WOW… I have no words for what I have just seen on their YouTube channel. But what is even more concerning is the stuff in the comments. Crumbs!
1 Like
That is not the case in the sciences at all. In science good grades are based on getting the correct answers. Putting out a good argument for the wrong answer doesn’t get you anything. How do we know what the correct answers are? They can be demonstrated by written procedures which give the same result no matter who does them or what they want or believe. That is what gives the results in science an objectivity you cannot find in the humanities including philosophy and theology, where things are largely based on rhetoric - i.e. the quality of the argument you give.
Yes, YEC and theology is founded on rhetoric and making an argument that sounds good with big questions. Like a lawyer or car salesmen they make what they are selling sound like something of huge and fantastic importance… and whether the client is guilty, the car is crap, or you frankly haven’t a clue as to why God created is something they never have to take responsibility for.
The world and history is filled with people who show all kinds of fervor for God and yet they do endless evil in God’s name. We know this for a fact because of how contradictory their actions are. We cannot take their interpretations as truth.
Scoff? Can the words of Jesus against the Pharisees be described as scoffing?
Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
No I do not scoff. For those who push lies in an effort to exclude people from from God’s grace and use the gifts of God to lord it over others, I have only condemnation. The Christian gospel is one of salvation by the grace of God quite different from the Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowing and believing “the right things.” The evidence for evolution is overwhelming but whether you believe this has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Real science and theology are about completely different things.
Oh yeah. Like: “The stars are angels”, which got a ‘like’ from the author (is that even in the Bible?). And even better, over 900 comments and not a single “uncomplimentary” comment.
Edit: I asked in parentheses “is that even in the Bible?” Argh. I should have know, of course it is!
But wait, there’s more.
Here’s the ICR carrying an article, Stars in Heaven, by the one and only Henry Morris trying valiantly to explain it to us. Morris held a PhD in hydraulic engineering, so of course that more than qualified him to share his opinions on biblical exegesis. Regrettably the ICR doesn’t understand that the Law of Holes applies here.
3 Likes
That’s the arts, not the sciences, Adam. Eloquent arguments might get you good grades in art, or literature, or philosophy, or law, or politics, but not in science. In science, good grades very much are based on truth.
In any case, science isn’t just done in academia. It is also done in industry. Such as, for example, the oil industry. And in industry, a scientific lie most certainly would not obtain a High Distinction in anything. In industry, scientific lies can end up getting people killed.
The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists strongly oppose YEC has nothing whatsoever to do with “not caring about the philosophical importance of God and Creation.” The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists strongly oppose YEC is that science has rules. There are strict protocols that you have to adhere to and strict standards that you have to maintain. And YECism doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of those standards, let alone make the slightest attempt to stick to them.
The word you are looking for here is “rebuke,” not “scoff and ridicule.” If an organisation is fudging measurements, quote mining, making things up and misrepresenting raw evidence, then of course Christians who are competent to check such matters and hold them accountable should rebuke them firmly.
7 Likes
complete ********…you cant get a science degree without academic qualifications. It is fictitious to now think that the academia processes are then ignored.
and who rebukes TEism when it follows a secular model that is contrary to the Bible? This is my point, we take the astro physical observations and interpreter them from the world view of “there is no God”…TEism then uses that same scientific interpretation to make the claim that YECism is wrong because it takes the biblical theology first, and then attempts to discover real science that supports the biblical theology.
I do not see how that can be achieved when we start fudging around with gravity vs atomic attractions and claim that they may behave differently simply because secular world view science says it must be so. Why cannot the YEC scientific model be considered? Are we saying that Michael Behee, Stephen Myer, Kirt Wise, Andrew Snelling and all of those other scientists are wrong because they do not agree with the mainstream secular model?
Why should we do this when Stephen Hawking himself admitted that the origins of the universe remain unknown? I do not know why I should be expected to believe in a model that openly claims it cannot answer the most basic of all scientific questions…where did the energy and matter come from that is the Big Bang?
The answer I have recently read is…“it was always there”
Now see here is the problem with the “it was always there” answer.
- two gentlemen accidently discovered background microwave radiation that clearly proves the universe had an origin
- If there was a point of origin, that means that there is absolutely a beginning.
- If there was a beginning, how can any idiot make the claim it was always there? (it doesn’t even make any logical sense)
So when instead I read the Bible…
- In the beginning God
- created the heavens and the earth
- and he formed man out of the dust of the earth
- and he came down close and breathed the breath of life into mans nostrils and man became a living being.
- man sinned and was separated from God
- Wages of Sin is death
- God himself came down and paid the ultimate price for sin…he gave up his own life for his creation.
- God proves that Him creating is an act of love by dying for his creation in point 7 above.
9 One day, God is going to restore all of this nonsense back to its former glory. he is going to wipe away sin, tears, pain, death and there will be a new heaven and a new earth as the former that are full of sin will pass away.
There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away ." Revelation 21.4
I do not see how any of the above in the Bible narrative are not consistent across its pages, are not supported by history, and do not answer the questions of our existence that secular science remains unable to answer. I also do not see how it is possible to claim that death is unrelated to sin when clearly the very end of the plan of salvation outlined in the bibles pages specifically tells us, “there will be no more death”!
This has been said to you over and over again. ALL science is done from the “worldview” of agnosticism towards God existing or not:
- The Hall Effect
- The Heat Equation
- The Krebs Cycle
- The Friedmann Equation
- The Navier-Stokes Formula
- Beer’s Law
- Ohm’s Law
- Fick’s Law of Diffusion
- Foster’s Rule
- Law of superposition
- Principle of Original Horizontality
- Etc. Etc. Etc.
That’s not the reason YECism is wrong. But yet, YECism does science completely backwards and incorrect.
I’ve explained and so have others multiple times about gravity and atomic interactions. They don’t behave differently because “secular worldview science says it must be so.” They behave differently because they are different in reality and experiments confirm this over and over. If you don’t get this and just continue along the same path repeating falsehoods, there’s no point for this conversation (or any like it) to continue with you.
Because it’s wrong and has been demonstrated to be wrong for hundreds of years. First by geology, then physics, then biology, and every other field of science.
No, we are saying they are wrong because they are wrong.
Please stop using arguments like this. What does it matter what Stephen Hawking says? That’s not how science works. You don’t have a “prophet” who interprets all of reality for you and then you just take them at their word.
Right, so let’s be ignorant and ignore what science CAN explain, and pretend that because it can’t explain this one thing or that one thing, everything we know is wrong. You are basically saying,
“Ha, since science can’t explain X, therefore whatever I want is true!”
Do you see how that might be a bad argument?
3 Likes
Where, pray tell, did I say that you can? You’re putting words into my mouth there, Adam. Stop it.
People who are obeying the Bible themselves. In particular, people who are obeying these verses of Scripture:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
And no, don’t you dare tell me that I’m taking those verses out of context. Don’t you dare tell me that they only apply when buying and selling is involved. Don’t you dare tell me that they don’t apply to science, or to any other subject where measurement is involved, for any other reason. Because to deny that those verses apply to science is to demand the right to tell lies about science.
Because the YEC “scientific” model does not have accurate and honest weights and measures, it’s as simple as that. It does not obey Deuteronomy 25:13-16. It even goes so far as to flat-out deny that it has to obey Deuteronomy 25:13-16. As such, it is not scientific, it is not Biblical, and it is not honest.
No they are not wrong because they “do not agree with the mainstream secular model.” They are wrong because they fudge measurements, misrepresent evidence, quote mine, exaggerate things out of all proportion, and dismiss basic standards of quality control as “rescuing devices.” These are failings that have nothing whatsoever to do with “secularism” but that flout the rules and standards of basic honesty that apply to everyone, Christians and secularists alike.
4 Likes
It has been. Evidence that the earth is ancient has piled up over the past few centuries. By the start of the twentieth century, the evidence was overwhelming and the debate over. There is no recent controversy.
It is not scientific, so there is no YEC scientific model. YEC is a mishmash of theology and apologetics; the science references are just ornamentation.
Atoms are not little galaxies. It is obvious that you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of classical or modern physics. That is OK, but if you have so little interest in the actual physics, why are you attempting to upend science with contrived folksy arguments? Both @jammycakes and I have pointed out that it is measurement and not philosophy which is central to science, and you have just ignored that.
Measurement not philosophy.
Measurement not theology
Measurement not rhetoric.
Measurement not debate points.
Measurement not dogma.
Scientific methodology is specifically about removing such distortions in the pursuit of knowledge about nature.
Not at all. Some are wrong because they distort the basic facts and body of data which incontrovertibly supports an ancient earth. In many instances, they are culpable of false witness.
If it matters, both Michael Behe and Stephen Myer recognize that the earth is billions of years old.
2 Likes
This is simply not correct. Science is based on a methodology of procedural honesty and objectivity – for honesty we test hypotheses rather than seek to prove them and for objectivity we come up with written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same results no matter what they want or believe. It is not based on a worldview except for some basic assumptions that the objective evidence does not lie – not some great conspiracy by undetectable liars fabricating the evidence to deceive us. Thus it is a basic part of the method that beliefs about God have no part and do not matter in the work of science. Many scientist have believed that all this objective evidence has been given to us by God to inform us how things are, and others have believe God has nothing to do with it. And this difference doesn’t matter because such beliefs are irrelevant to how science works.
There is a scientific worldview but it is a product of the scientific investigation by means of its methodology rather than the basis of science – namely that the universe operates according to space-time mathematical laws of nature. It cannot establish that there are no exceptions and it has in fact established that this is not a causally closed system, but those mathematical laws have proven reliable predictors of events.
Okay, I think we agree with each other though.
2 Likes
The problem is that this is something that is often badly explained, and explained in ways that are easily misunderstood by many Christians, especially YECs.
So if you say, “Science is done in ways that do not take beliefs about God into account,” many Christians will then hear, “Science is done in ways that actively oppose the concept of God having anything to do with it.” And they will hear it that way whether that is your intention or not.
And they aren’t being dishonest here either. It really, genuinely does sound like that. Or, at the very least, it has enough ambiguity in it that it could easily sound like that, especially to anyone who isn’t paying close attention and doesn’t have the same concept of exact, precise language that scientists and engineers are used to.
That’s why I’m always careful to emphasise that science is not about secularism. It’s why I’m careful to express it in terms of the rules that science has to adhere to, and to explain that the rules are exactly the same for Christian and atheist alike, and exactly the same whether God is involved or not.
3 Likes
I nitpick because in the efforts to promote compatibility between science and Christianity the precise language is important.
1 Like
That’s a good point, thank you for the helpful suggestion of rephrasing.
3 Likes
The YEC model has been considered. It failed. The evidence is not consistent with a young Earth, a recent global flood, or separately created species.
That is not what we are saying. We are saying that YEC’s are wrong because the evidence contradicts their claims. It’s about the evidence.
If you accept the evidence for the universe having a beginning then you accept the ancient age of the Earth and Universe.
We can lack the knowledge of where the energy at the origin of the universe came from and still know that the Earth is old, there was no recent global flood, and that all species share a common ancestor.
@jammycakes, I can assure you in the liberal arts or my praxis-focused coursework, no one got good grades for rectally sourced fabrications made up nonsense presented as strong arguments. We were expected to know and understand background of and theories about literature and apply them or argue against them. Same with history, linguistics, English academic research methods, German language and literature courses, history of German, library cataloging, art history, HTML (ancient times, carved on stone tablets), library reference, teaching literacy, childhood psychology, etc. We didn’t get to just make stuff up. The strength of one’s arguments was based in knowledge, understanding and an appropriate application of the course content. Then you had to write it well to communicate your thoughts clearly enough to your prof and classmates.
Don’t let him dupe you. That post is full of misinformation.
This is simply not truth.
Even in the Liberal Arts, one is not granted a good grade based on some flowery nonsense. Demonstration of comprehension of the material and arguments with, for, or against are all dependent on a mastery of what is being studied and it’s application. A prof worth her salt knows fabrication and misapplication, when she sees it, and will not reward it.
2 Likes
From a theoretical physicist: (Moderator note & EDIT: Mathis is not a theoretical physicist or a physicist at all. The following was also taken from Unified fields in disguise by Miles Mathis without citing the source):
Both Newton’s and Coulomb’s famous equations are unified field equations in disguise.
Yes, both Newton and Coulomb discovered unified field equations. That is why their two equations look so much alike. But the two equations unify in different ways. Newton was unaware of the E/M field, as we know it now, so he did not realize that his heuristic equation contained both fields. And Coulomb was working on electrostatics, and likewise did not realize that his equation included gravity. So the E/M field is hidden inside Newton’s equation, and the gravitational field is hidden inside Coulomb’s equation.
Let’s look at Newton’s equation first.
F = GMm/r^2
[H]ow can we get two fields when we only have mass involved? Well, we remember that Newton invented the modern idea of mass with this equation. That is to say, he pretty much invented that variable on his own. It would have been better if Newton had written the equation like this:
F= G(DV)(dv)/r^2
He should have written each mass as a density and a volume. Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick.
Once we have density and volume in Newton’s equation, we can assign density to one field and volume to the other. We let volume define the gravitational field and we let density define the E/M field. Both fields then fall off with the square of the radius, simply because each field is spherical.
The biggest pill to swallow is the necessary implication that gravity is now dependent only on radius. If gravity is a function of volume, and no longer of density, then gravity is not a function of mass. We have separated the variables and given density to the E/M field, so gravity is no longer a function of density. If gravity is a function of volume alone, then with a sphere gravity is a function of radius, and nothing else.
Now we only need to assign density mechanically. I have given it to E/M, but what part of the E/M field does it apply to? Well, it must apply to the emission. Newton’s equation is not telling us the density of the bodies in the field, it is telling us the density of the emitted field. Of course one is a function of the other. If you have a denser moon, it will emit a denser E/M field. But, as a matter of mechanics, the variable D applies to the density of the emitted field. It is the density of photons emitted by the matter creating the unified field.
Finally, what is G, in this analysis? G is the transform between the two fields. It is a sort of scaling constant. As we have seen, one field–gravity–is determined by the radius of a macro-object, like a moon or planet or a marble. The other field is determined by the density of emitted photons. But these two fields are not operating on the same scale. To put both fields into the same equation, we must scale one field to the other. We are using both fields to find a unified force, so we must discover how force is transmitted in each field. In the E/M field, force is transmitted by the direct contact of the photons. That is, the force is felt at that level. It can be measured from any level of size, but it is being transmitted at the level of the photon. But since gravity is now a function of volume alone, it is not a function of photon size or energy. It is a function of matter itself, that is, of the atoms that make up matter. Therefore, G is a scaling constant between atoms and photons. To say it another way, G is taking the volume down to the level of size of the density, so that they may be multiplied together to find a force. Without that scaling constant, the volume would be way too large to combine directly to the density, and we would get the wrong force. By this analysis, we may assume that the photon involved in E/M transmission is about G times the atom, in size.
But where is the gravitational field in Coulomb’s equation? If we study charge, we find that it has the same fundamental dimensions as mass. The statcoulomb has dimensions of (M^1/2)(L^3/2)(T^ -1). This gives the total charge of two particles the cgs dimension M(L^3/T^2) . But mass has the dimensions L^3 /T^2, which makes the total charge M^2. So we can treat Coulomb’s charges just like Newton’s masses.
We write the equation like this:
F = k(DV)(dv)/r^2
Once again, the volume is the gravitational field and the density is the E/M field. The single electron is in the emitted field of the nucleus, and D gives us the density of that field. But this time the expressed field is the E/M field and the hidden field is gravity. So we have to scale the electromagnetic field UP to the unified field we are measuring with our instruments.
If k and G had been the same number, all this would have been seen earlier. It would have then been easy to see that Coulomb’s equation was just the inverse of Newton’s equation. But because the constants were not the same number, the problem was hidden.
In scaling up and scaling down, we don’t simply reverse the scale. In scaling down, we go from atomic size to photon size. In scaling up, we go from atomic size to our own size.
The author is Miles Mathis. I don’t think he is a theoretical physicist.
I can measure mass on a balance without knowing density and volume.
Also, density is measured in mass/volume. How do you determine the mass in order to get density?
This appears to be just the tip of the pseudoscientific iceberg. Is there something specific you would like discussed?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.