Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe

[Tristen]

Hey MG,

The main thing I find disconcerting about this discussion is that you don't think you have the right to challenge claims made under the banner of “science”. Too many people hear a claim made from “science” or “scientists”, and uncritically think to themselves “Wow, isn't that amazing”. But that is exactly the opposite approach encouraged by scientific logic (i.e. critical reasoning). Our automatic response should be to challenge the claim asking; “What are the actual observations, what is the author assuming/presupposing about reality and how are those assumptions influencing the conclusions?" Etc. You, regardless of your scientific credentials, have every right to scrutinise any claim of science, and are explicitly encouraged by critical reasoning to do so. You don't need professional scientific credentials, you just need to ability to think for yourself. If there are technical details you don't know about because of your lack of credentials, it is up to the person making the claim to provide you with that supporting information.

 

You made a claim in your opening post that contradicts the most obvious reading of Genesis. I understand you may choose to interpret Genesis differently, but those of us who adhere to the historical interpretation of Genesis have every scriptural and scientific right to challenge any such claim. And we have the right to challenge the person bringing the claim to our attention.

 

It is fallacious to make an assertion, then declare 'Don't challenge me about it, challenge someone else'. It is a specious attempt to place yourself beyond reproach – where you can say what you want and no-one has any right of reply. Perhaps you just meant to make a statement which you thought would glorify God. But you have been on this forum long enough to know that making a statement about what happened “over thirteen billion years ago” would provoke a response from Biblical, young-earth creationists.

[MorningGlory]

8 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hey MG,

The main thing I find disconcerting about this discussion is that you don't think you have the right to challenge claims made under the banner of “science”. Too many people hear a claim made from “science” or “scientists”, and uncritically think to themselves “Wow, isn't that amazing”. But that is exactly the opposite approach encouraged by scientific logic (i.e. critical reasoning). Our automatic response should be to challenge the claim asking; “What are the actual observations, what is the author assuming/presupposing about reality and how are those assumptions influencing the conclusions?" Etc.). You, regardless of your scientific credentials, have every right to scrutinise any claim of science, and are explicitly encouraged by critical reasoning to do so. You don't need professional scientific credentials, you just need to ability to think for yourself. If there are technical details you don't know about because of your lack of credentials, it is up to the person making the claim to provide you with that supporting information.

 

You made a claim in your opening post that contradicts the most obvious reading of Genesis. I understand you may choose to interpret Genesis differently, but those of us who adhere to the historical interpretation of Genesis have every scriptural and scientific right to challenge any such claim. And we have the right to challenge the person bringing the claim to our attention.

 

It is fallacious to make an assertion, then declare 'Don't challenge me about it, challenge someone else'. It is a specious attempt to place yourself beyond reproach – where you can say what you want and no-one has any right of reply. Perhaps you just meant to make a statement which you thought would glorify God. But you have been on this forum long enough to know that making a statement about what happened “over thirteen billion years ago” would provoke a response from Biblical, young-earth creationists.

I am never beyond reproach but that will only come from God.  Science reflects and proves Gods creation of the universe.  After all, He created science along with everything else. I have not said no one could challenge the findings, only that they would have to challenge those who wrote them.  Making assessments of others' personalities or values will not work well for you here.  The bolded, in your post, is a disingenuous and judgmental comment.

[Tristen]

5 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I am never beyond reproach but that will only come from God.  Science reflects and proves Gods creation of the universe.  After all, He created science along with everything else. I have not said no one could challenge the findings, only that they would have to challenge those who wrote them.  Making assessments of others' personalities or values will not work well for you here.  The bolded, in your post, is a disingenuous and judgmental comment.

Science is a logical method devised to investigate God's creation.

You made an assertion in a discussion forum. Then when challenged, washed your hands of all responsibility to defend that assertion. That is a logically unfair practice. Why are we obligated to seek out and engage with others when you are the one making the claim to us (i.e. in the forum in which we are engaging)? If you are permitted to make the assertion here, we should be permitted to challenge the assertion here. Otherwise, what you say is beyond reproach.

My criticism was neither "disingenuous" (implying you know my motives - which would be ironic since you accused me of judging) nor personally "judgemental". Neither did I make any "assessments of others' personalities or values". I simply provided a rational critique your argument strategy.

[MorningGlory]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Science is a logical method devised to investigate God's creation.

You made an assertion in a discussion forum. Then when challenged, washed your hands of all responsibility to defend that assertion. That is a logically unfair practice. Why are we obligated to seek out and engage with others when you are the one making the claim to us (i.e. in the forum in which we are engaging)? If you are permitted to make the assertion here, we should be permitted to challenge the assertion here. Otherwise, what you say is beyond reproach.

My criticism was neither "disingenuous" (implying you know my motives - which would be ironic since you accused me of judging) nor personally "judgemental". Neither did I make any "assessments of others' personalities or values". I simply provided a rational critique your argument strategy.

Let me try this again and see if you understand what I'm saying.  I posted an article which contains  findings of certain scientists.  Challenge them if you will but they are not MY findings.  I cannot tell anyone how the findings came about because I don't know.  I think the basic premise is true; God created the universe billions of years ago and we are able to look back in time by observing light that was emitted then and is now visible to us.  The Bible tells us how God created the Earth and mankind and everything else that lives but it doesn't tell us much about how the universe was created.  God said let there be light, and there was light on Earth so it follows that all the light in the universe came from Him as well.  To me, He IS light and the creator of everything that exists.  So now, go and challenge and disagree with the article and the scientists to your heart's content but stop creating an imaginary scenario where I am telling people they can't challenge the theories in the article. I seriously do not understand the need some have to create problems where they don't need to be.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

The main thing I find disconcerting about this discussion is that you don't think you have the right to challenge claims made under the banner of “science”. Too many people hear a claim made from “science” or “scientists”, and uncritically think to themselves “Wow, isn't that amazing”. But that is exactly the opposite approach encouraged by scientific logic (i.e. critical reasoning). Our automatic response should be to challenge the claim asking; “What are the actual observations, what is the author assuming/presupposing about reality and how are those assumptions influencing the conclusions?" Etc. You, regardless of your scientific credentials, have every right to scrutinise any claim of science, and are explicitly encouraged by critical reasoning to do so. You don't need professional scientific credentials, you just need to ability to think for yourself. If there are technical details you don't know about because of your lack of credentials, it is up to the person making the claim to provide you with that supporting information.

 

You made a claim in your opening post that contradicts the most obvious reading of Genesis. I understand you may choose to interpret Genesis differently, but those of us who adhere to the historical interpretation of Genesis have every scriptural and scientific right to challenge any such claim. And we have the right to challenge the person bringing the claim to our attention.

It may also be worth considering that your interpretation of Genesis may not be "the most obvious reading of Genesis". You rightly uphold critical reasoning, and encourage its employment when it comes to science. This is good and right, and I believe it is what God expects of us. Why do you discourage critical reasoning from those you disagree with regarding the interpretation of Scripture? To me, the "most obvious reading of Genesis" differs from yours in the light of what our Creator God has made manifest in His creation. Critical reasoning can (and should) be applied to both science and theology.

[Tristen]

48 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Let me try this again and see if you understand what I'm saying.  I posted an article which contains  findings of certain scientists.  Challenge them if you will but they are not MY findings.  I cannot tell anyone how the findings came about because I don't know.  I think the basic premise is true; God created the universe billions of years ago and we are able to look back in time by observing light that was emitted then and is now visible to us.  The Bible tells us how God created the Earth and mankind and everything else that lives but it doesn't tell us much about how the universe was created.  God said let there be light, and there was light on Earth so it follows that all the light in the universe came from Him as well.  To me, He IS light and the creator of everything that exists.  So now, go and challenge and disagree with the article and the scientists to your heart's content but stop creating an imaginary scenario where I am telling people they can't challenge the theories in the article. I seriously do not understand the need some have to create problems where they don't need to be.

"Let me try this again and see if you understand what I'm saying"

Oh good - meaningless condescension. You must be right. How dare anyone question you?

 

"I posted an article which contains  findings of certain scientists"

What "findings"? Who observed the claimed 13 billion years of history, and how did they observe it? Or am I not allowed to challenge you about that claim you made to open this thread?

 

"Challenge them if you will but they are not MY findings"

But it is YOUR post. You made claims, but when challenged claimed yourself to be immune from scrutiny because you were merely parroting the claims of others. 

 

"I cannot tell anyone how the findings came about because I don't know"

So you accepted their claims uncritically - as you are expecting the rest of us to do. And ironically under the false guise of "science".

 

"stop creating an imaginary scenario where I am telling people they can't challenge the theories in the article"

Speaking of "imaginary" scenarios - I only claimed you were telling people they can't challenge you on what you posted. If you don't want to be challenged on a discussion forum, don't post things you can't support; especially on topics known to provoke debate.

 

"I seriously do not understand the need some have to create problems where they don't need to be"

All the "problems" are in your own head. I didn't even challenge you about the content of your claim. I saw an aggressive response from one creationist, and added my 2 cents because I thought a less aggressive approach might help you better see the issue from our perspective. It wasn't meant to attack or offend, just add to the conversation.

[Tristen]

19 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It may also be worth considering that your interpretation of Genesis may not be "the most obvious reading of Genesis". You rightly uphold critical reasoning, and encourage its employment when it comes to science. This is good and right, and I believe it is what God expects of us. Why do you discourage critical reasoning from those you disagree with regarding the interpretation of Scripture? To me, the "most obvious reading of Genesis" differs from yours in the light of what our Creator God has made manifest in His creation. Critical reasoning can (and should) be applied to both science and theology.

Hey One,

Critical reasoning means we can only accept confidence in claims to the degree they have been observed. It is a scientific strategy based in natural observation. The issue of Genesis is one of faith, and therefore technically outside the scope of critical reasoning.

I don't have any problem with you rationally presenting an argument different to mine - so long as you are prepared to have it subjected to scrutiny. But if you say, "Here is what I believe, but I'm not going to defend it. Instead, go and argue with these others if you disagree", then I will criticise your argument strategy as I have done here with MG.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The issue of Genesis is one of faith, and therefore technically outside the scope of critical reasoning.

The issue of the interpretation of Genesis is theology, and within the scope of critical reasoning.

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I don't have any problem with you rationally presenting an argument different to mine - so long as you are prepared to have it subjected to scrutiny.

From what I've witnessed, you do have a problem with it, although you are quite a bit nicer about it than some folks. You have a problem with it despite the fact that our core Christian beliefs are nearly identical.

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

"Let me try this again and see if you understand what I'm saying"

Oh good - meaningless condescension. You must be right. How dare anyone question you?

 

"I posted an article which contains  findings of certain scientists"

What "findings"? Who observed the claimed 13 billion years of history, and how did they observe it? Or am I not allowed to challenge you about that claim you made to open this thread?

 

"Challenge them if you will but they are not MY findings"

But it is YOUR post. You made claims, but when challenged claimed yourself to be immune from scrutiny because you were merely parroting the claims of others. 

 

"I cannot tell anyone how the findings came about because I don't know"

So you accepted their claims uncritically - as you are expecting the rest of us to do. And ironically under the false guise of "science".

 

"stop creating an imaginary scenario where I am telling people they can't challenge the theories in the article"

Speaking of "imaginary" scenarios - I only claimed you were telling people they can't challenge you on what you posted. If you don't want to be challenged on a discussion forum, don't post things you can't support; especially on topics known to provoke debate.

 

"I seriously do not understand the need some have to create problems where they don't need to be"

All the "problems" are in your own head. I didn't even challenge you about the content of your claim. I saw an aggressive response from one creationist, and added my 2 cents because I thought a less aggressive approach might help you better see the issue from our perspective. It wasn't meant to attack or offend, just add to the conversation.

Every bolded statement above is personal and designed to provoke an argument.  This is in violation of the TOS..  I am not going to be told what to do or or what I'm  thinking.  However, I do believe I recognize the writing style.  Our?  Now go agree or disagree with the article and, if you want clarification, contact the scientists who came up with the theory.