Bible Vs Scientism

That looks like a logical fallacy, David... The excluded middle, and also non sequitur

Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.

"Fixed stars" not fixed

Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.

The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.

This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.

A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.

That looks like a logical fallacy, David... The excluded middle, and also non sequitur

Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.

"Fixed stars" not fixed

Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.

The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.

This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.

A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.

The Bible teaches us that God created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days - and then rested on the seventh. This occurred a little over 6000 years ago. I believe this, because God's written word is my ultimate authority.

Science is a process... an investigation and collection of raw data. Science doesn't actually "say" anything - as the common idiom "science says" indicates. Science is only the collection of the data itself. Then flawed human beings interpret that data in many different ways. Those interpretations are not science itself, but conclusions based on the data which was collected via the scientific process. Those conclusions come complete with personal biases, and much conjecture and speculation.

Scientism is a blind belief in those INTERPRETATIONS/CONCLUSIONS.

For example, we know through science that there are lights in the sky that appear to move over the earth in repeated patterns. It is not science itself, but the interpretations/conclusions/speculations of flawed men which tell us that those lights are giant fireballs in a vast vacuum, that they are moving away from us, and that this movement means that they were at one time all squished together into a hot, dense ball of energy. And Scientism is the faith-based belief IN those interpretations.

So the cult of Scientism (not science itself) claims that our world began as an explosion/expansion of a singularity about 14 billion years ago. The Bible teaches that our world began as a six day creative action taken by God... about 6000 years ago.

Which of those is the truth?

I read that carbon 14 dating is incorrect because of pressure exerted on an object can change the dating of it.
Now, imagine water covering the highest mountain. In some cases, carbon would pressured into diamonds.
Seems to me that a biblical flood that science doesn't believe happened would throw things way off.

Hi Melach, the age of the earth can be calculated through the the genealogies in the Bible. We cannot get an "exact age" from that, but a ball park estimate that the earth is currently somewhere between five and seven thousand years old. There was about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, about 2000 years from Abraham to Jesus, and about 2000 years from Jesus to now. Here's some more info if you are interested...
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

Science and Uncertainty

Good science takes key assumptions (axioms of empiricism) and expand logically from there. It is true that there are assumptions such as the repeatability of experimental conditions, cosmological constancy, etc. There are many interpolations and extrapolations of empirical data that at their core must be consistent with empirical findings in order to be considered scientific. The one key part of empiricism is that it is statistical by its nature, meaning it is subject to uncertainty. One my favourite professors once said "If you're not measuring uncertainty, you're not doing science."

Metaphysical Naturalism - A Philosophy At Odds With Truth

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Billions of Years - A Christian Perspective?

It is not necessarily the case that evolution and billions of years worth of happenings could not have not taken place unless we are first able to rule it out with scripture. We could ponder Rom 8:20-22 or Rom 5:12-20 to mean that physical death didn't exist prior to Adam's sin, therefore evolution could not have take place (as evolution requires cycles of death and life). That leaves us with funny questions like "did bacteria and other asexually reproducing organisms suddenly start divided after Adam's sin and not a moment before?" (perhaps as part of cursing the ground? Gen 3:17). We can also look at it in reference to a Spiritual Death as opposed to a Physical Death.. If the Romans references are to Spiritual Death, and the Genesis 1 days are figurative (cf. Psalms 90:4), and the act of creation in Genesis 1 is understood through natural means (cf. Job 31:15 & Proverbs 16:33) we can see how an Christian-evolution / old earth creationism perspective can exist. And in order to counter that, you would need to challenge the interpretations of 1) Rom 5:12/Rom 8:21, 2) Psalms 90:4, or 3) Job 31:15.

Evolution Without Billions of Years

We could look at the case for creation using only natural evolution, above. But, we can also look at the idea that God may change the flow of time on a whim. Can we exclude the possibility that God could change the flow of time? Is it impossible for God to make a billion years worth of events happen in the course of a 24 hour day? If it is not impossible, it can clearly be the case that evolution could be used as a method for creation while retaining a literal interpretation of 24 hour days in Genesis 1.

Evolution with a Literal Interpretation of Genesis? - Yes

No where in the Bible does it explicitly declare that all of creation is only ~6000 years old. However, the number of days are arbitrary if God can accelerate or decelerate the flow of time to suit His purposes. It may objectively be the case that only 6 literal days had passed, but that does not rule out the possibility of a supernaturally accelerated time flow. A Christian-evolution interpretation can be entirely compatible with scripture. In fact, it is only our own assumptions about how God's creation process works that can become the reason that people rule out evolution.

In Summary

Evolution and the Genesis creation account are not mutually exclusive. But metaphysical naturalism should absolutely be challenged as a false philosophy.

We'll see how you defend your position when you weigh in on a serious Bible topic.

I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say

Both of these are true when not taken to their extremes and reasoned properly.
Scientism as a cult exist. Religion as a cult also exists.
But science and religion are not at war i Think Because science is us asking How And the Bible is not an engineering book but a relationship book with our Creator.

Psalm 19:4-6... In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other...

David says the sun runs a circuit across the heaven over the earth. Do you believe him, Magenta?

If God felt it was important to our spiritual maturity to know the age in years that the earth is, then it would be plainly stated in scripture.

Yes. But that circuit does not prove the earth is flat

Do you believe the sun resides in a tent?

And the Bible doesn't say the sun literally resides in a tent

This isn't a flat earth thread, Magenta. ?

In the Bible, it is the sun that moves in relation to the earth.

In what way would it be plainly stated? Give an example.

I wasn't aware that there existed a more serious Bible topic than whether or not we can actually BELIEVE the Bible. Salvation means nothing if we can't believe scripture in the first place, right?

So let me challenge you, Dino...

Exodus 20:8-11... Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

Is God to be trusted when He says He made the heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days... or not? Is the Bible to be trusted when it quotes God as saying these words... or not?

I say yes. What say you?