God, and science

[Raven]

Well Said Shamrock!

I am in agreement with you and that is exactly how my thought process works. If I see something that seems to be in conflict between the Scriptures and Science with the science being credible. I have to realize that I must just be missing something.

I think that the majority of conflicts between science and the Bible exist because scientific theory is often given the same weight as scientific law. In my book that is like equating opinion to fact.

All the best to all!

Mikel

[WizardofOwls]

Okay, here is that weblink I promised to try to find for you. The information that I described, pertaining to Carbon dating, is in section 14. I would very much appreciate it if some of you who understand science would take a look at it and give me your opinion on it, since I have no idea how trust-worthy it is. I do not want to give out this website addy (and appear to give it my support) if it is complete and utter hogwash!

While the rest of the website is interesting, I cannot say that I believe it all. I do find it to be an interesting theory, though, and enjoy reading on the subject of the Nephilim.

http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/Neander...ndNephilim.html

[reddrake79]

In regards to C-14 dating, The Institute For Chration Research (ICR) is revealing some findings in a few weeks that put a major hole in the C-14 method. The research is based on how c-14 degrades into c-12. I have only heard some of the preliminary findings because of a teacher convention in Portland a couple of weeks ago. Also, a major factor that evolutionist assume is that the amount of c-14 has not changed over the millenia, nor has any event occured that would change the c-14 levels in the specimens they are uncovering.

I think God could have explained the process of evolution so that Adam and Eve could have understood it. After all public schools teach it to elementary students.

Also the canopy theory and 1000 year long days - A canopy of water vapor would hold in heat, and thereby fry the light side of the earth during the "morning" of the day. Now the dark side might survive the heat, but when it has a turn as the light side it would fry.

I mean think about it, on a hot day in oregon it can break the 90 degree barrier ( without clouds) , now a thousand years of 24 hours of direct heat would fry that side of the world. The heat would spread, somewhat, but not enough to save the "light" side of the earth.

As has been pointed out, the problem is not science. the problem is the two ideologies that support both sides, or rather the conflict between the two. The question of the beginning of the earth CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY SCIENCE. (emphasis, not yelling ) Science is concerned with what can be observed. No one can observe the beggining of the universe. Its already happened. The process has not been observed to happen now, nor has any scientist observed the process happening in recorded history. They have observed the results of creation/evolution but never the actual process. That is why any scientific argument about the beginning is going to be theory and eventualy end up in the realm of metaphysics (yes even evolution) and personal ideologies will begin to interpret the evidence they see.

BTW I believe that science and the Bible already fit together. Why should we fit the two together if there is something wrong with the scienctific theory? How long should a scientists continue to try to prove a theory before he says its wrong? Over a hundred years of research and no intemediate forms found, highly specialized and unrealistic experiments, and (essentialy) the same theory that was originally proposed. Even prominant evolutionists have to say their theory has holes that needs to be solved.

[SCShamrock]

Reddrake, I will use what little intelligence I have to explain my idea about carbon dating, cause God knows I'm not educated in it .

There are major assumptions being made. Man has not been keeping record of the rates in which radioactive isotopes and material degrade long enough to say unequivocally that the rates they state are even remotely accurate. Perhaps all radioactive particles degenerate to a particular level, and then degrade from then at a much slower level, in which case everything scientists have carbon dated would be much older than it really is. And of course, the exact opposite is true as well. I can't help it, but all my life, even as an elementary school student, I have thought science was full of horse pucky for presuming to know anything in terms of millions or billions of years. It's all just speculation. Physics is another area of major assumptions. Everything works in physics within the confines of planet Earth, or even within our own galaxy, but what about light years away? Is it not possible that all we "know" may cease to be knowledge at all if the standards by which things are measure were to suddenly evaporate into nothingness in another solar system? This may seem too fantastic to even consider, but to me it demonstrates my personal view of some disciplines of science, especially those that presume to detail the conditions on other planets using the data we have gathered here, within
our own atmosphere. Yes, light travels faster than anything. This is true, until something else is discovered to travel faster.

Ok, uneducated sermon over, enjoy your week.

[Raven]

SC

It's true C-14 dating has a lot of flaws and is anything but as accurate as a Swiss watch. The same with Radio metric dating.

There is good evidence to support this.

Physical laws and their relevance due to Galactic, Solar or even Universal location on the other had is another matter entirely.

Light is much more unique than just being the fastest thing known to man. It is also a constant. You will not measure light one time and find it getting slower or faster (that is unless you are using different methods of measurement or technology increases so that you do not necessarilly have a change, but instead a more accurate measurement, as has happened lately)

Also lightspeed has some other interesting properties as demonstrated by Special Relativity (still a theory but with strong demonstratable repeatable evidence to back it up) increases in velocity result in exponential increases in mass (proven) the theory is that mass accelerated to lightspeed becomes infinite (i.e. big bang) Time slows exponentially with increase of velocity - demonstrated (theory being that at the speed of light time stops)

While I'm not dismissing out of hand what you say about physics SC, it is pure speculation and there is to date no substance to back up your musings (at least no more substance than with say.........the theory of evolution - Molecules to man version comonly called macro )

In fact the study of the stars is called Astro Physics and has some very good science in it.

What you are talking about coresponds more with the new physics which in my book is merely meta-physics and has not place in the disipline of physical science but would be better placed with religeon or....

Just my 2 pennies.

Mikel

[reddrake79]

raven,

what experimental evidence has proven the theory of special relativity?

Light speed requires so much energy to begin with (nevermind the apparent mass increase) that scientists are unable to even come close enough to experiment with it. Unless there have been some new experiments I am unaware of.
As far as I know einsteins theories are all based on equations, not actual experiments.

Other question concerning relativity. Einstein stated that it was apparent changes in time, mass, and length. Does apparent changes mean actual physical changes?

The only experiment I have heard of that is even considered to be close enough was when they flew two planes at each other going as fast as they could (no not a collision but fly bys) and even then the speed was so low that the apparent time discrepency was less than a second. ( the clock manufacturer for the test said their clocks could have had physical problems to account for the discrepency)
Im not trying to disprove relativity but merely to point out that as of right now I dont think we can either prove or disprove special relativity because we simply cant experiment with the speed of light. (unless you use sub atomic particles wich has a whole host of their own problems, heisenberg uncertanty principle anyone )

another point,
There are seperate groups working on theories that pertain to the speed of light and that it might not be as fast now as it was a thousand years ago.

I guess the main point here is that science (as we know it today) is not the end all and be all of human knowledge and reason. What we descover in the next 10 years may change a lot of what we "know". To base our beliefs on science could very well result in us changing our beliefs in the next 10 years. My beliefs are in the bible (which has science in it and is right whenever it talks about science). When there is an apperent difference between the two, sure I check out the passages in the Bible that talks about the relavent material to make sure my understanding is right and then check out the "scientific evidence" to see if the scientists are interpreting their observations objectivly and correctly and see if their is another scientificaly possible explanation for the observation. eg. Can science define what is living? Can science conclusivly say when life starts? Can science say when life ends?

[Raven]

Hi Red Drake

2 things

First, I did not say that Special Relativity was proven only that certain elements had been demonstrated.

1) Increase of mass with increase of velocity. Has been demonstrated with electron accelerators. The mass issue is why they are unable to accelerate electrons to light speed. They can get very close but can not achieve it and if special relativity is entirely accurate, I think that is a good thing.

2) Slowing of time with increase in velocity, demonstrated by the NASA with the use of atomic clocks. Clock place in an orbiting space ship advances slower than clock left on earth.

I have been aware of both of these experiments since about 1983.

I am aware of the work of the group that is postulating that light speed is slowing over the last thousand years and I would suggest this. That 1000 years ago the methods used to determine the speed of light were not as accurate as to day. The same could be said of 20 years ago.

Einstein used the words apparent because at the time he wrote special relativity (and for his entire life for that matter) that was the best that could be done. Today certain elements can be demonstrated. (he was certainly right about that E = MC squared thing.

I too believe the Bible. I am only saying that when a difficulty occurs it seems common for certain people (particularly those that have a certain theology that they are tied to ? not a comment about anyone on this board BTW) to throw out good evidence and often science because it does not fit into the way they see/imagine events transpiring.

I am well aware that science does not have all of the answers, but where credit is due?..

I believe the Bible to be totally accurate, it just has places that I don?t understand exactly how events could or did transpire. Sometimes good science may appear to contradict it. I personally believe it is just a matter of understanding how the 2 harmonize.

Frequently people will have a good case for what they believe and rather than stop with what they know, they enter into the area of supposition (scientist and theologian alike) and weaken what was initially a strong case as a result. There is power in knowledge, even the knowledge that says ?I don?t know?

All the best

Mikel

[reddrake79]

thanks raven,

I was not aware of those experiments by nasa. I'll have to look for them and read them. Unfortunatly I still don't think the answer to my question Weather or not the changes in mass, length, and time are actual physical changes or just apparent changes because of the speed of light and the frame rate of our vision or equipment, will be satisfactoraly answered yet. eg. (if our vision lengthens an object but we take a picture, will the object in the picture by the original length or will it be elongated) maybe it doesn't really matter too. Maybe thats just the skeptic in me. That particular idea is neither here nor there though

For every one else reading this thread:

Even if our understanding of physics, and current process rates says the earth is billions of years old (which, to my knowledge, none reliably say) does that mean God had to use that much time during creation? I don't think so. Did God create adam and eve so that when they showed up they were newborns? All indications say God created adam and eve to be adults. Could God not have done the same thing with the universe, give it the apperance of age? As I am saying this, I am not throwing out any scientific evidence nor giving in to the theory of evolution. It may seem like a cop out, but could it not also be a perfectly rational explanation if there is an all powerful God.

The most common way to meld the age of the earth and creation is to say that God could have used evolution and time to create. Yes he could have. Could God have done it in 6 days with each "kind" (usually defined as a group of animals that can mate and have fertile offspring) having the complete genetic code for every specie we see today? Yes he could have. Could God have done it all in 1 hour while blowing his nose? (Im not trying to be sacriligous here) Yes he could have. Let God tell us how he did it. If you believe in an all powerfull God then a few assumtions can be made here

1. He can create any way he wants too.
2. He would have been able to communicate the story of creation to Adam and Eve.
After all God would not get toungue tied or use the wrong words
3. He would have only allowed the correct story to get into His Bible, weather or not
the author completly understood. He said in 2 timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God
breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in
righteousness."
Look at the book of revelations, I doubt John completly understood everything he
was seeing.

Im not saying science is wrong, after all according to my beliefs God created science too, but maybe our interpretation of scientific observations (macroevolution) is suspect merely because we are imperfect humans.

obviously my statements are based on my beliefs that there is an all powerfull God. any statements about evolution and creation aregoing to based on a persons beliefs about God. With all the scientific data I've seen and heard about, ther is no 100% proof for either position. Now I do know of people who have personal stories and i have stories that I think only and all powerful God, who is concerned about me, could account for. These are not scientific but circumstantial. There is enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that there is a God.

Why do my posts allways go longer then i first intend them too?

[Raven]

I just broke my finger so this will be short.

I understand that God can do anything he wants, He is God after all. There are certain aspects in God's character that would indicate that just because He can doen't mean the He will. God is certainly capable of anything by definition of His Omnipotence but he won't lie.

My point is that I belive the Bible to be accurate, I just maintain that we do not fully understand the details. There are observable indicators that show the earth to be much older than 6-12,000 years.

Based on calculated distances to stars. ( i know that htere is and error factor which is one reason why I don't buy billions of years) I certainly buy that we have galaxies and stars further than 6000 light years. That is a relativly short distance.

I funny thought. We may see a sign some day that says "Warning objects in the sky may be much closer than they appear."

As far as how do we know that the evidence of increase in electron mass in electron accelerators is not just apparent........how do we know that our whole lives are not illusion. I don't think it is profitable to argue that point. It is where modern anti God physics is going. Because physics points to a creator.

All the best!

Mikel

[Raven]

Good news, the finger is not broken just very swollen. I had to have my wedding ring cut off

Mikel

[SCShamrock]

Sorry about your ring Mikel. I am glad to hear that your finger will be ok.

[Raven]

Thanks SC

I will be sure to get some closeups of that hand in the video we are shooting Saturday so that you can see the beautiful colors.

Here is something you all might find interesting (if you think my thoughts are interesting )

I truly feel that God prevented me from being hurt worse than I was and am very greatful that this injury has not interfered with my guitar playing ability.

The question might be "Why didn't God keep you from being hurt at all?" My thought is that If I had not been hurt at all I would not have realized God's hand was in this.

Sure, convoluted thought and with no real proof one way or the other. Just an expression of my faith.

Peace

Mikel

[SCShamrock]

By all means Mikel, share. If I were to reveal all the instances in my life that I knew God's hand was there to prevent a catastrophe, it would read like something from Stephen King......guy angers the wrong witch, end up cursed and would have died, save for the interference of the Great Good.

[reddrake79]

a ring is easier to replace than a finger, still a bummer though.

There is still one question that hasn't been addressed here. What if God created with the appearance of age? Fully adult man and woman, fully adult animals (chicken first then the egg ) Stars well over six thousand light years away, but the light created in transit so it will arrive at the earth much sooner than the distance should allow.
The Bible doesn't indicate that he wated for anything to grow.

So far the only mathmatical evidence for an old earth is starlight. We don't know everything there is to know about light and space yet. If the cosmic speed limit has slowed down over time ( i know its not proven yet) Then light would have crossed the intervening distances much quicker than we think it should and thus change our calculations of time based on light. What if there was a black hole in the way of the light and it moved and now the light reaches us? There mught be other phenomena in space that could affect light and we don't know about them yet.

Obviously I don't feel the need to sandwich in a few thousand years (or more) into the Genesis account. Scienctists have time and time again tried to show that the Bible could not be right and every time scientists have done this, they have been wrong. With only one piece of evidence, that is not supported by any other method of dating, and the very nature of the measured quantity under debate, would it be wise to try to interpret the Bible based on something the scientitst havn't settled yet?

[SCShamrock]

Science hasn't even explained the pyramids, so I don't expect they should be able to determine anything more aged than them with any degree of accuracy. And Reddrake, I think you make a valid point with regards to light. So many times, pseudo-scientists try to limit the power of God to the same principle of physics that we humans are constrained with.