Month: December 2017

by

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers


     When we look at numbers, we expect them to represent something that is factual, or in some cases prove something is incorrect. It could be the price, maybe the size, the quantity, a date or maybe a weight. How many times have we all looked at our weight and said, “something is wrong?” However, when math is correctly applied, numbers tell us something. It’s how we react to the result that is important.

     We would all agree that 1+1=2, 2+2=4, 10+10=20. We would say that 2+4+20=26. What would be the answer if we write 1+10×2=? Would the answer be 22 or 21? We always do the multiplication first then addition so the answer would be 21. But if it is solved in the order it is written, the order that it happened, how it is written down, it is 22.

     As long as we do our math the way we learned at school, the resulting answer is true. It is what we believe we understand that we should take a long hard look at. What if at the beginning of all time, before there was anything, our number 1 actually represented something less than 1 or possibly something just less than 2. Using today’s math to solve the science behind the beginning of everything, our results would be different today than what really happened in the beginning. The point is that we don’t know what things were like when it all began. Like how long was a day? A day could not exist until there was light and darkness. Generally, we take our best shot at it using today’s environment as the benchmark.

     We build math models and run experiments to prove that a math equation is correct. If the result fits the math model, then the math/theory is correct, based on performing the experiment under conditions as we understand them. In the area of dating methods, it isn’t which dating method we use, it’s the influential conditions during the formation of the item we are dating. The question we should be asking is; were the conditions on earth always like they are today? The sun is needed for radiation to take place. If conditions were different on earth or within earths general location in space, how would this affect these dating methods? While our method’s of dating things do work mathematically, they are based on the Sun’s influence as far as radiometric dating goes.

     So where are we going with this? If something is assumed, but not known, the number possibly rounded up or down before the calculation is done, then the outcome is not completely true. Just knowing the percent of error can make a big difference in how we comprehend what we see, how positive we feel about what we learn.

      Let’s look at time, which by the way is the fourth dimension. The first three in science are length, width, and height. Actually, science calls out up to ten dimensions as they strive to find answers to how everything began. We won’t go into them here, but if we were to take a look at String Theory, the Black Hole, and even the theory of Quantum Physics, we would find that these dimensions play a big role. Without time, nothing would be here, including each of us. We can dig deeper into this at a later date.

     The point behind this is that if we were not there in the beginning, then we don’t know, we just set up the criteria as best we can based on what we have learned. The solutions we search for are a theory just because we do not know what conditions were like, especially when we start out with the assumption that there was nothing to begin with. If there was something in the beginning, then where did it come from? The logical argument is; it was something or someone that started it all. Science tells us that we must have a logical solution. Just like in science where someone puts the experiment together and hits the start button. Maybe we should recognize that someone hit the start button that started it all, not something. If it was just something then it was there and how did it get there from nothing.

     In conclusion, the question; why does “science” continue to argue against creation, the information written in the Bible, the one by God. It really needs to be answered. What is the reasoning behind it, if it was really God who started it all? If it was God, then he has to be the Greatest Scientist of all time that we should be happy to take guidance from.

The key point to remember is:

It takes “Faith” to believe in evolution just like it takes “Faith” to believe in God. It’s where we choose to place our “Faith” that is important.

 

by

“Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff”


     How often have you heard the statement, “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff?” There have been books written on this subject. Many of us already ignore the small stuff. Let’s face it, we all have a busy life. We have work, family, home repairs, hobbies, our education, homework, not to mention the little bit of downtime we each need. We may live in a region of the world that just staying alive is the daily objective. So why sweat the small stuff. What difference will it make anyway?

     What if some of that small stuff plays a role in who we really are, or maybe we could say, who we become? Some of that small stuff can have a major impact on our lives. Sometimes the small stuff becomes the foundation behind larger stuff. When was the last time you heard the statement: “It started out small, and then it just snowballed?” At this point, we just remember the snowball, not the snowflake.

     Exploring the thoughts we often contemplate, who am I and why am I here, we find some of the influences that have had a major impact on each of us. We find that around the mid-1800, the influences of a small group of men, did just that. Charles Darwin was a trained theologian, believed in God, while at the same time questioned how everything got its start. After struggling with his health, and the loss of two of his children at a very young age, it appears that Charles became embittered with God. After this, his friends, along with a strong influence from his grandfather, Darwin convinced himself to publish the ‘Origin of Species,’ to go public with his theory. Some might say this is small stuff. Just one book. However, this was the small stuff that started the evolutionary train moving.

     While this was just one book, the floodgates opened for those not wanting to believe in God. Those that wanted to push forward the sciences in the evolutionary direction attempting to disprove that God exists. Darwin was not the first, a few others produced theories for the last 1000 years, but Darwin was the first to push it over the edge, which earned him the name of, “Father of Evolution.” As time moved on, we have others such as Albert Einstein in the early 1900’s who founded the theory of ‘Special and General Relativity.’ Then in the late 1960’s, we find George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, and Roger Penrose pushing the theory of ‘Space-Time Theorem.’ Then around 1993, we have Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor providing the theory of ‘Second Dimension of Time.’ Now we have ‘String theory,’ and ‘M theory.’

     We continue to see theories designed to enable science to work toward answering the question about life. These theories are designed as true at the time they are considered. Then the effort to disprove them begins. However, this can set the foundation for the theory of evolution to be accepted as reality. If we aren’t careful, we find ourselves totally submerged into the indoctrination of how we all evolved. That there was a big bang that started everything. It is taught in our schools as the only way, not just one of the ways. While we don’t think this is important, it plays a serious role in who we become, how we think, and how we influence others after us.

     This may seem small to us because we have a life to live and we are all very busy living it. But the theory of evolution is one side of the story. Why should we not be given both? Why are there those that only want us to think one way?

    My challenge to each of us is to question why ‘science’ is not also used in disproving what is written in the Bible? The theory that ‘there was a creator.’ The theory that ‘earth is approximately 6500 years old?’ Why not teach this available information in our schools. Why are these theories excluded? Why not allow each of us to determine for ourselves what we would like to wrap our arm’s around, what theory to place our faith in?

     As we work down this list of possibilities as presented at the beginning of the Bible, using available science, and scientific findings, then defining key models around these understandings, we will try to see the other side of the understood but not often told story.

“to be continued”

by

Science and God – Compatible or Not?


       So much can be said on this topic. I also find many times it’s hard to find the truth. So often we feel we have spent serious time investigating and doing research, especially in the science world, and because of this, we have an opinion that we feel is factual. But is it? Most or at least many people believe that science if the process of proving something as true. When in reality, it is the process of proving a theory as false. If we explore what science really is, we can find the following written explanation.

  • The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
  • All scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as a final proven knowledge in The currently accepted theory of phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.

       The first observation we can make is that to study the systematic structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, we are limited to what we have to work from. Our knowledge is based on what we learn from others, and also what we learn from our own efforts. It is based on what we have to start with or what we presuppose were the conditions. We have our earth which we can make determinations firsthand, the universe which we can make some determinations firsthand, but much of it is strictly a possible observation. Using the scientific word, a ‘Theory.’

       What could have been different back at the beginning of everything? If we really want to gain an understanding of this, we should take into account all information available to us. We also need to recognize observation number two above: ‘all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional’

       If we take both observations into consideration, we could realize that when things all got their start, that everything was different than what we see and understand today. Some scientists tell us that everything started from nothing. However, I know of nothing observed coming from nothing. This leaves this as strictly a theory and should never be accepted as an absolute fact. We hear from the science world that a ‘Big Boom’ is responsible. There is the ‘String Theory’ and other theories that are based on something from nothing, but each needs something to be a viable theory. So where did this something come from?

       Maybe if we took into account what was told to us in the first few words of the Bible, we could find possible answers to many things observed. This would change how our dating of things found on earth are not correct. This is also supported by every scientific theory presented, that everything observed today was different in the past. Why would we use today’s atmospheric conditions to date things we assume are millions of years old. The conditions were different. If we utilize any of the aging processes, it is based on the half-year analogy, and this is based on conditions we observe today.

       The question I would propose to everyone is what is the motivation to exclude God as a possible creator, the one that set everything in motion? Sometimes I think that people are so detailed in their thinking that they accept only what they can see and understand. So many don’t like the idea of someone being greater than themselves. Therefore, the exploration of the idea/theory that God is real, utilizing science, is generally not put to the test, except by a few. However, to my knowledge science has never disproved a theory that God is the creator. In reality, the theory of the ‘Big Boom or String Theory,’ still requires that someone or something put these thing in motion.

       This leaves us at a point today that if you cannot disprove it, it should be observed as a fact until someone else can disprove it. This is my understanding of “Evolution’ and why it is believed by so many as the explanation to how everything began. But wait, if I cannot disprove evolution, and I cannot disprove God, then both are true. Maybe God did start everything and utilized forms of evolution over the years as part of His plan. My opinion is that God is the greatest Scientist of all time, and in so many ways, science continues to prove this. Because no one has seen God, and no one has observed the Big Bang happening all by itself. Then I believe that this drives the following conclusion. It takes faith to accept either. I guess it is a question of:

“Where do I place my Faith?”

Mine is in God!
Continue reading →

by

What is “Truth”


     In the world of Science, Faith, and Religion, we can find ourselves facing the monumental task of determining what the real “Truth” is. To take a real objective view of the question, “what is the truth,” we need to identify what we understand each stands for.

Question one: What is Religion?

      It is the belief in God, a god, or in a group of gods. It is the organization of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship God, a god or group of gods. It is an interest, belief, or activity that is very important to a person or a group of people.

Question Two: What is Faith?

     It is a strong belief or Trust in someone or something. It is a belief in the existence of God or a strong religious feeling of our beliefs. It is a system of religious beliefs.

Question three: What is Science?

     It is knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observations. It is a particular area of study, such as biology, physics, chemistry, or any particular branch of science. It is a subject that is formally studied in school, college, and universities.

     Breaking down the key three elements that play such a significant role in who we are, what we become, how we believe, and how we react to situations in life, we find that they all cross what we might call “boundaries of life.” Science plays such a critical role in our lives. It has advanced the medical world to levels one sometimes stands in amazement of. The automation world, and most important to most of us, the communications world. The advancement of the phones, smartphones, computers, including the internet, has changed lives. We google a location and trust that we will arrive at that place if we follow the map provided. We choose to place our faith in that search we initiated. If you have had happened to you what I have, it has sometimes been misguided, and I ended up someplace different than planned. However, as these applications advance, they get better at guiding us where they believe you are planning to go based on what you were searching for.

     We have defined a simple way of how science and faith work together, but how does religion fit into this. If religion is a form of interest, belief, or activity that is important to us, then science and faith become a religion by definition. If one believes that a specific area of science is factual, or that a specific application is perfect, then by placing our faith in it, it becomes a form of religious belief. I’m not trying to push the envelope here, I’m just using how each of the three elements of life is defined.

     What is most interesting is that we have so many “Religious” beliefs in this world, it becomes hard to define which of them hold the “Truth.” We have so many advancements, findings (both supporting and negating), and discoveries in the science world, especially in the areas of who we are and how everything began, which of them do we hold as “Truth.” This put’s “Religion” as defined right in the middle. This brings us back to the question, what is “TRUTH?”

     Where do we place our faith? Is it in God, or some other defined definition of god, or in our science’s and how they are defined and taught? It takes faith to believe in God, or any god, just as it takes faith to believe in only what is proven by science.

     If we look at little deeper at science, we find that it is a process of defining a theory and then using scientific experimentation to prove the theory wrong. It is not an attempt to prove it correct. If it cannot be proven wrong, it can then be seen as true with no proof behind it until someone comes along and proves it wrong. Faith now becomes a strong ingredient in science. With “Faith” as an ingredient in science, it becomes a way of believing and becomes a “Religion.”

     What is more important, is the foundation of this short discussion. How do we know what to believe, where to place our faith, what religious belief we will follow? Just what is true, what can we hang our hat on, what can we stake our life’s beliefs on?

“What is Truth”

     I hope you will follow me down this road of discovery as we attempt to utilize science to evaluate and define who we are and how this all could have begun.

 

“To be continued.”

by

What Does Science Prove


     In many fields of scientific exploration, we find that it is a process of disproving a theory. Once a theory is defined, it is assumed to be real, then a set of defined actions are put in place in an attempt to disprove the theory. When is this theory no longer a theory? Is it fact just because science cannot prove it wrong? This is an assumption that many subscribe to. There is a fine line between what we use science to disprove, when in fact it is also being used to prove something that it cannot disprove. One can play with words, but in the end, if we say science cannot disprove the theory, then the theory must be fact until someone can come along and disprove the theory.

     It is important to note that to disprove a theory that has become recognized as a fact, someone needs to have a desire to do so. This alone should make us question any theory that cannot be disproved and becomes accepted as fact even when it also cannot be proved.

     Four key questions we should allow ourselves to explore and dig deeper into. More is riding on these question that we generally give ourselves time to think about.

  • Does science prove that evolution is real?
  • Does science prove that God is real?
  • Does science disprove evolution?
  • Does science disprove God?

     The point here is that in either case, God or Evolution, it takes a form of faith to believe in either. We could subscribe to the point that science cannot prove or disprove neither God or Evolution. I would suspect that most will subscribe to what makes them feel most comfortable. However, both cannot be true! The question is then, which one is correct and how do we break it down to conclude the best possible answer? The answer we choose to place our faith in.

     The best reference we have for the belief that God is real is what’s written in the Bible. The best reference we have that evolution is real is what’s written in the science books. We should be careful to not make this confusing and agree that anything that has been written was penned by man. Science inspired the writing of evolutionary science books. God is said to have inspired the writing of the Bible. However, we have defined that man wrote these books. Again, both cannot be correct? With respect to creation and evolution, they are directly opposite each other. One could say that we have two key question to answer.

  • The Bible tells us that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in and on them.
  • In the beginning, science tells us there was nothing, and from this, something happened, and everything unraveled into what we see now.

     It comes down to God versus science and its scientific discoveries. However, we must deal with man because that is what we know exist. Before man, we can only guess what existed unless we take to heart the writing’s in these books. This means that we choose to place our faith in one or the other. Some would say that the writing of the Bible didn’t take place until approximately 1600 to 2000 years after it is said God created everything. At the same time, our science books are written millions of years after Earth was formed. No human was around to see this take place. Don’t get me wrong, our sciences are awesome and extremely interesting and educational. However, the point is, no one was around when it all began.

     If we have placed our faith on either side, then we have placed our faith in what man has written. To place our faith in man’s written word we need to explore what inspired them to do so? We could ask ourselves the following questions.

  • In the Bible, it is said that God inspired the words written in it, not man. So, we should ask if everything in the Bible is true. We should ask if we could use science to prove that the Bible is true. We could explore what has been uncovered that supports the history, locations, people, and events of the Bible. I would also add that we should explore the predictions that are written about and if they actually took place hundreds of years after the writings.
  • The writings of evolutionary science are the direct opposite of the Bible. Its major theories tell us that there is no God.

     So, we should ask if we could use science to prove, not just disprove, which of these theories are true.