1 edit
advark,
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why does science require faith? Does gravity work differently for people who 'dont't believe in it'?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good question. I often ask a similar thing. Is God a God of RELIGION or a God of reality?
I mean gravity works everywhere not just in the science lab. Is God then a "religous" God? Is God only relegated to steepled bungalows with stain glass windows?
Or is God simply applicable everywhere?
Just the thought of a "scientific" gravity is unnecessarily limiting the thought of a "religious" God is too.
Originally posted by jaywillYet if you drop a rock, it falls down. What's the analogous observation about God?
advark,
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why does science require faith? Does gravity work differently for people who 'dont't believe in it'?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good question. I often ask a similar thing. Is God a God of RELIGION or a God of reality?
I mean gravity works everywhere not just in the science lab. Is God then a "religo ...[text shortened]... "scientific" gravity is unnecessarily limiting the thought of a "religious" God is too.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo what do you do with Christians who say the age of the earth cannot be determined in the Bible?
We can't know that there was gravity yesterday. It's all faith. You might have faith in your memory, but it's only faith, just like the YEC's faith that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. 🙄
You need more than 6,000 years ?
There could be many more that 6,000 centries between now and "In the beginning ..." (Gen. 1:1).
We don't know how much time took place between "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) and "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." (Gen. 1:2)
Even before the invention of geology and the theory of Evolution some scholars reading the ancient Hebrew understood Genesis to give no precise amount of time as to WHEN the physical universe came into existence. It was simply "In the beginning ...".
By far most of the words discribing the activity of God during the six days of Genesis one are words meaning working, forming, and fashioning with already existing material.
And of course science is ever speculating WHAT kind of grand catastrophy could cause mass extinctions of animals which no longer exist and prepare for a new order of lives on the planet. Perhaps killer asteriods? Perhaps killer comets? Perhaps killer volcanoes? Maybe killer gas?
What could have caused the earth to become "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2? How long of a interval of time could have passed while the earth without form and void, dead, cold, wet, and dark ... could have passed before the reformation of a world suitable for man to inhabit?
I see some quarters of science inching closer to what Genesis really says rather than farther away.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yet if you drop a rock, it falls down. What's the analogous observation about God?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The analogous situation is with some people who can say "Well, I'm not a religious person. So I don't have any concerns about God."
As if not being "religious" makes it go away that you have a Divine Creator. Or that only a religious person would think that the world was created by God.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLOL. I was thinking the same thing.
[b]You sound like some of the nutjob Christians, but on my side of the fence instead of theirs.
So it apparently does not bother you that they have not as of yet been able to reproduce life from nonlife? I guess such a step is a minor detail, no?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSo what do you do with Christians who say the age of the earth cannot be determined in the Bible?[/b]
So what do you do with Christians who say the age of the earth cannot be determined in the Bible?
You need more than 6,000 years ?
There could be many more that 6,000 centries between now and [b]"In the beginning ..." (Gen. 1:1).
We don't know how much time took place between "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1 rters of science inching closer to what Genesis really says rather than farther away.
I don't do anything with them, at least not with respect to this topic. Liberal Christians don't really bother me much. It's the highly political neocon YECs that I have a problem with.
Originally posted by KellyJayI have to test all thing before i take them as true as well. Even then I admit they can be wrong.
I have to test, stress, and test things all the time, and unless I have
been keeping a very close eye on the test flow, simply seeing data
does not tell me anything on what has happened to the device under
test. My problem with dating methods is that there is to much
unknown! You do not know why things are they way they are, you are
just making the lea ...[text shortened]... ons your truth, or is it just a
matter of making your views known when it comes to you?
Kelly
Carbon testing is arguable, but within reasonable error, accurate. The only (main) reason it is argued is because it goes against some holy-book made assumptions of the world.
I guarantee you all that the world is a lot older then holy-book assumptions.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly.
Well as for your links I have looked at one thus far entitled countdown to a synthetic lifeform. Do notice the words "countdown". I will be awaiting with baited breath until they actually succeed. As for the other articles I am looking into them and will get back to you. However, I would think that if one did create a living cell that much publicity would ...[text shortened]... t those that I know who are educated in science also flatly reject such a notion as well do I.
I do not think virus is a living organism. It is not, although some might argue. I only introduced it to make a continuum in the story.
First we can synthesize proteins, then DNA, then virus, then bacteria, then... etc.
The only difference from life to non-life is complexity.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt has. You may not call it life. That depends on each ones definition of life.
You sound like some of the nutjob Christians, but on my side of the fence instead of theirs.
Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Reading the Bible and talking to God helps, though.
That being said, I agree with you - except when you say life's been synthesized.
Life can be made from "non-life", no god needed.
Reading the bible helps you create a mental model that suits an explanation of the world, if you are wiling to make some logic leaps. I do not allow logic leaps in my reasoning. Everything has to be explainable by everyday experience.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm a scientist, in physics, and I invite anyone to discuss validity of carbon dating.
Probably.
I'd invite a discussion with you about the validitiy of radioactive dating, but we've done it before. You generally choose to express skepticism that man can know anything - except you don't apply this skepticism to everything. You only apply it when you dislike the hypothesis under investigation. I'm not going to bother with you any m ".
I will invite anyone else to try to argue the lack of validity of carbon dating.
Anyone who defends it is wrong, please come and discuss with me. Please have some basic knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics.
More, I invite anyone to discuss validity of any scientific theory within my field of knowledge. We took centuries to make all this work. Everything we see in the world follows the logic of physics. The only things that don't follow our logic and try to deny it strangely cannot be seen... They can only be "felt", and require "faith"....