The Speed of Light

[Macs Son]

Why do I get the feeling that people would also tell me Heliocentric theory is wrong too and goes against the Word of God. I may even get a response on that one too Perhaps if we hadn't sent astronauts into orbit we'd be getting refutation on that too to fit their own interpretations of the Bible. That exegetical refutation certainly was plentiful back in the 16th and 17th centuries. One thing is for sure people can believe whatever they want to, even including physical evidence. There not much point in debating when the facts are being obfuscated so I'll see you all when I get back - have fun and maybe I'll catch you on the flip flop.

God Bless all, Pat

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

I suppose this is somehow meant for me

 

 

Why do I get the feeling that people would also tell me Heliocentric theory is wrong too and goes against the Word of God.

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  How does it "go against" the WORD of GOD?

 

 

 

There not much point in debating when the facts are being obfuscated

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)-------How so?

 

Sir, I provided Specific Evidence to support my position in which you didn't touch on Once.

 

I refuted your "GPS working" specifically with what I thought was a very clear explanation/rebuttal.

 

I had numerous questions (my initial post to you) that you failed to address.

Hi and goodbye Enoch, we're leaving in a few minutes and so this will be my parting message.

This seems to be quite a defensive response Enoch but in truth I was not singling out you but what I believe is a trend towards dangerous reasoning. I would agree there is danger from both camps, the scientific community as well as the Christian community but I've been around long enough to see the chasm widen and this was my main concern I guess in spouting off. I don't believe we struggle against flesh and blood but I do believe in truth telling and so our struggle is not with people but a willingness to get to the truth in all humility without the arrogance I tend to see growing from both camps. Hopefully we are both engaged in that.

I will say, however, your rejection of GPS having anything to do time dilation was part of my reaction of disbelief and one of the trigger points for my hasty response. Overall, however, I think there are a growing number of Christians that have become jaded in their response towards science, and I do worry about that as just another thing that is going in the wrong direction and is really is quite unnecessary. Now as to the topic of this thread, and to get back to GPS, there has been other evidences of time dilation exactly predicted by the math I illustrated formerly so I'm not sure why you have a problem with it - certainly astronauts orbiting the earth also show evidence of delta time between the two relational clocks of earth and those traveling at orbital speeds for prolonged durations that line up with the math as predicted. I assume you don't put much stock in that either and that is fine. We will just agree to disagree. I think the problem I was alluding to is far larger than just time dilation.

So let me be clear, my post was addressing well meaning but perhaps misdirected Christians, who seem to have a straw-man argument against every form of science that they feel threatened by. In many cases this is done in mocking tones - which is a big problem for me as a Christian. The danger I believe that I sense is a vein of scientific paranoia that is seemingly growing and this will certainly not help the Church of God. I believe it will only hurt its witness - my opinion but I am not alone. The danger of a growing number of Christians that seem to believe science is now their enemy and every form of it is a propagation of lies and deceit, is that we are becoming reactionary and objectivity and reason, at least in some cases, gets tossed aside. So I believe in that case that well meaning Christians are in fact throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sadly this is nothing new if you're a student of history. Both Calvin and Luther condemned the Copernicus' view of the heliocentric theory he espoused (see my past posts). I must ask, what kind of witness was that to the world about Christians after it was proven to be basically true? - even if he didn't get elliptical orbits correct. In fact they still mock us for that today as well as for Galileo; and so it was Christians and their leaders who first threw down the gauntlet in this make believe war between science and the Bible. There really is no, nor should there be any inconsistency between science and the Bible, if we are looking for the truth in either one of them. The Bible witnesses to us the handiwork of God as does the universe and both speak to us. When we start to ridicule truth seeking scientists, whether Christian or non Christian, with a lack of humility of what they have been able to uncover and achieve I do think we endanger ourselves in pigeon holing ourselves as all knowing within a Biblical narrative that still contains quite a bit of mystery. Now, while I believe we should glory in God's creation, do I believe I'll ever know while I draw breath that I'll understand the inner workings of God's hand in creating the universe? Certainly not but I do joy in what I can discover of it because it speaks to me of what an awesome God we do indeed have that He could not only do this but that He did it out of Divine love for His creation and for a "High Good and lofty Purpose". It is quite revealing how Christians pretty much invented modern science. I listed a long line of them, if you care to look back in my posts on this. Many of them, because of the stigma of heresy, were afraid to publish their findings. I think much of the current day creationist dogma is reactionary. I'm not saying that some scientists from Darwin haven't been reactionists against Christians either. What I'm saying is the attitude and the opportunity for dialog has poisoned the well. One thing is clear, to me, however. God is the God of "all truth", not just the truth of the Bible but we must realize that the heavens themselves give witness to God and have something to say to us and that we should be paying attention.

Psalms 19:1

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Psalms 50:6

Let the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is Judge. Selah

Psalms 97:6

The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples see His glory.

So the heavens do far more than just leave us awestruck they actually do declare His righteousness and His handiwork. That is what I acutely want in my understanding.

Now I do happen to be an old world creationist and I find nothing in the Bible that precludes the Bible speaks directly against that, that stance similar by the way to some of the ancient fathers of the Church that long predate modern science.

Time was born along with the thing that now exist - Clement of Alexandria AD195 (note: earlier Justin Martyr and Irenaeus said the same thing, and later Augustine also stated God created time with the universe)

The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain 7000 years - Cyprian AD250 ECF W, 5.503

In as many days as this world was made, in so many thousands of year will it be concluded.... For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years.... Irenaeus AD130-202 E/W 1.337

David actually states:

Psalms 90:4

For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

a watch being 4 to 6 hours

Time with God is therefore not necessarily how we view time, nor should we think that a "yom" day is necessarily a solar day, especially since there was no such thing as a solar day before the 4th day, according to Genesis. Now it doesn't matter much whether God chose to make the length of that day a femptosecond or millennia. I would still be in awe of His Creation either way. I would not get into a heated argument about that either, for the same reasons Paul stated to stay away against heated arguments about genealogies. The truth is we'll know this and many other truths some day but it the sacrifice of Christ and the love of God in our hearts that matters above all else that we may differ on.

So you may disagree with me and that is fine but I do believe the evidence for an earth older and a creation larger than in solar days seems reasonably clear to me. Does believing any way bring us salvation? No, only the blood of Jesus and believing in Him and His sacrifice of love for us does that. When I get to heaven there may be many mysteries I did not know and some of them I'll probably say, 'how did I manage to miss that one - when it was right in front of me?' That's okay though because His grace is big enough to counter my lack of wisdom just as He does for your incorrect notions. When I look at the wisdom of God I'm like a child in library as big as the universe looking for a book I perhaps can understand. After all when I look at the complexity of creation and our existence I am awestruck as I should be.

So I'll end here. But I do see a dangerous pattern of behavior in espousing views which condemn any other truths other than a narrow view that their interpretation of the Bible is 100% correct. So again not directed to you personally but to my brothers and sister if you think the proverbial shoe might fit .....

One further point let me make it abundantly clear here that I didn't begin this post on time dilation. It was proposed from a creationist viewpoint (and obviously I do believe God is the sole author of creation if you read any of my posts) It was a discussion whether we thought time dilation could explain the time gaps between mainstream science and young earth creationism. I thought it was an interesting question and pondered the math before concluding my opinion.

At any rate I will be gone from the boards for a while. I am sorry I did not have time to read all your theories on why Einstein is wrong. I do have some priorities on how long I spend on different topics. This is obviously not near the top but somewhere near the bottom but I do feel it is a worthy topic of discussion - no pun intended.

May God Bless and hope you all have fun with it. Hope it might turn into a more fruitful enterprise. I pray that it does.

In Christ, Pat

Edited August 9, 2014 by Macs Son

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, enough pointing out the (fallacies), some of which are real, many of which are imaginary, all of which are unintentional. Pointing out (fallacies), real or imagined, does nothing to advance the dialogue. It does nothing to support your view. In fact, the only thing it does is show me that you've been on Wikipedia too much (ad hominem). This is not a formal logic class, pointing out (fallacies) is not the same as demonstrating that an argument is logically invalid or that one of its premises (assuming the argument is a formal syllogism) is false.

 

Guess what. We can use terms like "most", "many", "they" and so forth. Why? Because this is an internet forum, not academia (moving the goal posts). Guess what. No one has to address every point you make. It's not necessary and it's generally burdensome. Points are ignored. It happens. Welcome to the internet. Does that mean your argument is winning out over the rest? No. To be generous, it may mean that the person who doesn't reply is on his/her back foot. More likely, they see it as irrelevant or not worth wasting time over (ending a sentence in a preposition; grammar error). Again, welcome to the internet.

 

 

=====================================================

 

 

Enoch, enough pointing out the (fallacies), some of which are real, many of which are imaginary,

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)----The absence of any argument to support a claim.  http://www.seekthetruth.org/fallacies.html

 

Show the "imaginary" ones?

 

Pointing out (fallacies), real or imagined, does nothing to advance the dialogue.

 

Fallacies are Fallacious.

 

Fallacious: containing a mistake: not true or accurate.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious

 

So your contention is to just go ahead and leave the fallacious argument as is and argue the conclusion (which is based on false premises; Ergo...Fallacy) just so the "dialogue" can advance?  Sort of a Expediency over TRUTH motif?

 

In fact, the only thing it does is show me that you've been on Wikipedia too much (ad hominem)

 

So Pointing out Fallacies = On Wikipedia too much ?

 

Your statement is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy): an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29.html

 

Your (ad hominem) characterization is also Non-Sequitur since....

 

Ad Hominem: attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

 

... there was no argument; just a "conjured" (contrived guess) claim of source and time spent.

 

 

pointing out (fallacies) is not the same as demonstrating that an argument is logically invalid or that one of its premises (assuming the argument is a formal syllogism) is false.

 

True, it's a starting point for purveyor of said Fallacy to investigate further the tenets of their statement.  If a Formal Fallacy is postulated, depending on the forum/discussion/time, I usually point out the specific "invalidity".

 

 

We can use terms like "most", "many", "they" and so forth. Why?

 

Because it's a Generalized Sweeping Assertion (Fallacy) clouded in ambiguity...it's most often associated with "Opinions".

 

 

No one has to address every point you make......It's not necessary and it's generally burdensome

 

Strawman (Fallacy), I never said they did.  They do however, to support their postulates and/or refute a counter-rebuttal, have to show "specific" factually/logically derived tenets in support.

 

I could see where it would be burdensome to support what you say.

 

Points are ignored.

 

Yes, I've noticed.  Especially the "Specific Points" used in Support or Refutation of ones postulates/beliefs.  Funny how that happens.

 

 

Does that mean your argument is winning out over the rest?

 

Speaking of Irrelevant...this is a Quintessential Example.  "Winning" has absolutely nothing to do with it, that has "pride" implications....."TRUTH" is what the mission is.

 

 

it may mean that the person who doesn't reply is on his/her back foot.

 

That should be the first clue to "Shore Up" that footing.

 

 

As for the rest of your post to Joe, I'll leave it for now out of respect for him. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

===================================================================================

 

both camps, the scientific community as well as the Christian community

 

It's an unfortunate bifurcation that just shouldn't be.  IMHO, It's a contrived partition....with a purpose.  Furthermore, the foundations (and founders) of science were based on Biblical Principles.  It appears over the past 200 years or so the rooster got into the hen house.

 

 

misdirected Christians, who seem to have a straw-man argument against every form of science

 

Sorry, I can't deal with Generalizations.

 

 

your rejection of GPS having anything to do time dilation was part of my reaction of disbelief and one of the trigger points for my hasty response.

 

Big difference between a baseless "rejection" and a supported refutation.

 

 

GPS, there has been other evidences of time dilation exactly predicted by the math I illustrated formerly so I'm not sure why you have a problem with it - certainly astronauts orbiting the earth also show evidence of delta time between the two relational clocks of earth and those traveling at orbital speeds for prolonged durations that line up with the math as predicted.

 

Well "Math" doesn't "Predict" that's Reification (Fallacy).  Math is a man-made construct that @ best "describes" and is usually limited to strict domains.  I gave you the rationale (Gravitational Clocks) that you have yet to comment on.

 

 

a growing number of Christians that have become jaded in their response towards science, and I do worry about that as just another thing that is going in the wrong direction and is really is quite unnecessary.

 

First, that depends on what or How you define science.  2nd, Secular Scientists have been shouting from the rooftops for quite some time that there is NO GOD...."we" beg to differ and can provide Verifiable Evidence.

 

 

a growing number of Christians that seem to believe science is now their enemy and every form of it is a propagation of lies and deceit, is that we are becoming reactionary and objectivity and reason, at least in some cases, gets tossed aside. So I believe in that case that well meaning Christians are in fact throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

I don't have much control and really can't comment on what other "Christians" do.  I can merely speak for myself....it revolves around how you define science....

 

"science" is bound to it's "Method", whosoever doesn't follow "The Scientific Method" can't be "science" by definition. Let's expose the Pretenders ...... Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction is terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (There are echelons here, don't go all Maxwell on me  ). Throw in Cosmology, because you can't do "repeatable" TESTS/Experiments.

 

You can't TEST Past Events

Observations are not TESTS

Predictions are not TESTS

Models are not TESTS

Similarities do not Show Causation

Mathematics don't Explain

 

 

Both Calvin and Luther condemned the Copernicus' view of the heliocentric theory he espoused (see my past posts). I must ask, what kind of witness was that to the world about Christians after it was proven to be basically true? -

 

So? We have "Scientists" today tell us that The Universe was spawned from nothing and Life/"CODE" originated from Soup.....In Direct Contradiction of KNOWN Scientific Law and Experiment.  Tell me, which is the greater error? 

 

 

There really is no, nor should there be any inconsistency between science and the Bible,

 

I agree, I haven't found a single one.

 

 

I think much of the current day creationist dogma is reactionary.

 

What might that be?

 

Now I do happen to be an old world creationist and I find nothing in the Bible that precludes the Bible speaks directly against that, that stance similar by the way to some of the ancient fathers of the Church that long predate modern science.

 

How about the Genealogy list of Genesis 5 and 11, and: (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."  ?

 

Personally, I really don't care what people "think" unless it's casual conversation.  When they start with their speculations about the Unobserved Past on the basis of "Falsified" claims of what scientists "think"... which contradicts the WORD, then we have an issue.

 

Was there Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before Adam?

 

 

Psalms 90:4

For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

a watch being 4 to 6 hours

 

nor should we think that a "yom" day is necessarily a solar day

 

Paul stated to stay away against heated arguments about genealogies

 

 

This is a Rhetorical Device (a Simile: "are like") and is not speaking to a Literal Day.  So the Literal conclusion from your Extrapolation ---- ("a watch being 4 to 6 hours') is therefore, erroneous.

 

Similar verse here....

 

(2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

 

Two more Similes ("as a", "as one")  This is not speaking to a Literal Day = a Thousand Years....it's speaking to HIS "Timelessness" specifically.

 

"Yom"----- When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that GOD could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet He did not use them.

 

Please show where Paul stated to stay away from "heated" arguments about genealogies?

 

 

"a dangerous pattern of behavior in espousing views which condemn any other truths other than a narrow view that their interpretation of the Bible is 100% correct."----

 

Strawman (Fallacy). And is expressly admonished against, by proxy: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

"Does believing any way bring us salvation? No"----

 

I agree; However, it does speak to The Authority Of GOD'S WORD and whether you filter your Hermeneutics through "it" or whatever "science" has to say.....this week.

 

 

"So you may disagree with me and that is fine but I do believe the evidence for an earth older"----

 

Agree/Disagree are irrelevant....it's what you can Prove/Support.  If you have "Scientific Evidence", please post when you return....

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

[gray wolf]

Ho hey.. . .  same old stuff  Scientific method, shmientific method  What do we do when we cannot observe the phenomena?  Make up stories?

[Enoch2021]

Ho hey.. . .  same old stuff  Scientific method, shmientific method  What do we do when we cannot observe the phenomena?  Make up stories?

 

=============================================================

 

same old stuff  Scientific method, shmientific method

 

Too funny Gray.  Who needs it anyway.  What is the difference between fairytales and "science" ?

 

 

What do we do when we cannot observe the phenomena?  Make up stories?

 

Yep:  Big Bang, RNA World----Bubble World-----"Primordial Soups"----evolution, Black Holes, Multi-Verses, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, CMB/WMAP, Billions of Years, Phlogiston, 13th Century Alchemy,  Sand Dunes conceptually the Same as Sand Castles, Encrypted "CODE" wickering itself together, Dino's Millions of Years Old, Soft Tissue 550 Million Years Old lol, ad nauseam....

[gray wolf]

Yes, too funny that you mention phlogiston as tantamount to current theories.  Come up with better ones then.  They would love to see them!     But seriously, when you observe the results of a past event, which cannot be replicated in the lab, do you throw up your hands and say nothing is knowable?  Wouldn't you rather identify results and consequences and make an intelligent "guess" as to what occurred?  And cannot science inform this apprehension?

[Enoch2021]

Yes, too funny that you mention phlogiston as tantamount to current theories.  Come up with better ones then.  They would love to see them!     But seriously, when you observe the results of a past event, which cannot be replicated in the lab, do you throw up your hands and say nothing is knowable?  Wouldn't you rather identify results and consequences and make an intelligent "guess" as to what occurred?  And cannot science inform this apprehension?

 

=============================================================================================

 

Yes, too funny that you mention phlogiston as tantamount to current theories.

 

I thought it added some flair.

 

But seriously, when you observe the results of a past event, which cannot be replicated in the lab, do you throw up your hands and say nothing is knowable?

 

I've been admonished not to Identify Fallacies (Fat Chance), such as Strawman--------nothing is knowable  .  I didn't say it wasn't knowable, I said it was invalid as "Scientific Evidence".

 

 

Wouldn't you rather identify results and consequences and make an intelligent "guess" as to what occurred?  And cannot science inform this apprehension?

 

I have no problem with them "Guessing"....but say it's a "Guess" and don't parade it around as somehow Validated Scientifically.  Which sends me over the edge!

[gray wolf]

But doesn't an occasional, well intentioned fallacy from an opponent make it ever more interesting?  Nothing as devastating to one's argument as to realize one has tripped up.

[Tristen]

 

 

As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math.  If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.  Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science.  Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct.  I am not counting on seeing anything to refute an old earth/universe...

 

 

 

 

Hey Jerry, you said “As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math”

 

And I directed you to articles explaining the math (which you have apparently ignored) – as well as suggested authors who specifically deal in the mathematical side of the creationist models. In reality, no one ever questions the math (because no one is silly enough to publish unchecked formulas; especially not creationists who know that they will be highly scrutinized).

 

 

“If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.”

 

I suspect you have misunderstood the creationist model – which doesn’t claim this.

 

But I could be equally obtuse and say – If one could show how the universe could suddenly inflate many times the speed of light, then suddenly slow, “it would go a long way toward their cause”. But that would require you being objectively sceptical of your own preferred, faith-based model.

 

 

“Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science”

 

Once again – if you understood how the secular models are formulated, you would not be so critical of the speculation involved in the construction of all cosmology models. But since you are obviously only willing to apply your high standards to models that disagree with you, you can do little but repeat Unsupported Assertions.

 

In his 1973 book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking admitted, “we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology”.

 

In an American Scientist profile (1995 Vol. 273(4)), George Ellis, the co-author of the abovementioned book, said “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

 

 

“Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct”

 

Here you employ a logical fallacy known as Non-sequitur. You don’t “argue” to get published; you submit a manuscript. Editors have an absolute right to reject any publication for any reason they see fit (regardless of the integrity of the math). Since many editors have publically admitted their confirmation bias against creationist manuscripts, your veiled Appeal to Authority renders your argument to be specious. Journals have limited publication space and generally only accept about 30% of submissions for publication anyway (even less for better known journals). So many articles, including those with correct math, are not published. There is no obligation whatsoever for a journal editor to publish a manuscript based on the correctness of the math.

 

Even so, when it comes to considering cosmology models, no one ever argues over the correctness of the math. Arguments stem from whether the particular use of math is logically justified.

 

Consider an alternative secular model found here;

[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf]

This (2010) model revisits an older idea of an infinite universe. The math is consistent with observations (and does ot require the existence of Dark Matter) – it just operates on different set of assumptions to the Standard Model. It is not the math that is in dispute; it is the logical justifications which deviate from the Standard Model that are questioned.

 

Note that it also contains 26 pages of pure mathematical equation. And this is just the formula that deviates from the Standard Model.

 

You seem to think you have formulated an effective ‘gotcha’ by requesting a single mathematical variable for our cosmology model. But anyone who comprehends the complexity of mathematical cosmology models would be aware that such a variable in the absence of the model would be ridiculously uninformative. So either you yourself are uninformed concerning the complexity of cosmology models, or you are dishonestly trying to create the false impression of a solid argument – in the hope that none of the audience has the capacity to see through it.

 

 

Hi Tristen, I wanted to say that I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. I find that usually the most adamant proponents of creationist theory no nothing about the science of naturalist theory. 

 

That being said, what I have found that concerns me, is that many creationist scientists promote their theories behind the veil of Biblical infallibility. So for instance, they look at Genesis, determine what the theory is, then go out and look for evidence that promotes it, then say that it must be right because it is from the Bible. 

 

The reason that I think this undermines both the integrity of the scientific method and that of personal faith, is because for one, the scientific method usually requires hypothesis, observation, theory, but creationist work in reverse. They cannot arrive at a theory contrary to the original hypothesis based on observations, because to do so would constitute apostasy in their opinion. It also undermines faith in that it requires them to abandon the very principle of faith, mystery. When St. Thomas denied Christ had risen, Christ revealed Himself to him, and then said, "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." I find the faith of scientists who can approach a subject without the predisposition and still maintain faith as more inspirational than those who do so with the predisposition. And one must recognize the possibility of metaphor, otherwise we would be purporting that the Earth is flat the sun revolves around us.

 

I would say that creationists are akin to a Christian saying simply denying that people suffer because they don't understand why God allows suffering. Likewise, when we make an observation contrary to faith as a creationist understands it, they simply deny that the observation was made. I focus on reconciling my fallible understanding of the Bible with my equally fallible understanding of science, hopefully reaching a intelligent and faithful conclusion that agrees with my heart.  

 

 

 

Hi Godspells, You said “what I have found that concerns me, is that many creationist scientists promote their theories behind the veil of Biblical infallibility. So for instance, they look at Genesis, determine what the theory is, then go out and look for evidence that promotes it, then say that it must be right because it is from the Bible”

 

I think there is sometimes a confusion between two different types of confidence; scientific confidence and faith.  A Christian has every rational right to claim “Biblical infallibility” as an expression of their faith. Now if the Bible is truly inerrant (in the autographic manuscripts), then the expectation would be that the facts line up with the model of reality presented in the Bible – or, more correctly - the expectation would be that the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality. When the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model, a Christian can legitimately claim scientific support for the model.

 

The claim that an idea “must be right” is never legitimate in any scientific sense. Science deals in confidence and probability, not absolutisms such as ‘right’ or ‘truth’ or ‘proof’. So then, anyone making a scientific claim is obligated to use measured language; e.g. “these facts support or evidence the Biblical model”. Whereas absolutist claims are only logically valid within the context of faith. There are people on all sides of the debate who are prone to confusing the two.

 

 

 

“The reason that I think this undermines both the integrity of the scientific method and that of personal faith, is because for one, the scientific method usually requires hypothesis, observation, theory, but creationist work in reverse. They cannot arrive at a theory contrary to the original hypothesis based on observations, because to do so would constitute apostasy in their opinion”

 

Respectfully, the secular scientific community investigates history using exactly the same logical structure as creationists. No observation or fact is interpreted in a vacuum. Interpretation is heavily reliant upon the faith perspective of the interpreter. There are many lines of evidence where the most parsimonious interpretation of the facts disagrees with the Common Ancestry/Standard Cosmology models of reality – but those interpretations are automatically rejected because they conflict with the unobserved faith presupposition of Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology.

 

One example is soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils – which, by the measure of current scientific knowledge, could not have survived intact beyond 1 or 2 million years – even under the most strident laboratory conditions. The most obvious interpretation is that the dinosaurs aren’t the 65-200 million years old claimed by the Common Ancestry story. But that interpretation is not even considered a possibility to secular science because it contradicts their faith about the history of life – and so they are forced to formulate more elaborate explanations that extrapolate beyond current scientific knowledge. That is, secular science also has a predetermined story to which all interpretations of facts must conform.

 

 

 

“It also undermines faith in that it requires them to abandon the very principle of faith, mystery”

 

“Mystery” is not a Biblical principle of faith. Only ‘blind faith’ relies upon “mystery”. The Bible encourages its adherents to "test all things", to think about (“meditate on”) why we believe what we do, to pursue knowledge and truth and wisdom, to question the validity of human philosophies, to apply “reason” to the defence of our beliefs etc. So the ‘abandonment’ of blind faith is a good thing for Christians.

 

 

 

“I find the faith of scientists who can approach a subject without the predisposition and still maintain faith as more inspirational than those who do so with the predisposition”

 

All historical scientific investigation requires presupposition; otherwise there would be no context for interpretation. I suspect what you mean is that you find those who maintain faith whilst accepting the presuppositions of naturalistic science to be “inspirational”. Naturalistic science assumes no ‘interactive’ God, and therefore a massively ancient universe and history of life. All of the facts pertaining to secular history are interpreted within this unobserved context. I, as a creationist, assume that the Bible is correct. Therefore I interpret all of the same facts within that context. The initial assumptions are different but the logical structure and methodology are identical. The main difference is that I recognise the role that presupposition plays in the formulation of my conclusions – but secular science barely recognises (if at all) that they have assumptions; and therefore feel justified in ridiculing ideas that don’t conform to their preferred faith perspective.

 

Scientific objectivity does not require the rejection of “predisposition”, but rather the capacity to give fair consideration to alternative possible arguments formulated in the context of differering “predisposition”.

 

 

 

“And one must recognize the possibility of metaphor, otherwise we would be purporting that the Earth is flat the sun revolves around us”

 

And yet the Bible explicitly claims neither of these – so your comment here approaches a Strawman misrepresentation of the Bible and Christian belief.

 

I recognise that the Bible employs all manner of symbolic grammatical apparatus, but sincere believers do not consider themselves to have the right to arbitrarily assign such labels – there must be evidence of such in the grammatical context (i.e. not from Biblically extraneous sources of information).

 

 

 

“I would say that creationists are akin to a Christian saying simply denying that people suffer because they don't understand why God allows suffering. Likewise, when we make an observation contrary to faith as a creationist understands it, they simply deny that the observation was made”

 

There is a perpetual anti-creationist Stawman argument against our position – that we are anti-science, or ignore/reject evidence etc. Your comments here simply add to the specious propaganda. Whilst creationists obviously disagree with certain interpretations of the observations, I, and many creationists, are more than happy to consider any observations you care to submit to our scrutiny – which you think we might have missed (or denied).

 

 

 

“I focus on reconciling my fallible understanding of the Bible with my equally fallible understanding of science, hopefully reaching a intelligent and faithful conclusion that agrees with my heart”

 

But how can you do that when your starting position is the arbitrary rejection of one position in deference to another? A better strategy would be to go back and objectively examine the logic underpinning the claims of both perspectives.

 

According to the Bible, it is our fallibility that renders our own hearts untrustworthy – so subjecting the authority of scripture to your “heart” is fraught with spiritual danger. What happens when your heart disagrees with scripture – do you simply right-off the scripture as “metaphor”? In doing so you make yourself a judge over God’s word.

[Enoch2021]

But doesn't an occasional, well intentioned fallacy from an opponent make it ever more interesting?  Nothing as devastating to one's argument as to realize one has tripped up.

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

But doesn't an occasional, well intentioned fallacy from an opponent make it ever more interesting?

 

That is really hilarious Gray.

 

 

Nothing as devastating to one's argument as to realize one has tripped up

 

Are you implying to lay in wait until they reach critical mass......then drop the Fallacy of the Initial premise like an ICBM?  Just like the Scythians.....Echelon Retreat and allow the opponent to over extend....then Pounce.

 

A Tactical Masterpiece when outnumbered; however, I don't think the LORD would approve of such a maneuver in dialogue...kinda deceiving.