[_ Old Earth _] Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity

[lordkalvan]

But luckily for me, the Bible is the Word of God and as such it speaks only Truth. So I can use it to confirm and deny scientific ideas. Like this concept of panspermia or abiogenics or TOE or the big bang theory.

The Bible is the product of a pre-scientific culture and offers very little in the way of an understanding of the ideas you mention, at least three of which appear to be entirely beyond the conceptions of those who wrote the Bible. Abiogenesis is itself dealt with in terms common to similar cultures, involving intervention by a variety of deities or other supernatural forces, in much the same way as many other phenomena now understood to have entirely naturalistic explanations were accounted for supernaturally. This does not deny the Bible as a meaningful spiritual guide for many.

 

[Green Man]

Good afternoon everyone[smile].
Pard post#60....
Pard, did you not read my post#40 within page 3?

How does one utilize theological Bronze-age literature to better understand and judge the validity of progressive modern-day scientific discoveries/evidences?

Please keep to your studies, and thread gently. You would not want to end up like Ken Ham, Bob Enyart, Ray Comfort, or any other such men who have tried to redefine reality/science in the name of Christianity and are thus forever stigmatized as "liars for the cause".

 

[Pard]

Never heard of them. Probably poor souls demonized by the "unbiased" scientific community...

 

[Green Man]

They are criticized by just about anyone with good critical thinking skills or the desire to not make Christianity look like a haven for delusional idiots and liars, Pard.2

 

[Pard]

Like a scientist, when I have no clue who they are, I have to go on what I know. Here is what I know:

1. Christians are regarded as "delusional" by the vast majority of the scientific community.

2. Most of these so called "delusional" Christians are actually very smart and on to something.

3. The scientific community likes to shut down anything it fears in any way, and the favorite form of "assassination" by the scientific community is to come out and denounce the people as "liars", "frauds", "idiots", "conspiracy theorists", and the like.

Given these knowns, as you would say, "anyone with good critical thinking skills" would conclude that they are just good hearted Christians being condemned by the scientific community.

The most ironic part of the whole thing is that the scientific community was created by Christians...

 

[Jake]

How very convenient.

if you created something, you couldn't manipulate it and change the nature of things? I think you could.

Umm, 'gravity' is not a law and, if you think that Newton's law of universal gravitation is apparently so obvious, then one wonders why it took so long to be formulated.

umm...yes, it is, ever heard about THE LAW OF GRAVITY, the attractive force between objects.

 

[Pard]

Technically speaking, all the physical aspects of everything are law, as God set them in a way so that they would always be.

 

[Jake]

Technically speaking, all the physical aspects of everything are law, as God set them in a way so that they would always be.

yes, and God can break His own laws of nature.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening gentlemen[smile].
Pard, a good scientist studies, conducts experiments, falsifies his experiments, and uses The Scientific Method to draw the best conclusions based on the results/data/evidences of said falsified experiments.
He wouldn't say "Well, even though I don't understand anything about the situation, or them, I'm going to just trust my gut about what I think I know[even if it cannot be scientifically confirmed]and assume that the critics are wrong and unfairly biased...because these liars happen to belong to the same religion I have."
Is that right? Because it sure seems as if this is what you are saying, and if so, that would be foolish of you.

Here, let me help you with the points that you listed[smile].

1. No, not really. It's these types of Christians that are regarded as delusional by the vast majority of the scientific community, and for very good reasons too. Being a Christian[or any kind of a theist]is in itself not enough to make one a negative target of scientific academia. It's lying about science, people, denying observable realities, and trying to create a custom-made, Bible-friendly pseudo-science to replace real science in order to promote your fantasy version of what you think science and scientific terms should be[because real science and reality didn't work for them]that makes you a target for criticism.

2. These types of people who's names I listed previously are very smart and on to something. They've found an easy way to control people and get rich off of the ignorant and the desperate. I don't worry about these people even half as much as I worry about their masses of devoted followers.
If I were a Christian I would be so disappointed in my fellow brethren, and how they make God and Christianity appear to many unbelievers......

3.Where do you get these ridiculous ideas about the scientific community?
Although many scientists do seem to take pleasure in proving things and people wrong, this is one of sciences greatest strengths, because this is how scientific knowledge advances/progresses. Frauds and mistakes within science are always discovered and solved by other scientists. What in the world is it that you think the "scientific community" is afraid of[grins]? You make them all sound like the Catholic Church during The Dark Ages. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples?

Rocky, a Deity may be able to breaks Natural Laws, but in regards to our Heliocentric Solar System[which of course is based upon gravity. Aren't you glad you brought it up?], it has been scientifically observed that this has not as of yet occurred.

 

[lordkalvan]

Like a scientist, when I have no clue who they are, I have to go on what I know. Here is what I know:

1. Christians are regarded as "delusional" by the vast majority of the scientific community.

According to this report, over 60% of scientists believe in God:

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

2. Most of these so called "delusional" Christians are actually very smart and on to something.

What are they 'on to', then? As your opinion seems to be that 'smartness' does not imply rightness of thinking, what grounds do you have for supposing that whatever they are 'on to' has any sound basis at all?

3. The scientific community likes to shut down anything it fears in any way, and the favorite form of "assassination" by the scientific community is to come out and denounce the people as "liars", "frauds", "idiots", "conspiracy theorists", and the like.

Do you have anything substantive to back up these assertions? How do you imagine new ideas become accepted in the scientific community at all?

Given these knowns, as you would say, "anyone with good critical thinking skills" would conclude that they are just good hearted Christians being condemned by the scientific community.

As these do not appear to be 'knowns' at all beyond your assertion that they are, your argument does not follow.

The most ironic part of the whole thing is that the scientific community was created by Christians...

Well, the modern scientific method has its foundations in Christian Western Europe, but I fail to see how this in any way validates the preceding argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

if you created something, you couldn't manipulate it and change the nature of things? I think you could.

First catch your rabbit. It depends what I have created.

umm...yes, it is, ever heard about THE LAW OF GRAVITY, the attractive force between objects.

In the context in which you used the word, you did not appear to be referring to the intellectual triumph that the formulation of the law of universal gravitation involved, but rather to the phenomenon of gravity itself. My apologies if I mistook your meaning. However, you still seem to be supposing that Newton's achievement was so obvious as to be unworthy of admiration. Have you a response to any of the other questions I asked?

 

[lordkalvan]

Technically speaking, all the physical aspects of everything are law, as God set them in a way so that they would always be.

All of which have consequences for our understanding of the natural world and several of which have immediate implications for our understanding of the age of Earth, the Universe and the development of life on this planet.

 

[lordkalvan]

yes, and God can break His own laws of nature.

All gods are imbued with similar attributes. What should we conclude from this?

 

[Deavonreye]

lordkalvin, . . . god MUST be able to "break his own laws" because he MUST be "mysterious" and "not understandable by us mere humans". It really is a matter of people making claims about a deity, as they do, because when physical laws are discovered, understandings of our physical universe are made, and they are found to be contrary to what the church has always taught [and found to be untrue, now], then the ONLY response MUST be that "god isn't bound by laws that he created", . . . without any evidence of it, of course. This is why you will have people stating that science is wrong because the bible can ONLY be right. . . .thus the earth IS unmovable, and such, "geocentricity".

 

[lordkalvan]

lordkalvin, . . . god MUST be able to "break his own laws" because he MUST be "mysterious" and "not understandable by us mere humans". It really is a matter of people making claims about a deity, as they do, because when physical laws are discovered, understandings of our physical universe are made, and they are found to be contrary to what the church has always taught [and found to be untrue, now], then the ONLY response MUST be that "god isn't bound by laws that he created", . . . without any evidence of it, of course. This is why you will have people stating that science is wrong because the bible can ONLY be right. . . .thus the earth IS unmovable, and such, "geocentricity".

Yes - when anything which otherwise appears impossible can be rendered 'possible' by simply invoking supernatural action to 'break' or violate the very laws that God supposedly imposed on the natural world to regulate it in the first place, one has abandoned any pretence that what is being discussed has anything to do with science or the scientific method at all: the Universe can be 6000 years old (despite God's natural laws showing it to be 13.7 billion years old), kinds can be separately created (despite God's natural laws showing evolution to be actually happening), etc. And yet YECists continue to try to substantiate their particular brand of belief with a patina of scientific credibility - presumably because they are at heart deeply aware of how pragmatically persuasive and credible scientific explanations can be.

 

[Jake]

All gods are imbued with similar attributes. What should we conclude from this?

That there is only one God.

 

[Jake]

lordkalvin, . . . god MUST be able to "break his own laws" because he MUST be "mysterious" and "not understandable by us mere humans". It really is a matter of people making claims about a deity, as they do, because when physical laws are discovered, understandings of our physical universe are made, and they are found to be contrary to what the church has always taught [and found to be untrue, now], then the ONLY response MUST be that "god isn't bound by laws that he created", . . . without any evidence of it, of course. This is why you will have people stating that science is wrong because the bible can ONLY be right. . . .thus the earth IS unmovable, and such, "geocentricity".

You are misunderstanding me when I say God breaks His own laws of nature, it has nothing to do with believers changing "their God" to fit science. In fact, I say that to not even discredit science in the least (although there are some major issues with "those intellects" as a community).

No, the reason I say that, in my observation, was God protecting believers and in another instance, saving lives. I saw two things happen that defied all laws. However, I am sure you will not believe me and/or that I was delusional, there would be nothing I could do to convince you, but I do know they happened. It's all Bibical, too, God broke His own laws all the time. They are His to break.

 

[lordkalvan]

That there is only one God.

How does this follow? Why does it not follow equally that supernatural beings are the creations of human imaginations unable to comprehend any other explanation for otherwise inexplicable phenomena? (Where did I come from? What causes thunder? What is the Sun? Why was my home destroyed by an earthquake? Why did the mountain explode and drown my family in molten rock?)

 

[jasoncran]

How does this follow? Why does it not follow equally that supernatural beings are the creations of human imaginations unable to comprehend any other explanation for otherwise inexplicable phenomena? (Where did I come from? What causes thunder? What is the Sun? Why was my home destroyed by an earthquake? Why did the mountain explode and drown my family in molten rock?)

well that is question science cant answer nor was it meant to.

to the agnostic, why does the universe have order? why isnt there just randomness?pard if you are reading this pm me.

 

[lordkalvan]

well that is question science cant answer nor was it meant to.

Sorry, Jason, but I rather thought it did.

to the agnostic, why does the universe have order? why isnt there just randomness?

It depends what you mean by 'order' and it depends what you mean by 'randomness'. Because meaning is individually important to us as human beings, this does not necessarily mean that the Universe also has to have meaning imbued in it. It is what it is, determined by the consequential 'laws' that followed its coming into existence. If those 'laws' were different, we wouldn't be here discussing them and it.