BioLogos is marketing theistic evolution and “consensus science” to Christian schools

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 9, 2020

Education, Intelligent Design, science education, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A reader writes to mention this program:

BioLogos INTEGRATE is a resource for exploring biology from a Christian worldview. It presents consensus science in conversation with biblical faith. Designed for classroom teachers and home educators, INTEGRATE can be used alongside any biology curriculum, or even on its own. The content emphasizes virtues such as wonder, humility, and wisdom. It also addresses common questions and concerns related to bioethics, creation care, origins, and other topics. INTEGRATE helps Christian young people grow in their faith in Christ, as they develop a deeper love and stronger understanding of the world God has made. Integrate

Consensus science? In an age of Sokal hoaxes and scandals and wars on math, and science, where the “consensus” is slowly morphing toward destruction?

But yup. And with a straight face too.

In the real world, this is not the time to be buying into “consensus” but to be advocating reform.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: “Avalanche” of retractions of research papers on spider personalities. It will be interesting to see what impact the retractions have on claims about the evolution of animal behavior.

Comments

Ed George From your posts, it appears you agree that macro evolution has not been observed and has not been replicated. There are 6 steps to the scientific method. 1. Make an observation or observations. - Darwin did do this. 2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information. - Darwin did this. 3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis. Darwin did this. 4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced. - This has never been done by anyone. 5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary. - This has never been done by anyone. 6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. - This has never been done by anyone. Without steps 4 - 6, it cannot be considered a valid theory.BobRyan_{February 12, 2020
February
02
Feb
12
12
2020
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PST}

Ed George @ 57 states: "We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution)" Those measurements are observable and can be replicated, unlike macro evolution. Every theory must be based on what is observed and can be replicated. Macro evolution has never been observed and has never been replicated. It is not science, but philosophical in nature. Science requires observation and replication to be a valid theory.BobRyan_{February 12, 2020
February
02
Feb
12
12
2020
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PST}

ET, on observation over the past 25 years, I have questioned the notion that mountains are ALWAYS formed by slow cumulative increments. When it comes to island arcs with magma that is not runny like that of Hawaii, erupted materials pile up to build mountains over months, and such can collapse far more quickly than that. I have no doubt that slow-acting mountain building and erosion occur, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. It is fascinating to see the reactions to facts I have literally seen and heard [and sometimes have had to put on a dust mask and sweep away]. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PST}

EG, you unfortunately doubled down on an error. Here, by an obviously false analogy between mountain building [effectively, get a big pile of rock] and creation of an entity with functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I]. To pick up the pile of rocks analogy, while incremental piling up can and does account for a mountain, only an extremely ill informed person would argue that such accounts for rocks organised to form say a slab roofed house with rooms, passages,entry ways, 90 degree corners, plumb and straight walls, etc. A good illustration is, if half your pile of rocks collapses (or explodes as with Mt St Helens 40 years back), you have a smaller mountain. If half your house collapses, you do not have a functional house. The reason for this intuition is that we recognise functional organisation requiring intelligently directed configuration and distinguish this semiotic and purposeful process from dynamic-stochastic processes. That's why since Plato, we have contrasted the natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] from the ART-ificial. The reason why there is even a debate on this, is that there is the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism on matters of origins, through what we may term the Monod-Lewontin-Mahner-NSTA/NAS lockout. You and other inveterate objectors have been conspicuously silent in response to the recent headlining of Monod's 1971 TV interview, building on his 1970 book, Chance and Necessity. Just to remind:
[T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.
In the book, he had written:
[T]he basic premise of the scienti?c method, . . . [is] that nature is objective and not projective [= a project of an agent]. Hence it is through reference to our own activity, con-scious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as | makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “arti?cialness.” [pp. 3 – 4] . . . . [T]he postulate of objectivity is consubstantial with science: it has guided the whole of its prodigious develop-ment for three centuries. There is no way to be rid of it, even tentatively or in a limited area, without departing from the domain of science itself. [p. 21]
I challenge that it is a historically, logically warranted premise of the scientific method -- even, on assumption for sake of argument that there is any such one size fits all and only scientific inferences method and demarcation criterion [there isn't!] -- that we may not infer to design on empirically warranted signs. A better understanding of science is that while we typically focus on the dynamical and/or stochastic (the "natural"), we may validly infer to ART-ificial as a relevant causal factor when signs point that way. Forensic sciences are valid sciences, similarly, archaeology. In the latter, practitioners routinely distinguish natural phenomena from archaeological on relevant signs. In the former, we often hear of accident, suicide or murder. We see, accident vs arson. We distinguish, earthquake or tornado from burglary. So long as an intelligent agent is possible, it is reasonable to investigate whether empirical signs point to agent action. And, on trillions of cases, FSCO/I is a reliable sign of such intelligent action. In the case of the living cell, that appears in its general organisation but particularly in D/RNA, where we see coded, 4-state algorithmic information. This manifests language, functional organisation to achieve stepwise progress to a target outcome [creation of particular protein chains coming from thousands of deeply isolated fold domains . . . islands of function . . . in AA sequence space] and purpose. Those are hallmarks of design. The core challenge for origin of life [OoL] and for origin of novel body plans {OoBP] has always been the origin of required complex, functionally specific information. You have absolutely no warrant that such algorithms can be built by always functional small stepwise increments. Indeed, the deep isolation of fold domains in AA sequence space [which already has assumed solutions to the peptide bond and chirality issues] makes such incrementalism implausible. The relevant analogy is not hill climbing on a vast continent of function but the blind search for deeply isolated islands on respurces inadequate for credible success. It is readily shown that a sol system of 10^57 atoms or an observed cosmos of 10^80 where relevant reactions may happen at rates 10^12 to 10^15 per second (and Org Chem rxns tend to be slow) will not be able to significantly search a config space of 10^150 to 10^301 elements. Where as searches are subsets of a set, search for a golden search is looking in the exponentially harder sets of scope 2^[10^150] to 2^[10^301]. Blind search is not a reasonable answer to what knowledgeable intelligence routinely produces. The text of your own posts [as opposed to random text strings and/or mechanical, repetitive patterns] is an apt case in point. At this point, after this has been pointed out for years, the clinging to failed analogies you show above is a strong sign that you have no valid answer. Cell based life uses language and algorithms, long before we came on the scene. We know the only credible source of language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery, design. Only, that does not fit with the imposed a prioris of evolutionary materialistic scientism. Doubling down simply shows that the imposition is an ideological commitment and a key to the agendas being desired. Fatal cracks in the foundations of evolutionary materialistic scientism stand exposed. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PST}

The current theory, which nobody here is questioning, is that they are formed by subduction and uplifting caused by plate tectonics.
The speed at which it happened has been questioned. But that is moot as only a desperate and insipid troll would try to compare geology to biology. Enter Acartia EddieET_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PST}

Acartia Eddie:
Incremental mountain building, which is responsible for most mountain ranges, is analogous to the micro to macro evolution proposition.
That is complete nonsense and proves that you don't know anything about biology. You have to be either a complete fool or a desperate and insipid troll to make such a nonsensical claim. Acartia Eddie is both. Next up, a pile of rocks that gets bigger because the cliffs above are eroding is like developmental biology. The problem is there isn't any testable mechanism for macro-evolution. It can't be simulated. And what we do observe in no way supports the claim of macro-evolution.ET_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PST}

KF
The unwarranted assumption of a like simple accumulation of incremental changes is radically false to fact.
That is just nonsense. Incremental mountain building, which is responsible for most mountain ranges, is analogous to the micro to macro evolution proposition. You have either seen both, or not seen both.Ed George_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PST}

EG, any responsible discussion of a phenomenon needs to be factually adequate. It so happens that for the past 28 years I have lived with a ramping up then an eruption and its aftermath, including build-ups, collapses, being woken up in the night by a roar leading to a 70 kft plume and the like. It means that I am specifically familiar with a class of mountains that are in fact in some cases rapidly built and/or destroyed. That's why I intervened above by way of an augmenting note. Going further, your attempt to suggest an analogy between mountain building and formation of body plans fails utterly: to form a novel body plan, starting with the first, an island of function has to be found by traversing a sea of non-function. This starts with protein fold domains, thus with DNA. The unwarranted assumption of a like simple accumulation of incremental changes is radically false to fact. However, all of this is further inadvertently revealing in light of other current misadventures on your part in other UD threads . . . e.g. what is your answer regarding minimal facts and the lessons of Plato. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

KF
EG, I am specifically pointing out that as a matter of empirical fact we can and do observe the creation (and destruction) of mountains on the scope of years to centuries.
Nice tangent. The Rockies, Himalayas, Andes, etc. Are not the result of volcanos. The current theory, which nobody here is questioning, is that they are formed by subduction and uplifting caused by plate tectonics. We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution) but nobody has observed a mountain being formed by this process (analogous to what you call macro evolution). Yet, nobody here is questioning mountain formation by this process, but they question evolution. That is requiring a different burden of proof for a process that doesn’t violate your biased worldview, than one that does.Ed George_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST}

PPPS: Just thought, look at Wiki:
Two classic examples of oceanic island arcs are the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific Ocean and the Lesser Antilles in the western Atlantic Ocean [ --> aka Eastern Caribbean, from Saba to Tobago]. The Cascade Volcanic Arc in western North America and the Andes along the western edge of South America are examples of continental volcanic arcs. The best examples of volcanic arcs with both sets of characteristics are in the North Pacific, with the Aleutian Arc consisting of the Aleutian Islands and their extension the Aleutian Range on the Alaska Peninsula, and the Kuril-Kamchatka Arc comprising the Kuril Islands and southern Kamchatka Peninsula.
kairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST}

PPS, a volcanic island arc can be understood as a mountain range emerging from the ocean floor, off to a side of a subduction zone; but flooded by the sea to typically several thousand feet. BTW there is talk that within this century a new Island is reasonably likely to emerge due to Kick 'em Jenny off Grenada -- sea flooding does not materially alter the dynamic of heated materials rising to the surface and erupting or even exploding . . . andesitic rocks (named for composition directly comparable to materials in -- the Andes). I think there is talk of a continental mass off Australia in similar terms of flooded continent. Indonesia is of course a similar volcanic zone to the EC, and IIRC the Aleutians.kairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST}

EG, I am specifically pointing out that as a matter of empirical fact we can and do observe the creation (and destruction) of mountains on the scope of years to centuries. A mountain, being understood as an elevation of the land above base level, of at least 1,000 feet. In addition, with instruments we can and do observe the moving of this island, e.g. a swelling of six inches or thereabouts as magma rose from depth. Further to this, instrumentation and mathematical analysis allows us to observe the shape and processes of the associated island arc subduction zone, moving at rates comparable to the growth rate of a finger nail. Moving up to experimental vs observational vs historical [in sense of deep past reconstruction] sciences, there is a reasonable rule deriving from Newton that we should not ascribe to the unobservable distance or past forces and capabilities not seen to act with similar effect in the present. Lest, science becomes captive to speculative ideologies dressed up in lab coats. In short, I am calling for nuance in light of relevant facts. KF PS: This is of course directly relevant to attempts to infer that in the deep past blind chance and mechanical necessity created language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery for the living cell; an instance of what I abbreviate as FSCO/I. There is but one known causally efficacious force shown to do such. Intelligently directed configuration. That is based on trillions of observed cases and search challenge on gamut of sol system or observed cosmos for config spaces of order 500 to 1,000+ bits.kairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PST}

KF
EG, sorry but I live with a volcano that is a product of plate tectonics, observable as shifts and quake patterns etc. That has put up about three mountains here in the past several centuries. Two or so within the past 25 years. 3000 fit is by definition a mountain. KF
Are you suggesting that mountain ranges are the result of volcanos? Geologists might disagree with you.Ed George_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PST}

No need to get huffy AaronS1978, when you claim that the sun can be given a privileged frame of reference since "that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the larger" you are disagreeing with General Relativity (our best mathematical description of gravity) not with me.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
Again, according to General Relativity, ANY place in the universe can be arbitrary chosen to be the still center of the universe and the rst of the universe can be modeled around that arbitrarily chosen point.bornagain77_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST}

First off I made no direct claim, which I find it annoying that you start off all of you post with I claim, please do not put words in my mouth, The only thing I said to a direct claim was Ed didn’t dodge you and it is astronomy 101 which Ed did say Second, it was a quick google search which I don’t believe you read anything I posted you simply dismissed it out of hand and declared that everything I posted doesn’t prove anything, then you repeated what you have posted in previous post on the subject from other threads Now as I stated to ET I might have misunderstood you because I’m speaking solely of the solar system NOT the universe. You are right there is almost NO WAY to know for sure that we aren’t the center of the universe, but if you say we are not orbiting the sun, this were I will clearly object, and there is multitudes of evidence supporting this, from pictures, video, mathematical models, physics, and the fact that so far that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the largerAaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PST}

AaronS1978, none of your purported evidence proves that it is the Earth that is in motion in the universe and not the rest of the universe that is in motion around the earth, Again, as far as General Relativity itself is concerned, I can arbitrarily choose ANY position in the universe to be the 'still center' of the universe that is at rest, and construct my model of the universe around that arbitrarily chosen point of rest.
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality// How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018 Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where. The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,, The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,, as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/
As George Ellis pointed out, you cannot exclude the earth as the still center of the universe by observation, but 'can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…'
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
Shoot, even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016 Excerpt: no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere. The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe. Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened. But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates. But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes. https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk
,,, In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,, per wikipedia The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
To further empirically establish humanity’s centrality in the universe in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
“So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].” – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe) https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
The Scale of the Universe https://htwins.net/scale2/
Whereas Dr. William Dembski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Magnifying the Universe https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle. Verse:
Psalm 46:10 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”
bornagain77_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST}

Now maybe Im misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar systemAaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

No maybe I misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar systemAaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

No no I knowAaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PST}

AaronS1978- There is a huge difference between the solar system and the universe. Heliocentric refers to the solar system.ET_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PST}

This is just the first start from a quick Google search these are articles supporting and showing that the heliocentric model is what is correct, This is not to also include visible outlet evidence using telescopes satellites and actually orbiting our planet Suppose you can argue in the opposite opinion saying it’s a matter of how are you look at it http://solar-center.stanford.edu/gal-challenge/gquiz6c.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/earth-orbits-the-sun-physics/amp https://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00689AaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

Acartia Eddie:
Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why [the earth is not the center of the universe].
No, it will not. The people who wrote the books can't even scientifically explain how the earth came to be the way it is.ET_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PST}

@42 Kairosfocus:
TF, you are raising issues that are key and need to be attended to but predictably will not be taken as seriously as they should. Take heart. KF
I know it, but I will persevere :) - What is this me that has a brain he/she "can not trust"? - If I "can not trust"my brain: what "should I trust" instead?Truthfreedom_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PST}

AaronS1978, in regards to providing actual empirical proof for your claim that the earth is not central in the universe, you state,
Ed George wasn’t dodging anything, there are wealths of info on the topic. I wouldn’t know where to begin on that.
Not to be rude, but you agreeing with Ed George should be a VERY huge clue for you that you just may be wrong in your claim! :) You guys are imagining evidence that you simply do not have. You DO NOT have 'wealths of evidence'. You have ZERO evidence. Period! The quotes I provided in 35 by Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Fred Hoyle, Albert Einstein and Max Born should have at least given you pause to reconsider your claim. Especially the quote from Albert Einstein since he himself is the author of General Relativity. In so far as General Relativity itself is concerned, it is left completely open for whomever is 'subjectively' making a model of the universe to arbitrarily decide for themselves what is to be considered central in their model of the universe: As far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality// How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018 Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where. The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,, The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,, as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/
And again, here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains the recently found ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that 'strangely' line up with the earth and solar system.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
Thus, there is actually a principled reason, based on empirical observation, to once again consider the solar system in general, and earth in particular, as being ‘central’ in the universe. Thus again, both you and Ed George, contrary to what you both may believe, simply have ZERO evidence for your belief that the earth is not central in the universe. Much less do you have 'wealths of evidence.' Whereas, on the other hand, I can appeal to the anomalies in the CMBR, as well as the large scale structure of the universe itself, to support my position. More detailed notes that overturn the Copernican principle, are here:
November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855
bornagain77_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PST}

TF, you are raising issues that are key and need to be attended to but predictably will not be taken as seriously as they should. Take heart. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PST}

EG, sorry but I live with a volcano that is a product of plate tectonics, observable as shifts and quake patterns etc. That has put up about three mountains here in the past several centuries. Two or so within the past 25 years. 3000 fit is by definition a mountain. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PST}

@ AaronS1978:
...dawkins had to set the narrative that the appearance of design in nature is an illusion, and it bothered me a lot that he had to set that narrative in the first place.
The problem with this narrative is that evolutionists deprecate the same tool on which they rely to navigate the world: the human brain/ intelligence. It is like having an unfaithful partner telling you: "love, you can not trust me, but you 'll have to trust me!" Nothing good can come out of it. It is a relationship doomed to fail from the very beginning. - If we are told our perceptions are illusions, then we are entering self-defeating territory: the tool that "cheats on me" (my brain) is the tool that has to rescue me from itself! - If we can not trust our brains, why is it that we have achieved so much progress?Truthfreedom_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PST}

BA77 God’s throne is wherever God wants it to be and we as a species being privileged is not depended on where we are placed in the universe Earth can be where ever, it doesn’t subtract from our unique privilege and spot in the universe. We are were we need to beAaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST}

BA77 why is heliocentric wrong and why does it matter to the idea of God or a creator? Wasn’t based off of the interpretation that earth was God’s Throne? Thrones are not often at the center but at the end so that the king may observe all who enter. Second of all Ed George wasn’t dodging anything, there are wealths of info on the topic. I wouldn’t know where to begin on that Again I’m not arguing with you but why?AaronS1978_{February 11, 2020
February
02
Feb
11
11
2020
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PST}

We do not have enough information to know for certain which galaxy lies at the center of the universe, which means our either is or it is not. What we do have is enough information to determine the severe flaws in evolution. Scientific theories require something observable and testable. The e. Coli experiment that lasted 30 years was meant to accomplish both. Over 60,000 generations of e. Coli were observed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to humans, and at the end they still had e. Coli. Not once did they see any mutations they anyone can point to as evidence.BobRyan_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply