Errors in Science!

Here are the main proof texts used for the purpose of asserting it is the sun that moves and not the earth:

Josh 10:12-13
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
NASU

Eccl 1:5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
NASU

Ps 19:1-6

The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
NASU

These were used historically by Martin Luther and others as the science of astronomy began to assert the evidence from science instead of the literal interpretation of scripture.

Today we know these verses are not meant to be interpreted literally. But how do we know that?

I submit there is only one way we really know they are not meant to be interpreted as asserting that it is literally the sun that moves and the earth that stands still (instead of rotating and moving around the sun, at that) and the way we know that is because the science of astronomy has come to be so accepted in our minds and hearts that we simply and automatically re-intepret these verses in a non-literal fashion.

But it was not always so. Before the science had come to be so well accepted, all the clerics, protestan and catholic and baptist and whatever, opposed the science. That's the testimony of history.

So one would suppose that an educated person, even a christian educated person, would realize that the principle of accepting the literal interpretation of scripture against the evidence of science is simply not a valid arguing point, since the method failed the church so miserably when it was tried that time. Why repeat history?

Therefore the argument turns on the scientific evidence.

 

Oh and about the flatness of the earth. Personally I don't find a lot of proof texts to support that; remember, I only said those who DO are consistently literal.

There aren't many left. See

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

 

(sigh) along with those prejudiced chemists who keep repeating water isn't an element but is composed of two atoms of hydrogen joined to an atom of oxygen . . . and nobody challenges them any more. . .

I don't see that movement coming from scientists. It's political and religious opinion that is driving it, not science.

The living cell is far beyond chemistry. Do you understand? Regarding life, and since you believe in evolution, how does man’s soul fit in. You have stated life is “a chemical reaction explained as patterns enacted through matter exclusively.” Please reconcile this.
</font>[/QUOTE]How do you know the living cell is far beyond chemistry? You don't even know all the chemistry in the living cell, so you can't possibly say that.

As for the fitting in of man's soul, nobody on earth has a scientific understanding of that. I never said they did. Personally, I think that God has found a way to allow souls to form as an emergent property of the complexity of the nerve networks of the brain, taking into account that the matter of the brain is more mysterious than any soul-stuff that the theologians could have ever imagined prior to the development of quantum mechanics. But that's only an opinion, and I'll certainly allow God to update my understanding in the sweet by and by.

Question for you: Could God make matter so mysteriously wonderful that it could become a substrate for our souls? Answer: Sure He could, He can do anything He wants. Well then, it becomes a thing to investigate, does that fit in with what He really did?

I've never seen anything in ID science except a statement to the effect that such and such is so complicated that it is not possible to even imagine it forming through the theoretical framework of evolution.

I've seen replies from evolutionists blithely going ahead and explaining an imaginative scenario for just such an evolutionary result.

I've not seen that kind of back and forth discussion as science.

How many of them are named Steve?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Yes Paul, we hear you. Here is what I already told you about this: “Of course the geocentric model originated in Greek thought, and was propagated by a church/state regime that killed dissenting Christians for over 1000 years, so I do not believe your point is without some serious caveats. . .
</font>[/QUOTE]The geocentric model predates Greek thought; it was present in Egyptian cosmology as well. Can you find any other cosmology in any society that was BC instead of AD?

LOL! Again you're neglecting history. It is true that unpopular ideas often finally win out and become popular in the end. But you've just not notice that evolution was that unpopular idea and is now on its way toward winning out in the end. Just because the idea of evolution is now in that phase doesn't mean you can make it switch away from being the winning idea!

Psst - try using evidence. That's the way to win the hearts and minds of scientists, you know - EVIDENCE.

Funny response. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus wasn't laughing.

No, you have only asserted it. That is not the same thing.

Funny - you seek to abandon reason and then give a reason for abandoning reason. You undermine your own position when you do that.

Consider the demand for evidence. Does this mean depending on reason alone? No, it means also looking around and seeing what truth is really out there.

Do you believe the great galaxy of Andromeda is 3 million light years away? There is evidence to that affect. I believe it to be true, tho of course I don't depend on that fact for any spiritual advantage on judgment day. But it does inform me there are stars 3 million years old at least, given the travel time for the light, you know.

Is there some kind of flaw in that reasoning you'd care to point out for me?

The Lord told us to be as wise as serpents. Scripture portrays Wisdom as calling on the simple to come and learn.

Without reasoning, we are as the worm and the fly, forever dependent on our reflexes and unable to grow. I'm sorry you seem to wish to remain in that state. That is not the divine plan for our lives.

 

Try chemical origin of life theorists.

You are truly blind then.

Chemicals are merely the building blocks of the machinery. This we know. It is not simple interactions as you imply.

He will. Of course for Bible believers, he already has.

We already know the soul is more than the mind, or nerves. It is the soul that is saved in Hebrews 10:39, and we know by 1 Corinthians 15:50 that it is not flesh and blood. You do know nerve tissue is flesh don’t you?

And that is precisely where they add immense value to science. They challenge the theory which posits it is not too complicated to happen naturally. Even from your point of view it must be good because it will energize the discussion, debate and research. You are not against good scientific debate and discourse are you?

So?

Then you do not understand science.

Paradigms are characterized by majority belief. Do you contend that if the majority believes something it must be right? But you say “I’m talking about scientists, so yes.” Of course, you would be committing the fallacy of numeratum even here, since it is also possible that they are just well indoctrinated in a particular worldview by 20 years of formal training. Could it be that we have a vicious cycle of indoctrination and reinforcement? I think so. This is a reasoned argument.

Present yes, formally developed no.

I don’t have to, scientific investigation is. It is your faith in evolution that is strong, not the science of it.

Wrong, about the hearts at least, and that is the core issue. Both sides have evidence, but just not of the conclusive kind.

Ho, hum. Nice use of scripture as an ad hom. Demonstrates your weak position nicely.

Some here probably think I have shown it, other think I asserted it.

No, I state a reasonable fact, and in doing so appeal to reason. It is quite reasonable to contend that all things may not be reasoned. Do you disagree?

Investigation is limited by revelation, both in the natural realm and spiritual.

Yes

Why would you?

Assuming our present state of science is correct, which you have so aptly pointed out has been grossly inaccurate in the past. What makes you think we are so enlightened today? If the Lord tarries another 500 years, this may be considered the dark ages of science. Just like Darwin assumed simple chemicals interactions could explain cells, but what do we discover, an information rich microscopic world of machines, mechanisms and processing factories, the likes of which could have never been imagined. Why do you place so much faith in the shifting sand of man’s wisdom Paul? I cannot open your mind to these possibilities; I can only show you the door.

And I’m sure you have had the verses on man’s wisdom put to you a thousand times by now, but without any change, so I will not bother.

You assume much Paul, and that is why you are wrong often.

 

HI, Old Regular. You asked why we assume the velocity of light has been constant.

It turns out that there is a striking observational test for whether or not the velocity of light has been constant over the history of the universe.

Let's take a simple thought experiment. First, I'll take my pocket laser pointer and flash a dot on the wall for exactly one second, moving my thumb on the switch exactly three times in that second. You watch the dot only, not me, but you see it shine on the wall for one second, you see the blinks caused by my thumb movement, and you can make a statement about how fast it appears I moved my thumb - three times in a second. If I instead point the light into space and shoot out the beam for one second, how long will that traveling beam be? Since light travels 186,282 miles per second, that beam will be 186,282 miles long traveling away from earth.

Now lets suppose that there was a universal speed up of light in the past, sufficient to cause the light that we now judge to have been coming for 3 million years from the Andromeda galaxy to have only taken, say, 10,000 years to get here. That's what Lambert is implying actually happened at a minimum. Well, the average speed would be hmmm 3,000,000 divided by 10,000, thats 300 times faster for the whole trip, but if we assume it started faster and slowed down continually until it reached the present speed in the modern era, well, it would have to be 600 times faster.

Now for the crucial thought experiment.

We hand my laser pointer to an angel who flies back to the Andromeda galaxy, back in time to the place where light comes from the galaxy and arrives at our eyes today. If Lambert et. al is correct, light speed was then at LEAST 600 times faster than now . . . . lessee 600 X 186,282 miles per second is 111,769,200 miles per second.

The angel duplicates my one second shining, blinking the laser beam three times during the process, as I did. The beam that shoots out under these faster light times is 111,769,200 miles long, when it starts its journey.

Over time as the speed of light slows, the beam starts slowing down as it comes to-wards us, but it remains just as long all the way . . . otherwise, there would be change in the frequency of the light, and there is no change in the light frequency from Andromeda (well, a little blue shift due to its motion, but we'll ignore that, its far to little to affect our story very much).

Well, a second angel kindly keeps the light beam focused for the 3 million light year journey and the beam arrives at our eyes tonight. We watch it start, blink three times, and stop.

Because the beam is still 111,769,200 miles long, and light is now creeping along at a mere 186,282 miles per second, we would see the thing shine for 600 seconds! And because in that time we only see three blinks, we infer that the direct appearance would seem that the angel took 600 seconds to blink his thumb three times, whereas really he did it in only one second.

This thought experiment is to show you that events seen by light that has slowed along the way will be slowed down. How much slowed down? at least 600 times as much for the great galaxy of Andromeda, and that is the very nearest one of them all! Others are so far out light would have had to slow by millions of times!

But events seen in the galaxies don't slow down like that. Supernova wax and wane in their expected time frames. X ray binary stars eclipse each other withing expected orbital parameters. Galactic rotation goes on at expected rates regardless of distance from us.

So these simple observations simply rule out the used to be faster light theories.

 

That is a good post Paul. I too think the "tired light" theory has many problems, as your common sense example gives. The mature creation concept was better than this approach, in my opinion. Of course that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee (except at Starbucks of course). The best approach for YECs is in the realm of cosmic expansion proposed by Humphrey's with ICR. I'm not saying it is without difficulties, but the naturalistic view has them also, and at least it is “relatively” (pardon the pun, I couldn’t resist) consistent with relativity. Humphreys is currently being peer reviewed and has received varied critiques of his work. He has also been forth coming with answers for the criticisms. It should be interesting to watch this one play out. Here is a link for those who are interested ( Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics ).

 

who says I said it was simple? And chemistry involves shape as well as molecular bindings.

Even if I'm right in guessing that the soul is an eemergant property from our flesh, that doesn't rule out that it is something beyond our flesh.

I've got a computer chess game. You could say that machine is just a bunch of wired together transistors operating under known physical laws but somehow the thing manages to outplay me. Describing it as a mere set of transistors seems somehow rather inadequate - something more has appeared here.

You know, an adding machine can be made out of wheels or sliding cogs or transistors or whatever and it keeps coming up with "4" as the answer to 2 plus 2. Something that transcends cogs, transistor, wheels, that goes into an abstract thing we label "arithmetic".

In that sense, I'm saying that perhaps a soul - something new - emerges from the flesh.

So?</font>[/QUOTE]So the statement that no stretch of the imagination can conceive of an explanation is disproved on its face, because imagination succeeded in making the stretch.

Then you do not understand science. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I would be looking for a prediction we could test.

No no, YOU brought up a form of the fallacy of numeration when you said

It was at THAT point I asked how many of them are named "Steve".

Hmmm. 3 million light years from here to Andromeda Galaxy. Therefore stars were there three million years ago. Said to not be conclusive evidence.

Boy, you have a tough standard for conclusive evidence!

No, I state a reasonable fact, and in doing so appeal to reason. It is quite reasonable to contend that all things may not be reasoned. Do you disagree?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think all things that are true can be proved by reason to be true. That does not mean reason is useless and that does not mean reason cannot establish anything at all.

Do you disagree?

Investigation is limited by revelation, both in the natural realm and spiritual.
</font>[/QUOTE]What's the difference between evidence and revelation?

Why would you?
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, there are some who imply that my strong interest in science means I worship science instead of God, and that phrase was inserted to forestall such an accusation from those type of folks.

Assuming our present state of science is correct, which you have so aptly pointed out has been grossly inaccurate in the past. What makes you think we are so enlightened today? If the Lord tarries another 500 years, this may be considered the dark ages of science.
</font>[/QUOTE]It may be considered the dawn, or it may be considered the noon time of science, but the dark ages are behind us.

Darwin didn't even know about Genes! He only knew that traits are inherited. His era was permeated by the "life force" idea that is giving way to the "complicated mechanism" idea.

You assume much Paul, and that is why you are wrong often. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh. Perhaps that IS after all the divine plan for your life. Sorry about that.


Now about the Humphries model. As I understand it, he things we are at the bottom of the universe's gravity well, and this explains why time crawls by for us only adding up to about 6 to 10 thousand years while more distant parts of the universe, out on the edge at the higher parts of the gravity well, experience the billions of years of time we all know and love from cosmology.

Well, if that's the case, why isn't the Andromeda galaxy also a participant in our low estate? After all, if we're at the center, its very near (cosmolologically speaking) the center also. And if it is in fact at near our level, then it's time frames are near to ours, and we already have seen we see light taking 3 million years to get from there to here, FROM OUR NEIGHBOR IN THE BOTTOM OF THE GRAVITY WELL AS MEASURED DOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE GRAVITY WELL. So Humphrie's picture also has its severe problems.

 

I assume you are referring to Starlight and Time by Humphreys. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I am. The general consensus in the creation camp is that he is leading the charge on the cosmological end.