I Want A More Definitive Understanding Of Scientific Beliefs

If you continue to believe that the sole purpose of advancement of our knowledge about the Universe is to discredit the bible then you are deluded in my opinion.
Now that is a cheap twist on what I said is it not?
Scientific inquiry is a good and noble endeavor as long as it plays in its own backyard. But the idea of a molten ball of rock is beyond ridiculous.. To make this basic observation is not to believe that the whole of scientific inquiry is up for discretization...sorry, you need to rething a few things here....Hint do some research it to Jupiter..what is known and what is surmised.
Visit http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/ Note that the temperature at the upper atmosphere is uncomfortably low, yet it is thought to be uncomfortably high deeper down Note also that there are observable storms there and obvious turbulence in the atmosphere..........why so cold when there is ample heating from within?? The fact that Jupiter is thought to be a 'Gas giant' and not a ball of rock has no real bearing on the physics being considered here. NO, you are wrong to accuse me as you have.
 
I see where you are going with this now. So according to Genesis, every fossil we find now is a direct result of the great flood? So every single fossil is exactly the same age also?

Your reply typifies what is wrong with some sections of the science community. You wish to dismiss my thoughts as being 'pro flood' imaginings without a shred of evidence to justify your surmize.
A few moments of thought should reveal that what I pointed out is indeed the truth as best as we can observe.
Please note that I pointed out that the flood was accompanied by geologic upheaval and was not solely due to a massive down pour.
even in recorded history there have been events that could generate fossils. My point was I believe, that fossilization requires catastrophic death and burial. That does not mean flood or flood only. That is observable, that is why fossils are found in sedimentary rock and not igneous rock
A sedimentary rock layer might form over very long period, but as we observe, carcases to not last that long. Perhaps that is why some sedimentary layers are without fossil presence. Those rich in fossils being those that were deposited quickly enough to stop the removal of any dead bodies., while other layers were not.
So no, you do not see where I am going at all, you seem to have a few preconceived ideas maybe derived from the type of hype you have chosen as an atheist to run with. That is OK if you want to be honest about it. Atheist and theist alike have closed minds, that is how and why we all can be typecast as we are.
 
Now that is a cheap twist on what I said is it not?
Scientific inquiry is a good and noble endeavor as long as it plays in its own backyard. But the idea of a molten ball of rock is beyond ridiculous.. To make this basic observation is not to believe that the whole of scientific inquiry is up for discretization...sorry, you need to rething a few things here....Hint do some research it to Jupiter..what is known and what is surmised.
Visit http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/ Note that the temperature at the upper atmosphere is uncomfortably low, yet it is thought to be uncomfortably high deeper down Note also that there are observable storms there and obvious turbulence in the atmosphere..........why so cold when there is ample heating from within?? The fact that Jupiter is thought to be a 'Gas giant' and not a ball of rock has no real bearing on the physics being considered here. NO, you are wrong to accuse me as you have.

What point are you trying to make? Gas giants form from a slightly different process to rocky planets. Are you saying the earth can have molten core and cool crust because thats what Jupiter exhibits? You simply can't compare Jupiter to Earth, you may as well compare apples and oranges.
Why does the idea of a molten earth frighten you so much?

Why would any rational person dismiss this theory as "ridiculous" and at the same time believe that a supernatural being that we have no evidence of simply waved his hand and created it? You're welcome to your myths but you can't reasonably apply some type of perverse logic to try and dispel proven theories.
 
So what it comes down to is this:
People are willing to discuss things and as you find you have no real argument, you are resorting to personal insult.
Why am I not surprised. But remember this you are a tolerated intrusion here. This is a Christian forum. You are out of place and out of order....rude fellow.
 
In that case I will leave, never wanted to be an intrusion. I don't think I've been rude at all but if that's how it appears then I'll not bother you anymore.

I have been called a liar, and accused of believing in fairy tales on this forum, you recently called my beliefs ridiculous. I reply that you believe in a supernatural being with no evidence and suddenly I am oit of place, out of order and rude! Really.

You need to get that big chip off your shoulder my mate it will drag you down.

Regards to those of you here that accepted me for a short while. It has been a pleasure.
 
The method geochronologists (scientists that date rocks) use to determine the age of the Earth is a method that requires the measurement of Argon-40 in rock samples. This method is called Potassium-Argon Dating. There are a few different types of potassium. The one we are interested in for this particular application is Potassium-40. It accounts for .0117% of all potassium. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.25 billion years. This means it takes 1.25 billion years for Potassium-40 to fall to half of its initial measured amount.

Now how are potassium and argon related? Well, when Potassium-40 begins to degrade, it will be degraded into Argon-40. The actual number that Potassium-40 will be degraded into is 11% Argon-40 and 89% Calcium-40. Now when rocks initially begin to form, let us use volcanic rock for example, there will already be a presence of Argon-40. Because the rock is still in a liquid state the Argon-40 will seep out because it is a noble gas. By the time the rock completely hardens all of the Argon-40 is gone and one of the important elements we are left with in our volcanic rock is Potassium-40. This stuff then begins to degrade and we start to have measurements of Argon-40 returning to the rock. We then take a sample and proceed to calculate how much Argon-40 we find in this volcanic rock. This becomes an indicator for how old the rock is because Potassium-40 will only degrade into a certain percent of Argon-40 over a period of time.


If you would like me to walk you through the actual equation used to calculate the age of rocks through the Potassium-Argon dating method, I can do so. It is basically high school math.


Now I am going to get into a bit of astronomy because it is also vital knowledge to possess.


It was found that it takes forty-two and a half hours for Io, a moon of Jupiter, to complete one orbit. Astronomer Ole Romer noticed Io would however immerge from a complete orbit later or earlier than expected, depending on the time of year. He realized that this variance occurred depending on the distance between Earth and Jupiter. Romer had just discovered that light does not travel instantaneously. It will take a longer amount of time for the light of an object to reach us when it is further, and a shorter amount of time when it is nearer. If I must, I can go into how we measure the speed of light and the distance to celestial objects, but I will only do that upon request.


The speed of light travels 300,000 kilometers per second or 1,080 kilometers an hour. Why do I suddenly bring up the speed of light? Well, because the speed of light is how astronomers measure great distances in astronomy and it also enables us to have insight to how our Earth came into being. Nobody wants to use 20, 30, or more digits in describing the distance to a celestial object in a paper or lecture. It would take too much time. And here is the perfect segue to describe exactly what the speed of light is. It is not only the measurement of distance, but also the measurement of time. Alpha Centarui is the nearest star system to us (we reside in the Solar System, which is our personal star system). It is 4.37 light years away. This means that it takes light from Alpha Centarui 4.37 years to reach us. Thus, we are seeing that star system as it was 4.37 years ago. Our star system, the Solar System, sits in a galaxy we have named the Milky Way Galaxy. It is approximately home to 300 billion stars. The nearest galaxy to our Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2,538,000 light years away. This means that when we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, we are seeing it as it was 2,538,000 years ago.


Within our own galaxy we can witness the birth of stars in what we call a “Protoplanetary Nebula”. These nebulas also get referred to as stellar nurseries. These nebulas are the remnant gases of a dead star (a process that our own star, the Sun, will go through at the end of its life in about 5 billion years). Under the force of gravity and stellar winds, gas swirls around and collects very densely into one area creating a new star. Other gasses and elements also come together to form orbits of dust and rock around the newly formed star. These elements eventually collide and stick together, forming new planetary systems. By witnessing this in several stellar nurseries, we can essentially look into a visual record of how our own star system came into being and even measure the time it takes to form a star system.


So now we know how our planet was created, and we know how to date really old things. Through geology we can see visual records on the development of our planet. Modern day earth quakes give insight into the movements of the Earths plates, showing us how are continents move and evolve. Satellite imagery gives us the ability to map and study deep sea volcanoes and other structures and how they formed the land masses that we know of today. Volcanology, the study of volcanoes, gives us evidence and insights into how our atmosphere, oceans and lands were created, and of course eventually the development and evolution of life. Through biology, zoology, and botany, we can study the actual development of life on Earth and measure its changes over time.


There is so much science here, and what I have presented is a very elementary view of it. To really get a grasp of all this and to learn more, it really requires you to study these fields of science in great detail. What is so great about science is its scientific method. It is completely objective and open to change. However, in order to disprove something already proven or theorized by science, you must develop a hypothesis, acquire data that can be tested, perform your test/experiment, analyze the results, then be able to re-test it (if it cannot be re-tested then how can you find any actually truth to your claims/hypothesis?), analyze that data, draw a conclusion, submit it for evaluation and at which point debate and analysis of your data and testing’s will be judged for accuracy and authenticity, then finally through peer review your conclusion will be proved, disproved, or found to be requiring more data and testing. It is a long and often tiring experience, but it enables us to discover accurate truths. Despite the trials it puts scientists through, it is always thrilling to discover something new. Even if it completely goes against what you initially theorized or believed to be true. It is in discovery of new knowledge that drives a scientist and perpetuates the thrill of it all.


I would also like to add (because I have the feeling it may have been brought up at some point here, but I do not have the time to read every post), the most horrible thing anyone can do to the scientific method is say, “how do we know that conditions that exist today were the same when the Earth was being developed?” Skepticism is not a bad thing, but to dismiss all of the evidence and laws of nature as we know it is absolutely wrong. It is unobjective, and it completely works against the development of scientific knowledge. Evidence must be provided. There is a long man made history to the Bible that must be met with skepticism and evidence found through the artifact/anthropological/written record of time. Ignoring these things and allowing oneself to believe in any particular thing without sufficient data and analysis, pushes humanity into believing fallacies. There is no evidence to suggest that the laws of nature existed differently at another time in our development. I urge everyone taking part in this discussion and who are reading it to not negatively judge or dismiss scientific investigation or my attempt to be objective in my post. I also urge everyone to study the scientific method. It is among one of the most important discoveries and way of investigating the world in which we live and the Universe in which it resides.


I also implore that we all be respectful of each other and the time we take to discuss these important subjects. Less is achieved through hostile disagreement. It is also very beneficial to research things we believe to be facts before standing sternly with them. Education and objectivity are two of the most important things to discovery and civility.
 
I'm not so sure it's worth trying to 'prove' the truth of the Bible to people whose minds are closed and twisted by sciencism. People with closed minds are so in love with 'knowledge' they ignore what is really important.
 
I'm not so sure it's worth trying to 'prove' the truth of the Bible to people whose minds are closed and twisted by sciencism. People with closed minds are so in love with 'knowledge' they ignore what is really important.

Then, what is really important?

I can tell you, a scientist is thrilled by the prospect of knowledge. They are also thrilled to do what they love because it gives a purpose. It can be surmised that purpose is what makes us whole, therefore doing what one loves makes us whole. From my understanding believing in God makes a person of faith whole -- this is what they truly love. So for you, you love to practice your faith. Ergo, you and a scientist are equally whole. Also, from my understanding, it is not the act of faith that is required, but it is the act of kindness and love which is valued and found to be holy in Christianity. Jesus was a lover, not a fighter. If a scientist then loves equally as much as a Christian, does this make them any less of a person simply because they do not practice a faith in religion?

Has anyone here ever read Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave'?
 
I start to think maybe I'm quasi-intelligent until I read posts on threads like this and I realize-- nope. I'm not. Lol :)
 
Then, what is really important?

I can tell you, a scientist is thrilled by the prospect of knowledge. They are also thrilled to do what they love because it gives a purpose. It can be surmised that purpose is what makes us whole, therefore doing what one loves makes us whole. From my understanding believing in God makes a person of faith whole -- this is what they truly love. So for you, you love to practice your faith. Ergo, you and a scientist are equally whole. Also, from my understanding, it is not the act of faith that is required, but it is the act of kindness and love which is valued and found to be holy in Christianity. Jesus was a lover, not a fighter. If a scientist then loves equally as much as a Christian, does this make them any less of a person simply because they do not practice a faith in religion?

Has anyone here ever read Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave'?

"From my understanding believing in God makes a person of faith whole". - I don't think that's true, Ricky. I 'believe' in gravity, that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that fish use gills to breathe - but these scientific facts don't make me 'whole'. Only God can do that. It's not 'belief' that matters, but trust. I trust God to tell me the truth about me and the world around me, and He has given us all the knowledge we truly need in His Book.
 
"From my understanding believing in God makes a person of faith whole". - I don't think that's true, Ricky. I 'believe' in gravity, that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that fish use gills to breathe - but these scientific facts don't make me 'whole'. Only God can do that. It's not 'belief' that matters, but trust. I trust God to tell me the truth about me and the world around me, and He has given us all the knowledge we truly need in His Book.

I understand that YOU may not feel "whole" from scientific endeavors, but it is rather the feeling shared by scientists. The intent of my previous comment was to draw a similarity between Christians and Scientists, NOT TO IMPLY YOU should feel or could be whole from the study of science. I also do not understand how science challenges a persons belief, or trust for that matter, in God. Simply put, where is the harm in understanding God's creations? You mention and do not dispute gravity, the atomic structure of water, and the function of biology, however how were these things discovered and their functions determined? It was through science that we learned these things and made them common knowledge. It is through science that our modern society exists, and I do not simply mean the gadgets and gizmos that we have invented, but the learned knowledge that went into creating this modern society.

I feel it is completely acceptable for a person to claim a non-believer is missing something great in their life by not accepting a Christian God. However, what about objective science which is not a living thing? It requires no god -- it has no soul because it is simply a method of discovery -- like a ship sailing into the horizon to find new lands. All that science requires is objective pursuit so that it may lead to the advancement and progressive knowledge of a society. The way I see it, science can only add to a persons greater appreciation to God's creations by really making us understand the remarkable detail of it all. It is like adding color to a black and white photo -- everything becomes so much more vibrant and real.

To address your statement, "He has given us all the knowledge we truly need in His Book," I ask the following.
There is so much knowledge that every single one of us uses every day that is not found in the Bible. If all the knowledge we need is in His Book, then why have so many Christians submitted themselves to becoming believers of knowledge learned after the pages of the Bible were bound? Why is there not a massive Christian exodus from modern society so that they may live in isolation and ONLY live by the knowledge and moral teachings of the Bible?

I also have an additional question, because I am no expert on the Bible. Does it state the pursuit of knowledge and discovery of God's creations is wrong? Is there some passage that explicitly explains that scientific endeavors are a sin?
 
I understand that YOU may not feel "whole" from scientific endeavors, but it is rather the feeling shared by scientists. The intent of my previous comment was to draw a similarity between Christians and Scientists, NOT TO IMPLY YOU should feel or could be whole from the study of science. I also do not understand how science challenges a persons belief, or trust for that matter, in God. Simply put, where is the harm in understanding God's creations? You mention and do not dispute gravity, the atomic structure of water, and the function of biology, however how were these things discovered and their functions determined? It was through science that we learned these things and made them common knowledge. It is through science that our modern society exists, and I do not simply mean the gadgets and gizmos that we have invented, but the learned knowledge that went into creating this modern society.

I feel it is completely acceptable for a person to claim a non-believer is missing something great in their life by not accepting a Christian God. However, what about objective science which is not a living thing? It requires no god -- it has no soul because it is simply a method of discovery -- like a ship sailing into the horizon to find new lands. All that science requires is objective pursuit so that it may lead to the advancement and progressive knowledge of a society. The way I see it, science can only add to a persons greater appreciation to God's creations by really making us understand the remarkable detail of it all. It is like adding color to a black and white photo -- everything becomes so much more vibrant and real.

To address your statement, "He has given us all the knowledge we truly need in His Book," I ask the following.
There is so much knowledge that every single one of us uses every day that is not found in the Bible. If all the knowledge we need is in His Book, then why have so many Christians submitted themselves to becoming believers of knowledge learned after the pages of the Bible were bound? Why is there not a massive Christian exodus from modern society so that they may live in isolation and ONLY live by the knowledge and moral teachings of the Bible?

I also have an additional question, because I am no expert on the Bible. Does it state the pursuit of knowledge and discovery of God's creations is wrong? Is there some passage that explicitly explains that scientific endeavors are a sin?

Hi, Ricky!
I don't mean that the Bible holds all knowledge; simply all the knowledge we need. And I don't mind people finding out new things; but using science to 'prove' that God's Word is untrue shows that the 'method of discovery' used by modern science is clearly wrong. And, no, the Scriptures do not say that science is wrong; the natural philosophers who predated 'scientists' sought deeper knowledge of what God taught in His Word; 'science' went off on the wrong track by ignoring the ultimate source of truth; God teaches us in the Bible not to make idols out of our own knowledge. Check out 2 Peter 1:3 "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." The only knowledge we need is of Him! Everything else is just extra and can lead us on to the wrong path.
 
Back
Top