Is the denial of geologic evidence the best way to promote Christianity?

[Arnie Manitoba]

The science of physics is used to do the maths which predict if a plane will fly.

Every time I get on a modern jet and am very confident that it will get me to the destination is a very strong proof in my opinion.

There is a lot more to it than that Tim

I am talking about what God has done that the scientist cannot explain.

Centrifugal force is just one example

We can see what it does but we cannot explain how it works God only knows

I am a helicopter pilot and guess what ... the rotor blades on my helicopter are not strong enough to lift the machine into the air

If a person was to tie a rope to the ends of the blades and lift , they would simply bend upwards like a limp noodle.

The blades are only 1 inch thick, 8 inches wide , weigh only 50 pounds .... but they can carry 5000 pounds.

How do they do that ?

By spinning them at 300 rpm the centrifugal force makes them rigid and the helicopter can fly

No scientist on the face of the earth can explain what this invisible thing called centrifugal force actually is .... all they can do is observe it in action.

God invented centrifugal force , the planets and solar system are kept in equilibrium because of it ,

Yet there are humans who figure they are smarter than God , and even go so far to say he does not even exist.

Somebody is looking foolish in this situation .... and it is not the Creator

 

[Tim TP]

It does take faith in science, and even more in the engineering of a plane to be confident that it will not crash.

The reason you have trust in the idea of the plane not crashing is because it has been demonstrated lots before. Some bloke just saying that it's OK is never enough.
Arnie,

Your education was very poor.

That's not your fault.

You are a helicoter pilot and thus must be fairly clever and fairly decent at the underlying mental charicteristics that make somebody decent at maths. You should have been shown this sort of thing, that you haven't been is eduactional abuse.

I was taught basic physics when I was 12. Centrifugal forc is very easy to explain. From F=MA the mass of the blade is traveling in a circle. It's velocity is thus constantly changing. Velocity is a measurment of speed with the direction specified. The direction is constantly chaning. This is an acceleration. There is a force pulling the blade towards the central axis of rotation. If you draw a force diagram of the blade then you will have to put this force on. It will then explain why the blade is kept outward and a bit upward when in flight.

If you want to demonstrate centrifugal force easily take a bucket of water and swing it back and forwards, increasing tghe speed of the swing untill you are able to swing it over your head. If you do it quickly and smoothly you will be able to get the bucket of water to rotate over you. When it's at the top of the swing the water does not fall out of the bucket because the acceleration of the bucket inwards towards your shoulder is greater than the acceleration of gravity. If you do this in a horizontal rotation you will have a situation similar to the rotor blade but without the upward lift force of the wing effect of the blade.

Speaking of basic mental aptitude, is there any chance of getting a spell checker on here as I have zero chance of spelling lots of worms right.

 

[Dodo_David]

The reason you have trust in the idea of the plane not crashing is because it has been demonstrated lots before. Some bloke just saying that it's OK is never enough.

Arnie,

Your education was very poor.

That's not your fault.

You are a helicoter pilot and thus must be fairly clever and fairly decent at the underlying mental charicteristics that make somebody decent at maths. You should have been shown this sort of thing, that you haven't been is eduactional abuse.

I was taught basic physics when I was 12. Centrifugal forc is very easy to explain. From F=MA the mass of the blade is traveling in a circle. It's velocity is thus constantly changing. Velocity is a measurment of speed with the direction specified. The direction is constantly chaning. This is an acceleration. There is a force pulling the blade towards the central axis of rotation. If you draw a force diagram of the blade then you will have to put this force on. It will then explain why the blade is kept outward and a bit upward when in flight.

If you want to demonstrate centrifugal force easily take a bucket of water and swing it back and forwards, increasing tghe speed of the swing untill you are able to swing it over your head. If you do it quickly and smoothly you will be able to get the bucket of water to rotate over you. When it's at the top of the swing the water does not fall out of the bucket because the acceleration of the bucket inwards towards your shoulder is greater than the acceleration of gravity. If you do this in a horizontal rotation you will have a situation similar to the rotor blade but without the upward lift force of the wing effect of the blade.

Speaking of basic mental aptitude, is there any chance of getting a spell checker on here as I have zero chance of spelling lots of worms right.

Tim TP:

You go too far in assuming that Arnie wasn't properly educated, and you completely missed his point.

He knows how to produce centrifugal force, and probably the math and physics behind it.

Arnie is discussing the mystery as to why centrifugal force can be produced through math and physics.

Do we really understand why the four fundamental forces of nature exist?

Speaking of basic mental aptitude, is there any chance of getting a spell checker on here as I have zero chance of spelling lots of worms right.

Uh, try using Google Chrome as your browser. However, it won't prevent you from spelling a word that you didn't mean to spell, such as "worms".

 

[Tim TP]

Worms was a joke... and I'm too lazy to put everthing through another website.....

Centrifugal force is not produced through maths it is modeled through maths.

It is 100% understood.

Arnie's education has lacked the explaination of centrifugal force. It's also not involved river errosion and deposition. Since he is obviously a bright man, being a helicopter pilot is demanding both cordination wise and technically, he should be aware of stuff like this unless he has become a lot more inteligent recently (not very likley).

I think the best explaination is that his schooling was poor and has let down a bright kid. I expect that would happen if somone was home schooled by some of the Christians I have met.

I don't want to make this an attack on Arnie. Quite the opposite. He is clearly a clever bloke. I want to point out that a decent science education is very needed or somone like him cannot ever design a better helicopter. He might of had that opportunity had his schooling been more science strong.

 

[Dodo_David]

Worms was a joke... and I'm too lazy to put everthing through another website.....

Centrifugal force is not produced through maths it is modeled through maths.

It is 100% understood.

Arnie's education has lacked the explaination of centrifugal force. It's also not involved river errosion and deposition. Since he is obviously a bright man, being a helicopter pilot is demanding both cordination wise and technically, he should be aware of stuff like this unless he has become a lot more inteligent recently (not very likley).

I think the best explaination is that his schooling was poor and has let down a bright kid. I expect that would happen if somone was home schooled by some of the Christians I have met.

I don't want to make this an attack on Arnie. Quite the opposite. He is clearly a clever bloke. I want to point out that a decent science education is very needed or somone like him cannot ever design a better helicopter. He might of had that opportunity had his schooling been more science strong.

Tim TP:

At times it is best to leave certain things unsaid even if we think them.
Claiming that a person didn't receive a good education is one of those things.
Such a claim is speculation even if it isn't intended to be an attack or an insult.

 

[Tim TP]

Tim TP:

At times it is best to leave certain things unsaid even if we think them.
Claiming that a person didn't receive a good education is one of those things.
Such a claim is speculation even if it isn't intended to be an attack or an insult.

I once had to explain that the earth was a sphere to one of these born again (or whatever) Christians. I did it by using the example of his own travel around the globe on a round the world ticket. I don't know where exactly he went to school but he was certainly educationally abused. Somewhere in Austrailia.

This is one of the big problems Christianity (and all the other religions) causes. It's very real. If I have ruffled feathers by pointing it out then the chance one one child not suffering the same fate is worth it.

If we are going to be a society which designs better helicopters than those we have today have do the real world and study it. That's science. Religious thinking will obstruct that at every level. The more extreme the more it will do it. I wish to try to influence the world in the progressive direction.

 

[Dodo_David]

I once had to explain that the earth was a sphere to one of these born again (or whatever) Christians. I did it by using the example of his own travel around the globe on a round the world ticket. I don't know where exactly he went to school but he was certainly educationally abused. Somewhere in Austrailia.

This is one of the big problems Christianity (and all the other religions) causes. It's very real. If I have ruffled feathers by pointing it out then the chance one one child not suffering the same fate is worth it.

If we are going to be a society which designs better helicopters than those we have today have do the real world and study it. That's science. Religious thinking will obstruct that at every level. The more extreme the more it will do it. I wish to try to influence the world in the progressive direction.

Tim TP,

It is clear to me that you have been poorly educated about the relationship between science and theology ...

The relationship between theism and science has been debated for generations. All too often, people are given the impression that one cannot believe in the existence of God and at the same time believe what science says about nature. In reality, science does not require atheism, as indicated by the following statements by scientists.

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist: “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values –subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate but can never resolve.”

“Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. Rather, he argued that nature’s factuality, as read within the magisterium of science, could not resolve, or even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life, the proper foundations of morality, or any other question within the different magisterium of religion.”

“The universe, for all we know, may have an ultimate purpose and meaning . . . and these ultimates may be set by a rational transcendent power legitimately called God, but the resolvable subject matter of science falls into another realm below the purview of such philosophical (and probably unknowable) generalities.”

Ian G. Barbour, nuclear physicist: “Another way of separating theological from scientific assertions is the distinction between primary and secondary causality, which is common in Catholic and neo-orthodox thought. God as primary cause is said to work through the secondary causes of the natural world that science studies. God is omnipotent and uses natural laws to achieve particular goals. Primary causality is on a totally different level from the interactions among entities in the world.”

Kenneth R. Miller, biologist: “Does evolution really nullify all world views that depend on the spiritual? Does it demand logical agnosticism as the price of scientific consistency? And does it rigorously exclude belief in God? These are the questions that I will explore in the pages that follow. My answer, in each and every case, is a resounding ‘no’.”

“My friends and colleagues in nonscientific disciplines will often claim science as their authority. Clearly they believe that scientific inquiry has ruled out the divine. Unfortunately for them, as I will argue, nothing of the sort is true. Their attitude towards religion and religious people are rooted not so much in science itself as in the humanist fabric of modern intellectual life.”

Mark Buchheim, biologist: “Science is indeed a powerful tool, but science is, by default, mute with regard to anything outside the natural world. The late Stephen J. Gould introduced the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria, to describe how science and faith co-exist in “mutual humility.” The point I’m making here is that science, stripped of any philosophical assumptions about the exclusivity of the natural world, can tell us nothing about our faith. Therefore, anyone who tries to link an acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism or agnosticism is promoting a false dichotomy.”

Mark A. Foster, sociologist: “Because a scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not make her or him an atheist.”

“Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other means.”

“There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin. Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or the soul.”

Scientists are not the only people who acknowledge the fact that atheism is not a requirement of science. Non-theist philosophers also acknowledge it.

John Wilkins, agnostic philosophy professor: “A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that ‘if A then B’ explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without being logically inconsistent.”

Keith Augustine, atheist philosopher: “In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural.”

In short, a person can believe in God and still be a good scientist.



Quote Sources
[In order of appearance]
Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life (Ballantine: 1999), p. 4.
Ibid., p. 192.
Ibid., p. 199.
Ian G. Barbour, When science meets religion (HarperSanFrancisco: 2000), p. 19.
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s god (Cliff Street Books: 1999), p. 17.
Ibid., p. 19.
Mark Buchheim, “Letter to the editor: an educated response”, The Collegian Online (University of Tulsa: 2005), http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=2569 .
Mark A. Foster, “The Captain’s Personal bLog”, My Looking-Glass Selves (Sociosphere: 2001), http://editorials.sociosphere.com/arc20020301.html .
Ibid.
Ibid.
John Wilkins, Naturalism: Is it necessary? (TalkOrigins: 1997), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html .
Keith Augustine, Naturalism (Infidels: 2009), http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/ .


Photo Source

 

[Raining]

God is Science
Science is God

When you understand one, you will understand the other.

When you can find these realms, maybe you can find your understanding of real science, and maybe God.

I think Darwin is right to a point, but not everything, its just a crumb.

I think science is right too, but just crumbs.

I think something has control over all organic life and non organic life in this world.

Maybe we are just a part of some machine controlled by some kind of intelligent entity.

Maybe we ourselves made this world, and we are playing a game with the rules made before the start of the game.

 

[lforrest]

Science is like a small window through which you can catch a glimpse of God's back from a distance.

When you think all scientific understanding is within reach your only discover how much there still is to learn.

God can only be known through Jesus Christ.

As far as other dimensions, it is hard to understand things outside our frame of reference.

 

[Tim TP]

The relationship between theism and science has been debated for generations. All too often, people are given the impression that one cannot believe in the existence of God and at the same time believe what science says about nature.

I want people to make sensable decisions.

I don't want people to obstruct the education of their children.

Not teaching geology and the other sciences because they understanding them causes you to know that Genisis is wrong in a literal sense is very bad in my view. In my view it's educational abuse.

Theology will, in my view, have to look after it's self.

 

[Dodo_David]

I want people to make sensable decisions.

I don't want people to obstruct the education of their children.

Not teaching geology and the other sciences because they understanding them causes you to know that Genisis is wrong in a literal sense is very bad in my view. In my view it's educational abuse.

Theology will, in my view, have to look after it's self.

Tim TP,

Plenty of Christians agree with you. Plenty of Christians accept what the empirical data says about the natural history of the Earth.

What you are complaining about is the tendency of some Christians to require empirical data to pass a religious litmus test, which is something that violates the rules of science. I agree that it is wrong to do such a thing.

On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right. It is an error to claim that atheism is a requirement of science.

The late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould introduced the concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) in which science is in one magisterium and religion is in another.

In his book Rocks of Ages, Gould admits that he is an agnostic with personal leanings toward atheism, but he also chastises anyone who would try to use science to attack belief in the existence in the supernatural.

As atheist philosopher Keith Augustine writes, "There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural."

So, while it is wrong for any person to reject empirical data because of an ethnocentric view of Genesis, it is equally wrong for any person to claim that science has eliminated God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because science has done no such thing.

Nothing in the Christian faith requires Christians to reject the empirical data discovered by scientists.
Nothing in Science requires scientists to reject belief in the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Tim TP]

^ Whilst I personally consider all religion humanity's greatest weakness and "sin", I do understand that it would be unacceptable for this view to be imposed on others.

I do however, think that the obstruction of decent education on grounds that you disagree with the subjects being taught in school is educational abuse.

I disagree with the global warming hype. I can make my case to all. If kids make different decisions as to the validity of the case then so be it.

 

[Dodo_David]

^ Whilst I personally consider all religion humanity's greatest weakness and "sin", I do understand that it would be unacceptable for this view to be imposed on others.

I do however, think that the obstruction of decent education on grounds that you disagree with the subjects being taught in school is educational abuse.

I disagree with the global warming hype. I can make my case to all. If kids make different decisions as to the validity of the case then so be it.

Tim, I understand what you are saying about educational abuse.

The Christian faith is not aided by parents shielding their children from the empirical data that scientists have discovered.

The Christian faith does not require a rejection of that empirical data.

At the same time, the Christian faith isn't harmed or destroyed by that empirical data.

 

[Tim TP]

The Christian faith has a very long histroy of trying to supress empirical data.

You may well be of that opinion but most Christians, especially the active converts, are very much doing the deny the real world thing.

The church, as a political power, is also strongly against such things as genetic research. Same old same old.

 

[Dodo_David]

The Christian faith has a very long histroy of trying to supress empirical data.

You may well be of that opinion but most Christians, especially the active converts, are very much doing the deny the real world thing.

The church, as a political power, is also strongly against such things as genetic research. Same old same old.

Most Christians?

Considering how many living Christians there are in the world and how they are spread throughout the world, how do you know what most of them are doing?

Perhaps you are referring to certain Christians in the USA who are able to attract attention to themselves.

I don't agree with those certain Christians, either, because what they are doing isn't a requirement of the Christian faith, and it makes Christians look bad.

:mellow:


On the other hand, those certain Christians are not alone in misrepresenting what Science says.

In Post #47 above, I cite the writings of scientists who say that nothing in Science does away with a belief in God or belief in the supernatural.

Yet, plenty of atheists insist that Science has eliminated God, when Science has done no such thing.

It isn't unusual for atheists to try to use Modern Evolution Theory to support their atheism, but in doing so, they show that they misunderstand what Modern Evolution Theory says.

I am going to quote something that I have posted elsewhere:

Christians and non-Christians alike have a gross misunderstanding of what modern evolution theory says. The theory describes the causes of evolutionary events, but nothing in the theory prevents God from participating in evolutionary events.

For example, mutations are known causes of evolutionary events. It is common for people believe that modern evolution theory requires completely random mutations, but the theory requires no such thing. In his book Climbing Mount Improbable, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says the following:

“It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance . . . But, as I said before, it is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness.”1

Once again I will quote Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist who defends Modern Evolution Theory:

My friends and colleagues in nonscientific disciplines will often claim science as their authority. Clearly they believe that scientific inquiry has ruled out the divine. Unfortunately for them, as I will argue, nothing of the sort is true. Their attitude towards religion and religious people are rooted not so much in science itself as in the humanist fabric of modern intellectual life.2

I see nothing wrong with a person criticizing theists who beg the question by trying to make empirical data fit their religious beliefs.

At the same time, I see nothing wrong with a person criticizing atheists who beg the question by trying to use Science to promote their atheism.

There are extremists at both ends of the faith spectrum.

:mellow:

Quote Sources

1 Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton & Company: 1996), pp. 80-82.

2 Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s god (Cliff Street Books: 1999), p. 19.

 

[Tim TP]

I am an atheist.

I am one of those extreme ones who would like to see anyone who makes money from the clain that there is a great tooth fairy looking after you done for fraud.

That however, is a very long way off. Fair enough.

For the moment I would like it if less children were educationally abused by being taken out of school or placed in a religious school where the influence of religion resulted in them coming out less able to do stuff (like desing a new helicopter or drug) than they would be if they were exposed to the best of fatual, critical, education.

Religon is, in my view, destructive of many things. The more the religion is devolved from the real world the more destructive it is. The objective of this thread is to try to drift the teaching of Christianity away from denial of the real world and to embrace more facts. To lie less.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

The reason you have trust in the idea of the plane not crashing is because it has been demonstrated lots before. Some bloke just saying that it's OK is never enough.

Arnie,

Your education was very poor.

That's not your fault.

You are a helicoter pilot and thus must be fairly clever and fairly decent at the underlying mental charicteristics that make somebody decent at maths. You should have been shown this sort of thing, that you haven't been is eduactional abuse.

I am done trying to help you TimP ... but just so you know my education on helicopters and the centrifugal force that keep the blades rigid is something I am fully aware of. There is nothing you can teach me in that regard.

The creator created centrifugal force and it remains an "unexplained force" within high physics.
Guys like you probably think Darwin and His Finches keep helicopter blades rigid
But you are mistaken

Here are a few pictures of what I do for a living
Go to about post #53

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/17702-whats-the-weather-like-in-your-part-of-the-world-right-now/page-2#entry215092

Over and out !!!!!!

ps: ... and dont ever insult me again.
Thank you.

 

[Raining]

Arnie,

Checking to see if I was a offender of a insult, not my intentions.

Checking past post on this thread, I came across the Big Bang post and the question you asked.

Time is in everything, I think or there would be no point A to point B, as in to do math. Time exits in the tiniest Adams too, anything that moves has time, or point A and point B would be nothing. I believe time is linked to anything that moves or has mass.

How can one measure nothing, in time?
Nothing has mass too.

 

[Dodo_David]

The objective of this thread is to try to drift the teaching of Christianity away from denial of the real world and to embrace more facts. To lie less.

If people believe what they are saying is true, then they are not lying. They could be mistaken, but they are not lying.

I am in favor of people embracing facts. For example, it is a fact that Science doesn't do away with the existence of God or with the existence of the supernatural.

As atheist philosopher Keith Augustine writes, "In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural." *

B)

*Quote Source: Keith Augustine, Naturalism (Infidels: 2009), http://www.infidels....ism/naturalism/ .

 

[Tim TP]

I don't have aproblem with people practicing a belief in the supernatural, well it causes me puselment and stuff..., but I do have a problem with people using myth to gain power over and money from vunerable others.

The creator created centrifugal force and it remains an "unexplained force" within high physics.

Centrifugal force is the result of the resistance of a mass to acceleration.

It is fully understood.

That the Higgs Boson (or however you spell it) has only just been discovered is by the by. We know what mass is, we know what ineritia is, we understand the relationship between force and acceleration. We thus understand what centrifugal force is. Any engineer has to understand it.