The mathematical model has the expansion of the universe slowing down because the energy of Big Bang and Inflation is being slowly used up and countered by gravity. The problem is - all observations suggest that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Energy”) to provide the model with enough energy to accelerate the rate of universal expansion.

 

So how much “Dark Energy” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Energy), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Energy makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

 

- Now 40 years ago, the secular scientific community was supremely confident in their cosmology model; i.e. the model of a 17 billion year old universe with a Big Bang expansion rate of 50kms-1m-p-1 – and no Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Today, no one would take you seriously if your cosmology model excluded any of these newer conceptualizations. Which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong – but all serves to demonstrate how malleable and unfalsifiable the current cosmology model really is.

 

 

 

Now let’s examine Creationist Cosmology.

 

Step 1: You presuppose a Biblical theistic reality; which incorporates an eternal, supernatural Creator of the physical universe, and His scriptures delivered to humanity. These scriptures therefore form the basis of your model of reality.

 

Step 2: You encounter an alleged scientific inconsistency between secular scientific claims and Biblical claims; namely pertaining to cosmology and the age of the universe.

 

So how do we reconcile this inconsistency?

We do three things;

1) Firstly we scrutinize the claims of secular science; pointing out the highly speculative, plastic and fundamentally unverifiable nature of the proposed model.

2) We then search out the scriptures and the scientific literature for possible solutions the alleged inconsistency.

3) We combine the implications of general relativity with the Biblical claim that God “stretched out the heavens” to conceptualize a force called Time Dilation; whereby stretching space also stretches time – so that billions of years can exist in outstretched parts of a 6000 year old creation.

 

So how much “Time Dilation” is required?

Since we are dealing with an unobserved force (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Time Dilation), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Time Dilation makes the model consistent with current observations.

 

 

 

Since the same logical methodology is generally applied to both models, your propensity to consider only one model to be “legitimate science and physics” speaks more to your lack of objectivity, than to the legitimacy of the arguments themselves. The main differences I see in the models (apart from the obvious divergence in faith presupposition) is that the creationist model is more parsimonious, and that those who propose and advocate the creationist model are ready to acknowledge that it contains highly speculative elements – As opposed to the secular model where its advocates claim to “know” that their speculations are true, even though they have never been scientifically observed. And yet you somehow find a way to judge our position as exclusively “Bad for science”.

 

 

“Answering what you don't know with "God did it" only stifles learning - learning about God and learning about science.”

 

"God did it" is a pejorative oversimplification of our position; levelled at us by those who are unable to give unbiased consideration beyond their own limited set of axioms. It would be like me reducing the naturalistic position to "It did itself".

 

The existence of God is a logical possibility – regardless of whether one believes in God or not. Therefore, the arbitrary dismissal of God’s involvement in a claim is not rationally justified. Nevertheless, if we truly claimed that God did something based on nothing more than the absence of knowledge (as you are claiming), then the argument would be logically weak. However, since our claims are explicitly supported in our model, then our claim is justified (though not verified) by every rational standard.

 

 

“Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2.  This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.”

 

Creationist models detailing the math have been published – though not in secular journals.

 

It’s cute that people still see peer review as an infallible standard of scientific legitimacy – as though all scientific journals are objectively open to non-secular scientific implications. This trust is maintained in spite of secular journal editors having stated unequivocally that they are loath to consider any submissions for publication with creationist implications; Even though secular (i.e. non-creationist) science educators have lost careers for daring to suggest engagement with creationists; Even though scientists with healthy publication histories suddenly found even their non-creationist-related papers being rejected after coming out of the creationist closet; And even though the peer reviewed scientific literature itself is highly critical of the peer review process. For example;

 

Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. … In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.

(Mahoney MJ (1977) ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175(161))

[Available at: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1097087/908376224/name/mahoney.pdf ]

 

 

peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review) …

Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?’ (p178)

there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. …

we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused. …

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. …

peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. (p179)

(Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.)

[Available at: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf ]

 

 

Throughout the literature, charges of systematic bias—not just isolated incidents—are repeatedly aired … (p3)

the stringency and consistency with which peer review procedures are applied across this population are variable. … (p4)

There are many reasons to challenge this ideal notion of impartiality in peer review. … (p5)

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to gather, interpret, and remember evidence in ways that affirm rather than challenge one’s already held beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Historical and philosophical analyses have demonstrated the obstructive and constructive role that confirmation bias has played in the course of scientific inquiry, theorizing, and debate (Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1986; Solomon, 2001). In the context of peer review, confirmation bias is understood as reviewer bias against manuscripts describing results inconsistent with the theoretical perspective of the reviewer (Jelicic & Merckelbach, 2002). (p9)

(Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp. 2-17.)

[Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/pdf ]

 

In 2013, the journal Science conducted an investigation into peer review. They created a fake scientific manuscript with obvious errors and submitted it to 304 scientific journals. 157 were accepted for publication.

(Bohannon J (2013) ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’, Science, Vol. 342, pp. 60-65.)

 

 

I am not anti-peer review by any means. But it is clearly not the pillar of objectivity that your comment implies.

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

In other words, we can't have 6000 years or more of human history if the gravity within those years was so great it would crush us.

 

~

 

Beloved, Where Is Gravity Without It's Corresponding Mass?

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

And Where Is The Sun And The Moon And All The Stars Before Day Four?

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

 

The Biblical Truth

Is Kind Of Crushing To The Millions 

Of Fictitious Years Of Man's Evil Imagination Isn't It

 

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

 

There was obviously another source of light according to the text.  It could also mean by some stretch of imagination, that the sun was not visible until later in the text.  I don't really know, I wasn't there ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

 

God is the livegiver.  God supernaturally sustains all life even today.  Nothing lives without His permission.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

 

God is the livegiver.  God supernaturally sustains all life even today.  Nothing lives without His permission.

 

If you are going to invoke the supernatural, all bets are off and we cannot have a science conversation - your arguments are entirely based on faith.

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

 

God is the livegiver.  God supernaturally sustains all life even today.  Nothing lives without His permission.

 

If you are going to invoke the supernatural, all bets are off and we cannot have a science coversation - your arguments are entirely based on faith.

 

 But it is the best explanation.  It is not unreasonable that an all-powerful God can and would sustain life and He could support life without needing the sun.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Where is photosynthesis without the sun?

 

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

 

If you are going to grasp at biblical science straws, you should grasp at all of it.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Yes There Is An Insurmountable Error In Scientism And In Science

 

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:6-9

 

For God Provided His Light

 

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:3

 

For His Plants

 

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:12-13

 

And He Will Do It Again

 

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

 

But Science And Scientism Can't Detect Truth

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

~

 

And Because Of The Cold Hearts Of Sinners

 

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

 

Both Science And Scientism Are Left Stone Blind To The Power

 

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:8-10

 

Of The God Of Abraham, Isaac And Jacob

 

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

 

If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. Deuteronomy 32:39-42

 

Nor Can They Predict

 

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy 32:43

 

The End

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 John 5:20

 

Love, Joe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

 

It is entirely pointless to debate you on scientific grounds when you can invoke the supernatural whenever it suits you.  That is why we need to keep God out of science classes.  How would it look on a biology exam to just say "because God said so..."? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

:thumbsup:

 

Yes There Is An Insurmountable Error In Scientism And In Science

Your "Yes" implies you are agreeing with something I said.  I never said there is any insurmountable error in science, and am not sure what scientism is.  Just wanted to clarify.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

 

It is entirely pointless to debate you on scientific grounds when you can invoke the supernatural whenever it suits you.  That is why we need to keep God out of science classes.  How would it look on a biology exam to just say "because God said so..."? 

 

The word "science" means "knowledge."    It doesn't really refer to a particular kind of knowledge.   So the word science in its purest and strictest definition doesn't rule out knowledge of God.

 

And you are oversimplifying things.  No one is discounting science at all.  The problem is that science depends on a Creator who is logical and is able to create a universe that is predictable, logical and uniform.   Without predictable uniformity, you can't do science.   If the universe isn't consistent and logical and uniform, astronomers can't make predictions.  God is at the bottom of all natural forces and processes, guiding and sustaining them. 

 

Science cannot work from chance or happenstance.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

 

It is entirely pointless to debate you on scientific grounds when you can invoke the supernatural whenever it suits you.  That is why we need to keep God out of science classes.  How would it look on a biology exam to just say "because God said so..."? 

 

The word "science" means "knowledge."    It doesn't really refer to a particular kind of knowledge.   So the word science in its purest and strictest definition doesn't rule out knowledge of God.

 

And you are oversimplifying things.  No one is discounting science at all.  The problem is that science depends on a Creator who is logical and is able to create a universe that is predictable, logical and uniform.   Without predictable uniformity, you can't do science.   If the universe isn't consistent and logical and uniform, astronomers can't make predictions.  God is at the bottom of all natural forces and processes, guiding and sustaining them. 

 

Science cannot work from chance or happenstance.

 

Sorry, I should clarify...when I refer to science I am referring to the scientific method.  The scientific method deals with observations of the natural world.  Occam's razor would preclude any supernatural agency.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

 

It is entirely pointless to debate you on scientific grounds when you can invoke the supernatural whenever it suits you.  That is why we need to keep God out of science classes.  How would it look on a biology exam to just say "because God said so..."? 

 

The word "science" means "knowledge."    It doesn't really refer to a particular kind of knowledge.   So the word science in its purest and strictest definition doesn't rule out knowledge of God.

 

And you are oversimplifying things.  No one is discounting science at all.  The problem is that science depends on a Creator who is logical and is able to create a universe that is predictable, logical and uniform.   Without predictable uniformity, you can't do science.   If the universe isn't consistent and logical and uniform, astronomers can't make predictions.  God is at the bottom of all natural forces and processes, guiding and sustaining them. 

 

Science cannot work from chance or happenstance.

 

Sorry, I should clarify...when I refer to science I am referring to the scientific method.  The scientific method deals with observations of the natural world.  Occam's razor would preclude any supernatural agency.

 

No it wouldn't.  An all-knowing all-powerful creator is the best explanation for how the universe came into being.   A book is testimony to the author.  A song is testimony of its composer, a computer program is testimony of its designer.   So it makes sense that creation is testimony of its Creator.  Occam's razor would most definitely apply in this way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun?  The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night. 

Not that anyone is sticking to reality with this, but imagine how cold our planet would be without the sun...

 

That doesn't make any difference when God is sustaining all life on it.    You live in a skewed reality that assumes the natural world is all there is.

 

It is entirely pointless to debate you on scientific grounds when you can invoke the supernatural whenever it suits you.  That is why we need to keep God out of science classes.  How would it look on a biology exam to just say "because God said so..."? 

 

The word "science" means "knowledge."    It doesn't really refer to a particular kind of knowledge.   So the word science in its purest and strictest definition doesn't rule out knowledge of God.

 

And you are oversimplifying things.  No one is discounting science at all.  The problem is that science depends on a Creator who is logical and is able to create a universe that is predictable, logical and uniform.   Without predictable uniformity, you can't do science.   If the universe isn't consistent and logical and uniform, astronomers can't make predictions.  God is at the bottom of all natural forces and processes, guiding and sustaining them. 

 

Science cannot work from chance or happenstance.

 

Sorry, I should clarify...when I refer to science I am referring to the scientific method.  The scientific method deals with observations of the natural world.  Occam's razor would preclude any supernatural agency.

 

No it wouldn't.  An all-knowing all-powerful creator is the best explanation for how the universe came into being.   A book is testimony to the author.  A song is testimony of its composer, a computer program is testimony of its designer.   So it makes sense that creation is testimony of its Creator.  Occam's razor would most definitely apply in this way.

 

Show me how God is in E=MC2.  A mathematician may believe in God, but he will reduce all equations down to their simplest form, and not will include a creator.   Can you give me one lab experiment that would be enhanced by including God in the experiment?  Not including him does not make him irrelevent - it amazes me how fragile some people's faith is...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Show me how God is in E=MC2.  A mathematician may believe in God, but he will reduce all equations down to their simplest form, and not will include a creator.   Can you give me one lab experiment that would be enhanced by including God in the experiment?  Not including him does not make him irrelevent - it amazes me how fragile some people's faith is...

 

God created the laws of physics and all of the forces of the Universe that makes that equation possible.  That the entire universe can be reduced to mathematical equations indicates a Creator and designer. 

 

It's not that the lab experiment would be enhanced by including God.  Rather it the one doing the experiment that is changed or enhanced to see the glory of God in science. Science is a way of exploring the scope of God's creation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Show me how God is in E=MC2.  A mathematician may believe in God, but he will reduce all equations down to their simplest form, and not will include a creator.   Can you give me one lab experiment that would be enhanced by including God in the experiment?  Not including him does not make him irrelevent - it amazes me how fragile some people's faith is...

 

God created the laws of physics and all of the forces of the Universe that makes that equation possible.  That the entire universe can be reduced to mathematical equations indicates a Creator and designer. 

 

It's not that the lab experiment would be enhanced by including God.  Rather it the one doing the experiment that is changed or enhanced to see the glory of God in science. Science is a way of exploring the scope of God's creation.

 

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, if it were, there would have been much more detailed revelations given in other areas of science.  It was revealed to relatively ignorant people in the infancy of our civilization in terms they could understand.  The Creation story was just that, a story for those people put in the simplest terms.  All civilizations have a creation myth, and creation is evidence for all of them.  When you try to make the Bible into a science book you degrade God's word.

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, if it were, there would have been much more detailed revelations given in other areas of science. 

 

The Bible isn't a science book.  But nature is a "book" about God.  Creation reveals an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God who sustains and guides it.   It reveals His power and His glory.

 

 

It was revealed to relatively ignorant people in the infancy of our civilization in terms they could understand. 

 

That really isn't true.  The Bible is written to people living in a time period where amazing feats of engineering and an advanced knowledge of physics were already in play and people were already calculating the orbit of the earth around the sun, calculating the circumference of the planet, observing the planetary movements and so on. They were far more sophisticated and technologically advanced in many areas than we give them credit.  Their understanding was limited in some areas, but they were not the ignorant people you make them out to be.

 

The Creation story was just that, a story for those people put in the simplest terms.  All civilizations have a creation myth, and creation is evidence for all of them.

 

The Bible's story of creation bears virtually no resemblance from those creation accounts and if you knew anything about them, you would know that.

 

 

When you try to make the Bible into a science book you degrade God's word.

 

That is a false statement to make since i never claimed it was a science book in the first place.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0