It’s been a little while since I’ve tackled any of the stuff coming out of Theology Archaeology. There’s been nothing I would especially care to challenge, aside from the odd phrase, and I’ve had more important stuff going on to spend my time going after such minute details. However, one of his most recent posts once again goes after the scientific study of the universe, and once again shows a disregard for reasoned, evidence-driven study.
I can’t simply allow something like this to go unopposed, so without further ado, let’s get stuck in (please note that I am not quoting the entire article – you can see it at the link above).
There is an old saying, ‘when confronted with printing the truth or the legend, you print the legend.’ That is what secular science does. It prints the legend, the best explanation, not the truth. As Dr. Del Ratzsch recorded in his book, The Battle of Beginnings, and many other authors have done so as well, secular science does not want God as a part of their work and when you remove the truth from guiding you then you have no hope of coming upon the truth.
That first couple of sentences are dripping with irony. How is an explanation of the evidence ‘printing the legend’?
It is not automatic as some people claim and can be removed in order to do discussion, hearing, listening correctly. Jesus prayed that we would know God and his truth, he also told us that we would know the truth but those who use interpretation do not get to the truth because they have altered the intent and meaning behind the words of the other person.
This is what makes the idea behind sexual harassment so erroneous. It is not how the receiver takes the words spoken or written for the listener/reader does not have the gospel truth concerning what others say or write. This idea allows people to misunderstand what is being said or written and place the misunderstanding in greater standing than the actual intent of the words spoken/written.
This faulty reasoning, and interpretation does this as well, brings injustice to innocent people as it claims to know the original intent and meaning over the person bring the words. That is impossible. The responsibility to make sure one has understood what has been said/written is upon the receiver not the speaker/writer.
In the first of these three paragraphs he’s talking about interpretation vs truth. The thing is, different interpretations of religious texts are entirely possible and these interpretations are not necessarily wrong just because TA holds to an ultra-strict interpretation. Absolute truth in a religious sense is entirely down to individual interpretation of religious texts.
‘Truth’ in a scientific sense is based on observations.
The next two paragraphs lurch off the subject of science and display an intriguing glimpse into how TA thinks. Apparently the person on the receiving end of harassment shouldn’t be interpreting the words or comments of the other party in that manner. Ironically, TA goes from a rigid doctrine over Biblical texts, to a fluid one here – all of a sudden we shouldn’t be quick to interpret certain meanings into others’ words, even if those words can be considered offensive.
The thing is, the responsibility to make sure a statement or expression is understood rests with the person making the statement. Whether you meant offence or not, you don’t get to decide how the other person interprets your comments. To put it another way, think before you speak.
What any of this has to do with the scientific method is beyond me.
Next, TA speaks more about observation.
Many in the secular scientific field place a high regard on this very inferior tool as they think observation is a key to understanding any given situation. Unfortunately for them observation can only lead to a multiple reasons for any action observed and the multiple choice they are left with only includes the truth as one possibility.
Observation needs more information for it to work effectively and getting that information can be and is often very difficult. We use the analogy of a man and a woman are observed leaving a hotel room. This observation may come to the correct conclusion but it still needs confession to verify and validate its claim
Observation alone is not how science works, there there is not always multiple options for an event. Observations tell us the sun is a sphere, observations tell us the sun is a source of energy, and we know from our development of the understanding of gravity and mass/density that certain processes will take place within the sun to produce energy. Observation is a useful tool, but like many things in science, it doesn’t stand alone.
The observed situation actually has over 6 different possibilities for the two to be exiting the hotel room and the illicit affair is only one of the possibilities. Others include, they are actually man and wife, they are on a honeymoon, the owner or clerk is getting an estimate for work to be done, the clerk is showing a perspective guest the room and on it goes.
A meaningless scenario when compared to the scientific method. It’s an attempt to conflate the social scenario with scientific research. Science doesn’t concern itself with ‘what-if’ situations. It looks at facts, based on a combination of things – including observations, but also previous discoveries.
If we were to look TA’s scenario, the scientific approach would be to assume nothing in the absence of other data. Further conclusions would only be drawn if other facts were available.
Observation alone cannot ferret out the truth and it needs the help of other sources providing the correct information to get to the truth. Observation merely puts a person on the path to getting to the truth and if the observer makes an error or decides to go after false information then their work is worthless as any claims made from faulty conclusions could hurt innocent lives, just like interpretation does.
The thing is, in one sense TA is correct – observation alone cannot uncover all the answers. It’s a good starting point though.
Next TA addresses the principle of prediction.
This is pseudo-science dressed up to be factual science. There is no other term for this as predictions come from fortune telling not scientific, rational thought. There is no objective authority that states we are to use prediction in any of our investigations. In fact, in criminal investigations predictions are frowned upon and consider unjust and unfair.
Yet another demonstration from TA that he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. Predictions are not made in a vacuum. They are based on theories and observations, and usually rooted in known ideas. We can predict the behaviour of atoms and molecules in certain scenarios, and carry out tests to see if those predictions come true. If they do, we can make further predictions, and if they don’t, we can still make predictions, based on the new data. Predictions are usually based entirely on scientific and rational thought – TA once again conflates matters by introducing a different field (criminal investigations) which is a brilliant example of the strawman fallacy.
Why secular science has adopted this as a lynch pin in its work can only be answered by the fact that secular science is evil influenced and led not God led or influenced. The fact that secular scientists only proclaim the predictions that work shows how dishonest they are. The many unfulfilled predictions that so many scientists encounter are ignored as the secular scientist tries to present an ideal picture of their field of research even though those failed predictions would disqualify the secular scientist from achieving any credibility and demonstrate that their theory does not work and is not true.
I am agape at this paragraph. Firstly, he describes the pursuit of knowledge and understanding through the use of a logical and methodical system ‘evil’ (but then, he’s done that before). Secondly, he thinks scientists only ever speak of predictions that work – which is not true. Scientists do not claim predictions will always work. They make predictions based on available data, and if their predictions don’t come true, they run new tests to examine why. It has been part of the scientific community to claim all predictions are likely to come true. In fact, science learns from failed predictions as much as successful ones. It is TA who projects his image of how scientists think into this paragraph, instead of actually considering facts.
We skip ahead a little (since the rest simply isn’t worth responding to), until we come to TA’s take on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
I place this and the following topic here as they illustrate how brilliant men can make mistakes and how those mistakes are blindly accepted and adopted by lesser individuals then taught to generations of unwary students.
Einstein’s theory of relativity has a fatal flaw and it resides in his assumption that gravity affects time and that mechanical or atomic clocks are the source of time. But time is not a material entity that is influenced by gravity. It is a separate non-material factor in our human lives which runs at the same pace no matter what is taking place in this world.
Except all of the above from TA is wrong. We know that space can be warped by gravity and therefore the flow of time altered. Check out the links if you want to know more. TA’s denial of one of the most fundamental theories (and one that has been tested successfully on numerous occasions) underscores what can only be classed as wilful ignorance at this point.
Time’s source is not a terrestrial clock but was created by God in Genesis 1 when he created light and separated it from the darkness. Terrestrial clocks, whether mechanical or atomic or whatever material they are made of, do not produce time, they can only measure its passing, thus if a person travels for 60 minutes by walking and a person travels 60 minutes at the speed of light, they both have aged by 60 minutes.
Emphasis mine. Where on earth did anyone claim that clocks produce time?! He also demonstrates a misunderstanding of relativity. Yes, if two people travel for 60 minutes, they will both age by 60 minutes, but if one is traveling at the speed of light, they will experience relativistic effects and time will proceed differently for them.
Time is not relative and it is not governed by speed either. While gravity can and does influence and slow down material objects, like atomic and mechanical clocks, it has no control over immaterial entities like Time.
Time passes the same for everyone no matter what they are doing.
Except large enough sources of gravity can warp space time, as per the links provided.
TA moves on to try and tackle the expanding universe. He fails miserably.
The problem with Hubble’s theory, and I am well aware he was not the originator of it others contributed to its construction, is first he ignores those galaxies that are not moving outward but inward. He calls then anomalies. (Must be nice to disregard important information when doing research and get away with it)
Except scientists don’t ignore galaxies that are moving toward us. They instead look at the evidence that shows far more are moving away from us, and from each other (the irony is, once again TA is disregarding evidence whilst complaining of same).
Second, it assumes that the outward movement comes from some explosion that took place 14 billion years ago. That theory has many problems to it as well, one being how could that event produce energy so great that 14 billion years later it is still influencing the movement of galaxies. That thinking just demonstrates the irrational, illogical and unrealistic thinking of secular scientists and secular science.
Just because it’s beyond your understanding TA, doesn’t mean it’s irrational or illogical. Since astronomers continue to observe that the universe is expanding, it is logical to conclude there is something driving this.
Warning: Missing argument 1 for cwppos_show_review(), called in /homepages/15/d474072471/htdocs/app522827563/wp-content/themes/flat/content-single.php on line 29 and defined in /homepages/15/d474072471/htdocs/app522827563/wp-content/plugins/wp-product-review/includes/legacy.php on line 18