Even though Wikipedia is not exactly a scientific encyclopedia, I'll use their definition of "theory":

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

When someone uses the term "theory", it's sometimes necessary to define the word, so here's the next line in Wikipedia:

"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality."

If we take the concept of quantum mechanics, is it a "theory"?  At this point, I don't know if most scientists would be willing to elevate it to that level.  Since there are some doubts about it, I tend to feel that, when pressed, most would probably use the term "hypothesis".  However, if they were using the common idiom we find in the latter definition above, they may very well call q.m. a "theory".





Any scientist who would do that would be eaten alive by other scientists in most cases.  If you read the scientific journals, you'll see what I mean.  Open up any Scientific American or Biblical Archaeological Review and read the "letters to the editor" and then peruse some of the articles that are often written in response to other articles.




I never claimed they were "right", nor did I claim the 14 billion years (actually 13.7 billion) is right on target.  But as time goes on, scientists continue to check and double-check each other.  However, there's no guarantee that we have the "final answer" at any given time.   

So, exactly what evidence is there for an "old Earth/old universe" concept?  How would something that appears to have literally no evidence supporting it, logically be in a position to trump what does have evidence for it?     




Shalom,
Vern

Watch the Science channel, or Discovery, or TLC, or attend some college classes, or high school classes and pay close attention to how THEORIES are presented.

I'm afraid that Thorolf is on the money here.  The science channel is a clear example where theory is presented in a confident language that conveys certainty.  I also had a similar experience in a college geology class when we watched a film on the formation of the earth.  As Howie would say, "I have no dog in the fight," but I recall thinking to myself while watching the film, "how could they know these things?"

-Acumen

Stephen Hawking characterizes us as a chemical slime on the surface of a typical planet in a typical solar system in a typical galaxy in the known universe.  In a space ship in a typical place in that universe nothing would be visible to us, not even a supernova, because it would be so far away the light would be too dim to see.  The only thing that apparently distinguishes this slime in the universe is that with intelligence and the resources of our planet, we can gain this knowledge, and reflect something back upon the universe. Or not.

shalom
big julie

I don't need to.  I saw it on TV.

jules

I'm sorry, Vern, but I think you continue to completely miss what I'm trying to say.

I'm not frustrated at all. I honestly couldn't care less about BB vs creative causation, and I'm not arguing for or against either theory. That's not to say that I don't find the theories interesting enough and don't pay attention. I admit I haven't posted any evidence to support creation, but that may well be because I haven't bothered to look. 

I fear that you have made some assumptions about me and what I believe, and that is framing your responses to me... I just ask that, rather than sit in judgment of my beliefs, that you please just try to read what I say with an open mind. I realize that it may not be comfortable to you, but I do think I have a serious point that needs to be made, and is simply not made often enough.

I just don't like that many SCIENTISTS (yes, scientists - not media, not laypeople... scientists) present their theories in a manner that is intended to leave little room for doubt among people who do NOT do the figuring, and have FAITH that what these people called scientists tell them is the way it really is. Maybe that doesn't fly in the scientific community (actually, I believe it does), but it certainly does in the "real world."

So asking me again and again for evidence of creation when that's not what I'm arguing is, frankly, silly.

I see little to be gained by comparing notes on the origin of the universe, as it is a) wholly irrelevant to how I live my life, b) wholly irrelevant to where I place my faith, and c) wholly irrelevant to the foreseeable future of the Earth and my personal walk.

What tools God may have used in creating the universe (  ) doesn't really matter all that much to me. It may be fun to theorize and discuss - and it certainly may help in theorizing other aspects of our universe... but what difference does any of that REALLY make to me? I'm not opposed to discussing it, I just don't see much point. (Also, as I said before, you're operating on an assumption that you know what I believe - and you don't).

What does matter is the obfuscation of science that has turned what should be a strong, evidential and observational development of theories into a religion. One might go so far as to say that science has been downright ABDUCTED! The fascinating part is that many members of this new "religion" are practicing it for the purpose of convincing people that the pre-existing religions are all wrong.

You said "Science is based on the analysis of evidence, and religion is based on faith with no evidence needed." Well, I don't necessarily agree that "no evidence is needed," but regardless - that's EXACTLY my point. Science *IS* based on the analysis of evidence. But there is as much art in many aspects of theoretical science as there is actual evidence (possibly more). And, perhaps, the scientists themselves are basing what they believe on evidence - of course, I would argue that the Apostles based what they believed on evidence in their realm of experience, as well, as do a great number of people of faith, who have personal experiences with what they believe to be God. (Which, incidentally, "science" is always seeking "answers" for.)

But where things break down is on the communication from the scientists to the rest of the world. In the effort to "educate," theories are presented as fact - and because it is someone with a lofty degree that we call a "scientist" who is presenting the theory (without ever calling it such), people accept that they are correct. After all - they are the ones who know.

That, my friend, is FAITH - and that faith is being abused by "scientists" with an agenda. That agenda may be to promote their own revelation, or to denigrate the various world religions whose belief systems are contradictory to what these scientists see and/or believe, or it may be to prompt some sort of action (environmentalism, for example). But regardless the motivation, scientists have become as priests to a new religion. I never said that scientists were necessarily MEMBERS, though... they're in charge, and the laity is the ignorant masses who simply trust what the scientists say.

I'm not angry at all, nor am I hostile (although I am a bit passionate about scientists who are abusing their position for the sake of an agenda). And before you declare that scientists are above all that, I'll just declare that nonsense based on the evidence - because the science channel, TLC, discovery channel, college classes, high school classes, and a myriad of other forums may have media or other aspects involved - but the people being interviewed, or doing the presenting are SCIENTISTS.

I have a great deal of respect for the precious few who offer theories with the statements "the theory is..." or "we believe..." or similar statements. Likewise, I tend to lose respect for those who believe something so wholly, whether that's due to the flawed concept of "consensus" or because they have personally not yet seen (or at least not accepted) contradictory evidence, that they present their beliefs as facts - knowing FULL WELL that people will believe them simply because they are considered the authority on the subject.

That's just wrong, and it bothers me that SCIENTISTS would even tolerate it.

But, perhaps it's just so widespread that most fail to realize they're even doing it.

To those, I am simply trying to display the reality that the people don't hear what they say and ASSUME that there is, be default, always some measure of doubt - and as such they need to be mindful of how they present theories, and be certain to instruct students that a theory is a theory.

Incidentally, how many times has the consensus been wrong? Simply citing consensus, which has its own problems, does not mean that something is right - or even LIKELY TO BE right. It just means it's either a) unanimous (and could be unanimously wrong), or b) the prevailing opinion held by most. Neither is worth a hill of beans because prevailing opinion isn't necessarily correct. So please forgive me when I consistently reject that as an argument.

Sorry for the book. 

I'm going to brief unlike someone I know,  , since there's no sense in hashing and rehashing some of the points that have been discussed ad nauseum.

I checked into your other more "theological" posts since I had difficulty figuring out where you were coming from.  In the discussions on this thread you were not adding anything in terms of what your position actually was on the issue of the BB.  It's then that I noticed that you were, by all indications, using a double-standard.  
 



First of all, it's very obvious from your own posts that you believe in God, and I would tend to think that in believing as such, you would also believe God created the universe.  In the very first post I made it quite clear what this thread was about and what position I was taking, so the choice was yours as to whether you wanted to discuss this or not.  So, if you felt it was so "silly", then why did you join in on this thread to begin with?  It became quite obvious where you were coming from and why without you having to directly say so directly.  Outside of some forms of Buddhism, I've never met a theist who didn't believe their deity or deities created our universe.    




So it makes no difference to you whether your deity made the universe or not?  I'd be unbelievably surprised if that were to be the case.  So do you reject or dismiss the creation accounts totally out of hand in regards to the universe being a divine creation?
  




When one is dealing with evidence that is as subjective as that which we find in religious texts, I think this comparison is rather shallow.





It seems that, for whatever reason, you have me saying the above about the issue of consensus whereas I've made it abundantly clear on many posts that consensus will always be challenged in the realm of science and that it is not sacrosanct.  So why are you continually writing things like the above?

  


OK, but for this time only!  



Shalom,
Vern

Really.  Let's see, there's well recognizable research cosmologists like Leonard Susskind, Michio Kaku, Simon Singh, and there's the Buddhist monk and former physicist Matthieu Ricard whom I paraphrased in an earlier post.  And then there's the surveys that show that over 90% of all cosmologists  and over 80% of all physicists are either atheists or agnostics.  And how would you know if they had an "anti-theist bias"?





I have rather mixed feelings about alleged miracles.  I'm not convinced they exist, but I'm not convinced they don't exist.  Mind over matter is a pretty powerful thing, but I don't know what may account for all supposed miracles.

But maybe it can be put to a test.  Take a man with only one arm and have people praying that the other arm will grow back and have it taped and observed for people to follow.  If that succeeds, please let me know.




I can and I have, and I prefer it ala mode btw.




You've created quite a straw-man.   Consensus is binding on no one-- period.  Nor is it dismissed from scrutiny-- period again.  Nor is it ever used as "an end-all reason"-- period again and again. 



Shalom,
Vern 

Exactly.  And what's being worked on are possible scenarios, including theistic ones.   With that in mind, doesn't it therefore seem much more logical to have an agnostic or non-theistic approach?  Isn't it much more logical to say "I don't know" than to assume that there was a theistic causation or to claim that there was no theistic causation?  I doubt very much that we'll ever know the actual causation of our cosmos in regards to whether it's theistically caused or not.  As I stated in the first post on this thread, it was at least understood by myself that we will not be able to determine that answer. 
 



Why would one necessarily "accept" the Biblical accounts?  As with our approach to the BB, wouldn't it be more logical to say "I don't know as I wasn't there" rather than saying "I believe"?  Is there some sort of necessity to believe in something that seemingly cannot be verified?  Nor do I find the atheistic position of believing it couldn't happen to be any more logical.  So why believe either position?  Why not just say "Whatever happened, happened"?

 

Shalom & have a nice weekend,
Vern   

Yes, it is just your layperson's opinion.  In the BB scenario, all galaxies are moving away from all galaxies.  There is no privileged centre.  If we were on a different planet in a galaxy 2 million lightyears away from earth, it would still appear to us that we are at the centre of the expansion.  Same for any other point in the universe. 

Can you provide a concrete example of someone presenting these theories as "fact"?  Because I have only seen them presented as theories.  I would be very surprised if anyone is presenting them as fact.  Where does this occur?