[_ Old Earth _] only game in town

[reznwerks]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

 

[Heidi]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

 

[moniker]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

Obstinance in the face of new information, observations, techniques, and revelations is a virtue now?

 

[Heidi]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

Obstinance in the face of new information, observations, techniques, and revelations is a virtue now?

New information? :o I thought the old information was factual. Or weren't they facts? The question now becomes, which science do you believe; today's science, or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science? :o

 

[moniker]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

Obstinance in the face of new information, observations, techniques, and revelations is a virtue now?

New information? :o I thought the old information was factual. Or weren't they facts? The question now becomes, which science do you believe; today's science, or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science? :o

Imagine, if you will, a video tape of a bag that is hopping towards the camera. You watch this tape and are then asked to identify how the bag was able to jump irregularly like that. Some people think it is an old basketball, others think it's an animal, others believe other things. You spend as much time as you can watching the video and comparing its behaviour to a basketball you have. To a variety of animals and see what, if any, traits are similiar. Much debate and discussion and rival ideas expound and are believed to be the complete truth that solves the mysterious bouncing bag.

Later on you all get to watch the tape on a TV with volume. The bag contained a cat as evidenced by the mewing that you could hear.

Tell me, was any of the old information not factual? Any of the correlations between a cat's bounce and a basketball's non-existent? Now tell me if you think people should believe the bag contained a basketball in light of the newest revelations? The facts do not change simply what we can glean from them and our understanding of them.

The world was once thought flat. We now know it is in fact spherical thanks to a number of things. Would you throw out all of what NASA has learned, all that our tallest structures and longest bridges have shown because it disagrees with looking at the world from 5 feet above grade? Newtonian physics, satellites, etc. show that the Sun is the 'center' of our solar system and the Earth simply rotates on it's wobbling revolution which makes the sun appear to rise and fall on the horizon. Should we all go back to pre-copernican beliefs because our eyes agree with it even though our understanding of the world does not?

 

[Heidi]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

Obstinance in the face of new information, observations, techniques, and revelations is a virtue now?

New information? :o I thought the old information was factual. Or weren't they facts? The question now becomes, which science do you believe; today's science, or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science? :o

Imagine, if you will, a video tape of a bag that is hopping towards the camera. You watch this tape and are then asked to identify how the bag was able to jump irregularly like that. Some people think it is an old basketball, others think it's an animal, others believe other things. You spend as much time as you can watching the video and comparing its behaviour to a basketball you have. To a variety of animals and see what, if any, traits are similiar. Much debate and discussion and rival ideas expound and are believed to be the complete truth that solves the mysterious bouncing bag.

Later on you all get to watch the tape on a TV with volume. The bag contained a cat as evidenced by the mewing that you could hear.

Tell me, was any of the old information not factual? Any of the correlations between a cat's bounce and a basketball's non-existent? Now tell me if you think people should believe the bag contained a basketball in light of the newest revelations? The facts do not change simply what we can glean from them and our understanding of them.

The world was once thought flat. We now know it is in fact spherical thanks to a number of things. Would you throw out all of what NASA has learned, all that our tallest structures and longest bridges have shown because it disagrees with looking at the world from 5 feet above grade? Newtonian physics, satellites, etc. show that the Sun is the 'center' of our solar system and the Earth simply rotates on it's wobbling revolution which makes the sun appear to rise and fall on the horizon. Should we all go back to pre-copernican beliefs because our eyes agree with it even though our understanding of the world does not?

The problem is that each year, scientists change the age of the earth, the cause of tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. They simply don't know these things and are simply guessing or their theories would never change.

And Newton didn't invent anything. He simply discovered what had always been present. it simply took man long enough to figure it out.

So once again, when Scientists agree with God, they'll always be right and when they disagree with Him they'll always be wrong. When they use the cause-effect of the universe properly, i.e. God's design, then we can use that to prolong our lives. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. have always been present. So scientists haven't invented anything. Through trial and error they see what works and doesn't work. So it isn't scientists who do anything, it's God's design that we use everyday in our lives.

 

[moniker]

If that's what you meant then I don't see how we're arguing. :P You should change the 'facts' to 'observations' though.

When and how did the causes of incliment weather change? Meteorology is rather difficult to make any form of accurate predictions, at least make them early enough to matter, but I wasn't aware of the overall understandings to have had a paradigm shift anytime recently.

 

[Heidi]

If that's what you meant then I don't see how we're arguing. :P You should change the 'facts' to 'observations' though.

When and how did the causes of incliment weather change? Meteorology is rather difficult to make any form of accurate predictions, at least make them early enough to matter, but I wasn't aware of the overall understandings to have had a paradigm shift anytime recently.

The bible makes it quite clear that God causes the weather. In Genesis God said that he will every once in a while, display a rainbow to show the covenant he made with Noah that he would never allow a world-wide flood again. And, Mark 4:41, "Even the wind and the waves obey him!"

But what "scientists do, is as you say, observe these phenomena, i.e. pressure changes, wind speed, wind direction, and analyze the chemicals in them because all they know is what they can see. But they cannot cause or change them. Only God does that. And that's why meteorologists can't even predict the weather accurately, or stop it.

 

[reznwerks]

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'
Sholto Byrnes
10th April 2006


http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilte ... 0604100019

Then why do they keep changing their "facts"? :o I thought facts were the truth, or aren't they? If so, then why do scientists keep changing them? So which is it? :o

Would you care to give some examples of "facts" that have changed? There are and were assumptions made by the evidence at the time which drew a conclusion but these were not "facts". The conclusions may have changed based on the new evidence but "facts" rarely change. If you can find any that is good news as I can't think of anyone willing to believe something if in reality it were not true. Can you? :

 

[reznwerks]

If that's what you meant then I don't see how we're arguing. :P You should change the 'facts' to 'observations' though.

When and how did the causes of incliment weather change? Meteorology is rather difficult to make any form of accurate predictions, at least make them early enough to matter, but I wasn't aware of the overall understandings to have had a paradigm shift anytime recently.

The bible makes it quite clear that God causes the weather. In Genesis God said that he will every once in a while, display a rainbow to show the covenant he made with Noah that he would never allow a world-wide flood again. And, Mark 4:41, "Even the wind and the waves obey him!"
Every ancient culture has God that is responsible for the weather the crops etc. Are we to believe their Gods as well or only yours?

But what "scientists do, is as you say, observe these phenomena, i.e. pressure changes, wind speed, wind direction, and analyze the chemicals in them because all they know is what they can see.
What else is there? It is called science. It measures and tests what is known and observed.Anything else is called speculation.

But they cannot cause or change them.
On the contrary they can change them. Ever heard of seeding the clouds for rain? Many claim mans behavior is influencing the weather right now.

Only God does that. And that's why meteorologists can't even predict the weather accurately, or stop it.
Meteorologists can't always make accurate weather predictions because there are too many variables involved. In other words they still lack certain information. Will they always lack this info? Who knows it's one of those areas that answers are waiting to be discovered. It doesn't mean God is up there manipulating Doppler.

 

[Heidi]

What else is there? You can listen to God's word instead of the words of fallible human beings like scientists who have proven they're just guessing. Scientists aren't omniscient so putting your faith in them is putting your faith in shifting sand. New theories constantly replace old ones. So how do you know the new theories are correct? :o Every old theory was once a new theory.

 

[reznwerks]

word

What else is there? You can listen to God's word instead of the words of fallible human beings like scientists who have proven they're just guessing. Scientists aren't omniscient so putting your faith in them is putting your faith in shifting sand. New theories constantly replace old ones. So how do you know the new theories are correct? :o Every old theory was once a new theory.

Ask yourself a serious question. If Gods word were really reliable why wouldn't anyone listen too it? I mean there are countless heads of state that could benefit, heads of industry, leaders in health care etc etc. As to theories being put out to pasture that is what science does. It's part of the scientific process. When a theory is produced then the proving process begins. If it fails it is tossed. Theories are not taught as fact. Even though evolution is still theory there is enough evidence to consider it fact. This same holds true for gravity. I am still waiting for some "facts" that have changed .

 

[Hogan]

"... agree with God, they'll always be right and when they disagree with Him they'll always be wrong"

I find this to be an interesting argumentative tool. It seems an awful convenient way to back out of a conversation, no?

What really baffles me, is that many are quick to point out how science changes, and question how are we to know which is the correct science.... the past science, the current science, or the future science. I see this as having a mind that is willing to accept change based on current data. Humans make mistakes, and when possible, correct them.

Yet, on the other hand, when there is data that shows the Bible to have inaccuracies, you totally refuse to accept anything in there as being fallible.... regardless of who reports these inaccuracies "they have a questionable agenda". I see this as pretty closed minded when you consider the Bible was written by fallible humans.. well after the fact. Have you ever heard of the Telephone Game? Every time a story is retold, the facts change a little. How is it at all possible that some of the stuff isn't wrong?

Your typical answer? "... agree with God, they'll always be right and when they disagree with Him they'll always be wrong"

I ask you - how do I agree with God, and turn off my entire ability for reason, and thought? How do I know what God agrees with in the first place... by reading a book written by men, compiled over centuries of story telling?