Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Less Than 400 Years Since Newton's Principia

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Kyle on September 4, 2002 20:14:16 UTC

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that are completely wrong." - Richard Feynman

Hello Sam,
In the framework of geological time or our species time, our contemporary knowledge field is still pretty nascent. In fact if you consider that Newton wrote his Principia 350 years ago, Darwin's Origin of Species only 150 years ago, Einstein's GR/SR less than 100 years ago... I think that there is no shame in saying that we don't know (yet). (ie. we don't know the events leading up to the singularity where Symmetry (false vaccuum) collapsed to form a lower energy state...)
We need a TOE or a GUT (Theory of Everything/ Grand Unification Theory) for starters, and the ability to empirically test it. That involves among other things linking the four forces and understanding gravity better. COBE results help us understand cosmic origins to within a fraction of a second AFTER the big bang. GR if taken to the limits produces nonsensical answers at such enormously small distances-- therefore we expect quantum effects to 'overwhelm' gravity...and thus the best current model is a quantum theory of gravity or 10 dimensional superstring theory (symmetry breaks to 4 and 6 dimensional universe).

But I understand from your previous posts that you believe in fundamental creationism... and the relevant idea that bears repeating here is best said by a fellow Canadian (Mario Bunge over at McGill/ in Montreal) who was discussing the difference between a ‘research field’ (ie. where knowledge is derived from the scientific method) and a ‘belief field’ (ie. where knowledge is based on thoughts/ faith)...

He distinguished them by stating that whereas a research field changes all the time as a result of scientific discovery, a belief field changes, if at all, only as a result of "controversy, brute force, or revelation".


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins