Errors in Science!

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Not that I am saying you don't, but. ..

What authority makes you or rlvaughn an expert on Baptist Beliefs? The members of this board don't agree on a lot of things.

Agreed. It is challenging to edit a wikipedia page where so little is held in common between the folks who identify with this name. Part of this is to highlight some commonalities while also highlighting some differences.

Read the page and let me know what you think. There are still many changes I have in mind for the page to make it more representative of what is known about Baptists but I haven't gotten around to it.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
I'd like to know which form of Baptist you are, and what you believe before you create pages for the world stating what a Baptist is.

The Baptist church I belong to is a member of the Baptist convention of Ontario and Quebec. I believe most would describe our theology as being pretty typical of evangelicals. I've also spoken to a variety of Baptists through message boards like this one and read from a variety of Baptist sources to get a feel for the spectrum of Baptist beliefs and practices out there.

I'm sure there are others out there more authoritative than myself to write that page. And until they get around to editing that page, I'll do the best that I can.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

TexasSky, could you state your 2nd law of thermodynamics complaint a little more clearly so I can tell what you're saying is wrong with all of modern science?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
An online Blog Called the Wiki Experiment states that the blog writer went in and deliberately slipped errors into the site, the kind that might come about by accident, and waited to see if they were corrected. Some were out there for over 5 days before the writer corrected them himself.

Could you link to the page describing their changes? I found the blog but couldn't find the data you are referring to.

 

[TexasSky]

Paul -

The 2nd law of thermodynamics basically says that energy is in a decaying state. It goes from hot to cold unless outside forces are thrust upon it. It is never totally converted, and even isolated systems become disordered.

Melt an ice cube. You go from "order" to "disorder."
Leave a dead plant outside. It goes from order to disorder.

That is the natural order of the universe. Order to disorder.

You can use an outside force to reverse it for a short period of time, but eventually, everything follows this downward spiral. Complex Chemicals break down to simple chemicals.

Evolution is requiring the reverse. Simple is moving up to complex.

Evolutionists claim that the sun provides the outside force and outside energy, thus reversing the natural flow.

 

[TexasSky]

http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/

Down near the middle section.
He changed dates of birth and such things.
Waited for the site to catch it.
Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

In regards to the site, I suggest your own testimony that you feel yourself to be qualified to edit the page regarding Baptist beliefs is proof that the thing cannot be trusted.

That is not meant as an insult to you.
Its simply an observation that a man with a Ph.D. in Baptist Theology is the one I would expect to be telling the world what Baptists believe.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Evolution is requiring the reverse. Simple is moving up to complex.

Evolutionists claim that the sun provides the outside force and outside energy, thus reversing the natural flow.

Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because
a) the order/disorder description is an oversimplification of entropy.
b) the 2nd law of thermodynamics refers only to closed systems where energy does not flow into or out of.

It is important to remember that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is about heat or energy change.

Entropy is decreasing all the time in nature. Water droplets forming snowflakes. Seeds/embryos growing to become adult plants and animals.

The reason being that they are not closed systems where energy cannot flow into or out of.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
That is not meant as an insult to you.
Its simply an observation that a man with a Ph.D. in Baptist Theology is the one I would expect to be telling the world what Baptists believe.

If you know of one, get them to edit the Baptist page on Wikipedia. I would love to have their contributions.

One issue with PhDs on a Wiki is that many of their egos can't handle having their text edited by "amateurs" or other "experts" and they would rather not contribute than have their work edited by others.

[ May 26, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
You can use an outside force to reverse it for a short period of time, but eventually, everything follows this downward spiral. Complex Chemicals break down to simple chemicals.

I'm beginning to hear this argument more. The that second law of thermodynamics has something to do with time and that over the long run things tend to disorder.

This is a misrepresentation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is not about changes in entropy over different times. Instead, it is about changes of entropy over different places at the same time.

In any decrease in entropy (like water forming a snowflake), there will be a greater increase in entropy somewhere else so that in the closed system of the universe, entropy is always increasing.

 

[Scott J]

GD,

Do systems tend toward equillibrium? For the purposes of that question, does not the universe closely approximate a closed system to the degree that we can accurately say that it will run down?

Isn't that the same basic contention as is made by believers in Big Bang cosmology?

If not, what is the scientific evidence for an alternative source for energy?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Hi Scott,

I'm simply suggesting that young earth creationists may be misinterpreting Scripture.

Genesis 1:2 says that the Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the waters, but it doesn't say for how long!

I actually agree that this is a biblical possibility. Given the uncertainty of the various explanations though I tend toward the most simple, direct reading.

They also misinterpret the passages in Exodus that speak of "in six days." The text of Genesis identifies "shamayim, eres, and yam" as "sky, land, and sea." Therefore the Exodus passage only teaches that in six days God "made" the earth's biosphere habitable for life. It does not teach that God created the universe in six days (IMO).

I hadn't heard that argument before. Thank you.

 

[TexasSky]

Gold Dragon,

Actually - I know seven Ph.D.'s in Theology, some with multiple Ph.D.'s. They are all Baptists, but they would be the first to say, "You can't define what a Baptist believes in a few words."

As to "ego". All seven of these men are tremendously humble. It is not "egotistical" to want "accuracy" in your field. Most amateurs simply have NOT studied as long to know.

Did you, for instance, know the differences in Eros, Agape, and Philo before someone who studied it told you?

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
Science attempts to explain phenomena. Therefore it cannot rule out the supernatural! The supernatural might be the best explanation!

Science cannot rule out the supernatural and the supernatural may be the right explanation. However, scientists cannot use the supernatural as an explanation or else it would no longer be science which deals with observing things with our senses in the physical world.

Metaphysical explanations are not science, even if they may be the right explanation. </font>[/QUOTE]But if the evidence points to a designer, then the scientists should admit that instead of obfuscating it. Their bias limits truth!

Also, many scientific discoveries were found by Christians who took the scientific statements found in the Bible seriously.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
GD,

Do systems tend toward equillibrium? For the purposes of that question, does not the universe closely approximate a closed system to the degree that we can accurately say that it will run down?

Yes systems tend towards equillibirum which is also a state of maxiumum entropy.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Isn't that the same basic contention as is made by believers in Big Bang cosmology?

Big Bang theorists may suggest that the universe is headed towards an equilibrium which being a state of maximum entropy is in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Although most Big Bang theories are about the past they are all over the map with regards to the future of the universe.

Originally posted by Scott J:
If not, what is the scientific evidence for an alternative source for energy?

I'm not sure what this is asking.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Did you, for instance, know the differences in Eros, Agape, and Philo before someone who studied it told you?

You forgot storge but no I didn't. And I have great respect for those who are "experts" in their respective fields.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
Science attempts to explain phenomena. Therefore it cannot rule out the supernatural! The supernatural might be the best explanation!

Science cannot rule out the supernatural and the supernatural may be the right explanation. However, scientists cannot use the supernatural as an explanation or else it would no longer be science which deals with observing things with our senses in the physical world.</font>[/QUOTE] ID doesn't require that science invoke religion nor the intangible.

We know that intelligence exists and that it can be creative. Further, we know that direct evidences for design point toward intelligence and not natural processes.

Metaphysical explanations are not science, even if they may be the right explanation.

This operates on the false notion that science must assume naturalism within the scope of certain fields.

The intelligence employed by these same people to perform the studies that they say prove evolution refutes the premise upon which they base the study- that all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
that all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation.

Yes, all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation. However not all things can be correctly explained scientifically nor naturalistically.

Like the Jesus' resurrection. Trying to scientifically or naturalistically explain the resurrection is a futile exercise because there is nothing scientific or natural about it. That doesn't mean it is false, just beyond the realm of science.

 

[Scott J]

Yes, evolution and all honestly done sciences assumes that no intelligent causes were involved. This assumption needs to be made in order for science to be able to usefully describe the physical world we live in. Otherwise, it would have to account for all sorts of supernatural causes that we cannot observe, making scientific statements useless.

This is simply not true GD.

Intelligence and design can be directly studied, categorized, evaluated, and falsified. Just like evolution can never be more than a theory... you could never assert ID as more than a theory since neither is directly observable nor repeatable. However, you can explain things like genetics with design theory... and much better than with any form of naturalism.

When scientist go out to study the decline in a particular bird species, they don't automatically assume naturalism. They have to accept the fact that the pressures causing extinction may be natural or they may be a side effect of man's "intelligent" activities. They are open to finding the scientific truth whereever the facts lead... if they assumed naturalism this would not be possible.

This illustrates the fundamental flaw of evolution and also the philosophical assumption of naturalism for science.

 

[Paul33]

As to the Big Bang.

I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).

A creationist believes that God is responsible for the big bang and that it is purposeful and ordered.

An evolutionist believes that chance is responsible for the big bang and that it is purposeless and accidental or random.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
that all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation.

Yes, all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation. However not all things can be correctly explained scientifically nor naturalistically.</font>[/QUOTE] This is a philosophical redefinition of science. Science is simply the methodology used for determining the truth about natural phenomena. It is not necessary to limit it to naturalism at all.

Like the Jesus' resurrection. Trying to scientifically or naturalistically explain the resurrection is a futile exercise because there is nothing scientific or natural about it. That doesn't mean it is false, just beyond the realm of science.

Again, the effects of intelligence are not beyond the realm of observation. You don't even have to name the creator in order to recognize and evaluate the design.

 

[Paul33]

GD,

You seem to be saying that evolution is science because it seeks natural causes whereas creation is not science because it depends on the supernatural.

Is that what you are saying?