AntennaFarmer
Member
Now that is a question to ponder........
A.F.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which is more reliable science or the Bible?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
Now that is a question to ponder........
A.F.
Bible.
When I want to gain knowledge, I turn to science. When I want to gain spiritial strength and wisedom, I turn to God through the Bible. If science ever contradicts the Bible, I would rather my faith be placed in God than in man.
That never happens unless science goes over its line and crosses into the rhelm of faith. Science often asks man to put faith into its teachings. That's not science. Science is systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. IMO, things like big bang and evolution cannot be science because they lack those three requirements.
When I want to gain knowledge, I turn to science. When I want to gain spiritial strength and wisedom, I turn to God through the Bible. If science ever contradicts the Bible, I would rather my faith be placed in God than in man.
That never happens unless science goes over its line and crosses into the rhelm of faith. Science often asks man to put faith into its teachings. That's not science. Science is systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. IMO, things like big bang and evolution cannot be science because they lack those three requirements.
Like evolution, perhaps!?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
But for all that, H20 = water.
I believe the Bible is reliable.
I do not believe science is always reliable.
You know, the discovery of quantized redshifts seems to indicate that the Earth is indeed the center of the universe.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=304
Do a search of "quantized redshifts". Very interesting. This is real science and a hot subject in astronomy today.
I do not believe science is always reliable.
You know, the discovery of quantized redshifts seems to indicate that the Earth is indeed the center of the universe.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=304
Do a search of "quantized redshifts". Very interesting. This is real science and a hot subject in astronomy today.
"You know, the discovery of quantized redshifts seems to indicate that the Earth is indeed the center of the universe."
The link seems to only assert that the redshift is quantized and does not bother to actually link to any material to support this assertion.
But no matter. I have seen before where support has been supplied for this assertion. There is a tiny group of astronomers who support this idea. Most do not.
There are also different things that different guys mean when they talk of quantized redshifts. But you obviously imply large scale shells.
One fellow without a dog in the fight agreed to examine the data. He found no indication of quantization in a very large survey.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208117.pdf
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Another examined what he felt to be statistical errors made in the analysis of such effects.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1994ApJ...431..147N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Redshift Data and Statistical Inference
Finally, even the folks that support quantized redshifts do not necessarily think that it indicates that the earth is the center of the universe not does it indicate a big problem for inflationary theories. Here is a paper where one of the leaders explains how it indicated that time itself is quantized, which gives rise to the observations.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/BF00642291
Three-dimensional quantized time in cosmology - Tifft
The link seems to only assert that the redshift is quantized and does not bother to actually link to any material to support this assertion.
But no matter. I have seen before where support has been supplied for this assertion. There is a tiny group of astronomers who support this idea. Most do not.
There are also different things that different guys mean when they talk of quantized redshifts. But you obviously imply large scale shells.
One fellow without a dog in the fight agreed to examine the data. He found no indication of quantization in a very large survey.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208117.pdf
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Another examined what he felt to be statistical errors made in the analysis of such effects.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1994ApJ...431..147N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Redshift Data and Statistical Inference
Finally, even the folks that support quantized redshifts do not necessarily think that it indicates that the earth is the center of the universe not does it indicate a big problem for inflationary theories. Here is a paper where one of the leaders explains how it indicated that time itself is quantized, which gives rise to the observations.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/BF00642291
Three-dimensional quantized time in cosmology - Tifft
Quantized redshifts were discovered by the astronomer William Tifft. Since that time more extensive observations have been made that verified Tifft's observations. It is significant that these astronomers set out to prove Tifft wrong, but after making even more detailed observations than Tifft came to agree with him. What they mean is another issue. But they do seem to point to the Milky Way galaxy and thus Earth as being the center of the Universe.
There is always someone who disagrees with theories like this. What matters is the truth.
Here is a more detailed article.
http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#meaningquantized
I personally am not sure that redshifts equal distance to begin with. I have read much about astronomer Halton Arp's observations where he has shown Quasars which are believed by most to be at the outer edge of the Universe are actually connected to galaxies much closer.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
You know this works both ways. I could post lists of serious and credible scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory.
I do not believe the Big Bang theory myself. I believe God created all creation in 6 days just like the book of Genesis says.
I would not be a bit surprised if we are indeed near the center of the Universe.
Time will tell.
There is always someone who disagrees with theories like this. What matters is the truth.
Here is a more detailed article.
http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#meaningquantized
I personally am not sure that redshifts equal distance to begin with. I have read much about astronomer Halton Arp's observations where he has shown Quasars which are believed by most to be at the outer edge of the Universe are actually connected to galaxies much closer.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
You know this works both ways. I could post lists of serious and credible scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory.
I do not believe the Big Bang theory myself. I believe God created all creation in 6 days just like the book of Genesis says.
I would not be a bit surprised if we are indeed near the center of the Universe.
Time will tell.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Can someone explain to me what the location of the centre of the universe has to do with Genesis or any part of the Bible?
"Quantized redshifts were discovered by the astronomer William Tifft."
Yes. And you should have noticed where I posted a link to a paper BY HIM where he states that his conclusions are not consistent with what you are trying to tell us they mean.
"You know this works both ways. I could post lists of serious and credible scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory."
Yes, except that your list would be extremely short.
The majority is not always right, but it often is a safer place to be than out on the extreme edges. Some good things come from those on the edge. But not as often as mistakes, I would assert.
My first link for you was also to someone who investigated these claims from a position of disinterest. He had no opinion beforehand nor any care in how the results turned out. His results support the majority.
For that matter, the second link points out the statsistics errors that give rise to what is claimed to be observed.
Yes. And you should have noticed where I posted a link to a paper BY HIM where he states that his conclusions are not consistent with what you are trying to tell us they mean.
"You know this works both ways. I could post lists of serious and credible scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory."
Yes, except that your list would be extremely short.
The majority is not always right, but it often is a safer place to be than out on the extreme edges. Some good things come from those on the edge. But not as often as mistakes, I would assert.
My first link for you was also to someone who investigated these claims from a position of disinterest. He had no opinion beforehand nor any care in how the results turned out. His results support the majority.
For that matter, the second link points out the statsistics errors that give rise to what is claimed to be observed.
I disagree. Quantized redshifts have gained wide acceptance in astronomy today.
In 1981, the results of an extensive redshift survey by astronomers Fisher and Tully were published [Fisher & Tully, 1981, p.139]. The redshifts did not appear to be clumped in the way that Tifft had claimed, so astronomers dismissed Tifft's quantizations as merely due to a small data set. The idea was that if the data set was enlarged, the effect would go away, as seemed to have happened with the large Fisher-Tully catalogue. However, Tifft and Cocke conducted an analysis of the catalogue, and in 1984 they published their findings. They noted that the motion of the Solar System through space imparted a genuine Doppler shift of its own to all measurements of redshift. When this Solar System Doppler component was subtracted from the survey results, redshift quantization appeared globally across the whole sky [Tifft & Cocke, 1984, p.492]. Despite the size of the data set that the Fisher-Tully catalogue provided, the 'noisy data' argument continued as the official reason for rejection of the results. However, in 1985, there was an unexpected and independent confirmation of the quantization effects. Sulentic and Arp used radio-telescopes to accurately measure the redshifts of over 260 galaxies from more than 80 different groups for an entirely different purpose. As they did their analysis, the same quantizations that Tifft and Cocke had discovered surprisingly appeared in their data, and the measurement error was only 1/9th of the size of the quantization [Arp & Sulentic, 1985, p. 88; also Arp, 1987, pp.108, 110, 112-113, 119].
Gold Dragon
I don't know if it is important that the Earth be near the center of the Universe. But certainly the Earth is the center of God's attention. It is not a big stretch to believe that the Earth might also be the center of creation.
UTEOTW
To argue that because a majority believes one way is plain silly. We know from the Bible that the vast majority of people will not trust Christ. Well, the vast majority is wrong. DEAD WRONG.
Knowing that the majority of all people on Earth do not believe God's word, we can safely assume that the majority of scientists will tend not to believe the biblical creation account.
Creation and Evolution are faiths. No one can PROVE either.
But I believe God's account of creation which will not reconcile with evolution (or Big Bang) theory.
There is not always safety in numbers.
In 1981, the results of an extensive redshift survey by astronomers Fisher and Tully were published [Fisher & Tully, 1981, p.139]. The redshifts did not appear to be clumped in the way that Tifft had claimed, so astronomers dismissed Tifft's quantizations as merely due to a small data set. The idea was that if the data set was enlarged, the effect would go away, as seemed to have happened with the large Fisher-Tully catalogue. However, Tifft and Cocke conducted an analysis of the catalogue, and in 1984 they published their findings. They noted that the motion of the Solar System through space imparted a genuine Doppler shift of its own to all measurements of redshift. When this Solar System Doppler component was subtracted from the survey results, redshift quantization appeared globally across the whole sky [Tifft & Cocke, 1984, p.492]. Despite the size of the data set that the Fisher-Tully catalogue provided, the 'noisy data' argument continued as the official reason for rejection of the results. However, in 1985, there was an unexpected and independent confirmation of the quantization effects. Sulentic and Arp used radio-telescopes to accurately measure the redshifts of over 260 galaxies from more than 80 different groups for an entirely different purpose. As they did their analysis, the same quantizations that Tifft and Cocke had discovered surprisingly appeared in their data, and the measurement error was only 1/9th of the size of the quantization [Arp & Sulentic, 1985, p. 88; also Arp, 1987, pp.108, 110, 112-113, 119].
Gold Dragon
I don't know if it is important that the Earth be near the center of the Universe. But certainly the Earth is the center of God's attention. It is not a big stretch to believe that the Earth might also be the center of creation.
UTEOTW
To argue that because a majority believes one way is plain silly. We know from the Bible that the vast majority of people will not trust Christ. Well, the vast majority is wrong. DEAD WRONG.
Knowing that the majority of all people on Earth do not believe God's word, we can safely assume that the majority of scientists will tend not to believe the biblical creation account.
Creation and Evolution are faiths. No one can PROVE either.
But I believe God's account of creation which will not reconcile with evolution (or Big Bang) theory.
There is not always safety in numbers.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center of God's attention? I'm not saying that the earth isn't the centre of his attention, but what does this have to do with the bible?
Gold Dragon
I think it is pretty obvious that we are God's top priority. Afterall, he sent his only Son to die for us. And at the end the Lord will come down to Earth and live WITH us.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
So, Earth (or at least the new Earth) is very important. It will be the Lord's home. And ours.
This is why I say it is not a stretch to believe that the Earth could very well be the center of the Universe.
What does this have to do with the Bible? Well, the very first verse of the Bible says,
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This thread is about whether people believe the Bible or science is more reliable.
Many times science disagrees with the Bible. In case like this you must make the choice of which one you believe.
I believe the Bible. I am not saying that I always interpret it properly, but I believe the Bible is always true and correct.
I think it is pretty obvious that we are God's top priority. Afterall, he sent his only Son to die for us. And at the end the Lord will come down to Earth and live WITH us.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
So, Earth (or at least the new Earth) is very important. It will be the Lord's home. And ours.
This is why I say it is not a stretch to believe that the Earth could very well be the center of the Universe.
What does this have to do with the Bible? Well, the very first verse of the Bible says,
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This thread is about whether people believe the Bible or science is more reliable.
Many times science disagrees with the Bible. In case like this you must make the choice of which one you believe.
I believe the Bible. I am not saying that I always interpret it properly, but I believe the Bible is always true and correct.
"I disagree. Quantized redshifts have gained wide acceptance in astronomy today."
"Wide acceptance"?
Where is your support for such a claim? You have given us only six supporters. This is far from "wide" support. It is a tiny minority.
"Sulentic and Arp used radio-telescopes to accurately measure the redshifts of over 260 galaxies from more than 80 different groups for an entirely different purpose."
The first study to which I linked you used study used 67291 galaxies and 10410 quasars.
The second study to which I linked you points out that the effects which are being claimed are likely due to such small samples.
"As they did their analysis, the same quantizations that Tifft and Cocke had discovered surprisingly appeared in their data."
The third link I gave you was where TIFFT himself claims that the observations indicate something different than what you are claiming.
So, do you have anything, anything at all, to show where these concerns have been addressed? Do you have any reason, any reason whatsoever, to support your assertions which are in conflict with the assertions of one of the leaders of what you are claiming?
All of your references seem to be from the eighties. My first reference is from LAST MONTH. The second is from 1994. The third, 1996. Anything more recent?
"To argue that because a majority believes one way is plain silly."
I am sure you have a different opinion in different contexts.
But in this case, you have many knowledgable people. You are trying to use the opinion of a minority dispite their inability to convince their peers and dispite the data that goes against their position. In addition, you are going further out on a limb by ignoring what they claim the data means and making new claims which seem to have no support with anyone.
"...we can safely assume that the majority of scientists will tend not to believe the biblical creation account."
Only a slim majority. About half do claim to believe as Christians. Why do all these guys fail to agree with what you claim?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
"Creation and Evolution are faiths. No one can PROVE either."
Proofs are for math.
Creation is faith. It has no evidence.
Evolution is science. It is based on observation.
"But I believe God's account of creation which will not reconcile with evolution (or Big Bang) theory."
I'll agree that your interpretation of the Bible is unlikely to be reconciled with reality. But yours is not the only interpretation. Some even agree with God's general revelation to us in the Creation itself.
"Wide acceptance"?
Where is your support for such a claim? You have given us only six supporters. This is far from "wide" support. It is a tiny minority.
"Sulentic and Arp used radio-telescopes to accurately measure the redshifts of over 260 galaxies from more than 80 different groups for an entirely different purpose."
The first study to which I linked you used study used 67291 galaxies and 10410 quasars.
The second study to which I linked you points out that the effects which are being claimed are likely due to such small samples.
"As they did their analysis, the same quantizations that Tifft and Cocke had discovered surprisingly appeared in their data."
The third link I gave you was where TIFFT himself claims that the observations indicate something different than what you are claiming.
So, do you have anything, anything at all, to show where these concerns have been addressed? Do you have any reason, any reason whatsoever, to support your assertions which are in conflict with the assertions of one of the leaders of what you are claiming?
All of your references seem to be from the eighties. My first reference is from LAST MONTH. The second is from 1994. The third, 1996. Anything more recent?
"To argue that because a majority believes one way is plain silly."
I am sure you have a different opinion in different contexts.
But in this case, you have many knowledgable people. You are trying to use the opinion of a minority dispite their inability to convince their peers and dispite the data that goes against their position. In addition, you are going further out on a limb by ignoring what they claim the data means and making new claims which seem to have no support with anyone.
"...we can safely assume that the majority of scientists will tend not to believe the biblical creation account."
Only a slim majority. About half do claim to believe as Christians. Why do all these guys fail to agree with what you claim?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
"Creation and Evolution are faiths. No one can PROVE either."
Proofs are for math.
Creation is faith. It has no evidence.
Evolution is science. It is based on observation.
"But I believe God's account of creation which will not reconcile with evolution (or Big Bang) theory."
I'll agree that your interpretation of the Bible is unlikely to be reconciled with reality. But yours is not the only interpretation. Some even agree with God's general revelation to us in the Creation itself.
AntennaFarmer
Member
Absolutely, Galileo proved it was dangerous to be on the cutting edge.
A.F.
UTEOTW
Quantized redshifts are recognized as a provable phenomenon in astronomy today.
The argument is not so much whether quantized redshifts exist, but rather what they mean.
Now, there is much debate on that.
Here is an interesting article. Read Ether Lenses at the end. As you can see, this scientist believes that quantized redshifts indicate we are at the center.
This is just one more person's opinion. I am not going to search for thousands of articles to prove to you that quantized redshifts are widely accepted as scientific fact today. Look it up yourself. The info is out there if you care to look.
Besides, you seem to have already made up your mind.
Quantized redshifts are recognized as a provable phenomenon in astronomy today.
The argument is not so much whether quantized redshifts exist, but rather what they mean.
Now, there is much debate on that.
Here is an interesting article. Read Ether Lenses at the end. As you can see, this scientist believes that quantized redshifts indicate we are at the center.
This is just one more person's opinion. I am not going to search for thousands of articles to prove to you that quantized redshifts are widely accepted as scientific fact today. Look it up yourself. The info is out there if you care to look.
Besides, you seem to have already made up your mind.
AntennaFarmer
Member
That is not correct. Evolution is speculation based on science. The same goes for cosmology.
A.F.
"Here is an interesting article. Read Ether Lenses at the end. As you can see, this scientist believes that quantized redshifts indicate we are at the center."
Fallacy of the apeal to authority. This guy is an electrical engineer, not an astronomer. His primary reference is Arp, who is already in discussion. This does not show that the idea is widely accepted. It is not. You still have all of the problems with this idea that you have had all along.
Fallacy of the apeal to authority. This guy is an electrical engineer, not an astronomer. His primary reference is Arp, who is already in discussion. This does not show that the idea is widely accepted. It is not. You still have all of the problems with this idea that you have had all along.
That is not correct. Evolution is speculation based on science. The same goes for cosmology.</font>[/QUOTE]Evolution IS based on observation. We observe much evidence from genetics such as shared retroviral inserts, shared pseudogenes and shared transposable elements. We observe biogeography. We observe atavisms and vestiges and homologies. We observe the twin nested heirarchy. We observe developmental evidence. And of course we have all those transitional fossils that we can drag out.