jerryR34

I'm fairly certain he could present his math and science accurately while excluding the prayers. If not, that is very significant. IMO, for Kepler, math and astronomy were God-given tools to reverse-engineer creation. Perhaps his prayers were thanksgivings for the two tools that enabled Kepler to "think God's thoughts after Him". you are kind of skirting it though...God would not be in any of his math or theories.

I'm ok. From my point of view we've had a pretty good dialogue. Hope you have a good evening.

=========================================================================== Yes it did, when I was very young. I'm not mimicking anybody LOL. Is it possible that other/different people, Having MINDS and Living in the Same Universe, can have similar thoughts about their surroundings? Absolutley, calculus and evolution are two prominent examples.

I'm fairly certain he could present his math and science accurately while excluding the prayers. If not, that is very significant.

Can you cite Specific Complexity? When I try to look it up, everyting defaults to "Specified Complexity". thanks ============================================================================ Should be the same thing/concept. I think William Dembski produced some Lit on it...could be mistaken, however. I thought I explained this to you before, No? The last time you explained it, you told me it came from your head. If it's mimmicking Dembski, you should specify (no pun intended) "Specified Complexity".

========================================================================= This is circular logic Jerry and I think a convoluted version of Denying the Antecedent. It does violate 2LOT: “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] From a Gas to a Solid....in our example of the Sun....is a Case of Decreasing Entropy. See above for a compare and contrast So, you are saying that it is impossible for space dust to coalesce into stars and planets because of 2LOT? Even though we are seeing it happen? Ok, I'll look it up, just thought since you bring them up often you would have something readily available. Are you saying that these are Creationist Sources : Sun And Stars, p.111 Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998 ????? And it sounds like an Ad Hominem also. No Ad Hom intended. I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science. Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition. So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method. I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not.

Can you cite Specific Complexity? When I try to look it up, everyting defaults to "Specified Complexity". thanks

I didn't take it as a personal ridicule. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy wherein one presents the opposing argument as absurd, ridiculous or laughable. The steps in your previous example were exactly that as they nowhere near approximated the steps used for radiometric dating and only attempted to make the my argument look foolish. This makes no sense...we can measure in laboratories the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. We use that knowlede for practical everyday uses. How can you day we can't "see" the decay rates? What do you mean by "see"?

Wow, you must have a different interweb than me... Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law. If it did, we would not have stars or planets. You can explain to us how if violates Bolye and Jeans. You assert this often, but I have not seen you adequately explain it - how 'bout you dumb it down for me with some cited work - thanks. Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. That screams of quote-mining. I'll try to dig deeper and see if I can find them in context.

Well Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon......not just OBSERVE. So for instance, "Radiometric Dating". All You OBSERVE is a Rock....no Phenomenon. So you're dead in the Water. You could skip Step 1, this is what it would look like: Step 1: Skip Step 2: Background Research/Lit Review: "there are Rocks" Step 2: Hypothesis: "Is this a Rock?" Step 3: Experiment: "this acts like Rock" Step 4: Analyze Data: "Yep, it's a Rock" Step 5: Report Results: "We found more Rocks!!" Good? No, its not "Good". It's an appeal to ridicule. You seem to be referencing radiometric dating. Step 1 would be to observewhat the acutal decay of the isotopes is. Now, that known, tell me about step 2.

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit. Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out. Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe. The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. ==================================================================== You don't have the Sun "Yet" in our scenario.... there's some work to be done. First things First. Are you saying EM is not in the Universe? Gravity is still a weak force in comparison. OK. Show PICS...... and preferably Video. Please google "pitures of stars being formed" or "picures of solar systems being formed". There is a wealth of information, more than can be copied a pasted here.

=================================================================================================== No there is no difference Jerry. Science is a concept or a descriptor we give to a Concept...Science doesn't "DO" anything....it's a Fallacy: Reification. I agree 100%, science does not do anything. The scientific method is a tool to ascertain knowledge from the natural world...period. Adding God makes the the knowledge gained not scientific anymore.

There have been several ways to determine the age of the earth, and they generally support each other. I think, however, asking for ONE as you did is moot, because you have a blanket statement that you think refutes them all as unscientific via the scientific method. So, let's cut to the chase. Why would none of the current theories pass muster for step 1?

How can you disagree when this is exactly what I said.... "Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes." ?? Read closely... there is a not-so-subtle difference. You said "science is ON a quest"...I sad "Science IS a quest". You are trying to describe what, for lack of a better word, an entity is doing, while I am describing what that entity is. Science IS the quest. It's like saying a wrench is on a quest to loosen a bolt instead of saying the wrench is used to loosen the bolt.

==================================================================== Well IMHO, you're starting from an untenable assumption to begin with..... the SUN coalescing and Wickering together from Gas in the first place. You'd really have to establish that first. No sense really in going much further...it's like trying to describe the details of the Space Shuttle with all the parts spread out over Kansas. Except we have actually witnessed stars through various stages of being "born". And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart. Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking. For example: Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength): If Gravity: = 1 ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Times STRONGER!! 36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. (Attract/Repel) The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit. Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out. Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe. The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems.

...and, I have disagreed often Science is the quest for knowledge by natural means only. Injecting God into it makes it something else, and does not advance science at all. Can you tell me how adding God to molecular biology, physics, electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc advances those fields at all? What is your view of Occam's razor?

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined). Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms. Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

Contact with experiments...that is the problem I have with trying to in inject any gods into science. Can you name any science experiment that has contact with God? We can do science while leaving God out of the experiment. I'm pretty sure he won't mind. Can you, Enoch, do a science experiment using the scientific method of observation of nature that proves the God of the Bible to someone who does not know the Bible? ============================================================================== There is only "ONE" CREATOR. Two or More is Logical Absurdity...just by definition of "CREATOR". Not off the Top of my Head. Historical Science...that's a different story No, Impossible. Can't get by Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon. The only way that can be done is for HIM to manifest HIMSELF, AGAIN. Unfortunately, the next time HE does that...HE'S gonna be a bit BUSY, IMHO. More importantly, There are other techniques employed to ascertain TRUTH besides the Scientific Method: Intellect (Logic, Deductive/Inductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving, and good ole fashioned Common Sense). Combine these with Sound "Scientific Principles"....it's a pretty powerful combination. As I said in the past, two very simple Proofs for Empirical Minded Folks are: Prophecy and "Specific Complexity" Very forthright and honest replies - thanks. I think a turning point in my life is when I started going to a Baptist church (I was raised Catholic) and their Church charter said they took the Bible literally which meant that they believed the earth was ~6K years old. I Googled "scientific proof of God", and the first article I read was that we need to "redefine" science to mean what it meant 300+ years ago (which you seem to espouse) instead of the scientific observation of today that has helped us understand our universe – immediate red flags.. I went to a couple "science" lectures put on by the church with my oldest daughter, and they brought in people to try to convince the youth to believe that "scientifically" the earth is 6-10k years old. I saw my daughter's once bright interest in science wane...one of the saddest periods of my life. She did not feel allowed to believe in God and believe her own eyes - the cognitive dissonance was palpable. Science is not about philosophy and logic anymore. We are turning off some of our brightest minds to science because in certain areas they are not allowed to believe what observation tells us. They should know there is the natural world that is observed by science, and the spiritual world that is faith.

haha - can't fault you for sentiment...I understand that fully

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755. Can you please cite sources for this post - Googling "Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000" gets one nothing relevant. Something more timely and detailed would be helpful. I'd love to read some science papers on your post. Wasn't Kant a philosopher? Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy? I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

Contact with experiments...that is the problem I have with trying to in inject any gods into science. Can you name any science experiment that has contact with God? We can do science while leaving God out of the experiment. I'm pretty sure he won't mind. Can you, Enoch, do a science experiment using the scientific method of observation of nature that proves the God of the Bible to someone who does not know the Bible?

Yes, but he was Born in Croatia And that matters in this conversation why - so you can elaborate on your fixation with Tesla? Textbook appeal to authority.

This is an argument from incredulity. You are saying you can't imagine how math could model the universe so God exists. Also, it seems to be backward. Math is just a measure of the physical properties of the universe, it is bound by the universe. It is like being impressed that the water in a mud puddle fits the ground it is bound by perfectly.

=========================================================================== Now this is much better Jerry. This is a few posts without any Overt/Implied Insults. I Like It!!!! Yes, part of it. 6-10,000 years Old...... From Genesis. Thanks, I had assumed you were a young earth guy, but wanted to confirm. Any cognitive dissonance using science from folks who believe the universe is 13+ billion years old to bolster your case for young earth?

========================================================================== So you answer a question with a question? Or did you just want to clarify? Just want to clarify where you stand. Do you believe what you are proposing precludes the universe being 13+ billion years old? How old do you think the Unverse is and how did you come to that conclusion? I probably should have asked these questions a while ago to better gauge what your posts are proposing.