The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

let me get this straight. The world of today is the fallen world, right? The fallen world began after the flood, right? If the laws of physics (which eventually lead into the laws of all other branches of science considering physics deals with matter and energy) have been unchanged since the fall, then the fallen world is over 13 billion years old(I gave up years ago with keeping up with how old the universe is). Noah's flood occurred on earth, right? Then the earth must be as old as the fallen universe, right? And how old is the earth, according to the science in this fallen world, which obeys the continuity of scientific laws? Try about 4.6 billion years old. Which means that Noah's flood could not happen on the earth, right? But if Noah's flood has to occur on earth, since man has always been on earth, even in the bible, the fallen state does not exist as you define it.Please do correct me if my analysis is wrong.This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 01:42 AM

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

right, but that still leaves a very old universe. GFC is saying that since science can only measure the world after the fall and before the second coming, nothing can be known prior or after these events by science. And if the fall is the beginning of when science can observe nature, and science has observed a many billions year old universe, and science has observed an earth that is only 4.6 billion byo, many times younger than the universe, it leaves a illogical conclusion for him. His conclusion requires the earth to be as old as the fall, and his logic places the fall at the beginning of science, over 13bya. Adam and Eve's fall still occurred on earth, which would then mean that the earth has to be less than 100000 years old, which isn't the case.

I think i get what GFC is saying. It doesn't matter when or who started the Fall (GFC says Noah's flood is the fall, you say Adam and Eve's original sin), but his assumption that science can only measure the universe after the fall means that the measured universe must be as old as the earth, or vice versa. neither holds true.The universe is over 13 byo. The fall is when the laws of physics are created as we know themThe earth is 4.6 byo. Since the fall is the beginning of time for science, and since science can measure the age of the universe to what was previously stated, something isn't adding up.The earth is younger than the universe. which means the earth was created after the universe.The fall happened on earth, no?Can you tell me what's wrong with this picture?This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 11:55 AM

The age of the universe is determined by science. Since science can only know what happened after the fall, according to GFC, there are then several logical gaps, which I pointed out. Our intruments are not faulty, but they do get more precise (some are faulty, but get corrected). The problem is that the fall GFC mentions occurs on earth, and then the laws (of physics) as we know them came about. THe logical gap is that the universe is older than the earth, and by his logic, this shuld be impossible. I wonder why he hasn't responded yet to this dilema.I think it's more you not getting the logical gap I'm presenting in his logic

Christianity made science strong? Answer me this, who founded the philosphical system, upon which all knowledge is based. Socrates is your answer. Who came up with what the Church took as Dogma, one of the Church Fathers, who was heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Who came up with the idea of endlessly classifyig things--Aristotle. Who were the first scientists--the Greeks. They came up with the theory that atoms made up matter and a few came up with evolution, just to name some of what they did.What did, and does, the Church do. Prohibit free thought. Ever heard of the Dark and Medieval Ages? When the only scientific progress made was to advance weaponry for wars. The renassaince did not come about because of Christianity in Europe. Almost the opposite. It grew inspite of Europe. THanks to the Black Plague and a third of Europe dead the feudal system died. This in turn promoted free thought, particularly in Italy.Science has a much longer tradition than does christianity. The Chinese created gunpowder, the printing press, and paper before Jesus was born. They had rockets over two-thousand years ago. WHat about the process of smelting, which brought on the Bronze and Iron ages?Science is not merely the scientific method. It is a process of learning about what is around you and explaining it based off of observable phenomanon. It is a process of understanding. To say that science will never understand the beginning of the universe is an insult to the human mind.If there is one thing I believe in, it is the greatness of the human mind, of all the things it can do, thinking and reasoning and logic and problem-sovling and the desire to learn and understand are its most magnificent. To tell me that we will never understand the universe becasue God almighty changed the game is insane. And if he is real, then why the H**l does he not strike me down for this?Science is a part of humanity, and to refuse logic is irrational, and if you cannot see this, either learn the logic or get out of my way, becasue I have no time for irrational *******.This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 02:32 PM

How did the CHurch civilize Europe? You do know what time those ages were, right? There is nothing progressive about the fuedal system. It is a system that relies on the systematyic oppression of people and ideas in order to power to be consolidated and kept.Since when was paganism wrong? All it is is a different supernatural method of explaining things.Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. You will then understand just how important Aristotle, not the CHurch, was to scientific progress. Study the history of the Church philospher's and theologians and you will see the importance of Aristotle. The only thing he did wrong was to send the Western World down the wrong path as to the search for truth.

no, if we fell it was because we sinned and god made the fall happen.

only problem--I'm not a christian. Don't get me wrong, I'm not atheistic, I just don't accept Jesus or God as defined in the Bible. I'm what you call agnostic

But isn't one of God's facet's omnipotence?

radioactive decay is not lethal to begin with. Radiation is. The atom bombs did not use U-238, but the stable U-235. U-238 is what is used in radiometric dating, and is not lethal. splitting U-235 will most definetely be lethal, especially if you happen to be inside the blast range.

I think the debate can be solved.First, you have to realize that the science you are propsosing (all the creationists and Faith and GFC) is based off of your belief that a fall happened.Second, you have to realize that science is not founded on beliefs, but on careful observations and the occasional eureka moment. The only part of science not logical in nature is the eureka moment, the sudden understanding of something, like "wait a minute. The apple fell to the ground. I fall to the ground. I know. Gravity!"Third, a science based on belief is false.Science is the rational
Belief in god is the non-rational
believing that you can jump to the moon is irrational.So what are the solutions?You can either accept Doublethink, or is it blackwhite? Not sure
You can throw away everything you know about one or the other
Or
You can get rid of Aristotle, the guy who categorized thought into those categories.
Get rid of Aristotle, and you get rid of subjective and objective thought.
Get rid of those, and then there is no longer a conflict between two systems of thought.
I forgot what's supposed to replace them, but I'll look it up.

Yes. I don't want us to go the path of doublethink, and the book 1984 is a clear reason as to why not. However, if you can realize that there is no objective/subjective mentality there is no problem. In your subjective analysis, evolution has one too many theological conflicts. What about the heliocentric solar system. Does that not also conflict with what you believe. Do you accept the heliocentric solar system, or do you try to force it into your beliefs? If you do not, and it has all though ramifications that evolution does, then why throw out evolution. If you have a problem with science that contradicts your views, then you have to do what I said earlier, and the sooner people realize that these are the only choices for resolving the crisis, the sooner it will be over.Failing that, grow a thick skin and nothing can hurt you (hey, that's evolution!)