Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Clifford Goldstein

3. Good but Not True

Clifford Goldstein

Presenter

Clifford Goldstein

Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Ministries Quarterly

Conference

Recorded

  • December 28, 2017
    2:45 PM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2017 AudioVerse.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.

SPONSORED

Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

This message was presented at the G.U.Y.Z. twenty seventeen conference arise in Phoenix Arizona for other resources like this visit us online at W W W dot she Y.C. well worth. Let's say a prayer and that I like to get it started. Father again I thank you for the wonderful truce you've given us as the people. We're getting assaulted from so many different angles so many different ways the enemy takes something as good as extra knowledge and scientific Now when evangelizes seems like everything anybody hear anything humans do is a venture we pervert and twist I pray will be able to work through some of these issues here and be strengthened in our faith in Jesus name the man OK Now we did touch on a I don't know how some of you been here to some of the other meetings. Somebody has some new faces and the gist of what I've done and. Did I bring my book. And there's this book. To sell and here it's called baptizing the devil evolution in the seduction of Christianity. And basically. We're looking at this idea. In our society and people say but it sign ends. And the moment they say something is science. If you ever argued with someone. And they say to you but it's science what is the implication. Of course the implication well how can you dare argue with this it's science and science uses I don't think I'll have trying to get into it maybe at least not today maybe I have a whole section of book on the so-called scientific method we've all been to and in high school do you remember being taught the scientific method and so forth and this idea is that well once you apply the scientific method to something you're Trichet truth is almost almost deductively guaranteed to come out the other and it was fascinating a lot of the literature I lent read on the fact I have a chapter in the book called The Neath of the method. And there and they would say there's no such thing as the scientific method you know that the method that you use for doing one thing in science can be completely different from something else and it was fascinating some of the stuff I read but the point on this is. And again as I stated earlier the key point is not to be anti-science I'm not anti science I believe science does teach us. Clearly teaches us thing. And I believe it actually teaches us and some would debate this it teaches us things about the real world though there are actually some philosophers of science who say science doesn't teach us about the real world science teaches us only about how the world appears to us in our senses us. And there's a vast difference they would argue between what the world really is and how it appears to our senses and all in the end science could do is maybe give us a better view of how it appears to our senses. But there's a difference you know I use an analogy about our senses and I have a whole section here and maybe I'll get to this let's imagine or and I want to right now. Let's be quiet OK we hear him next door but. In the room right now let's be quiet for him. OK say ideally it in here anything now. I'm going to should have done this I want to put something on my i Phone and I'll be it's funny I am going to give away some of mine I'm actually not that as conservative as him but I'm an unabashed unrepentant see if you could hear. Can you hear that yeah OK Now the question I have is and I'm a dead almost always a dead I used to be a Democrat all the time it's getting harder and harder but I'm an animal Rush fan and I pay fifty dollars a year to listen to Rush because he's good at what he does I don't have to agree with him I like what he does but not the way I'm deviating The point is. If I Could we said nothing and it was empty. When I turn this song. Where did that sound come from it didn't originate. In my phone where was the sound it was here in the air it was here in the air all around us as real as my voice as real as this chair is here it's here in the room right now Rush Limbaugh is right here but what our senses don't allow us to pick it up it needed to go through this device to show us what was real what was here can you see what I'm saying here and I'm saying at that the point is is that reality. We have arse to our eyes or to we know Rhea and we get only a certain limited view. Of reality and there's some that will say All science can do is help us get. Another view a deeper view but still it's still only. A view of the way the world appears to us through our senses and one of the great philosophical questions has been what is the difference between the world as it really is. And the way the world appears to us limited in our senses I mean where I haven't is how many angels could be in this room right now I hope they're all good ones. Though I'm sure there's a few somebody must a drug and a bad one or two from the future but the point is there's a whole reality out there I mean they say right now that there are. At this moment billions of neurons from the sun are going right through us right now the Moon I think the same Ooh and so small you could take a one thousand miles of steel and it will move on to go right through it and never even slow it down so the point is there's a much greater reality out there than we with our senses can pick up and even science is still helping us pick up a reality it's helping us view that reality a little bit differently but it's still all to minutely our senses and that's fine that again some would say OK that's fine that's how reality appears to us but what is really there what is really there and can science really teach us which there are not I tend to think science does give us a view of the real world but it's a very limited view anyway now what I want to talk about. There was. Anybody ever hear of one of the most famous books of the twentieth century was called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. By a man named Thomas Kuhn. And Kuhn wrote this book like in the sixty's and it was considered one of the most influential texts of all of the twentieth century and basically what the guy Thomas Kuhn said is he said he's basically saying what I basically say in my book baptizing the devil though I say this in a very specific context Kuhn was saying that science is nowhere near. As rational as objective. As seek when Chael as people think it is he's saying it's much more haphazard much more subjective much more culturally influenced and culturally Laden then a lot of people believe and for whatever reason Cancun's book created it was a phenomenon and to this day people write books writing about Kuhn Some take it even further than COO or some try to dismiss him completely but the fascinating thing is you had one of this book by a scientist saying science is nothing is nowhere near. What people are led to believe that it is in terms of being the subjective truth fact I want to read you a quote in Coombs book. Coon captured he quoted a man named Marx pluck. Marx Clark was one of the founders of quantum physics mar it was just he was a very highly influential. Scientist and look at what. Listen to this if this is true. Think about how different this idea is from how we commonly understand science he's quoting klunk. A new scientific truth plonk does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents of venture Lee die and a new generation grows up familiar with it that is. That's phenomenal I mean for somebody like myself who grew up I grew up with the secular atheistic scientific rationalistic materialistic world view it's just atoms and the void. OK And that was it I believed in nothing supernatural anything like that and then my first foray into the occult. It's some funny a friend of mine once said Cliff you're the only guy at the G.C. Who would ever traveled in the astral plane. And that was my first foray into the occult and my Took all it took was one trip for me into the occult. That I start to realize that wow this scientific rationalistic naturalistic world view that I had been raised on. Was a little too narrow OK it was a little I mean obviously we don't deny the real physical world though there are some who do in fact. I read an article. A market to get into it now by a guy named Nick boaster him he's an Oxford. Philosopher and I've preached on this in different contexts and boasts from our dues and I'm telling you it's powerful argument. He argues that we don't even exist we're just computer algorithms by a race but you know he makes some powerful arguments for it OK and that actually is an important point. Because one of the things that I'm probably not going to get a chance to get on it in here you study the history of science people have had very very good logical rational scientific reasons for believing in things that we now no longer believe are true but at the time they had you know those of you here earlier we talked about Galileo and that and Galileo's trial you know it wasn't just religious people. Wasn't just the poor Roman church there were a lot of good science there was a lot of good scientific evidence against Galileo and Copernicus is theory of the earth moving around the sun that one of the best they ever had was called the stellar parallax if I hold my finger up I look at that lighting. OK. And I see that light in front of me now if the earth is moot if I were moving. Say if I were moving and I come over here. And I look up at that light I see it from a completely different angle from the way I see it now today and people said well let's look at the stars. And of Copernicus is right and Galileo is right and the earth is moving around the sun in six months it's going to be on the whole other side of the Sun So let's look up at the stars and they looked up at the stars and they found no sterile power stellar power X. there was no indication whatsoever. That the earth had moved because the stars look in the exact same spot it looked just like it was. When I was standing here and they said see there scientific proof. And that was an understandable scientific proof what do you think the problem was. Well the stars are so far away. They were so far away that the motion of the earth they couldn't detect it they can now they've got the devices the point is they had here there's another reason if the earth were moving. I want to give you scientific evidence right now they are Earth doesn't move. OK let's say the earth were rotating that way OK if I throw this book up and the earth is moving soon to land back here OK and people say how come boots don't get blown back how come things you know you know so and that the point is they had good scientific reasons for believing in things that were wrong OK And you wonder today I got this great quote. I quote him probably twice in the book by a man named Alfred North Whitehead. And Whitehead said when he died like one nine hundred twenty Whitehead said when I was in college at Cambridge I studied mathematics and scientist was some of the best teachers in the world that I was very good at it and I said I did very well at it and then he said I've lived to see every foundational assumption in mathematics and science overturned in my lifetime and he says and now we're going to say we have certainty. And it was fastened at this guy and math and science the foundational assumptions overturned and away again the point of all this is you know what sheep if you had a practicing scientist here he might say good. You know every scientist knows this and the fact is I think most scientists do understand that. But the fact is the average Joe Blow in the general public like yours truly and like a lot of us I never knew I was always been a fairly well read Guy read a lot and then just in the past five six years I started reading some of the stuff. About the philosophy of science in fact the interesting thing to ninety five percent of the material that I'm sharing with you that I've gotten from put in this book I got from reading atheists or evolutionists best pretty much almost I think I read one Christian book on the philosophy of science almost everything else I've read and I learned about science and the limits of science I got from reading atheists and or evolution is a fact if you were here earlier I told you the Teaching Company course by Dr Stephen Goldman I know he's an evolutionist he has a course on evolution and yet it was his stuff that opened my eyes to the to some of these limitations which again isn't is not news to the average scientist. But to the rest of us poor Chinooks who are constantly being well science says this science says that but again this quote. I thought this quote by Thomas Kuhn. Or this quote work Kuhn quoted pluck. I mean it's saying a new theory is not accepted by the evidence it's when an older generation. Dies off who believe the old one and new people who are used to it accepted OK now that's fine if the theory happens to be true but of course that's the whole question in fact I think I mentioned earlier I'm reading now Charles Darwin's Descent of Man it's boring on one level but it's fascinating on another and he does talk about the older generation. Who fought fight thought of our evolution. And how they're dying off and there's a new generation and it's it's fatha if you ever want to read a fascinating book The author's name is Thomas Wolfe. Secular writer he wrote a book called The Kingdom of speech. And he goes after a guy named Noah Chomsky which is a whole other issue but then he goes after Darwin. And it's fascinating as far as I know Wallsten evolutionists he might even be an atheist but he goes after Darwin and I have a great quote from Wolf in there on that but anyway the point is he we've got this quote If If If If If true or even partially true. What displaying sphenoids say about the objectivity of science a scientific proof a Scientific Truth on Money even on of I doubt I'll have time to get into proof to this States first of all. There's no agreed definition of science. You will find that they argue over it's very difficult for them it's called the demarcation problem what is the difference between science bad science and pseudo science OK when the tobacco company paid. Ph D.'s in biology and chemistry. Biology and chemistry to do research for them and feed years they were telling us oh tobacco is not so bad we don't know the evidences out. These were bona feed a scientist they were Ph D.'s and chemistry in physics were they doing real science no I mean you saying the science might have been skewed. I mean you're saying scientists science could be skewed. So you know you in other words but this is science you see we you know we're talking about the objective rational pursuit of evidence and data and you put it in the lab and you you do oh my goodness for a while I used to get on a website called Retraction Watch. And they would all they do was cover all the scientific papers. That had been retracted for either outright fraud or just you know it's amazing how much of that goes on out there OK and again but we think what all this idea of this is sign this and well the bottom line in the end the science is a human endeavor. And it's and and really and I had a whole section on this science is I'm going to throw out two words for you. You know the word a pistol Mala G.. A pistol Mala G. is the study of knowledge. Now what it's not what we know. A pistol is the study of what do we mean when we say we know something you ever think about that what does it mean to say you know something if I say I know my back is killing me if I say I know that two plus two equals four. If I say I know I was born in New York. If I say I know that Jesus is coming back. I don't know to I say two plus two equals four. I know that I am tired. I'm using the word know here to mean something the same thing but I know every one of these things differently I know that my back hurts different than I know that two plus two equals four OK and a pistol Mala G. is the study of how we know what we know or how we think we know what we know and yet actually it's one of these and I would love to get into this but it's not but how do we. Know the problem with the pistol Mollett G. is. How do we know. That our pistol Mala G. is right when the very thing we're questioning is how do we know anything to begin with OK and that actually is a very profound point that has to do with all our knowledge of the limits of all our knowledge including scientific knowledge there is a point where all not knowledge comes to an end even scientific knowledge and then you have to take a leap people say was the same thing happens in religion yeah I know and it's called faith I have very very good logical rational reasons. For my beliefs who advocates isn't my goodness this picture fits together it's almost scarily Well I mean just the pieces fit together so well but there reaches a point where my justification stops and then I take a leap of faith Well folks they do the same thing and science as well though they'll die before they ever want to admit it but anyway Kuhn that quote was income. Rooms book anyway but to get a true should be accepted or rejected based on proof not on you know on data but certainly not on which generation of scientists happens to come and go but unfortunately according to Kuhn science doesn't work anywhere near as rationally or as objective really science does not allow humanity in a sense to step out of itself OK to step out and get some objective view of the world and to look at the world when you do science you're really just. You're part of the world and you're just looking at the world from inside the world and Kuhn talked about human subjectivity the values the prejudices the preconceptions and the assumptions both individual scientists and this is fascinating to science is a communal endeavor. OK you get a whole bunch of scientists a whole bunch of people ideally working together checking on each other balancing each other out and so forth in order to come to their conclusions but if he says it's the the heart of the scientific community instead of according to Kuhn instead of science proceeding in this rational step by step accumulation of knowledge cultural historical psychological factors cannot be weeded or purged out of of it let me read you another quote here. He says Listen to this quote the conclusions he said of scientists are possibly determined by his prior experience in other fields by the AK. Student of his investigation and by his own individual make up and apparently arbitrary element come compounded of personal and historical accident is always a form of agreement a greedy end of the bully's espoused by a given scientific community at any time arbitrary elements accidents individual makeup I know it sounds like finger painting. OK Now maybe you've ever heard of the word We've all heard the word paradigm. Paradigm a model. A model Thomas Kuhn. The one made this idea of a power a dime famous. And basically what a paradigm is is the model it's the world view that a scientist has and that he works in or she works and it's the assumptions it's the per Ramit or it's the model and which they do their signs and the IN POOR AND EVERY they have to they have to have certain assumptions you have to know what you're looking for you have to have a certain basic understanding of what you're looking for a certain basic understanding of how the real world works a certain basic understanding of what tools you cannot use or can or cannot use in the paradigm OK And he's and that's fine that's how science works now the important thing. To remember and this is crucial Somebody here said that it's a real aset of receive believes OK now here's the thing that's super important to understand. The scientist. Never questions the power a dime. The paradigm is the thing that does the questioning it's the other let me give you a simple example we're American So we like American football. Every watches I tried one time to watch a soccer game I'd rather watch somebody parallel park and watch a soccer game. It is the most Bromo one stepped on my tollbooth claws bit me green card a morel was a boy I don't want to salute anyone he way but I got a whole channel live one time they can do anything about it it started blocking soccer and all the poor hosts can do so as we know Lou we would anyway in American football when they for oh I thought the funniest thing I was watching on You Tube. Football follies and some football player got mad at the ref threw the football in his face I thought I would laugh and my wife thought it was horrible I thought it was the funniest the guy ever saw he just got frustrated flipped the ball in his face and of course what did the ref do pulled out the flag and threw the flag now the point is when they throw the flag. In a football game. What are they doing they are not challenging. The rules of football are they they're not challenging the rules the flag is thrown to show whether something earlier another violated the rules. But the rules of the game are not. That's not what it's all about and Kuhn argues that a paradigm a paradigm are these subjective these rules of the game it's the model. It's the model in which they investigate everything OK and he says who talks about what he calls normal science. And that's like when they're just working within the rules of their power dime their model but again they're not questioning the power of dime they're not questioning the model the paradigm in the model is what you used to question everything else does it fit in the paradigm does it and if it doesn't fit it's rejected OK and that's how he argues that science works then he says what happens is you start getting. What they call anomalies and here's let me read you this quote This is from an advocate scientist scientists do not try to test the power or die this is crucial but assume it is true and use it to guide their exploration of new phenomena with the power within the paradigms domain the process cocoon called normal science because that is what science does normally do. Do But see this shows you. The assumption that's involved in science the his that this con In other words Coons paradigm this model is another as it's in it it shows what happens when science is done it shows the assumptions the subjectivity they have this paradigm they have this model and everything is interpreted through it I have. An idea with this in the book a perfect example of a paradigm I mention you to the Teaching Company Well I got thirty six lectures on the origins of life. By a man named Dr Robert Hazen and there were thirty six lectures I listened to every one of them. And I got the transcripts. And Hasan It was fascinating to me from this model of Tusky here are from Thomas Kuhn from the model of Kuhn's understanding of a paradox Hasan starts out the lecture he says I'm starting out on the assumption. This was fascinating to me. On the assumption that life began three point four billion years ago on earth through the normal processes of chemistry and physics working through water rock and air. OK That was his assumption that really in a sense was the paradigm that formed the template. For all that came after and it was really in many ways it was a fascinating set of lectures because he spent a number of lectures looking at the different. Models for how they believe life began many you probably read about still the Miller you're a experiment I think in the fifty's were these guys Stanley Mir and Howard you're a in a lab synthesized some very simple amino acids the building blocks of protein and it was the whole idea was they wanted to. Zero what was a where they wanted to mimic what they believe could have been Earth's early conditions and life began in like a a shallow pool and they did all this stuff and they created these amino acids will it cost qua. Hoopla like Wow And you know I'm sure the way it was spoiled you know evidence of how life began you know ON AND ON AND ON NOW The Anyway this was quite the thing for a while and then other scientists came along and said No no no that can't be right and they came up with another theory some argue that can't be right they argued that life began in a deep thermal vents in the water a thermal event there was warmth you got heat you got water and there was a popular theory and I think some still push it that life's been started in a thermal vent while later on somebody came along and said now and then that's a load of hooey and they said no no we think life got started in in shale in A and compress shale and this guy told how he did experiments where they compressed rocks or did something to really tons of pressure because I thought that might have been the place where they began. Another theory was that life began and molten rock thousand degrees centigrade OK That was one theory others said no no life began and Clay others said no life by the commanded from a from a from their own back to Droid mandrel it and not an android Azza a meteorite Yeah yeah I mean you're right now they the fascinating thing first of all it was fat you know this idea and this is the other myth of these of Checked of scientists seeking truth they were cutting each other's throats. The nastiness and the vitriol you think they were Christians are going over the nature of Christ and. And but it was for me from the perspective of interest in the philosophy is. It was fascinating because I don't think so they had all these different models not one of them weren't not one of them or and I thought to myself. Did it ever and I said I don't think it ever entered this man's mind this Ph D. in. Very good lecture or by the way the Teaching Company gets really good teachers but I don't think it ever entered his ma. That maybe the reason. None of these models were it. Was because his paragraph I. Was faulty and yet I don't think it entered his My But why should it that wasn't what he was questioning and the words the paradigm wasn't being questioned that was being assumed every venue look for you look for through I guess almost a way to use it from a scriptural that we could understand better as Aves somebody comes up with some theological idea what are we tested by. The scripture. Scripture you a spirit of prophecy in our field if you go that way but that's in the sentence what the paradigm is we don't somebody doesn't come up with the noose a new theology and they say well you know that's contrary to the scripture well then we're just going to have to chuck the scripture OK that's not how it works it's that's the foundation scripture well with science that's what a power a dime is and it was fascinating to listen to this guy. Because I realize it never entered his momma. To Change His power a dime OK and that's fine. Except if there's one problem what's the problem here. What's the problem with this paradigm it's wrong. It's really you know from our perspectives I got I think it's wrong so everything you've got you Bill he's building from a model that's wrong OK now what Kuhn does. But here's where Kuhn stuff and again I can't overestimate the influence of the security people my work computer every five minutes it shuts me out you know I told you that already. Somebody got a hold of the G C Well I'm going to must close it OK now oh yeah this was actually a fascinating thing to. I read this was fascinating for fifteen hundred years Aristotle's science dominated western thought as I said the whole Galileo trial was an example of what happens when Christians compromise and Milde their faith with the latest and greatest science and if the science happens to be wrong they look like idiots and that's what the Romans did and that's why they came out looking like idiots in the Galileo trial. And but our star also taught. That the universe was perfect that this below the moon earth there's corruption in degradation you get above the mood the cosmos is perfect and apparently in the fourteen hundreds or the twelve hundreds there was this massive supernova. That western astronomers completely missed that the Chinese not wrapped in the a risk the team only in Paris die. They saw it and they know it. But Western astronomers even though it occurred in the sky they were so their minds were so sheet by the paradigm that they completely missed the supernova because according to the theory it wasn't suppose to be there OK So anyway that is what you call a paradigm now that everything was cool here is not that that's nothing. That's nothing remarkable but here's where Kuhn got what Kuhn said happens with Kuhn said happens is that eventually. Eventually you have to keep getting things called anomalies and these anomalies or things that don't fit you keep finding too many things that don't fit and then eventually I'm going to just pull down here as I got so much. So much information here let me. Let me jump down. And. Things that don't fit and then eventually. Come on. Here is most controversy all idea. You work in a paradigm but then you start having what he calls anomalies hey this doesn't fit and this doesn't fit in this doesn't fit and eventually he gets what you call a crisis in which the whole paradigm collapses and he has what he calls a revolution and you get a whole new paradigm with a whole new set of assumptions and a completely different way of looking at the world a completely different way of doing science clearly different way of looking at the evidence and he comes up and says these things are totally opposite of each other in there you know and I mean Kuhn took the things somewhat extreme but the point is. That you know the point is which is the correct one what are we doing here it's for Kuhn it's not a modification of the old one it's a whole new way of looking at the world a mad thing for a minute imagine the shift your whole life you believe the earth sat immobile at the center of the universe. And everything circled it on and on to suddenly wake up one day and look at the sky. And see a whole different world out there that the sun moving is really the earth going around the earth spinning on its axis and on and on it's a whole new way of looking at the world now this is the important point. When you have a revolution when you have a paradigm shift. Where's the change. What changes. Ah. The paradigm so where is the paradigm located carry. The change it's not in the rocks the sun didn't when they went from a wrist in Ptolemaic paradigm to a Copernican paradigm to discern change the way it was moving nothing a paradigm shift. Is a total subjective change in the human mind it's scientists and the scientific community changing the way it views reality the reality hasn't changed the world is exactly the way it was before before the power of Dimes shift what changes are human beings and the way human beings look at it and the thing that was revolutionary about Kuhn and so controversial is that Kuhn was saying does it mean the new paradigm is right does it mean we're working towards more truth you know that we have this idea you know Newton said his famous quote. So much saying I necessarily agree with Kuhn I'm not saying you know on and that some people don't agree with him some people take it further than Kuhn The reason I even bring any of this stuff up and the reason I touch on that in my book is I just want to help free people. From the the myth of our error and of our age the great myth of twentieth twenty first century Western intellectual life that it's song Mance therefore it's truth and we have to submit our views to wood and if the Bible says something but it's science backed by a laboratory experiment get off on experiment that's a whole new experiments. And data and all this stuff well then the only logical rational intellectually honest thing to do. Is to surrender your Biblical is and don't even get me started I talked about this earlier Christians are notorious It was I said earlier the scientists were the ones who fought Darwin in the beginning the ones kowtow in accepting it were the Christians and I thought you know I've often wondered why do Christians do that. Well I think you know what it is look. There's always been a lot of very anti intellectual strains in Christianity and Chris you know it's some pretty wild stuff. God came down and born of a virgin. And I am the creator of the universe because John one one through three anything that was not made that was made it was made by Jesus so this vast creation the Creator. Comes down and born virgin born as a human being and then I mean the whole thing and it can sound pretty bizarre OK especially for a sec I mean I grew up secular You have no idea how weird all this stuff was to me you know and those are you born and raised in the church you have no idea how weird Adventists could seem to secular people now I'm one of them you know now I'm a full fledged I'm probably just as weird as the but I tend to think there's this idea. They want they don't want to be seen that way they want to be seen as sophisticated they want to be seen as you know you know and I mean again I don't know individual motives but as I said earlier I showed you earlier some of the sad things people have to do. What Christians do to try to get to fit evolution in the Bible but anyway Our I've lost my train of thought here now where was I We are back with Kuhn with the Paradise Oh yeah the only reason I'm showing you this is it would have cooties not one hundred percent right. It still shows the idea that you don't have science it's this you know Newton once said if I did anything I stood on the shoulder of giants and there's this idea of this cumulative building of scientific knowledge and it's moving closer and closer and closer to truth now I don't know maybe in some ways it really is I really don't know but Koons idea which was revolutionized the whole thought about science that it doesn't work that way at all you got one paradigm it falls apart they create a whole new one a whole movie set of assumptions all whole new way of viewing the world and maybe it's closer to true but you have no way of ever knowing absolutely whether it is or not because no matter you know they could have a scientific theory those of you were here earlier. Maybe explain to somebody who's new the fact that the theory works or that the theory makes accurate predictions. In many ways has absolutely nothing to do with whether the theory is true or not there's a whole long history of scientific theories that worked that made accurate predictions that have later been overturned and believed no longer being true how could it not be true it works well that's fine it's a total separate issue from whether it's short anyway the whole point with the khud thing the whole point with the what time are we got a few more minutes there any quote We stop a quarter of right OK I want to bring up one more thing and then if you got any questions I kept on saying I'm going to give you time for questions and then I just. It's funny I don't particularly like public speaking but once I get up I can't keep my mouth shut so. But you ever hear of a thing and I deal with this in the book and it's it's fascinating to look inward. You hear the term peer review. But it's peer reviewed it's peer reviewed as suddenly as if whoa whoa it's peer reviewed Well that's it you know all question stop all mounds cease because it's peer reviewed but here's the thing that's fine. Here though some fascinating studies have done where people have purposely put errors in papers told them their errors in their Warner beforehand and they peer review and they don't see it OK but. When a somebody peer reviews a paper. What are they doing what are they challenging or what are they not challenging the paradigm see all they're doing to do is check in see whether what you're doing your science your conclusion whether it fits with the paradigm OK That's all they're doing and we won't be wrong wall won't be. Particularly when it comes to creation evolution Hey the only difference between the scientific community and the Romans is the Romans had the political power to put you in jail and get your head chopped off OK but the point is that when they're very intolerant scientific I mean it's amazing I have come to see science as the most intolerant branch of knowledge of the real They're worse than theologians they're worse than Christians or religious people because it's what anyway but the point is they're just checking everything in the power of di. And that's fine except. What happens if the paradigm is wrong OK And then when you have a whole paradigm shift so I guess the point is this is this was Coombe's contribution and it read it shook everybody up and to this day they're like a whole cottage industry a rose by those who sing Coon was full of it or those who took it. For then cool much more radical even cool and again I bring this up I'm not saying I write one hundred percent right. I'm bringing it up only to show that. The for most of us when we hear it's science we have this idea of this cold logical rational check the here with you truth and so on and that's not even close to what's really really going on because I realize I lost my truck remind me when I come back to pick up about a pistol Mollett G. or any questions you got any questions and just before we take a break anything on what I've talked about right here if you think I'm full of it and want to challenge me on it go for it you know go for it I'm I'm still waiting for a good review to challenge me and maybe point out things that I need to fix go ahead well I'm not going to get into the details of that I'm not all I'm going to say like with carbon dating I don't know enough about it all I know is for carbon dating for this stuff to work. You have to make certain assumptions and they might be reasonable assumptions they might be assumptions that if I knew what you knew and believed what you would believe I would say hey I've got good reasons to believe that you know and on and on and on but the fact that I might have good reasons to believe it. Has apps is is almost totally separate question from whether it's correct or not OK now I don't know not much about this the dating system all I know is I have a very good friend of mine is an administration. He runs one of the Hob Nobs a today and my wife can't stand if you get stuck I does nothing but attack you in public and every time I was out alone Melinda A couple months ago I had like eight hour layover for a plane I just hung out at his house you know I said earlier I need to stay at your house for a while because I got to ten hours off in a ten hours it's come on over and we hang out but my wife says it's only all the man ever does it publicly attack you said yeah but we're friends you know we're friends but he isn't a. Carbon day he's into the dating and I asked him a question and this isn't port and. And again this is because I delved a lot into some of the philosophy behind this and maybe some of this might not mean much to some of you others you might be able to get appear in explain this stuff better than me but I said Earth is name of Taylor everybody it is good for you know Irv my buddy always says my good friend Cliff Goldstein and then goes on to skew her me but. I don't I never take it too personally I'm glad it's a good thing I don't or I would be in bad shape but I said Irv. At what point. Because you build belief on the assumption on various assumptions things that you have to believe are true. In order for that stuff to work OK you've got to assume that the decay rates are the same as they've always been OK and if we were here earlier the world before the fall the world before the flood was a radically different world than the world we live in now OK a world where nothing die. Is a radically different world so you've got a was soon but but I serve at what point. What's the furthest down you go. In other words I want to get to the further in your assumptions you go as far down as you can that's is rock solid as could possibly be you know just a belief that's just rock solid you know I don't want something on the top you know yeah but I want something down a bit rock solid. And he looked at me. And he said but science doesn't work that way you will no kidding know that I know that because I've spent years reading on this stuff but anyway and I look let's take a. Break. Three forty five hours. This message was recorded at the G Y C twenty seventeen conference arrives in Phoenix Arizona. G Y C A supporting Ministry of the Seventh Day Adventist Church seeks to inspire young people to be bible based Christ centered and so when Christians to download or purchase other resources like this visit us online at W.W.W. dot G.Y. see Web dot org.

Share

Embed Code

Short URL

http://audiover.se/2GS0Rxw