Originally posted by checkbaiter Stopping the Progress of Science?
By Brad Rowland
The creation evolution controversy continues to heat up and stir debate; praise God for that. Several times a week I read articles appearing in the news stating that teaching creation in schools has a negative impact on “science.” Evolutionists assert that “If we allow creation to be taught, or even ...[text shortened]... http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=566&mode=&order=0&thold=0
what a bunch of garbage!
Removed
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
100919
26 Aug '05 01:59
Originally posted by frogstomp what a bunch of garbage!
You must be a liberal...always critizise but never have an answer.😀
Originally posted by lioyank I agree with most of what you have said here, up until this line.
Can you elaborate on why/how this process of finding the (never-ending) "absolute" truth/s is "totally consistent" with your Christian beliefs?
I have and do read the Bible, nay, study the Bible. I have and do read books praising it and books criticising it. I have observed a variety of the traditions associated with Christianity and participated in a great many of them. I have what I believe to be a working understanding of both Christianity and my faith. Through all of this I have always understood that my version of truth is merely a tiny view of a very large object (think of an extreme close up of an aircraft carrier, for instance). It is because of this that I continually maintain that the truth I believe I have discovered, like the truth others have discovered, could have a variety of flaws. My truth, for instance, could lack perspective or could have been realised via poor interpretation...etc etc etc.
I guess I could have skipped that entire last paragraph and simply typed the following:
I do not need to claim that I have found absolute truth to be a Christian. In fact I think continually searching for truth is the hallmark of a Christian that is truly engaged in their faith and I further suspect it pleases God. If I claim now to have found absolute truth what is the point in investigating further?
Any scientific theory is dependent on evidence or dependent on theories that are ultimately dependent on evidence.
As long as the possibility of new evidence arising, it is not an absolute truth.
And there's always such a possibility! Just because we, for practical purposes, assume theories to be true for all existing evidence AND future evidence doesn't mean that the door should be closed to the possibility of new evidence.
Some people like to twist that into saying that any theory is equally valid, but that is incorrect because it must be completely consistent with existing evidence.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Actually, science would be meaningless if it weren't searching for the absolute truth, if it did not already believe that such a truth existed.
I'm sure many scientists do believe in the possibility of absolute truth. My point is that we should never plant our flag in the latest discovery, declare it absolute truth and walk away from the research table.
I do not think that absolute truth is an illusion I simply think that assuming we will ever discover/understand it is.
*warning, Aerosmith paraphrase coming up*
In effect...absolute truth is a journey, not a destination. 😉
Any scientific theory is dependent on evidence or dependent on theories that are ultimately dependent on evidence.
As long as the possibility of new evidence arising, it is not an absolute truth.
And there's always such a possibility! Just because we, for practical purposes, assume theories to be true for all existing evidence AND future evide ...[text shortened]... ly valid, but that is incorrect because it must be completely consistent with existing evidence.
no ,no ,no. the mathematic relationships are not going to change, not now or in the future. Maxwells Eguations will be the test applied to any field theory as long as we measure electro-magnetic fields.
Originally posted by frogstomp no ,no ,no. the mathematic relationships are not going to change, not now or in the future. Maxwells Eguations will be the test applied to any field theory as long as we measure electro-magnetic fields.
don't be sorry, be more sorry that you except the idea that somehow the universe is going to undergo some drastic changes such that electro magnetic radiation will act differently than it does now just to suit a conjectured unifield field theory.
Its pretty simple really, if a field doesn't act the way Maxwell's Equations predicts, it isn't EMR, period.
Originally posted by frogstomp don't be sorry, be more sorry that you except the idea that somehow the universe is going to undergo some drastic changes such that electro magnetic radiation will act differently than it does now just to suit a conjectured unifield field theory.
Its pretty simple really, if a field doesn't act the way Maxwell's Equations predicts, it isn't EMR, period.
Drastic is your wording not mine. And you are right, it's pretty simple really, I don't understand why you don't get it. Or why you don't comment about echecero's post or TheSkipper's where they say the same thing.
BTW, you are now confused and thinking I have an agenda for pushing the GUT. Well...I don't, I couldn't care less, I'm sure some very respectable people said exactly the same you are saying about Newtonian physics and yet...they were incomplete.
Your obsession with Maxwell's equations as a representation for my point is not only strange, but it is getting boring.
Originally posted by Palynka Drastic is your wording not mine. And you are right, it's pretty simple really, I don't understand why you don't get it. Or why you don't comment about echecero's post or TheSkipper's where they say the same thing.
BTW, you are now confused and thinking I have an agenda for pushing the GUT. Well...I don't, I couldn't care less, I'm sure some ver ...[text shortened]... ell's equations as a representation for my point is not only strange, but it is getting boring.
Speaking of Newton , do you realize the one of the test Relativity needed to pass to rise to the degree of certainty that made it a Theory (in the scientific meaning of the word} was Maxwell's equations.
Its how the scientific method works. Just because Einstein, had more of the universe to examine doesn't mean that all of Newtonian laws were invalid either . Newton might not have known about mass / energy equivalence, but his conservation of momentum law is valid even at relativistic velocities because its concept is based on the underlying mathematics.
I tend to post first in answer to posts addresed to me first
and the others if I have time, which i don't have that much of , or I would make this post far more rigorous ( mathwise)
Originally posted by TheSkipper Yes! Yes! Yes! dj2 you finally seem to have gotten it. Absolute truth should, in fact, NOT be taken seriously. Anyone claiming to have/understand absolute truth has stopped looking for further truth and can therefore not be trusted.
Your faith in God, Jesus the resurection and everlasting life is not, no matter how intensely you believe it, absolute ...[text shortened]... totally consistent with my Christian beliefs, BTW, and can be with yours as well.
TheSkipper
Are you saying that nobody can be absolutely sure about anything?
Originally posted by TheSkipper No. I'm saying that to claim to know absolute truth requires you to be one of two things...a liar or ignorant.
To claim to have absolute truth is quite a bit different than being "absolutely sure" about something.
TheSkipper
I am just interested in knowing how you would define 'absolute truth'?
Would you for example say that I am either a liar or ignorant if I told you that I know the 'absolute truth' that I am alive at the moment and that in the future some time I will die?
How is claiming to know this 'absolute truth' different to me being 'absolutely sure' about it?
Neutral Science?
26 Aug '05 01:51
Back to Top