Errors in Science!

OldRegular,

You don't even know what I'm talking about.

Before there was a universe there was "no" mass!

 

"Just what do you mean by observed?"

Observered. Seen. Detected.

In a simplified form, you take two particles, say two protons. You accelerate them and smash them together. The quarks come flying out and you have detectors specially made to detect and observe them. In reality it is a bit more complicated, but that is the gist. (For example, E=mc^2 allows the energy of the collision to make new particles, sometimes quarks.)

"I don't need to read Hoyle. The First Law of Thermodynamics rules out the disappearance of mass. Mass is mass, period, unless of course it is converted into energy."

Again, going back to E=mc^2, if you add up all of the energy and mass in the universe, the total is zero. I am not smart enough to know how to do such a calculation, but I have read of others who have done so. So before the Big Bang, no mass.

I think a few other ideas should be tossed out. First string theory eliminates the infinite density at the beginnig by placing a limit, the Planck length, on how small things can be. So the infinity goes away. Second, inflation shows that the mass of the universe before the inflationary epic was very small. Estimates range from a fraction of a gram to several pounds. As I understand the theory, when the inflaton field that drove the expansion during the inflationary epic collapsed back to a zero (or near zero) value, the energy of the field was converted (E=mc^2) into the mass of the universe. Not being a physicists, I might not be getting the details exactly right but the idea is similar enough for our level of discussion.

"We have two possibilities, either an eternal God or eternal matter."

We have an eternal God and a very old universe.

"Scripture teaches that eternal God created all that exists."

I do not disagree that He did so. I do disagree with you on the details of how and when.

"In any event the naturalist theory cannot be reconciled with Scripture no matter how hard one might try."

Quite a few people have done so to at least their own satisfaction even if not yours.

 

If that were the case, protons, neutrons and electrons and most molecules are also not observed. X-rays, CTs and MRIs are also the energy of something being detected by an instrument and using that to indirectly form an image.

Fortunately, science includes indirect observation as data.

 

So some others are telling us that nothing exists. I have always wondered if everything that is was just someones dream but but then according to others nothing exists so there is no one to dream.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure where you get this idea, but totalling the energy and mass of the universe to be zero does not mean that nothing exists.

Quantum physics and relativity don't cause the universe, they describe it very well. Down the road, it is very likely that there will be new ways to describe the universe better.

 

"'In reality it is a bit more complicated' is an understatement. There is a big difference between saying something is observed and saying that its track or energy or something similar is detected by an instrument."

As Gold Dragon pointed out, once you get down to the atomic and sub-atomic world, everything is indirect. However, at this scale you can basically descibe things according to their mass, their charge and their "spin." From the design of the detectors, you know how particles with various combinations of values of these three characteristics should behave. The tracks of the particles through the detectors can then be used to determine the values of these three characteristics for each particle that you observe. For a given particle, defining these three things pretty much defines the particle. Again, I must caution that I am not an expert in this field and so my answer may have some inaccuracies which are not likely to be consequential for discussion on this level.

I also do not understand why you would try and doubt the standard model. It does not really have a bearing on OE, YE, God or anything else. It just describes how the universe operates on a sub-atomic level.

"So some others are telling us that nothing exists."

No, you miss the point. The universe really exists. It is just that there is no need for mass to have existed before the BB because the total of the universe is zero.

"Suffice it to say that astro physicists have vivid imaginations!"

Well. yes. But again the key point is that their predictions of what we observe from these imagitive theories are being proven through the latest observations. Even more important is that YEers have no ability to make such predictions about what will be observed. (Well actually they could in some areas but they choose not to do so because the obvious predictions are not in fact observed.) You cannot tell me what form you expect the CMB to take. What should its power law spectrum show? Should there be evidence of gravitational waves? What cosmilogical parameters should be deduced from the CMB and what should their values be? YE cannot make predictions on such matters and will accept any values that are found except those they must arbitrarily throw out because they make them uncomfortable.

"Well at least we agree on an eternal God. The question of an old universe is theory, not fact."

That area of agreement is the most important for us to coinsider is such discussions. We are all on the same side here.

The theory, however, is very well supported. There is not an alternative which can explain our observations.

"Just where did I present details on how and when?"

Just making the assuption that our opinions likely differ. If you are in fact an OEer just trying to liven up the discussion, I apologize for a bad assumption.

"I always say that others have the same right to be wrong as I do."

Yes, we all seem to be graced with that ability.

 

If it wasn't for the vivid imagination of scientists, we would be still living under those errors of understanding. It is imagination followed by experimentation and observation that corrects many of those errors. Some discoveries were accidents like penicillin and X-rays, but most are a result of scientists' imagination going beyond current human understanding.

 

While I do NOT believe the "young earth" theory, I DO believe that proper scientific observation reveals that everything in the universe follows a set of unbreakable laws. For example, nothing can be created nor completely destroyed. If we burn a piece of paper, it may not be paper any more, but all its essence will still exist as ash, gases, and energy. X amount of mass will exert Y amount of gravity at Z distance from the gravitational center of that mass, regardless of whether that mass is solid, liquid, or gas, regardless of its temperature or electric potential. Every object in the universe follows the same law of motions. Every object in the universe exerts gravity on every other object. There are countless chemical reactions and interactions that occur exactly the same whenever any two given substances contact each other. And there's simply no chance that all this is by accident.

One proton cannot be distinguished from any other proton. Any six protons grouped together make an atom of carbon, regardless of any other factors. And the rules of grouping atoms of certain elements together to make certain molecules are absolute. For example, H2O is always water, that most miraculous substance in the universe.

Here's something that may take some serious pondering, but I hope every reader does so: FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST, THERE MUST BE AN INTELLIGENCE WITH UNLIMITED POWER WHO'S ALWAYS EXISTED! For ANYTHING to exist, there must be something already in existence to have made it.

I fully believe that Scripture, science, and history all go together, and only a misinformed ot non-informed person tries to separate them completely. Scripture, however, is the ruling factor, and the more we study all three bodies, the more we see science and history follow Scripture.

 

Yes, scripture, science and history all go together. Some interpretations of scripture don't go with some interpretations of science and history.

 

I guess my question," why are there still apes", needs a little follow through. I was,nt baiting.The idea that man evolved from an ape type creature makes me wonder why all of those apelike cratures did'nt evolve into man and extiguish apes.
Some other thoughts that come into my little pea brain are what are the odds that this would happen?Evolution of all types of creatures I mean.Everybody in this discussion knows more about this than I do. I have read a few books on creation science and long ago took courses in physical science,biology,and physics, so that is my limited background.I do wonder though with all of evolutionary thought and theory what are the odds of all of the creatures on earth today evolving into thier kinds.that strikes me as amazing. Not only that but if something evolves from one kind into another what is the purpose surved by continueing the kind from which the new kind was evolved from?

 

The FAQ response on PBS addresses this question. But if you would like it reworded, here are a few other presentations.

Some parallel questions would be:
1) If the english language has germanic origins, why is German still spoken?
2) If children came from parents, why are the parents still alive?

 

Golden Dragon,
Thanks for your kind answer and response.As you can see I'm not up to date on present evolutionary thought.I see all kinds of arguements here on the board.I see all of the arguements between creationists and evolutionists of different stripes.I do wonder what or how Darwinsw theory has evolved into what it is today and just what is it today.I know science changes and God does'nt.I am not against science,if I were I would have to start by throwing my computer out.
Everybody on both sides throws out each sides authorities and references by either calling them liars or inept in thier fields.Fact is both sides may be found wanting (we know about theNebraska Man,Java Man,& Piltdown Man & the story behind them).We know that medical science in the middle ages or even in the 1970's was a far different animal than it is today.
Even though I am not a mathematician I get interested in stasticical probability as it relates to evolution. It boggles my mind when thinking of these creatures developing into humaniods then into humans. It makes me ask the question when exactly did this happen and when did these creatures become fully human with a body ,soul,& spirit with an awareness of God.How would evolution explain these events?

 

I have found that two of the best sources for understanding where evolutionary theory is at today are PBS: Evolution and Talk.Origins.

Have you looked into the statistics of entropy? I tried reading a paper explaining statistical entropy once and it was totally confusing from my first year statistics point of view.

These are excellent questions. As for soul and spirit, evolution will never be able to answer those questions because they are beyond its scope. Regarding our bodies, evolutionary theory tries to make guesses of a timeline based on the evidence currently available to us. This body of evidence is constantly changing and many point to that as a reason not to trust evolution. However, for some reason they trust the constantly changing body of evidence used to support other scientific theories like gravity.

 

And the idea that what he started was not a natural process is found in the text and context?</font>[/QUOTE] Actually it is in the Genesis account. Also the lack of anything that points to a "process" speaks through silence. If God did just start a proces then certainly there should be some indication of it somewhere in scripture.

[/quote][/qb]

I agree, Christ rising from the dead was not a natural process. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Then I fail to see why you doubt when the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence in 6 days.

You appear to make no assumption of naturalism concerning the resurrection. It seems as if you question God's supernatural power when the project gets "too big."

The same kind of reasoning and the same presupposition of naturalism tells the atheist that dead men don't rise. He is wrong but consistent.

A problem with your view is that the same people who give us the primary testimonies for the resurrection believed in the OT and treat Genesis 1-11 as if it were literal history.

If they are not a credible source when affirming Genesis then why are they suddenly a credible source for affirming the resurrection?

 

Not at all. Just because God didn't choose to create in 6 24hr periods doesn't mean he couldn't.

Those folks didn't have a distinction between literal being "true" and allegorical being "false". The distinction of those literary types was not made until Greek literary philosophy became more prominent. The classification of one type being "true" and the other being "false" is a product of the modernism of the enlightenment.

They are credible sources for affirming the resurrection because they witnessed it.

While the didn't witness creation, I believe their interpretations of Genesis to be credible as well. And I can say with confidence that they did not interpret Genesis as a scientific document.

Literal history? What does that mean to the average 1st century Jew? Of course they believed Genesis to be true, as do I.

 

"Perhaps the reason there are so many errors in science is that too many scientists support their theories by their vivid imagination rather than by experiment and observation."

Well it takes a combination of all those things. Sometimes the observations get out ahead of the theories to explain them and somethimes the theories get out ahead of the observations. Let's look at two examples that we have been discussing.

First the standard model of physics describing the various sub-atomic particles. For a while, the experimenters have been out in front, discovering new particles and making observations about their properties. The theorists have been following behind trying to explain it all. And theories such as quantum field theory and quantum chromodydnamics have done much to explain the observations.

But where they have failed is to explain the big WHY that underlies everything. Over the last couple of decades, string theory has been developing. It offers the possibility of actually explaining how the various particles and forces arise. More importantly, it unifies the two leading components of physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. (QM and GR are very much at odds but each works extremely well on their own and in the proper context.) But the existing supercolliders are not sufficiently energetic at this point to test the predictions of string theory. (There is also the problem that string theory is so complicated that the current equations are only approximate and cannot yield detailed enough predictions for some conceivable tests.) So theory has now gotten out in front of the experimenters. But that will change in the future. For example, there is the possibility that the new large hadron collider being built will be able to confirm some predictions of string theory. It is right at the border of where some tests become possible.

In cosmology, the Big Bang theory arose from observations by Hubble that the universe is expanding and that more distant ojects move ever more quickly away from each other. So the theory followed observation. But there have been two leading problems. One is the horizon problem. In every direction you look, things are basically the same on large scales. This means basically that the observable universe was allowed to come to a near homogeneous equilibrium. The second is the flatness problem which says that the average density of the universe appears to be very close to a value which is unstable. If the density in the past had been even slightly higher or lower than this value, then the current density would be far from this unstable point. Yet here we are maintaining an unstable density.

Inflation theory solves both of these problems by hypothesizing a very brief period of very rapid expansion. So it solves these observational problems. But in the process, it makes some detailed predictions about what else should be observed. Our ability to make these observations is now catching up with the theory and the results have been nothing short of spectacular.