Re: concordism/time

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 16:28:39 EST

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Re: Volunteers for science/faith email interviews"

    Hi James,

    Due to my son's wedding, I missed this note.

    At 05:38 PM 1/12/00 -0500, James W Stark wrote:
    >Glenn, It's all a matter of perspective and openness to change in what we
    >think is the truth.

    One thing is clear, I am ready and willing to change in the face of the
    data. I used to be a young-earth creationist who even thought that the
    speed of light had changed. I was wrong and I changed. Thus I have proven
    that I am willing to change. Have you ever made such a change?

     My goal is to seek the truth as God intended, not as we
    >intend. All truth is NOT God's truth.

    All truth is God's truth. God is truth. What isn't truth is falsehood.
    >Of course, this inseparability is an observed measurement barrier. Science
    >naturally has to limit existence to what is measured. We need philosophy
    >and religion to reach beyond that barrier. The truth shall always be beyond
    >our brands of truth, but science is currently content to look only within
    >for its own truth as a loyalty to unity or wholeness. It needs to be come
    >God-referencing rather than self-referencing in its design of models.

    Science can be God-referencing without ignoring observation. What you are
    advocating is the ignoring of observational data

    >
    > You apparently perceive a lack of understanding. That is a natural
    >impression of those who question the facts or assumptions. I am a chemical
    >engineer and a retired math professor. I was trained as an electronics
    >repairman in the ASA (military). My math courses are equivalent to just a MA
    >and I have done experimental work in electrochemistry in industry. I read
    >many technical books ferreting out the assumptions of scientists. Alas, I do
    >not recall taking anything on special relativity. Most of my graduate course
    >work even beyond a masters has been educational, philosophical, or
    >religious. Have you taken a course on special relativity? Can you suggest a
    >special relativity book for me to see the truth that you are pointing at?

    A.P. French, Special Relativity, MIT series, 1968 and

    E.F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, Freeman, 1992
    are both excellent books on relativity.

    And it is not that one questions those who question assumptions. It is that
    those who haven't studied a field often feel that they can question
    assumptions that they haven't studied.

    >> According to whom? Where is this evidence? Is it from Barry Setterfield? I
    >> just saw that it is from Dolphin Lambert which means it is from Barry
    >> Setterfield. I would point you to an article I, Harold Slusher, Tom Barnes
    >> and Bob Bartman wrote concerning the craziness that Setterfield's views
    >> would bring. It is
    >>
    >> Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
    >> Comments on the Velocity of Light. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
    >> 20:63-65.
    >>
    >> Summary: This is a critique of Barry Setterfield's suggestion that the
    >> speed of light had decreased. If his formulation of the changes were true,
    >> then there should have been 417 days per year at the time of Christ and the
    >> earth would have been melted when God created Adam due to the tremendous
    >> heat generated by the extremely rapid radioactive decay during the creation
    >> week.
    >>
    >> There is no evidence of any of this (and more as outlined in that article).
    >> And you can't claim that this is an evolutionary article because Slusher
    >> and Barnes are well known young-earth creationists and when we wrote it, I
    >> was also a young-earther. This does not boil down to faith as you say.
    >> Setterfields ideas are crazy.
    >
    >I'm aware of these writings but I have not bought into them yet. I just like
    >the questioning attitude. John D. Barrow has an open mind rather than
    >writing off the possibility as nonsense. See Is Nothing Sacred? in New
    >Scientist, 24 July 1999. You can see it on the Internet at
    >
    >http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724isnothings.html

    I have read that article and it is talking about the very earliest part of
    the big bang. It isn't talking about what Setterfield is talking about.

    >I contend that faith undergirds every model be it scientific or not. That
    >faith is revealed in the assumptions that are accepted as true but
    >untestable. That observational data can only show the limitations God has
    >set for us in God's gift of freedom. Many truths are beyond measurement.
    >That is why we make so many assumptions.

    We must all make assumptions, that is true, but we can't ignore what we see
    with our eyes. OUr entire christian faith is based upon what the apostles
    saw (or didn't see) in the empty tomb. If we can assume that they were
    deluded and ignore their observations, Christianity collapses. Truth is not
    solely based on what assumptions we make. Our assumptions must be checked
    against observation.
    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 18 2000 - 22:33:43 EST