Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?

[freesoulhope]

please feel free to display your opinions on this subject.
I would like to hear peoples opinions on the subject.

While It is true that truth cannot contradict truth, and that God cannot contradict himself. Does that mean that what we have come to understand as “main steam scientific theorys” is correct and should be taken in with out Qeustion?

Are the laws of pysics continuos through out the universe? what i mean is, how do we know that the methods of reasoning on which we devolop theorys holds true to every thing we pecieve in are univeres?

is the laws of physics “constant” in are reality, that we might measure everything acording to are perception of reality?

I would very much like to hear peoples opinions on this matter, and also on whether or not we should ignore young earth creationist and anti evolutionist, who obviouly percieve a fualt in scientific reasoning. what do you think?

Are they just reacting acording to there faith or do they really see holes in the theorys that the scientific community is putting across to us?

 

[thistle]

freesoulhope:

please feel free to display your opinions on this subject.
I would like to hear peoples opinions on the subject.

While It is true that truth cannot contradict truth, and that God cannot contradict himself. Does that mean that what we have come to understand as “main steam scientific theorys” is correct and should be taken in with out Qeustion?

Are the laws of pysics continuos through out the universe? what i mean is, how do we know that the methods of reasoning on which we devolop theorys holds true to every thing we pecieve in are univeres?

is the laws of physics “constant” in are reality, that we might measure everything acording to are perception of reality?

I would very much like to hear peoples opinions on this matter, and also on whether or not we should ignore young earth creationist and anti evolutionist, who obviouly percieve a fualt in scientific reasoning. what do you think?

Are they just reacting acording to there faith or do they really see holes in the theorys that the scientific community is putting across to us?

You should do a search in the forums as there have been dozens of threads in which this subject has been extensively discussed. Most people are getting tired of having to keep discussing the same subject.

 

[freesoulhope]

Soooooooorrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy

 

[steveandersen]

thistle:

You should do a search in the forums as there have been dozens of threads in which this subject has been extensively discussed. Most people are getting tired of having to keep discussing the same subject.

Thistle, no reason to slap freesoulhope down

Many topics seem to spawn an unending series of threads. How many “Catholics worship Mary” or “Call no man Father” threads have there been?
Tedious as it can be, it is kinda part of the reason these forums are here.

freesoulhope,

(a) thistle is right, a quick use of the search option will bring you hours…and hours…and hours…of joyous reading of brothers and sisters in Christ warmly discussing these topics with each other

(b) "Is The World Old Or Young? " Very Old in human terms…the blink of an eye in God’s terms.

(c) “Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?” Yes, with your life. For your soul you may want to consult others.

 

[Marilena]

thistle:

You should do a search in the forums as there have been dozens of threads in which this subject has been extensively discussed. Most people are getting tired of having to keep discussing the same subject.

Then don’t reply.

 

[thistle]

Marilena:

Then don’t reply.

I was basing my comments on the comments of the posters who are experts and knowledgeable about evolution and the young earth. In fact I was paraphrasing them. Usually the first comment is Oh No not another evolution thread. Everybody then ends up copying and pasting what they said in the other threads. Several posters have already pointed out to freesoul hope in many of his threads that he should search and do research first and then come with questions. We are trying to get him to make best use of his time.

 

[buffalo]

Our knowledge of the universe is limited by our five senses. We try to understand based on this. Much we take on faith as we cannot and have not been given the power to see all that is.

Science by its own definition is limited in what it can say about the universe.

 

[freesoulhope]

thistle:

I was basing my comments on the comments of the posters who are experts and knowledgeable about evolution and the young earth. In fact I was paraphrasing them. Usually the first comment is Oh No not another evolution thread. Everybody then ends up copying and pasting what they said in the other threads. Several posters have already pointed out to freesoul hope in many of his threads that he should search and do research first and then come with questions. We are trying to get him to make best use of his time.

If they are experts then why cant i just get the information from them. my auguments are philosphical in nature. Im taking about the laws of physics not being a constant phenomina in are universe, and how that posibility might affect how we are looking at the world and how we are rationalising about it. I want to know why so many people who are just as educated, as the advocates of evolution, have a problem with the theory of evolution. not all of them are religous. I have reaserched both sides of the augument. some of the evolutionary ideas contradict the human bloodline from adam and eve in terms of time, and how long humans have been hear( it also raises the qeustion of there being many adam and eves). And then there are people like huge ross who has some intresting points also. I can go around and check out some other sites, but why cant i just ask hear?

 

[thistle]

freesoulhope:

If they are experts then why cant i just get the information from them. my auguments are philosphical in nature. Im taking about the laws of physics not being a constant phenomina in are universe, and how that posibility might affect how we are looking at the world and how we are rationalising about it. I want to know why so many people who are just as educated as them, have a problem with the theory of evolution. not all of them are religous. I have reaserched both sides of the augument. some of the evolutionary ideas contradict the human bloodline from adam and eve in terms of time, and how long humans have been hear( it also raises the qeustion of there being many adam and eves). And then there are people like huge ross who has some intresting points also. I can go around and check out some other sites, but why cant i just ask hear?

I agree with you. Of course you should get their comments. Do a search and read through all the threads about the subject. That’s where their comments are, including links to scientific papers.

 

[thistle]

thistle:

I agree with you. Of course you should get their comments. Do a search and read through all the threads about the subject. That’s where their comments are, including links to scientific papers.

By the way when I said above to do a search I meant in these forums and not other websites.

 

[richbansha]

One thing you may not find in a search is the idea that all existence is simultaneous. Super String theory tells us that there are 9 spacial dimentions. If there are multiple temporal dimentions, as suggested by Dr. Hawking’s concept of imaginary time, then it is possible that past, present and future were created together. Under those conditions, the act of creation can be recent in one axis of time, but history, geology and, yes I’ll say it, evolution can extend back billions of years before creation. Neat huh?

 

[buffalo]

richbansha:

One thing you may not find in a search is the idea that all existence is simultaneous. Super String theory tells us that there are 9 spacial dimentions. If there are multiple temporal dimentions, as suggested by Dr. Hawking’s concept of imaginary time, then it is possible that past, present and future were created together. Under those conditions, the act of creation can be recent in one axis of time, but history, geology and, yes I’ll say it, evolution can extend back billions of years before creation. Neat huh?

Like a rock hitting a pond (creation) and the ripples extend in all directions.

 

[DaveBj]

I’ll try to put the thread back on track by taking the first question.

There are two options:
1) The world is young.
2) The world is old.

However, the world does **appear **to be old.

If the old-appearing world is actually young, then that puts God in the position of the cooking show host who tells us the cake must be baked for 45 minutes at 400 degrees, puts the cake in the oven, breaks for three minutes of commercials, and then pulls “our cake” out of the oven, fully baked, when he comes back.

Hmm, something not quite truthful going on there.

DaveBj

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

If they are experts then why cant i just get the information from them.

You can

freesoulhope:

my auguments are philosphical in nature. Im taking about the laws of physics not being a constant phenomina in are universe, and how that posibility might affect how we are looking at the world and how we are rationalising about it.

The problem of course is that (and I know some folks here are going to object that there is a philosophy of science however) science isn’t philosophical
It is pretty much mundane
Its purpose is to observe and explain not to provide rationale

To answer your question directly, there is no evidence to support the notion that physics is not constant. Our current models for physics break down under certain special conditions but that doesn’t mean the physics changes just that we don’t understand it completely and need to revise the model to match all data.

freesoulhope:

I want to know why so many people who are just as educated, as the advocates of evolution, have a problem with the theory of evolution.

While the opponents of evolution may be educated, it is my experience that they are educated in fields other than biology or the other hard sciences so their expertise may not be that strong on this particular topic.

Although I am curious why you’re lumping physics in the universe with biology here on earth?

freesoulhope:

not all of them are religous. I have reaserched both sides of the augument.

From a strictly technical point of view there is no argument and there are no sides. Evolution is better understood than gravity.

freesoulhope:

some of the evolutionary ideas contradict the human bloodline from adam and eve in terms of time, and how long humans have been hear( it also raises the qeustion of there being many adam and eves).

Well yes, it does mean that a literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible
But geology told us that way before biology did
How does this affect faith?
God created the world and everything on it……does it matter how he did it?

The Church requires that we believe that we are descended from Adam & Eve. She (quite wisely IMHO) doesn’t attempt to explain how exactly that happened. She provides Truth on matters of Faith and morals…not biological processes

Science of course confirms common descent and provides a rough location and timeline. Since evolution deals with populations and not individuals it cannot provide details about a single pair.

freesoulhope:

And then there are people like huge ross who has some intresting points also. I can go around and check out some other sites,

Hugh Ross appears to take flak from all sides. The literal creationists don’t like him because he agrees with much of what science says. And he confounds the scientists by cherry picking which science to accept and basically rejecting most of modern biology.

but IIRC he is an astronomer so what he has to say about biology should be taken with some salt.

freesoulhope:

but why cant i just ask hear?

You can. Sooner or later some folks smarter than I will show up and offer up their $0.02.
What thistle was saying is that you can also use the search function on these forums (look for the pull down menu at that top) to get a selection of previous threads where this has been discussed in detail.

 

[buffalo]

DaveBj:

I’ll try to put the thread back on track by taking the first question.

There are two options:
1) The world is young.
2) The world is old.

However, the world does **appear **to be old.

If the old-appearing world is actually young, then that puts God in the position of the cooking show host who tells us the cake must be baked for 45 minutes at 400 degrees, puts the cake in the oven, breaks for three minutes of commercials, and then pulls “our cake” out of the oven, fully baked, when he comes back.

Hmm, something not quite truthful going on there.

DaveBj

Uh No! It could be our own inability or just wrong interpretation of the data.

 

[john_doran]

steveandersen:

From a strictly technical point of view there is no argument and there are no sides. Evolution is better understood than gravity.

yikes. leaving aside the fact that there are always sides to any issue, it’s hard for me to believe that you believe evolution is better understood than gravity…

 

[steveandersen]

john doran:

yikes. leaving aside the fact that there are always sides to any issue, it’s hard for me to believe that you believe evolution is better understood than gravity…

Why? It really has nothing to do with what I believe or not.

While the empirical affects of gravity are well understood (so much so that we can all pretty much unconsciously compensate for it when throwing a ball or walking) and gravity has been described mathematically since the time of Newton, the actual mechanism underlying it is still a mystery. The grand unification theory of gravity with the other forces of nature that explains classical mechanics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics still eludes some of the brightest minds on the planet.
n-dimentional space, strings, branes…way beyond my pay grade

As for evolution, the factual part of it, phylogeny, has been studied for centuries with genetics giving a much more complete understanding and it pretty much is what it is. The theoretical portion of it, i.e. natural selection as a mechanism, has been demonstrated in the lab and in the field numerous times. So I’m not sure what your objection is.

 

[freesoulhope]

richbansha:

One thing you may not find in a search is the idea that all existence is simultaneous. Super String theory tells us that there are 9 spacial dimentions. If there are multiple temporal dimentions, as suggested by Dr. Hawking’s concept of imaginary time, then it is possible that past, present and future were created together. Under those conditions, the act of creation can be recent in one axis of time, but history, geology and, yes I’ll say it, evolution can extend back billions of years before creation. Neat huh?

nice!

i had this idea once, would it be posible for two bubles of time and space( or universes) to come in to existences at the same time, but have two different time verations, i.e. billions of years old, inside one buble, while the other would be only a few thousand years, and out side the two bubles theres no time. Time could excelerate faster in one time buble and even slow down, while the other buble evolves in nomal time or “human time”. Are perception of time might be different to how fast time is actually moving out side of are minds!

 

[freesoulhope]

buffalo:

Uh No! It could be our own inability or just wrong interpretation of the data.

Yes! this is the thing, we say we have evidence, but only as far as are minds interpret it. simmerla to the way people interpret the bible in different ways creating different churches. We could simply be molding the so called “evidence” to fit are own agenda.

It is hard not to think of evolution as a very intelitgent conspiracy to prove that thier is no God. But they still fail cause they cant logically conclude that somthing can come out of nothing with out a helping hand from a supernatural being or ultimate reality with inteligents. it is imposible other wise.

 

[john_doran]

steveandersen:

While the empirical affects of gravity are well understood (so much so that we can all pretty much unconsciously compensate for it when throwing a ball or walking) and gravity has been described mathematically since the time of Newton, the actual mechanism underlying it is still a mystery. The grand unification theory of gravity with the other forces of nature that explains classical mechanics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics still eludes some of the brightest minds on the planet.
n-dimentional space, strings, branes…way beyond my pay grade

sure - we have yet to come up with a passable quantizing of general relativity. but we understand gravity just fine: we can land probes on planets hundreds of thousands of kilometres away only because we can solve gravitational equations to 10 or 11 decimal places. and so on. that’s understanding of a very important kind, a kind that evolutionary theory isn’t even remotely approaching.

i mean, in the sense that you’re talking about “understanding”, we don’t understand anything in science, since all science usually gives us is a choice between underdetermined, formally equivalent models, the ontological implications of which are often wildly divergent…

steveandersen:

As for evolution, the factual part of it, phylogeny, has been studied for centuries with genetics giving a much more complete understanding and it pretty much is what it is. The theoretical portion of it, i.e. natural selection as a mechanism, has been demonstrated in the lab and in the field numerous times. So I’m not sure what your objection is.

my objection is that the “just-so” stories of evolutionary biology, from the peer-reviewed journal articles to the stuff on talk origins, are about as far removed from the predictive and repeatable rigor of quantum theory as me whistling “row row row your boat” is from beethoven’s ninth.

i just find it incredibly unfortunate when people compare the conviction warranted by evolutionary theory with that of the most successful scientific theories of all time. it just makes no sense.

which, of course, isn’t to say that evolutionary theory is wrong - it’s just to place it in the correct epistemic context. which is provisional. very provisional.