> General Discussions
Why did God take so long to create everything?
Oatmeal:
In this thread reference has been made to:
1. Einstein's theory of relativity
2. the Big Bang
3. the expansion of the universe at an ever-increasing velocity the further objects become from one another
4. black holes
1. Einstein's theory of relativity
Professor Herbert Dingle, once a relativist, who as a relativist wrote "Relativity for All" and "The Special Theory of Relativity", and an article on the subject in Encyclopaedia Britannica, changed his mind, a scientific repentance. He later wrote in his book Science at the Crossroads, which can be downloaded from the Internet, a simple easy to understand refutation of the theory of special relativity. Here is the refutation, from page 7:
It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be too subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is of the most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed.
2. the Big Bang
Here is a website: http://www.cosmologystatement.org, in which is detailed an open letter to the Scientific Community and which was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. There were 34 original signers. Many more have since signed.
The first paragraph and up to the first sentence of the second paragraph says:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
(The end of sixth paragraph): …in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
3. the expansion of the universe at an ever-increasing velocity the further objects become from one another
Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who has found evidence that disagrees with the theory that the more the red shift that a galaxy displays the further it is away. He has observed bright quasars with a large values of red shift linked to galaxies with a low value of red shift, and even two galaxies that are linked together but with different red shifts. Galaxy NGC 7319, with a red shift of 0.0225, has a quasar in front of it with a red shift of 2.114. Because these observational results mean that red shift is not an indicator of speed of recession, or distance from the earth, this kills the Big Bang theory, which is based on such assumptions. This is not acceptable to mainstream science.
What happened, or is happening, to Dr Arp? Here is a quote from electric-cosmos.org:
Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them.
We are told that scientists know the detail of the distance to the stars, but according to Scripture:
Jeremiah 31:37
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
4. Black Holes
A couple of quotes from the Introduction of The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott:
This is a universe filled with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and other incomprehensible objects and forces, all with one thing in common: they remain unseen and inaccessible under known laws of physics.
and:
In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists wrote themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn’t fit.
And an appropriate quote from Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, in regard to mainstream cosmological science:
They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.
Oatmeal
Kat:
Hi Oatmeal,
None of this is surprising to me. I've been reading for days trying to find some answers to basic questions and what I find is that most of the theories are based on fallacies or man's incomplete understanding of things.
Where philosophy is concerned there is the almost universal belief of free will and that God is eternal (which the Father is) and then they can't explain the person of Jesus Christ as a eternal Being, (which you can't, He isn't).
It is so hard to read through all the jargon to get to any real solid knowledge. Like you're saying, many times in their stupidity to save a 'pet' theory, they cover up truth... that's the way God intends it.
2Th 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
mercy, peace and love
Kat
indianabob:
Hi Oatmeal and Kat, thanks for your counsel.
There is a reason why much of science theory, that which cannot be demonstrated, ends up in comic books and TV fiction. It is the exercise of the human imagination, which thing is fine for immature youth, but lacking in those who by this time should be using strong meat, verifiable facts alone.
A lover of real science, Indiana Bob
Oatmeal:
Thank you for your reply Kat. It was very encouraging to me.
I hope that I have not offended anyone in the use of their words in any of the 4 headings.
Oatmeal
Dave in Tenn:
General Relativity is used in real-life applications every day. Your GPS would not work without taking it into account.
I don't want the last word, but I'm compelled to remind everybody of this: The bottom-line of what Ray taught was that what is TRUE in the scientific sense is TRUE in the Scriptural sense. We are not going to resolve scientific debates here on the forum. It's not going to happen.
Study all you want to. Nobody will ever be convinced of anything if their hearts and minds are already made up. No amount of data, observation, reasoning, mathematics is sufficient for everybody, even if everybody could understand it. As long as there is a "question", the mind of man will seek to fill the void.
This forum is to discuss what Ray teaches on Bible-Truths.com.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version