Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:42 pm**

I'm not sure if anyone has dealt with this subject here but it can't hurt... much.

The dilemma, called the "faint young sun paradox," has been know about since the 1950s and was popularized by Carl Sagan. Geochemists and solar physicists have wrestled for answers all these years.

Now, David Minton of Purdue University has come up with a novel solution that, by his own admission, straddles science fact and fiction. Minton proposes that Earth was closer to the sun when it formed and then migrated outward to its current orbit.
http://news.discovery.com/space/was-ear ... pgn=emnws1

When in doubt use your imagination and in the tradition of evolutionary theory we can presume these are facts. No need for scientific method here.

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:51 pm**

...does this have any implications on Christianity? Like at all? I mean seriously, unless you hold to a young Earth worldview...What does it matter if Earth has always orbited our sun or if it was a wandering chunk of space rock for a while?

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:19 pm**

Ivellious wrote:...does this have any implications on Christianity? Like at all? I mean seriously, unless you hold to a young Earth worldview...What does it matter if Earth has always orbited our sun or if it was a wandering chunk of space rock for a while?

I think i am going to like the responses here. i guess maybe ridiculing Minton's idea (even though it is only a hypothesis) or (less likely) accepting two different conflicting stories about the earth and sun. In general it will be just trying to discredit science and scientists.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:18 am**

sandy_mcd wrote:
Ivellious wrote:...does this have any implications on Christianity? Like at all? I mean seriously, unless you hold to a young Earth worldview...What does it matter if Earth has always orbited our sun or if it was a wandering chunk of space rock for a while?
I think i am going to like the responses here. i guess maybe ridiculing Minton's idea (even though it is only a hypothesis) or (less likely) accepting two different conflicting stories about the earth and sun. In general it will be just trying to discredit science and scientists.

And we know that scientists are always objective, and they never interpret things through the lens of methodological naturalism

Seriously science does have it's place but scientism should be outlawed globally.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am**

Ivellious wrote:...does this have any implications on Christianity? Like at all? I mean seriously, unless you hold to a young Earth worldview...What does it matter if Earth has always orbited our sun or if it was a wandering chunk of space rock for a while?

This has nothing to do with christianity at all. It is just a random topic with absolutely no point whatsoever. I was checking to see how many people would actually respond to random nonsense.

sandy_mcd wrote:I think i am going to like the responses here. i guess maybe ridiculing Minton's idea (even though it is only a hypothesis) or (less likely) accepting two different conflicting stories about the earth and sun. In general it will be just trying to discredit science and scientists.

Yup. its all about discrediting scientists and science. As soon as we can get that accomplished we can institute a christian pope and force everyone to obey the commandments then we can be "2Th 2:4 ...as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.". All shall bow before the discreditors of science and scientists.

bippy123 wrote:And we know that scientists are always objective, and they never interpret things through the lens of methodological naturalism
Seriously science does have it's place but scientism should be outlawed globally.

Blasphemy!!!!! If you are not for us then you are against us. I am sending a legion of true believers to your house right now. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. A little history on the subject;
Faint young Sun paradox
According to the Standard Solar Model, stars similar to the Sun should gradually brighten over their main sequence lifetime.[2] However, with the predicted solar luminosity 4 billion (4 נ109) years ago and with greenhouse gas concentrations the same as are current for the modern Earth, any liquid water exposed to the surface would freeze. However, the geological record shows a continually relatively warm surface in the full early temperature record of the Earth... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_youn ... ience177-0

Now why would such a paradox come to exist?
There is one other line of evidence that also plays a part here;

In the late 1990s, Valley and his co-workers realized that zircons accurately preserve their original oxygen isotope values, and they decided to document zircons through all of geological time. This realization prompted their discovery of the oldest Jack Hills zircon, a 4.4-billion-year-old detrital grain. The Hadean hypothesis holds that Earth had not yet developed any source materials other than molten magma generated from the interior or from a meteorite bombardment. When the team first placed the grain on the ion microprobe, they expected it to have oxygen isotope ratios of a zircon crystallized in a rock that would in turn have mantle geochemical signatures. But the values of the grain’s oxygen isotopes were much higher than they expected.
“Rocks that have zircons with higher oxygen isotope values indicate a source that has interacted with water at low temperatures,” says Aaron Cavosie, also from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The new isotope values have two implications, Cavosie says. First, they suggest that water existed as early as 4.4 billion years ago.... http://www.geotimes.org/feb03/NN_earlywater.html

Age of the Earth
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 נ109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

So... the earth is 4.54 billion years old right? and within 140 million years it cools down to the point where liquid water condences and can interact in the forming of zircons and all this happens in the presence of a sun that is only about 70% of current luminosity. Brrrrrr. Don't forget that life just pops up within .74 billion years as fully functional cells and they evolve into scientists who figure it all out. (Miracles of nature vol. 1, pg. 2, KBCid)

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:53 pm**

KBCid wrote:So... the earth is 4.54 billion years old right? and within 140 million years it cools down to the point where liquid water condences and can interact in the forming of zircons and all this happens in the presence of a sun that is only about 70% of current luminosity. Brrrrrr. Don't forget that life just pops up within .74 billion years as fully functional cells and they evolve into scientists who figure it all out. (Miracles of nature vol. 1, pg. 2, KBCid)

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:36 pm**

More like miracles of imagination

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:01 pm**

KBCid wrote:When in doubt use your imagination and in the tradition of evolutionary theory we can presume these are facts. No need for scientific method here.

KBCid wrote:More like miracles of imagination

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... n-paradox/

Earlier this week I wrote about paradoxes in science, about how they are good things pointing the way toward new research and possibilities. Science deniers, however, exploit them to cast doubt on established science, without creating a viable scientific theory of their own. I gave as an example the solar neutrino problem – the fact that in the 1980s and 1990s neutrino detectors were detecting 1/3 to 1/2 the solar neutrinos than the standard model of particle physics predicted. Creationists used this to argue that the entire nuclear fusion model of stars was wrong. It wasn’t long, however, before the missing neutrinos were discovered and the paradox resolved.

Recently I was asked about another sun-based paradox that creationists use to argue for a young earth – the faint young sun paradox. This was first pointed out by Carl Sagan and George Mullen. ...

I don’t know what the solution to the faint young sun paradox will turn out to be. There are many viable hypotheses, but we simply lack definitive information to know which one or ones are correct. That’s science. This controversy will rage for a while, but if history is any guide eventually we will sort out what the correct resolution is.

It's a problem. Scientists are working on it. Isn't that the scientific method in action? They have never claimed to know everything. So what's the real issue?
And yes, it requires imagination to be a real scientist. That's something that doesn't always/usually come across in science classes.

[edit] add material

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:16 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:It's a problem. Scientists are working on it. Isn't that the scientific method in action? They have never claimed to know everything. So what's the real issue? And yes, it requires imagination to be a real scientist. That's something that doesn't always/usually come across in science classes.

So explain how they can provide repatable experiments to back or nullify any theory of origins whether cosmic of terestrial? We can imagine all we want but you can't test imagination. Science is based on making a hypothesis and providing a method of testing. Science fiction is based entirely on imagination and provides no way of testing it. So what are these scientists doing... Science or Science fiction. Point out the experiment they postulate as a test for their imagination.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:24 pm**

KBCid, the irony of you demanding a repeatable experiment for this "origins" theory is that you are so totally for Intelligent design being a scientific theory of origins. So, I would ask the same thing of you: Please create a repeatable experiment demonstrating the origins of life, species, and the universe in general as it was designed by a designer. Otherwise, by your own admission, ID must just be science fiction, and clearly just a figment of our imagination.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:54 pm**

Ivellious wrote: KBCid, the irony of you demanding a repeatable experiment for this "origins" theory is that you are so totally for Intelligent design being a scientific theory of origins.

Unfortunately for you I was not really demanding anything. I was hopefully making a question requiring thought. There is no way to provide a repeatable experiment to validate a theory of origins. You must leave science and the scientific method behind in order to venture into that realm of conjecture. This requires critical thinking and understanding where the boundary of science is drawn in the sand.

Ivellious wrote:So, I would ask the same thing of you: Please create a repeatable experiment demonstrating the origins of life, species, and the universe in general as it was designed by a designer. Otherwise, by your own admission, ID must just be science fiction, and clearly just a figment of our imagination.

You should know by now that ID doesn't posit a specific designer nor does it posit the manner in which life occured. Let's review what ID is instead of strawmanning it;

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act.
Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

So if you understood ID properly you would know that it posits that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process" . See no assertion of how... no assertion of who... Just a very simple concept here. If something exhibits 'certain features' that we typically observe as only arising from intelligent cause then we can assert that intelligence is necessary to explain its existence.

Few people realise that when scientist began to focus on the question of origins with any explanation of how it occured they walked right past the boundary of science and entered the realm of religion. This is why creationists even care to argue with science and scientists. The only reason that you can even try to argue for evolution is because it was carried into an area that science can't follow. One can only argue for what they believe. The scientific method was the vehicle used to settle scientific argument. in fact anyone who argues for an explanation of origins is arguing a religious belief and I can prove it without much effort.
"By use of logic and reason provide a rationale of how the scientific method can be applied to empiricaly answer the question of origins"

Evidence for God from Science

Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

Re: Was Earth a Migratory Planet?