Skip to content

The Immediacy of Science

July 21, 2012

Science rocks even though math sucks.

But “science” that looks at our origins as a people, world and universe has some major flaws.

We can figure out why chalk is chalky, or the many and wondrous properties of water, but anything the looks at a rock or a planet and makes a concrete claim is fantasy not science.  How old is the world?  How long did it take for Earth to form?  The Big Bang?  Fiction.

Here’s why: assumptions of all manner must be made.  We has to assume physics worked then like they do now.  That’s a big leap.  Is lightspeed constant?  Is the decay rate constant?  Was gravity (whatever that is) the same then as now?   Did properties of matter work the same?  Did life last as long?

My wife is doing freaky equations for statistics (did I mention math sucks?).  I imagine equations that look in the past and think if the assumed operands were red, we’d be shocked that almost the whole equation if not all of it were red.

I get the same applies to me looking back, of course.  I believe in the Plasma Theory not Gravimetric Theory of cosmology but that’s really just because it aligns with the Biblical model.  I would have to write that in red, too.  But I’m okay with that.  Faith is red.  So is much of science.  I’m okay with that, too.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: