YEC part Trois

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

[EllieArroway]

I'm no cosmologist but it seems to me that a gravity well steep enough to slow time that much would be, um, problematic. If the Earth was at the centre of the gravity well then surface gravity would be immense - possibly enough to crush the Earth into a neutron star. If the Earth wasn't exactly at the centre then the gravitational tides would tear it apart

Yeah. Plus (not being a cosmologist either) if the solar system is so heavy it could cause that kind of distortion in spacetime, wouldn't we see the effect of that on the rest of the galaxy? In other words, everything would be orbiting us, surely. Unless it's the whole Milky Way that's supposed to be in the well - which wouldn't explain how we are able to see so much of our galaxy given that it's about 100,000 light years across.

[BestValue]

Well, This guy IS a cosmologist (actually an astrophysicist) so he might know a thing or two about gravitational time dilation:

And this guy developed the theory:



And this guy explains it too:

[EllieArroway]

Yes, and if you'd bothered actually doing any research, you'd know that his paper has been completely rejected by all of his peers as fanciful nonsense.

Guess who employs him, btw....Answers in Genesis. EMPLOYS him. Bit like tobacco companies who employ people with respectable credentials to say what they want people to hear. For such God-fearing folk, you creationists are really very dishonest.

[daftdame]

You have research funded by drug companies, research funded by governments, researchers who are Christians, researchers who are atheists, researchers of other religions. Now you tell me where there is Science without bias?

[Januarymadness]

I think you missed the bit that said "rejected by all his peers as fanciful nonsense"

[Januarymadness]

Again I am repeating an old argument but..

Any decent research paper will acknowledge internal bias. They will document how they address such bias in order to validate the paper.

[daftdame]

You can have collective bias you know - think of mob rule.

How far do they go to register internal bias. Do you get the complete life story and beliefs of every person involved?

Think of all the bad things done because of science over the years, mass sterilisations, lobotomies, the politics involved surrounding childbirth, child rearing - medical intervention or non-intervention.

What I am saying is that bias, assumptions, faith is involved every step of the way within the 'scientific', arena. Even Science done for Science sake, to discover something 'new' is in way worships of self in that it is biased towards discovering something new.

Not that I am against science, we have received some powerful insights in to the way the world works through this methodology. I just don't think science can be entirely separated from belief.

[Januarymadness]

I really think you are overestimating how much people without faith actually think about it. Even those who nominally identify with any religion.

[daftdame]

Even if you are not aware of it everybody employs faith to some extent in their biases and assumptions. Just because it is subconscious does not mean if affects them any less.

Even in our biology, the way we perceive the information from our nerve endings, the 'gaps' that the brain subconsciously fills in for us with eyesight for example shows variety and diversity.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Nonsense. By definition there is no 'faith' employed in scientific method. Assumptions which are tested, maybe, but not faith.

[daftdame]

Sabrina Call it what you will, the semantics vary, faith can be tested also.

On the subject of the way beliefs can effect our language have you ever looked at Daniel Everett's work work the Pirahã people?

[daftdame]

that should be with^ the...

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Argumentum ad verecundiam

There's a whole paragraph devoted to creationism.

[LizzyDay]

The whole point of the scientific method IS to eliminate biases, agendas and so forth.

A perfect experiment is one with no bias.

Yes, many scientific experiments may fall short of perfect methodology due to human error etc, but if they are claiming to have found out anything of significance (eg how the world was formed) there will always be other scientists ready to challenge their results.

A good scientific theory is testable and repeatable by anyone anywhere (provided they have the right equipment) - that is the point.

[daftdame]

Sabrina but as human beings are we capable of employing any argument without being eristic? (Or is this what you are trying to say? That Wiki page is awfully dense).

LizzyDay Yes, but this is why the truth is science evolves over time ie is not constant.

[daftdame]

that should be with^ science...

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

No faith is required in the acceptance of evolution. There is enough physical evidence from observing the natural world, from testing by thousands of scientists for more than a century, for scientists to accept the concept with no faith, bias or assumptions involved. You can accept evolution whilst having a faith in god, or no faith in god - it's neither here nor there.

Whereas to believe in creationism, faith in a god, whose actual existence reamins unproven and untested, is a pre-requisite.

[daftdame]

Sabriana One query I would have with a Darwinian view of evolution is that it claims species distinct different classifications species are evolved through genetic mutation.( eg Evolution from ape to man)

Now as I have mentioned Epigenetics before, gene expression can vary, this means there can be a huge amount of variety within the same species. Added to this scientists disagree, and opinions change over classification.

I would never pretend to be an expert, I really would have to go back to the books. However this is one of the reasons I don't swallow the whole scientific theory as fact nonsense, as scientific understanding evolves.

[daftdame]

that should be distinct different classification of species...^

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Epigenetics doesn't disprove evolution.

[daftdame]

I never said it did - my point was that the concept of evolution is evolving itself. What remains is a mystery...

Perhaps you can elaborate on what you meant re Epigenetics and evolution.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Daftdame, I would suggest you do some reading about evolution, what a scientific theory actually is and stop reading the bible for anything more than an enrichment of your own personal faith.

We talked about this on the last thread, and it seems you're still not clear on it - you seem to think that science requires some sort of faith or belief, when by it's very definition, it doesn't. Good science has no agenda or bias.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

This is a good starting point:

National Academy of Sciences

[daftdame]

Sabrina I suggest you do some reading of the Bible to know what life is....

I think I'll leave it at that.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Who says I haven't read the bible?