Guest JAG Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Just the fact that he was another perfectly capable scientist gone bad' date=' I suppose. Credibility as a scientist is lost when you 1) believe the supernatural has a relationship with science, 2) give credibility to theology over science, 3) claim to be an agnostic yet perpetuate the idea of Biblical creation, and 4) accept honorary doctorates from Christian schools. I'm sure he was a great astronomer/physicist/astrophysicist, but there's no reason to use a tainted source like him when there's better scientists out there.[/quote'] lol...could you be more biased? Actually, could you be more illogical? You're practically saying that truth is subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebÃss Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 How's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 How's that? You're saying the man is credible until he discovers a truth you disagree with' date=' at that point he is no longer credible. ---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ---------- And holy crap, I just checked up on his Wiki page (you spelled his name wrong by the way), and he has education and experience coming out of every orifice. He's far from a "crack." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebÃss Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 You're saying the man is credible until he discovers a truth you disagree with, at that point he is no longer credible. Nope. I'm saying saying one stops being a scientist when they no longer practice science. I realize it's easy for people to get excited when a "scientist" is finally on their side, but science has to be secular, and this guy didn't follow scientific standards (even you have to know what this means). What "truth that I disagree with" did he actually discover? And holy crap, I just checked up on his Wiki page , and he has education and experience coming out of every orifice. Yea there's several people out there like him who have great educations, but that alone doesn't make them a scientist. (you spelled his name wrong by the way) "Dr." Jastrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Nope. I'm saying saying one stops being a scientist when they no longer practice science. I realize it's easy for people to get excited when a "scientist" is finally on their side, but science has to be secular, and this guy didn't follow scientific standards (even you have to know what this means). I know what scientific standards are, and I can't speak for this guy, but from the quotes I read it seems to me he followed the scientific method pretty well. He had a theory about the nature of the universe, he found out that his theory was wrong, so he narrowed all the theories down to one that is shared by the theist. I think it's laughable you say "science has to be secular" when you should know that the most phenomenal scientists to ever live were agnostics, theists, Christians, Muslims, etc. What "truth that I disagree with" did he actually discover? That an Absolute is necessary for the formation of our universe. Yea there's several people out there like him who have great educations, but that alone doesn't make them a scientist. Your opinion of this guy just reeks of arrogance. He maintained three degrees in physics, helped start NASA, he taught at Dartmouth etc. He's dead now, but if he were still alive I'm sure he'd be able to see much further than most of the modern scientists you idolize (especially yourself). I apologize, you didn't spell his name wrong,- L - did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebÃss Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I know what scientific standards are If you're going down my throat for what I'm saying about him then I can't really see this as true. Dealing with the supernatural is definitively not within the realm of science. Sorry. I think it's laughable you say "science has to be secular" when you should know that the most phenomenal scientists to ever live were agnostics, theists, Christians, Muslims, etc. Of course some of the best scientists in the world have been all those things (and atheists as well, which I'm sure was easy for you to exclude). I never said they had to be irreligious, I said that the science they perform has to be secular. You can mention any famous scientist who is religious, but unless he/she is a crack, they kept their science and faith separate (because that is what good scientists do). I thought this was common knowledge. That an Absolute is necessary for the formation of our universe. Oh really? How did he find that out? Your opinion of this guy just reeks of arrogance. He maintained three degrees in physics, helped start NASA, he taught at Dartmouth etc. He's dead now, but if he were still alive I'm sure he'd be able to see much further than most of the modern scientists you idolize (especially yourself). Na. I know you want this guy to be cool because you likely agree with what he is saying, but that's just not how science works. Also, it should be noted that what I'm saying here isn't at all extreme. Jastrow was not practicing science when he made these ID claims and he went against scientific consensus with nothing to show for it. I am not being "biased, arrogant, or illogical", I'm just reminding you how science operates. If you want an idea of what a real astrophysicist is like you can look up Neil deGrasse Tyson (who I think you should be familiar with). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Of course some of the best scientists in the world have been all those things (and atheists as well, which I'm sure was easy for you to exclude). I never said they had to be irreligious, I said that the science they perform has to be secular. You can mention any famous scientist who is religious, but unless he/she is a crack, they kept their science and faith separate (because that is what good scientists do). I thought this was common knowledge. Perhaps 1 percent of scientist who were strict atheists have contributed to our scientific understanding. I obviously made that number up, but it's hard to ignore the facts about the medical research Muslims were doing prior to the Middle Ages and then all the scientific research that came out of the Church from there on. The Big Bang theory? Christian. Evolution? Ex-Christian Theist. Calculus? Christian. The list goes on, but it's not really my point - and the point that I believe this NASA scientist was trying to make. This is the point: Understanding our world is a lot like following a rope. You eventually arrive to a section where you learn that life (not just matter, but life) came into existence. Because you don't necessarily trust your common sense, you do experiments to see how life comes into being. You find that it's impossible for it to come from a non-living source, and in fact that it must come from life. The only means of new life on the planet, in fact, you find is from life itself. A mother begets a child. Likewise, you start to learn and study exactly why this life is how it is. You find there exists, with-in every living organism, a blue print for their life. We call this DNA, but it's basically a grouping of nucleotides that resemble a program. A very sophisticated program at that, and it happens to be organic - which only adds insult to injury in trying to recreate it. So you go out into the information age and study up on programming. Once again, you don't trust your common sense (even though perhaps you should). Instead you try to figure out how programming can exist - especially programming that is this advanced, self adapting, and self regulating. It turns out that programs are only written by programmers - that apart from a programmer they do not exist. Now, say like this Dr. you finally learn that the universe is not infinite, that it had a beginning, and from that beginning all things came into existence. Now, you weren't born yesterday, and you've had a few classes on physics, so you understand that matter can't be created. This simply doesn't make sense. How could matter have been created, yet the conservation of mass and energy relies on the fact that it can't be? So you follow the rope a little further to the point where you understand the implications of creation. That something more powerful can create something lesser. And you finally start to see the end of the rope here as you understand that things can't create themselves, but that their creation must come from outside themselves. Logic continues to steer you towards an Absolute. Something that is independent of creation - that creation is actually dependent on. For our universe was born in an instant, it bears life, intelligence, laws, regulations - it has the very markings of an author writing a fantastic novel in certain ways. Eventually your brain leads you to this point. If a person has any rationale about themselves, coupled with humility, they reach the end of the rope - which just so happens to be the beginning of a new one. This Dr. merely pointed out that he had come to that point and that the new rope he had found was crawling with theologians who had decided, long ago, that it was worth their time to get to know whatever this Absolute was that put breathe in their bodies and blood in their veins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebÃss Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Sorry JAG, but I'm not really interested in repeated-to-death ID explanations, especially since what you said has nothing to do with the point I was making. Jastrow mixed science and religion, therefore he was a bad scientist. End of story. If he were still alive it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up writing some phony article on answersingenesis. BTW - It's very weird to say "this Dr." when trying to refer to someone who has a Ph.D; it's a lot like saying "this Mr." to refer to some random guy. They are both specific titles, not descriptive nouns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Sorry JAG' date=' but I'm not really interested in repeated-to-death ID explanations, especially since what you said has nothing to do with the point I was making. Jastrow mixed science and religion, therefore he was a bad scientist. End of story. If he were still alive it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up writing some phony article on answersingenesis. BTW - It's very weird to say "this Dr." when trying to refer to someone who has a Ph.D; it's a lot like saying "this Mr." to refer to some random guy. They are both specific titles, not descriptive nouns.[/quote'] As I said, it takes humility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebÃss Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Summary: Jastrow is not a scientist because he incorporated religion and the supernatural into his work. ID is not science and is not worth listening to. As always, JAG, it's been a pleasure being able to discuss things with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainbowCache Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How could matter have been created, yet the conservation of mass and energy relies on the fact that it can't be? No. You can have two types of energy: positive energy like light and negative energy like gravity. As you are aware, x + (-x) = 0. If you take all the positive energy in the universe and subtract the absolute value of all the negative energy, you get zero. That's right, the total amount of energy in the universe is zero. There is no violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is the ultimate free lunch as they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No. You can have two types of energy: positive energy like light and negative energy like gravity. As you are aware, x + (-x) = 0. If you take all the positive energy in the universe and subtract the absolute value of all the negative energy, you get zero. That's right, the total amount of energy in the universe is zero. There is no violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is the ultimate free lunch as they say. You misread something in there. I wasn't commenting on the fact there is energy in the universe. I was commenting on the fact that the energy in the universe was created at some point. I already know it's there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainbowCache Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You misread something in there. I wasn't commenting on the fact there is energy in the universe. I was commenting on the fact that the energy in the universe was created at some point. I already know it's there. Ahh, but you see, "nothing," so to speak, was actually created. The total amount of energy in the universe is still zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Ahh, but you see, "nothing," so to speak, was actually created. The total amount of energy in the universe is still zero. Matter came into existence. Matter is something. Matter was created. If you believe in an infinite universe, that's alright, but it goes against what we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Matter came into existence. Matter is something. Matter was created. If you believe in an infinite universe, that's alright, but it goes against what we know. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Rainbow might be referring to "nothing" in the scientific sense, as in when physicists say the universe was created out of nothing, and they don't mean nothing in the philosophical sense as in the absence of everything/anything. But nothing in the scientific sense of "Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them" According to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss speaking on his book "A Universe From Nothing" (He's a firm atheist, and Christopher Hitchens wrote the forward to his book so don't accuse me of bias! ) And his argument is basically that "nothing" in the scientific quantifiable sense is inherently unstable and it will by its very nature create something out of "nothing" such as our universe. He appeals of course to quantum mechanics as the basis for this, but then again the obvious questions it raises are, how does one account for the "nothing" that has the potential to form a universe to begin with? How does one account for the laws that govern everything IN the universe? Not to mention the laws of quantum mechanics on which his entire hypothesis depends, because those laws which allow for something to come from "nothing" need to have explanation in some way in regards to why they are the way they are, and how they can bring about something from "nothing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Is God's timeline for mankind 6,000 years ? Hi friends, There is theoretical evidence that seems to strongly point in that direction. In Gen.6:3, God said His Spirit will not strive for man - but gives us 120 years. That statement has nothing to do with Noah's flood as that took Noah 100 years to build and the ongoing work of the HS was not only evident immediately following that event, but is still very much in evidence all around us, to this very day. God established the "Jubilee Year" for Israel, in Lev.25:8-13, which connsists of 50 year time spans. If you consider the 120 'years' God referred to and multiply it by the Jubilee years of Israel, of 50 years each [50 X 120], it comes to 6,000 years. Though we have already entered into the seventh millennium according to the calendars of mankind, that is not the case according to God's. By the same token, if you consider each day of creation as 1,000 year days, as you can find supporting scripture in both Ps.90:4 and 2 Pet.3:8, 1,000 years are as a day to God, and a day is as a thousand years. Following that - for the 'seventh day', see Heb.4:8-11. In another place we read: "Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but He will heal us; He has injured us but He will bind up our wounds. After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will restore us." Hos.6:1-2. In the above scripture, it must first be pointed out - from biblical chronology - the creation of Adam to the birth of Jesus translates into 4,000 years. Then 'after two days', or 2,000 years more - for a total of 6,000 years - after the tribulation - When Jesus returns in His second advent - 'He will restore us.' When Jesus sets up His kingdom here on earth for the entire seventh (day) millennium. (1,000 years) See Zech.12:10 and vs.16. In still another place: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Mt.16:28. (Also Mk.9:1). "After six days (6,000 years) Jesus took with Him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as light." Mt.17:1-2. (Also Mk.9:2-3). Why did Jesus wait six days (Or to symbolize the 6,000 years) until in God's timeline, the above events will take place as the scriptures reveal at that exact time in the history of mankind, if not to reveal that mystery to us? Jesus also predicts the length of time from His ministry until His 'perfection' or 'reaches His goal' is to be 'in the third day.' Lk.13:32. Or after 2,000 years until the beginning of His millennial (1,000 year) reign here on earth. Bearing in mind - there was 4,000 years from the creation of Adam, until the time of Jesus. Which would then total 6,000 years. Quasar http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?52940-Is-God-s-timeline-for-mankind-6-000-years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAG Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Rainbow might be referring to "nothing" in the scientific sense, as in when physicists say the universe was created out of nothing, and they don't mean nothing in the philosophical sense as in the absence of everything/anything. But nothing in the scientific sense of "Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them" According to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss speaking on his book "A Universe From Nothing" (He's a firm atheist, and Christopher Hitchens wrote the forward to his book so don't accuse me of bias! ) And his argument is basically that "nothing" in the scientific quantifiable sense is inherently unstable and it will by its very nature create something out of "nothing" such as our universe. He appeals of course to quantum mechanics as the basis for this, but then again the obvious questions it raises are, how does one account for the "nothing" that has the potential to form a universe to begin with? How does one account for the laws that govern everything IN the universe? Not to mention the laws of quantum mechanics on which his entire hypothesis depends, because those laws which allow for something to come from "nothing" need to have explanation in some way in regards to why they are the way they are, and how they can bring about something from "nothing." If we are going to argue semantics, I'll go ahead and bow out because it's worthless gas. If, however, we want to talk about the Universe and it's origins, we will use the term "nothing" to mean "absence of something." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethelv Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Rainbow might be referring to "nothing" in the scientific sense, as in when physicists say the universe was created out of nothing, and they don't mean nothing in the philosophical sense as in the absence of everything/anything. But nothing in the scientific sense of "Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them" According to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss speaking on his book "A Universe From Nothing" (He's a firm atheist, and Christopher Hitchens wrote the forward to his book so don't accuse me of bias! ) And his argument is basically that "nothing" in the scientific quantifiable sense is inherently unstable and it will by its very nature create something out of "nothing" such as our universe. He appeals of course to quantum mechanics as the basis for this, but then again the obvious questions it raises are, how does one account for the "nothing" that has the potential to form a universe to begin with? How does one account for the laws that govern everything IN the universe? Not to mention the laws of quantum mechanics on which his entire hypothesis depends, because those laws which allow for something to come from "nothing" need to have explanation in some way in regards to why they are the way they are, and how they can bring about something from "nothing." You have very interesting questions. The reason why Lawrence Krauss and scientists define "nothing" differently than a theologian is because scientific inquiry has only progressed so far. Thus far, our nascent understanding of the universe has only allowed us to understand nothing as merely quantum fluctuations ie. a state (for lack of a better term) that is full of unstable stuff that's perpetually fluctuating. Science has yet to discover what precedes this quantum fluctuations. Thankfully, theology is not limited by the slow, arduous research process. By the grace of God and the witness of God's Holy Spirit, a theologian can know in advance the stuff (eg. soul, afterlife, God, etc) that scientists have yet to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
✟ Keep.Your.Head.Up ✟ Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 At the end of the day est. time is and assumption from 1 individual passed on to another so there is mutual cooperation and belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccer&Christ Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 At the end of the day est. time is and assumption from 1 individual passed on to another so there is mutual cooperation and belief. Well said. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kea11 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It doesn't matter what the majority or minority "fringe" of people say. What matters is what God says. To help explain things and if you are really trying to find out truth please consider looking at this It's good evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world Also... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions Check 'em out. This I think thoroughly answers your giants question. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/OT-giants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 It doesn't matter what the majority or minority "fringe" of people say. What matters is what God says. To help explain things and if you are really trying to find out truth please consider looking at this It's good evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world Also... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions Check 'em out. This I think thoroughly answers your giants question. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/OT-giants I'm not sure answersingenesis is the best place to get your scientific research done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsBrian Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I'm not sure answersingenesis is the best place to get your scientific research done... The implied message is an ad hominem since you tried to dismiss their credibility with no support. They sponsor a scientific peer reviewed journal, so why is it not the best place? ---------- Post added at 08:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ---------- There are many non literal things in the bible,while Adam and eve were literal, I'm not sure much more of the creation story(except the punishments) are. Same with revelations, I sought there will be a literal dragon coming out of the sea Why do you think Genesis is not a literal account? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The implied message is an ad hominem since you tried to dismiss their credibility with no support.They sponsor a scientific peer reviewed journal, so why is it not the best place? Ken Ham believes Jesus rode freaking dinosaurs. THAT'S why I don't think AiG is a good place for scientific research. Trust nothing that comes from a man who thinks the Flintstones is historically accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsBrian Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Ken Ham believes Jesus rode freaking dinosaurs. THAT'S why I don't think AiG is a good place for scientific research.Trust nothing that comes from a man who thinks the Flintstones is historically accurate. Straw man Straw man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.