The reliability of Christian and Muslim texts compared

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
Science is predicated upon observation and experimentation in the present. In terms of age, we can neither observe the past nor experiment on the past because it is gone. About the best we can do scientifically, is make some assumptions about the initial state of the system whose age we want to know, and some assumptions about the rate of change of that system, and make an estimate based on our observations of the current state. Since the different assumptions involve past events (supernatural creation vs natural origin, uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism) they cannot be directly tested by scientific means since the past cannot be experimented upon or observed. I'm not saying I discard the secular science, just saying that I leave room for alternatives.
Except, the sun being older than the earth is almost factual because the two have to have been one at a certain stage. There can be alternatives but some things don't change. Earth can not be flat, the moon can not be a hologram and earth can not be older than the sun.
The very existence of plants today show that they exist because of oxygen and couldn't have existed without it, and we know for a fact that earth's atmosphere is maintained through its spin. No gravitational pull = no rotation = no atmosphere.

This is a massive room to leave for alternatives. And putting a "holy scripture" over evidence and basic knowledge, in my opinion, is very stupid. If i am going to leave such a massive room for change to fit things into Bible, why not other scriptures? Why not Mahabharat, vedas etc?
How would I be different from the people who worship such things?

Shouldn't the entire story of Abraham be a lesson? If we are going to believe blindly in a faith and put evidence aside, we are no different than the people who refused to believe Abraham who spoke with logic just because they had "faith" in their sun gods.

Why not? Scientifically, the gravitational forces of the sun and moon have nothing to do with the rotation rate of earth. The rotation rate is due to the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be changed without applying an enormous external torque. And there is absolutely no biblical or scientific support for such a torque. This is the rotational equivalent of Newton’s first law. So the sun and moon are not necessary to cause the earth to rotate. It would have rotated perfectly well before the creation of the sun and moon. And I did put in my initial reply that the Earth may have already been set on its rotation by Day 2.
This would be accurate if we were talking about stopping the rotation but we aren't talking about stopping it, we are talking about its beginning.

Earth didn't just form and start spinning and then the sun formed. The nebula collapsed, the sun was formed and started spinning and then the debris formed earth that also started spinning (along with the other planets). It WAS the sun's gravitational pull that brought all the debris; dust and particles together to form planets including the earth.

You can't skip 10 steps and start solving the equation from 11th one. You can't ignore what brought about the earth's spin in the first place and then talk about whats keeping it going.

I don't think it is.
Are you sure? Especially when you know Plants came first and then came the sun when the sun is clearly older than the lifeless earth. An earth that finally had the conditions to support life came even later.

The implications of Dr Russell Humphries alternative cosmology
Hypothesis are not theories, a scientific theory is not a hypothesis. The man keeps giving hypothesis but can't back them up, that is, if anything, just sad.
"The time on earth was 6 days while 15 billion years everywhere else" Why 6 days? Because Bible says so? lol why not 7 or 8 or 5 or 10?
 






manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
Also the man's explanation for water on earth is that "Somehow, God carried waters over it".
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,339
'A scientific theory is an idea that can explain things that scientists have observed. Scientists use a theory to make predictions. Scientists accept the theory if the predictions are correct. If the predictions are not correct, the theory will be changed to fit the new evidence'.

A question on my daughter's school exercise described three groups of opinion on origins of the Earth.

1: Creationists explain the Earth according to their religious ideas. Most of these ideas say that the Earth was created in only a few days. This would mean that the rocks on the earth should be about the same age.

2: Catastrophists think mountains and other features were all caused by sudden catastrophes such as earthquakes or volcanos.

3: Uniformitarians think that the same processes we see today, such as weathering or erosion have always happened. They say that these very slow processes are responsible for the features on the earth.

In considering which is the correct view we have to consider if there is any difference between 'scientific' and 'true' and what 'religious' actually means. A simple thought experiment may help to explain this...

Picture a three men visiting an empty house and finding a bath full of water. Being a scientists, and with some time to spare, they start to wonder how long the bath has been there. The plug is in and the water is cold. No help there then! Next one notices that the tap is dripping. Taking out a test tube and a timer he works out the rate at which the tap is dripping. After a couple of minutes with his calculator he pronounces confidently that the bath took six weeks to fill up. While the first scientist has been working this out the second one notices a large bucket in the corner of the bathroom. He suggests that maybe someone might have used the bucket to pour some water into the bath. If that were true all of the first scientists calculations would be wrong. This causes an almighty argument!!!

The guys just can't see eye to eye but in the end they reluctantly agree that perhaps they both might be right. The third scientist has been keeping quiet during the argument. Once things had quieted down a bit he asks the other two if they had considered the idea that the owner had filled the bath then left the house. Gales of laughter erupt from the other two! They quickly point out that his view is untestable, unrepeatable and therefore, quite frankly, unscientific. The third man throws up his hands in exasperation but can't argue with their logic.

On the way out of the house they notice a CCTV camera and computer set up in the lounge and they decide to settle the argument once and for all. Rewinding the recording, a figure pops in and out with the bucket three times. The second scientist smiles to himself. There is a very long pause then in reverse another figure is seen filling the bath.

In our story the first and second men can claim a "scientific approach". The third hasn't a leg to stand on scientifically and has to rely on deductive reasoning instead. It is possible that the bath could have been filled by buckets or drips but in the end it was the combination of the three events that led to the full bath. Perhaps the example above helps to illustrate the scope and limitation of the scientific method in finding out what is true.

In old seafaring days, when the map makers reached the limits of their exploration they would write 'here be dragons' on the map. At least they had enough humility to admit the limits of their knowledge. With our study of the earth, we can observe uniform processes and see evidence of catastrophes. There is nothing wrong with the study of either but if both were established to be true, that in no way means that the Earth and indeed the universe could not have been created in the past as a one time event. It just means that we are unable to directly investigate that type of event in the same way as we can the other two.

If that means it is a 'religious' view, so be it, but no more so than our third scientist in the story.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
607
Except, the sun being older than the earth is almost factual because the two have to have been one at a certain stage. There can be alternatives but some things don't change. Earth can not be flat, the moon can not be a hologram and earth can not be older than the sun.
The very existence of plants today show that they exist because of oxygen and couldn't have existed without it, and we know for a fact that earth's atmosphere is maintained through its spin. No gravitational pull = no rotation = no atmosphere.
I never said the Earth was flat or the moon was a hologram so I don't know where that came from. As for the atmosphere point, again I pointed out that that would've been taken care of by Day 2. Same with the model of a "pre-sun" light source that could've provided the adequate conditions for plant life to be maintained. The Earth must have been rotating to allow for the days and nights to pass.

This is a massive room to leave for alternatives. And putting a "holy scripture" over evidence and basic knowledge, in my opinion, is very stupid. If i am going to leave such a massive room for change to fit things into Bible, why not other scriptures? Why not Mahabharat, vedas etc?
How would I be different from the people who worship such things?
"Evidence and basic knowledge" . . . As far as I know the Big Bang was still labelled a scientific theory and not a hypothesis.
You seem to think this whole dialogue was started because of an attempt to elevate my beliefs over others. I haven't done that, I just responded to statements you made about the bible which is a part of my beliefs.

Shouldn't the entire story of Abraham be a lesson? If we are going to believe blindly in a faith and put evidence aside, we are no different than the people who refused to believe Abraham who spoke with logic just because they had "faith" in their sun gods.
I'm not blindly following my faith. I've looked into arguments from both sides.

This would be accurate if we were talking about stopping the rotation but we aren't talking about stopping it, we are talking about its beginning.
If the sun and moon play a minor role in the rotation of the Earth and in stopping it, what makes you think they had a major role in the offset of his rotation in the first place?

Earth didn't just form and start spinning and then the sun formed. The nebula collapsed, the sun was formed and started spinning and then the debris formed earth that also started spinning (along with the other planets). It WAS the sun's gravitational pull that brought all the debris; dust and particles together to form planets including the earth.

You can't skip 10 steps and start solving the equation from 11th one. You can't ignore what brought about the earth's spin in the first place and then talk about whats keeping it going.

Are you sure? Especially when you know Plants came first and then came the sun when the sun is clearly older than the lifeless earth. An earth that finally had the conditions to support life came even later.
There are still contentions within the Big Bang theory so I wouldn't exactly class it as evidence against a creationist model.
 






Last edited:

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
If the sun and moon play a minor role in the rotation of the Earth and in stopping it, what makes you think they had a major role in the offset of his rotation in the first place?
Not the moon but the Sun yes, because you know, earth was a part of the sun once upon a time.

There are still contentions within the Big Bang theory so I wouldn't exactly class it as evidence against a creationist model.
Robin, you're not the only person I'm talking to.
You can be religious and a "creationist" and still believe in science, thats what we do. I just don't believe in modifying the said science to fit religion.

That Dr had to come up with an entirely new set of rules or "alternative cosmology" to relate the creation of the universe with the Bible and yet most of the answers he gives is through "somehow".

This is something we don't have to do. Quran mentions everything starting from a massive cloud and it did, that is the backbone of the big bang theory, a massive nebula that went bang. Then Quran mentions Sun and the earth and the moon being one that were later separated, again something supported by Science. Then it goes on to mention their orbits etc.

Another thing I really love is that we have three scientific hypothesis regarding how the world could possibly end. One of those fits EXACTLY what the Quran says about how the world will end, universe folding on it on like pages of a book turning over one another. This is the theory of the big crunch if i remember correctly.


You seem to think this whole dialogue was started because of an attempt to elevate my beliefs over others. I haven't done that, I just responded to statements you made about the bible which is a part of my beliefs.
Its not about elevating one over the another. I just made the point because of earlier attempts at debunking Quran through science with something like "was man made from egg or sperm or nothing".

Plus I don't like the "if you don't believe in Bible, you are a prey to satan hurr durr" and then being unable to argue against the very reasons because of which we don't believe in the Bible.
 






manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
'A scientific theory is an idea that can explain things that scientists have observed. Scientists use a theory to make predictions. Scientists accept the theory if the predictions are correct. If the predictions are not correct, the theory will be changed to fit the new evidence'.

A question on my daughter's school exercise described three groups of opinion on origins of the Earth.

1: Creationists explain the Earth according to their religious ideas. Most of these ideas say that the Earth was created in only a few days. This would mean that the rocks on the earth should be about the same age.

2: Catastrophists think mountains and other features were all caused by sudden catastrophes such as earthquakes or volcanos.

3: Uniformitarians think that the same processes we see today, such as weathering or erosion have always happened. They say that these very slow processes are responsible for the features on the earth.

In considering which is the correct view we have to consider if there is any difference between 'scientific' and 'true' and what 'religious' actually means. A simple thought experiment may help to explain this...

Picture a three men visiting an empty house and finding a bath full of water. Being a scientists, and with some time to spare, they start to wonder how long the bath has been there. The plug is in and the water is cold. No help there then! Next one notices that the tap is dripping. Taking out a test tube and a timer he works out the rate at which the tap is dripping. After a couple of minutes with his calculator he pronounces confidently that the bath took six weeks to fill up. While the first scientist has been working this out the second one notices a large bucket in the corner of the bathroom. He suggests that maybe someone might have used the bucket to pour some water into the bath. If that were true all of the first scientists calculations would be wrong. This causes an almighty argument!!!

The guys just can't see eye to eye but in the end they reluctantly agree that perhaps they both might be right. The third scientist has been keeping quiet during the argument. Once things had quieted down a bit he asks the other two if they had considered the idea that the owner had filled the bath then left the house. Gales of laughter erupt from the other two! They quickly point out that his view is untestable, unrepeatable and therefore, quite frankly, unscientific. The third man throws up his hands in exasperation but can't argue with their logic.

On the way out of the house they notice a CCTV camera and computer set up in the lounge and they decide to settle the argument once and for all. Rewinding the recording, a figure pops in and out with the bucket three times. The second scientist smiles to himself. There is a very long pause then in reverse another figure is seen filling the bath.

In our story the first and second men can claim a "scientific approach". The third hasn't a leg to stand on scientifically and has to rely on deductive reasoning instead. It is possible that the bath could have been filled by buckets or drips but in the end it was the combination of the three events that led to the full bath. Perhaps the example above helps to illustrate the scope and limitation of the scientific method in finding out what is true.

In old seafaring days, when the map makers reached the limits of their exploration they would write 'here be dragons' on the map. At least they had enough humility to admit the limits of their knowledge. With our study of the earth, we can observe uniform processes and see evidence of catastrophes. There is nothing wrong with the study of either but if both were established to be true, that in no way means that the Earth and indeed the universe could not have been created in the past as a one time event. It just means that we are unable to directly investigate that type of event in the same way as we can the other two.

If that means it is a 'religious' view, so be it, but no more so than our third scientist in the story.
We believe the universe started because of the big bang and we believe the big bang happened because God commanded it. We don't have to mold science to fit our religious views and we don't have to mold our religious views to fit science.

They fall in place together naturally because a God should not have trouble explaining stuff.
 






elsbet

Star
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,317
Hint: Bible wasn't written in english. What proof do you have that its meant to be like that?
I know it wasn't written in English. I already posted the different terms used in the original Hebrew.

What part is confusing you?
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
607
Not the moon but the Sun yes, because you know, earth was a part of the sun once upon a time.
Okay, if we're trying to discuss this from a biblical creationist perspective, then there's no reason to believe the the "pre-sun model" light source that would've provided the light and heat required for plants to have been created could not also have provided the gravitational pull required to set the Earth's rotation . . . Which again was said to have already been in place.

Its not about elevating one over the another. I just made the point because of earlier attempts at debunking Quran through science with something like "was man made from egg or sperm or nothing".

Plus I don't like the "if you don't believe in Bible, you are a prey to satan hurr durr" and then being unable to argue against the very reasons because of which we don't believe in the Bible.
I don't recall doing that so I can't exactly comment on it.

Robin, you're not the only person I'm talking to.
You can be religious and a "creationist" and still believe in science, thats what we do. I just don't believe in modifying the said science to fit religion.

That Dr had to come up with an entirely new set of rules or "alternative cosmology" to relate the creation of the universe with the Bible and yet most of the answers he gives is through "somehow".

This is something we don't have to do. Quran mentions everything starting from a massive cloud and it did, that is the backbone of the big bang theory, a massive nebula that went bang. Then Quran mentions Sun and the earth and the moon being one that were later separated, again something supported by Science. Then it goes on to mention their orbits etc.

Another thing I really love is that we have three scientific hypothesis regarding how the world could possibly end. One of those fits EXACTLY what the Quran says about how the world will end, universe folding on it on like pages of a book turning over one another. This is the theory of the big crunch if i remember correctly.
This is my personal opinion.
I don't think one can be a creationist and subscribe to this because it takes away the glory attributed to God through the creation of the universe.

Psalm 19:1
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows His handiwork."

Nehemiah 9:6
"You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, The heaven of heavens, with all their host, The earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and you preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You."

Romans 1:20-22
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [a]Godhead, so that they are without excuse"
[a] divine nature, deity

That was why He created anything in the first place, for His glory and pleasure. That's why there is such order and tailoring to creation.

The Big Bang is a natural model that makes the need for a creator God arbitrary regardless of what Islam believes.

"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Filippenko spoke here Saturday (June 23) at the SETICon 2 conference, during a panel discussion called "Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

The quoted astrophysicist goes on to say that while the Big Bang doesn't require the intervention of a god, it doesn't negate the existence of one -just that it wasn't necessary to facilitate the beginning of existence. If God is responsible for bringing the universe into existence and if He (according to the bible) left the very thumbprint of His existence on all He has created as evidence of His deity and supernatural nature then choosing to adopt a theory that renders Him unnecessary to the origin of the world is not something I personally want to do. That's just me and I don't expect you to agree.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,339
We believe the universe started because of the big bang and we believe the big bang happened because God commanded it. We don't have to mold science to fit our religious views and we don't have to mold our religious views to fit science.

They fall in place together naturally because a God should not have trouble explaining stuff.
So do you find the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation convincing? It seems to me that there are missing physical laws in that hopeful piece of scientific conjecture (as anyone who has watched smoke rise out of a chimney will have noticed!)
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,339
Nebular Hypothesis Doesn't Hold Together
BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D.

Secular scientists claim that stars form “naturally” from enormous clouds of gas and dust. The newly-formed star is thought to be encircled by a thin, slowly-spinning disk of dusty material. Dust particles within the disk are thought to collide and stick together, through a hypothetical process called accretion, somehow forming more massive clumps of matter over vast amounts of time. These clumps become the cores of future planets, and supposedly, the gravitational pulls of these clumps attract still more dust and gas, eventually forming planets. Despite the fact that this nebular hypothesis has become textbook orthodoxy, it has serious problems. Secular astronomers have recently uncovered what may be the biggest problem yet: these dust disks simply don’t have enough material in them to develop into planets!

https://www.icr.org/article/nebular-hypothesis-doesnt-hold-together
 






Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
263
Even in secular science community, the big bang theory is already losing credibility for so many reasons (i.e. no evidence of inflation/dark matter/dark energy, the uniform temperature of cosmic microwave background, red-shifts, fine tuning, etc.), that is why new crazy ideas like multiverse and string theories are now being put forth and preached by prominent secular scientists like stephen hawking, lawrence krauss, neil degrasse tyson, etc.

Furthermore, if one really believe in God (omnipotent and omniscient), why one's God needs big bang theory to create the universe when He can just speak it into existence like the God in the Bible? To me, a diety who needs to employ the big bang theory in creation is just a weak god.
 






manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
So do you find the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation convincing? It seems to me that there are missing physical laws in that hopeful piece of scientific conjecture (as anyone who has watched smoke rise out of a chimney will have noticed!)
A nebula is not just a simple ball of smoke though.

Okay, if we're trying to discuss this from a biblical creationist perspective, then there's no reason to believe the the "pre-sun model" light source that would've provided the light and heat required for plants to have been created could not also have provided the gravitational pull required to set the Earth's rotation . . . Which again was said to have already been in place.
And I'm not discussing it from Biblical point of view, my very point of bringing this up was that the biblical version doesn't go hand in hand with what we know through science.

I know it wasn't written in English. I already posted the different terms used in the original Hebrew.

What part is confusing you?
Where?

Nebular Hypothesis Doesn't Hold Together
BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D.

Secular scientists claim that stars form “naturally” from enormous clouds of gas and dust. The newly-formed star is thought to be encircled by a thin, slowly-spinning disk of dusty material. Dust particles within the disk are thought to collide and stick together, through a hypothetical process called accretion, somehow forming more massive clumps of matter over vast amounts of time. These clumps become the cores of future planets, and supposedly, the gravitational pulls of these clumps attract still more dust and gas, eventually forming planets. Despite the fact that this nebular hypothesis has become textbook orthodoxy, it has serious problems. Secular astronomers have recently uncovered what may be the biggest problem yet: these dust disks simply don’t have enough material in them to develop into planets!

https://www.icr.org/article/nebular-hypothesis-doesnt-hold-together
Doesn't the person in this article talk about examining or seeing smaller or younger star systems. Then it goes on to say that the planets formed from that would be the size of "earth or neptune" which to me seems good enough in a smaller star system? Just me?

Anyway when I talk about nebula i'm not talking about the individual protoplanetary disks in each star system, I'm talking about the first one that went "bang".
 






manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
Even in secular science community, the big bang theory is already losing credibility for so many reasons (i.e. no evidence of inflation/dark matter/dark energy, the uniform temperature of cosmic microwave background, red-shifts, fine tuning, etc.), that is why new crazy ideas like multiverse and string theories are now being put forth and preached by prominent secular scientists like stephen hawking, lawrence krauss, neil degrasse tyson, etc.

Furthermore, if one really believe in God (omnipotent and omniscient), why one's God needs big bang theory to create the universe when He can just speak it into existence like the God in the Bible? To me, a diety who needs to employ the big bang theory in creation is just a weak god.
Oh my God what is with you and your awful analogies.God can command into existence then why do people go through the process of birth? Why do trees grow? Thats what your argument sounds like.

God created this world and he put laws in place, one of the most important one being time. The birth, the aging and the death. All things have to be born first in order to exist and then die. The birth will ALWAYS be a process. And the universe was born through a process as well.

Even in secular science community, the big bang theory is already losing credibility for so many reasons (i.e. no evidence of inflation/dark matter/dark energy, the uniform temperature of cosmic microwave background, red-shifts, fine tuning, etc.), that is why new crazy ideas like multiverse and string theories are now being put forth and preached by prominent secular scientists like stephen hawking, lawrence krauss, neil degrasse tyson, etc.
Super string theory is heavily embedded around dark matter plus the multiverse theory is not that "crazy" it makes perfect sense. And its very religious in nature since we believe in the existence of multiverse.

The VERY discovery of big bang is what lead to the possibility of multiverse lol

Try again.
 






manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
The Big Bang is a natural model that makes the need for a creator God arbitrary regardless of what Islam believes.

"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Filippenko spoke here Saturday (June 23) at the SETICon 2 conference, during a panel discussion called "Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

The quoted astrophysicist goes on to say that while the Big Bang doesn't require the intervention of a god, it doesn't negate the existence of one -just that it wasn't necessary to facilitate the beginning of existence. If God is responsible for bringing the universe into existence and if He (according to the bible) left the very thumbprint of His existence on all He has created as evidence of His deity and supernatural nature then choosing to adopt a theory that renders Him unnecessary to the origin of the world is not something I personally want to do. That's just me and I don't expect you to agree.
The difference is that they are saying that it just needs "physical laws" but someone had to create and put those physical laws in place. Its like saying "birth doesn't need God, you just need the necessary gametes" or "you just need a man and a woman". While the latter is true, the design and the ability must be given to the gametes by someone. Those genes have to be coded by someone.

I guess that is the difference between thinking of theists and atheists. They think of laws, we think of the very creation of those laws.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,339
A nebula is not just a simple ball of smoke though.


And I'm not discussing it from Biblical point of view, my very point of bringing this up was that the biblical version doesn't go hand in hand with what we know through science.


Where?


Doesn't the person in this article talk about examining or seeing smaller or younger star systems. Then it goes on to say that the planets formed from that would be the size of "earth or neptune" which to me seems good enough in a smaller star system? Just me?

Anyway when I talk about nebula i'm not talking about the individual protoplanetary disks in each star system, I'm talking about the first one that went "bang".
There’s cosmology and then there’s real science!
by John G. Hartnett

In my realm of professional interest (physics) there are really only two types of scientists: experimental physicists carrying out experiments in laboratories, and astrophysicists (or cosmologists) who use the universe as their ‘laboratory’. Both construct mathematical models to describe their observations. Both test their models against those observations.

cosmology
However the experimentalists (type 1) can interact with their experiments in a way the astrophysicists cannot. For example, they can send in a light signal and measure the response in the system, i.e. see what comes out. But the astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe.

Historical science in astronomy

The secular astronomer (astrophysicist) makes uniformitarian assumptions to interpret the evidence of the light received with his telescopes.

Within our solar system we have been able to send probes to make observations. For example, NASA’s Deep Impact probe1 shot a 370 kg copper bullet into a comet2 and measured the spectra3 of the ejected material. And the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a robotic lander, Philae, on a comet4 and made, for the first time, direct measurements of the surface constituents. These types of measurements, you could say, are very similar to what the experimentalists do in their laboratories. But the Rosetta mission’s objectives, excerpted from the ESA website, highlight the type of science involved (emphases added):

Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.5
Astronomers only observe, they cannot interact with their experiment.

These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original assumption.

No matter how much evidence they accumulate they cannot directly observe the past; certainly not without assumptions. The material they dig out of those comets is evidence to which they always need to apply interpretations.

Even in the case of astrophysics, you might think that the astronomer is observing the past, because the light entering his telescope supposedly took millions or billions of years to traverse the vast universe to earth. But even this has its limits to what we can know.

Uniformitarian assumptions

The astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe. Billions of years is an essential ingredient for an explanation of what they observe where the Creator is excluded a priori.

The secular astronomer receives light into his telescope on earth and makes the uniformitarian assumption that the light has been travelling at a constant speed (of about 300,000 km/s) for the past millions or billions of years to reach earth, and with no relativistic time dilation effects (where clocks run at different speeds in different parts of the universe).6 Only after making that assumption can he make the further assumption, not know, that what he observes is coming from some past epoch millions or billions of years earlier. But how could you test that assumption? You can’t! And for that reason this aspect of astrophysics/cosmology is not directly provable by any empirical test.

In the case of all observations beyond the solar system the problem is beyond dispute. You cannot go there. The sizes, distances and assumed ages of galaxies and other cosmic radiation/light sources, are so great that even what we measure is as though we are taking a single still photograph; it is just a moment in time.

Astronomers only observe, they cannot interact with their experiment as the experimental physicist in the laboratory can do. And what makes matters even more difficult for the astrophysicist or cosmologist is that there are many possible explanations for the same observations. But because they cannot interact with the sources under investigation (which might even be the whole universe) their science is very weak indeed. For this very reason James Gunn, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said:

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. … A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”7

Conclusion

The European Space Agency (ESA) spacecraft, Rosetta, landed a probe on the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
Astrophysics and cosmology are by their very nature loaded with philosophical underpinnings. In principle there is nothing wrong with that. You could not do any sort of science without a basis to build your model. The set of unprovable philosophical underpinnings (also called presuppositions or axioms) comprise one’s worldview. And we all have a worldview. We form that based on what we believe about the world around us and how it all began.

The difference here is that my worldview is based on the biblical truth that God, the Creator, created the universe about 6,000 years ago. It was not the result of an accident or a quantum fluctuation of some imagined/postulated vacuum or a big bang of any sort. Rather it was the result of plan and purpose as God told us in the Bible.

However, the worldview that underlies modern secular/mainstream cosmology, and cosmogony (on the origin of the universe) is an atheistic one. It has no place for a Creator, and only relies on what man can discover for himself. As a result he has had to resort to all sorts of fudge factors8 to make his model fit the observational data, the evidence from the cosmos.


References and notes

  1. NASA declares end of deep impact comet hunter mission, spaceflight101.com, September 2013.
  2. Comet Tempel 1.
  3. What is spectroscopy? solarsystem.nasa.gov, accessed February 2015.
  4. Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
  5. Rosetta’s frequently asked questions, esa.int, accessed February 2015.
  6. The effects of motion and gravity on time are measurable, testable scientific phenomena.
  7. Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007.
  8. Hartnett, J.G., Is ‘dark matter’ the ‘unknown god’? Creation 37(2):22–24, 2015; Hartnett, J.G., Big bang beliefs busted, Creation 37(3):48–51, 2015.

https://creation.com/cosmology-isnt-real-science
 






Last edited:

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,559
Lol Why do these sites love throwing time dilation here and there but do they even understand it. They are actually acting like the clocks actually tick at different times in different part of the universe. Thats not true at all and shows how little they know about relativity.
Clocks in the theory of time dilation, are both ticking at the same time at the same time. The change is through the pov of the observers hence "relativity". So there "time dilation" where sunlight is reaching the earth makes no sense.

And the said incorrect cosmology which "isn't real science by someone who isn't a scientist" still has more evidence to back it up than the "god made universe in 6 days and took a rest on the 7th". And the most annoying part is the end of the article that says "God created universe 6000 years ago" that is just sad. Its even sadder when a layman can check and tell you "this rock is 2 million years old".

We have found bacteria that were 3.5 billion years old. There are psychrophilic bacteria in the glaciers that are older than the said "6000 years". What does that person say about that? Cosmology might not be real science according to these people because "hurr durr no experiments" but bacteriology very much is.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,339
We have found bacteria that were 3.5 billion years old. There are psychrophilic bacteria in the glaciers that are older than the said "6000 years". What does that person say about that? Cosmology might not be real science according to these people because "hurr durr no experiments" but bacteriology very much is.
Asking the questions of received scientific consensus is a great place to start. I am so glad I studied Biology at Uni and had many of these kinds of conversations.

One thing I did come to realise was the limits of both creationist and evolutionary magic bullets. The way i started to look at evidence of the past which had both untestable conditions and unrepeatable circumstances was to consider both models rather like a civil trial. Here the test is “balance of probability”.

Under those terms I have spent 25 years continuing to have an active interest in both creation and evolution evidence and I can honestly say that I find the balance of probability overwhelmingly in favour of the Creation model.

As a good overview for anyone coming new to this sort of debate, this was a pretty good film:-


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzjPwFPxtpZTJ1dq7cAkb3g
 






Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
263
Oh my God what is with you and your awful analogies.God can command into existence then why do people go through the process of birth? Why do trees grow? Thats what your argument sounds like.

God created this world and he put laws in place, one of the most important one being time. The birth, the aging and the death. All things have to be born first in order to exist and then die. The birth will ALWAYS be a process. And the universe was born through a process as well.
OK (muslim apologetics 101 detected as always...hahaha), aren't we talking about the creation of the universe, the first 6-days according to the Book of Genesis, where God spoke everything (including natural laws) into existence...the process of birth and how trees grow are just effects of the natural laws the God put in existence during and after the 6-day creation...doesn't need big bang for that :)

Super string theory is heavily embedded around dark matter plus the multiverse theory is not that "crazy" it makes perfect sense. And its very religious in nature since we believe in the existence of multiverse.

The VERY discovery of big bang is what lead to the possibility of multiverse lol

Try again.
Oh my, OK so you now believe that allah employed big bang, string theory and multiverse, all three theories in creation? LOL

But then again, if one really believe in God (omnipotent and omniscient), why one's God needs big bang/string/multiverse theory to create the universe when He can just speak it into existence like the God in the Bible? And again, to me, a diety who needs to employ such theories in creation is just a weak god.

Are you sure you are not an atheist? :)
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,738
Oh my, OK so you now believe that allah employed big bang, string theory and multiverse, all three theories in creation? LOL

But then again, if one really believe in God (omnipotent and omniscient), why one's God needs big bang/string/multiverse theory to create the universe when He can just speak it into existence like the God in the Bible? And again, to me, a diety who needs to employ such theories in creation is just a weak god.
No Manama is just saying that God created the Universe :)

Scientific theories are based off empirical observation and prediction, among other things.

What Manama is saying is that these observations about the objective universe are in fact not in any way contradictory to the Muslim perspective on the matter (and I do agree with her mostly). As I mentioned way earlier here, in Islam, the doctrine of God being "Creator and Sustainer" is very literal. These are also two of the many names of God (al-Khaliq, and, Ar-Razzaq) as well.

Also, saying that she is saying that God is merely "employing such theories" is both strawmanning and missing the point.
 






Top