18 Jun 11
Originally posted by KunsooVery convenient way of dodging a question that every scientist in the field of cosmology must have pondered and set aside for want of an answer. If you set up an artificial fencing/boundary around some phenomena under examination,you may get an explanation but not the TRUTH.
Technically speaking, there might not have been a "before the big bang."
Originally posted by RJHindsScience creates a working i.e. an approximate model of a part of the Universe and then sets up a boundary around the working model,proceeds to describe the phenomenon within that boundary,sets up axioms which are then used to describe the properties of the phenomenon,basically a collection of successful recipes( i.e. without explaining why the rules are the way they are.)
That is exactly the way he defines it. To him it is not logical to include
God. And to include any thing in the Holy Bible is not science to him.
It,by definition,refuses to consider anything ouside the boundaries set up by it.
It is very easy then to describe anything outside the booundary as untrue.
Scientists should actually concede that there are many things in this universe that lack scientific explanation and then leave those fields for other people who from times immemorial have tried to pursue the areas outside scientific enquiry.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIt seems to me then that science would yield only an approximate truth,
Science creates a working i.e. an approximate model of a part of the Universe and then sets up a boundary around the working model,proceeds to describe the phenomenon within that boundary,sets up axioms which are then used to describe the properties of the phenomenon,basically a collection of successful recipes( i.e. without explaining why the rules are t ...[text shortened]... ther people who from times immemorial have tried to pursue the areas outside scientific enquiry.
if there is such a thing.
18 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoAn excellent observation. What this type of limited thinking has produced is an intolerance to anything that is not base materialism.
Science creates a working i.e. an approximate model of a part of the Universe and then sets up a boundary around the working model,proceeds to describe the phenomenon within that boundary,sets up axioms which are then used to describe the properties of the phenomenon,basically a collection of successful recipes( i.e. without explaining why the rules are t ...[text shortened]... ther people who from times immemorial have tried to pursue the areas outside scientific enquiry.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere are you getting all this nonsense from? Are you just making it up yourself?
What is your answer to the following:
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down due to the gravitational
drag forces of the Sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth is billions of
years old and it has been slowing down uniformily, as the uniformitarian
geologist insist, then its present rotation should be zero.
Calculations based on the ...[text shortened]... s
known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system is no more than
about 10,000 years old.
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down due to the gravitational
drag forces of the Sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth is billions of
years old and it has been slowing down uniformily, as the uniformitarian
geologist insist, then its present rotation should be zero.
Simply wrong.
Calculations based on the known recession speed of the moon and a
presumed age of 4 billion years requires the moon to be much farther
away from the earth than it is.
Whose calculations? Yours?
Evolutionists say the radioactive decay processes of uranium and thorium
that produce helium have been going on for billions of years. If so, the
earth's atmosphere should contain much more than the present 1 part in
2000,000 of helium. Realistic calculations disclose the amount of time
required to produce the observed helium is about 10,000 years.
More nonsense. See:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/helium.html
Dr. Henry M. Morris has calculated that the average growth in population
of only 1/2 % per year, which is 1/4 the present rate, would yield the
present human population in just 4,000 years.
The same Dr Morris who wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael? He sounds well rational...
Each time a comet orbits the sun, a small part of its mass is boiled off.
Careful studies indicate that this effect on short-term comets would have
totally dissipated them in about 10,000 years. Based on the fact that
there are still many comets orbiting the sun and no source of new comets
known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system is no more than
about 10,000 years old.
No new source of comets? You don't accept the existence if the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud then?
Your data and sources as revealed so far are entirely lacking in credibility although admittedly jolly entertaining.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOkay let us take one point at a time. If you doubt the the earth is slowing
Where are you getting all this nonsense from? Are you just making it up yourself?
[b]The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down due to the gravitational
drag forces of the Sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth is billions of
years old and it has been slowing down uniformily, as the uniformitarian
geologist insist, then its ...[text shortened]... as revealed so far are entirely lacking in credibility although admittedly jolly entertaining.
down look at http://novan.com/earth.htm which gives the following information from the evolutionary scientist point of view:
It is well known that the rotation of planet Earth is gradually slowing. For four and one half billion years, its entire lifetime, its rate of rotation has been gradually slowing. As the Earth loses its kinetic energy due to all forms of friction acting on it; tides, galactic space dust, solar wind, space weather, geomagnetic storms, etc., like any flywheel, it will slow down. (The space surrounding the planet is far from empty).
Do you doubt the earth is slowing down, if so, what is your reference?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoScience does assign placeholders here and there, where it has reached a current (and conceivably permanent) limit of study. Some people think this means it cannot find TRUTH and they are right, because whatever it is that is connotated by USING ALL CAPS is not in the domain of science.
Very convenient way of dodging a question that every scientist in the field of cosmology must have pondered and set aside for want of an answer. If you set up an artificial fencing/boundary around some phenomena under examination,you may get an explanation but not the TRUTH.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseI like the following video which shows a questioner catching Richard Dawkins
You mean like where the Earth is approximately 6000 years old, give or take a few billion?
in a lie about evolution. He has to take time to think up another lie to
save face by accusing the questioner of not understanding how evolution
works. He admits that apes are not our ancestors. But he puts forward
that some other imaginary creature was both the ancestor of the ape
and man. Why should we believe such nonsense without proof?
&NR=1
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not sure what would constitute 'proof'. But certainly, you shouldn't believe such claims without evidence, and good evidence for that matter. However, you also shouldn't deliberately turn a blind eye to the evidence as you do on religious grounds.
Why should we believe such nonsense without proof?
Nor should you continue to deliberately perpetuate lies because of your religious beliefs.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis need repeating for you information:
I am not sure what would constitute 'proof'. But certainly, you shouldn't believe such claims without evidence, and good evidence for that matter. However, you also shouldn't deliberately turn a blind eye to the evidence as you do on religious grounds.
Nor should you continue to deliberately perpetuate lies because of your religious beliefs.
This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to the belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers
know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
Matthews, L.H., The Origin of Species, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.
19 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy do you continue to quote 20th century lines? I hate to say it but we are 11 percent into the next century, its 40 years on from that era. Find something modern.
This need repeating for you information:
This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then a science or a faith? Belief ...[text shortened]... ecies, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.