This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.


Re: Age

Postby Bluegoat » 12 Jun 2009, 17:30

Theophilus wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:But scientific theories always try to predict the future. An airplane being built now will fly in the future, not when all the data on lift and so on was collected. If we talk only about the NOW, we can say only - this morning the sun came up, there were three cm of rain, light traveled at X speed. Not much use for anything if we only apply it to that very moment.

It seems to me that you are choosing to make a distinction between applying that information to the near past and future and the far past and future. On what basis? How far ahead can we expect our scientific information to be useful? A day? 10 years? A hundred or a thousand?

Certianly any scientist would agree that if at some point the laws of nature were to change, all current information and theories would be useless.

I agree that science can generally tell what has happened and will happen as long as the current laws of nature are in effect. The problem is that scientists ususally ignore the possibility that these laws can change and claim the projections based on them should be accepted as facts rather than treated as theories. For example they dogmatically state that they have proved that the universe is a certain age when in fact they have merely shown that this is the age [i]if[i] their assumptions are correct. Scientific statements regarding the age of the universe cannot be proved or disproved and so should be regarded as possibilities rather than being accepted as facts.

No scientist worth his salt would ever say that they have proven anything, nor that they know for sure what the exact age of the universe is. Especially given that the age estimate has been revised any number of times! Scientific theories about anything cannot be proven; science makes only inductive statements, not deductive ones.

The media, on the other hand, often claims that scientists have proven things, but that is related the the rather abysmal science programs in our public schools and undergraduate programs.

Also, I think you would find that any scientist would agree that IF the laws of nature changed at some point in time or space, all of their predictions would be useless on the other side of the event. OTOH, there is no good reason I can see to think this has happened. I wonder if it would even be possible to tell if it did.
User avatar
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia


Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest