There are likely 40 billion Earth-like planets in our Milky Way galaxy, astronomers say.

[rocket]

Coincidentally an email arrived in my inbox this morning with a link to this article:

 

Behold, Countless Earths Sail the Galaxies ... That Is, if You Would Only Believe

 

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/behold_countles078531.html

 

I like this paragraph of that article:

 

"In reality, even the rocky exoplanets (known as of early 2013) that are Earth-sized are not Earth-like. For example, the Kepler mission's first rocky planet find is described as follows: "Although similar in size to Earth, its orbit lasts just 0.84 days, making it likely that the planet is a scorched, waterless world with a sea of lava on its starlit side." As space program physicist Rob Sheldon puts it, Earth is a rocky planet but so is a solid chunk of iron at 1300 degrees orbiting a few solar radii above the star. In any event, a planet may look Earth-like but have a very different internal structure and atmosphere." Could exoplanets support life that has a different chemical composition? Absent details about the composition, who knows? Despite all this, an Earth Similarity Index has been compiled, offered with the caution that life might also exist under unearthly conditions, a caution that renders the Index's value uncertain."

 

See more at:

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/behold_countles078531.html#sthash.FMiLuE6Q.dpuf

[minister159]

But it does SEEM like all those galaxies and planets out there just doing nothing would be a waste and Jehovah isn't wasteful. It's an intriguing thought. I've never really actually thought there is any life (lesser forms) as you mention, could be though...

 

 

 

 

So, you believe unless a planet is inhabited, it's a waste? According to that line of reasoning, every planet should have life on it, because why else would Jehovah have created it? Could it be he created them for his own glory and maybe even his own enjoyment, not to mention that of his angelic sons? Too often, we think of Jehovah in terms of purely human reasoning and according to our own understanding of what should and should not be.

 

Have you not heard, have you not been told?: 

 

"The heavens are declaring the glory of God;

And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.

 ² One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth,

And one night after another night shows forth knowledge.

 ³ There is no speech, and there are no words;

No voice on their part is being heard."

[pnutts]

Birds can be quite intelligent.

Only in the UK where birds are women   This side of the pond they are called "Chicks"

[Jordan]

The assertion that life exists elsewhere was made, the onus is on the one making the statement to provide evidence to support it, not on the doubter to disprove the assertion.

The fact is, the only planet where we know life exists is here on this earth.  Anything else is speculation.  Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, bro, I think he was just stating his "beliefs" rather then "asserting" , and because it's speculation either way... Not matter which side you take, no one has to prove anything.

 

But if you did...

 

In his case...

 

Bro Bob can make the comment "He believes or feels" (as he put it) and not have any proof, OTHER then there ARE planets that science says are capable of sustaining life as WE know it (life spectrum) within our galaxy. Since life is "possible", he correctly, has reason to "feel" his statement of belief is a legitimate and valid.

 

http://changemakersorg.com/2011/12/06/nasa-finds-planet-that-can-sustain-life/

http://theweek.com/article/index/211769/nasas-astonishing-find-54-planets-that-can-sustain-human-life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite%C2'>

 

It has been proven there's organic molecules throughout the universe based on spectral analysis. Granted, organic molecules don't mean something is alive, but at least indicates they were at some point. There were also life forms BEFORE man was created which might lead a thinking person to grasp life can begin before man and that life isn't mans alone.

 

 

In your case...

 

I suspect that you would have a much harder time disproving it, by providing concrete evidence for lack of life. Which I know you don't have.

 

[Musky]

I am extremely interested in this statement and would love to see some documented references. Could you post a page or two?

It has been proven there's organic molecules throughout the universe based on spectral analysis. Granted, organic molecules don't mean something is alive, but at least indicates they were at some point.

You are basically saying that there is proof that there is, or at least was, organic life in the universe outside of earth. I missed those headlines.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Musky

[Jordan]

So, you believe unless a planet is inhabited, it's a waste?

 

 

I'm sure you are not misquoting me intentionally but those are your words not mine.  My point was that with all the possibilities for habitation on other planets it "SEEMS" (that was the word I used) like it could put to some very interesting use other then dead rocks that glow in the dark most of which no human sees.

Fact is brother, Jehovah enjoys watching us admire his creations and enjoys us learning about his creations.

 

Consider  Adam’s naming of the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). God created the animals, and he created man. God knew that at some point within the sphere of the earthly creation that man would name the animals, since that is one of the events that his design of man’s interaction with animals would entail. In fact, God chose not only to allow this to happen through the normal interaction of his creatures in the earthly realm, but he involved himself by “bringing them [the animals] to the man.”

 

Clearly, he wanted “to see what he would call each one” (Genesis 2:19). No doubt he enjoyed watching such things occur! Jehovah has placed the earth in a position for us to make other scientific discoveries that would be impossible from other planets, he enjoys us making discoveries of his creations - if we can't see his creations or experiences his creations then to US it is a waste . Common sense.

 

 

According to that line of reasoning, every planet should have life on it, because why else would Jehovah have created it? Could it be he created them for his own glory and maybe even his own enjoyment, not to mention that of his angelic sons?

 

No doubt he has - starting with his creation of us. In fact I was promoting the idea set on the possibilities for the expansion of that same type of creation. Problem?

 

Too often, we think of Jehovah in terms of purely human reasoning and according to our own understanding of what should and should not be.

I agree - I'm glad you pointed that out.

Have you not heard, have you not been told?: 

 

"The heavens are declaring the glory of God;

And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.

 ² One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth,

And one night after another night shows forth knowledge.

 ³ There is no speech, and there are no words;

No voice on their part is being heard."

I like this --

I'm not putting restrictions on Jehovah or his ability to create things we can not comprehend. He is all powerful. I'm enjoying and reveling in his creations and the possibilities that his creations are endless - Are you telling me that is wrong?

[Jordan]

I am extremely interested in this statement and would love to see some documented references. Could you post a page or two?

You are basically saying that there is proof that there is, or at least was, organic life in the universe outside of earth. I missed those headlines.

 

Of course...

 

I'm "quoting" findings, they are not my findings. You understand that I'm not making those claims just repeating them, obviously. There are some that are claiming discovery of alien bacteria that says life probably exists "everywhere". Again not my claim.

I left a link for life on Mars as well in that post.

 

Here is one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143721.htm

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/nature10542.html

It's interesting that they will automatically try and attribute this and things like this to how life got it's start on earth rather then the most probable (we know to be fact) reason... Creation. Of course even if they are correct in that "stars" are creating organic material, we all know the life-force behind it is Jehovah as you brought out earlier "but he has kept working"

Edited November 8, 2013 by Jordan

[Musky]

I see, so when you stated "It has been proven there's organic molecules throughout the universe based on spectral analysis. Granted, organic molecules don't mean something is alive, but at least indicates they were at some point. There were also life forms BEFORE man was created which might lead a thinking person to grasp life can begin before man and that life isn't mans alone."

 

You weren't saying that, you were just quoting what some believe. That wasn't obvious in your post. Thanks for clarifying, 

[Jordan]

I see, so when you stated "It has been proven there's organic molecules throughout the universe based on spectral analysis. Granted, organic molecules don't mean something is alive, but at least indicates they were at some point. There were also life forms BEFORE man was created which might lead a thinking person to grasp life can begin before man and that life isn't mans alone."

 

You weren't saying that, you were just quoting what some believe. That wasn't obvious in your post. Thanks for clarifying, 

 

 

I can only repeat what science is saying is fact and I can't offer any counter to that particular finding. Read the article it's interesting.

[jayrtom]

Not everything that some scientists say are fact are really that... a recently claim of life form found on an asteroid was soon after disproved as fake, for example. recently NASA found a new bacteria on 2 supposedly superclean rooms (those could go on starships and after claimed as new life form from space)

read about all the fake articles plunging lots of reputable science magazines....

today I read about a new platypus that supposedly existed 15million years ago... the scientist found out all about this new twist on evolution just by looking to a found tooth!! looking, not grasping it from DNA or such....!!!

[jidcman]

Not everything that some scientists say are fact are really that... a recently claim of life form found on an asteroid was soon after disproved as fake, for example. recently NASA found a new bacteria on 2 supposedly superclean rooms (those could go on starships and after claimed as new life form from space)

read about all the fake articles plunging lots of reputable science magazines....

today I read about a new platypus that supposedly existed 15million years ago... the scientist found out all about this new twist on evolution just by looking to a found tooth!! looking, not grasping it from DNA or such....!!!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

[sunshine]

Seems to me their premise is based on the assumption that given enough time, space and random combinations, a planet like earth will be reproduced not just once but "billions" of times over in an "infinte" universe.  I should think though that if someone bothered to make the actual calculation listing all the precise conditions that would be necessary - from the all the possible angles of the planet to all the possible the distances from it's nearest star/sun to the factors that contribute to it's magnetic field, stabalising moons etc etc - you may well end up with a figure bigger than all the planets in the galaxy.  In other words, I suspect the "too hot/too cold/just right" illustration is a GROSS over simplication of what would make a planet "like" our earth.

 

Bottom line I don't think the actual math would actually fit in with the paradigm.

[trottigy]

Well, I suppose 2 ways to look at this - either the science is way off and Earth is unique. Or science is dead on and - as Earth is the ONLY inhabited planet by humans - it is ALL THAT MUCH MORE unique. That out of 40 million planets - ONLY Earth has humans WOW!! Our creator is amazing - ether way.

[pinkpopcorn]

Brother Russell ruminated about Jehovah making other planets habitable for the future. Since Jehovah has already set physical creation in motion perhaps other planets are being heated up and in the process for life after the universal issue is settled here. There is no evidence for humans to state as fact one way or another. But I bet Jehovah gets a kick out of us all wondering. He loves seeing our eyes sparkle at the thought of 'this or that.' Like watching a toddler putting blocks together for the first time, cute.  

[Jordan]

Not everything that some scientists say are fact are really that... a recently claim of life form found on an asteroid was soon after disproved as fake, for example. recently NASA found a new bacteria on 2 supposedly superclean rooms (those could go on starships and after claimed as new life form from space)

read about all the fake articles plunging lots of reputable science magazines....

today I read about a new platypus that supposedly existed 15million years ago... the scientist found out all about this new twist on evolution just by looking to a found tooth!! looking, not grasping it from DNA or such....!!!

 

 

Absolutely, This is nothing new to any of us who read what science has claimed about a great many things, particularly anything having to do with the origin and nature of "life," or fossils, particularly prehistoric apes and early human types, or any of the absolutely unproven concept connections through random mutations which are said to create new species from existing species, etc. But here is a study which shows that in other fields of science there is fraud penetrating the core and developing research studies: Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers - Yahoo! News

 

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fraud-growing-scientific-research-papers-190641079.html

 

Though quoting a claim that "most" scientists would be appalled over the results (how could it be known, really, what "most" scientists would think if there is this much fraud in science?), the article targets how serious are the findings:

 

The study was published online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which had the second most retracted articles for all reasons, behind only the journal Science.The publication with the most fraud-based retractions was the Journal of Biological Chemistry. PNAS ranked fifth.Casadevall said that even if society as a whole has become more deceptive, "I used to think that science was on a different plane. But I think science is like everybody else and that we are susceptible to the same pressures."In science, he said, "there's a disproportionate reward system" so if a researcher is published in certain prominent journals they are more likely to get jobs and funding, so the temptations increase."Bigger money makes for bigger reasons for fraud," said New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "More fame, more potential for profit... Some of the cheating and fraud is not too dissimilar to the cheating and fraud we've seen in banking."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

 

Ultimately I believe the problem with science is science, at least until it or those driving scientific thought/theory are consistent with what they otherwise do and/or say we should do through repetition to the point of predictable behavior/consequence, even and perhaps especially when it comes to the existence of life.

 

The other side to the story is people wanting to believe in something enough to reject reality without proof. All these articles that are spoken of above (and that you have mentioned) have been reviewed to be false, many are also found to be accurate. You can't really pick and choose what you want to believe unless you have, as they did, proof to the contrary an individual would be just as "false" making a claim without it. 

 

At the same time not everything that science suggests is false - evidence , proof in all its various forms allows us, just as it does with scripture to weed out, fact from fiction. It takes a little research, time and honesty but you can find it. Honesty because I have to admit I look for science that supports my belief in Jehovah and creation as I'm sure  you all do and rejoice when you hear of it or find it. Just realize that because science finds organic material in space only makes the case for a creator that much stronger, in fact anything science finds leads deeper down the road to creation and they know this...

 

There's a great book, if you get the chance to read entitled "Slaughter of the dissidents". Disturbing how corrupt academia, specifically the scientific community, threatens, physically harms, and destroys the lives of anyone that exposes their lies. I made my kids read it before they went to school, seeing how I could not stop them, I wanted them to see the real world. A real eye opener as they say.

 

 

 

The biggest scientific fraud I can think of immediately is Ernst Haeckel's embryos.

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by Jordan

[Jordan]

Well, I suppose 2 ways to look at this - either the science is way off and Earth is unique. Or science is dead on and - as Earth is the ONLY inhabited planet by humans - it is ALL THAT MUCH MORE unique. That out of 40 million planets - ONLY Earth has humans WOW!! Our creator is amazing - ether way.

 

 

Science looks at it like this -- "We don't have all the answers yet but we know it's not God" - funny right? Let a Christian say that in reverse and ... Pow! Actually we (Christians) do provide the best logical solution for the evidence.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson's thoughts are: Saying there are no alien life on other planets is like taking a glass and scooping up some water from the ocean. You then look at the glass and say that there are no whales in the ocean. You need a larger sample size.

 

And still they have to admit there is no life on other planets BUT ... they have faith

 

We are the only humans life forms in the universe - they know it - they are saying there are other life forms, non human. Either way we still are unique.

[seagull]

Actually, that the universe is expanding is just a theory... as is the Big Bang

 

If you are using the term "theory" in layman's term to imply it's "just" an idea then I would disagree with you.

 

Both of the above are scientific theories.  The use of the term "theory" in a scientific context is as a technical term. A theory is an explanation for some aspect of nature that has been substantiated through repeated tests and observations.  For example, gravity, whilst a law, is also a theory.

 

The Big Bang and the expanding universe have progressed from hypothesis to theories on the basis that repeated observations fit the predictions.  For example, the expanding universe was first proposed due to the red shift in the light observed from distant galaxies.  This has since been backed up by further observations such as those that show light from quasars has shifted from the UV and X-RAY wavelength range to the visible spectrum.  Other observations strongly suggest the rate of expansion has also changed.  Research into the expanding universe has also contributed to hypothesis about dark matter.

 

So yes, they are both theories, but this is not a pejorative term.  They are not "just" ideas, they are reasonable explanations for what can be observed.  Research over the recent years has presented data that either fits the theory or, at worst, suggests where the theory may need modification.  So far, nothing has been observed that would completely falsify either theory.

 

I do share your view that I find it inconceivable that there will never be organic life anywhere else in the universe.  I would hope that there is a future for mankind beyond this Earth as part of Jehovah's purposes to be revealed in the new scrolls - I would love to be able to travel through the universe.  As to if there is already organic life out there I am not sure.  All I do know is that the issue of universal sovereignty is firmly rooted with the Earth and human creation hence we can be very confident that we are the only creation made "in God's image" through the whole universe.

[jayrtom]

If you are using the term "theory" in layman's term to imply it's "just" an idea then I would disagree with you.

Both of the above are scientific theories. The use of the term "theory" in a scientific context is as a technical term. A theory is an explanation for some aspect of nature that has been substantiated through repeated tests and observations. For example, gravity, whilst a law, is also a theory.

The Big Bang and the expanding universe have progressed from hypothesis to theories on the basis that repeated observations fit the predictions. For example, the expanding universe was first proposed due to the red shift in the light observed from distant galaxies. This has since been backed up by further observations such as those that show light from quasars has shifted from the UV and X-RAY wavelength range to the visible spectrum. Other observations strongly suggest the rate of expansion has also changed. Research into the expanding universe has also contributed to hypothesis about dark matter.

So yes, they are both theories, but this is not a pejorative term. They are not "just" ideas, they are reasonable explanations for what can be observed. Research over the recent years has presented data that either fits the theory or, at worst, suggests where the theory may need modification. So far, nothing has been observed that would completely falsify either theory.

I do share your view that I find it inconceivable that there will never be organic life anywhere else in the universe. I would hope that there is a future for mankind beyond this Earth as part of Jehovah's purposes to be revealed in the new scrolls - I would love to be able to travel through the universe. As to if there is already organic life out there I am not sure. All I do know is that the issue of universal sovereignty is firmly rooted with the Earth and human creation hence we can be very confident that we are the only creation made "in God's image" through the whole universe.

Big Bang is just a theory as much as evolution is... remember all the supposed facts and undeniable truths they spread...

I don't say I believe or don't believe in it, just that there are other not so known ways of explaining the same experimental facts (look here for such an example: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/)

nowadays any scientist that tries to go on a different path than the one established from the majority finds huge blocks in the way, special if he is young... he can't get his works published, can't get a place in an University to teach (the Lisbon University is one of the rare places were this doesn't happen) , etc...

one other area where the obscurantism in science occurs is on the interpretation of physical world using quantum mechanics (for an example search on "de broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics" )

Edited November 19, 2013 by jayrtom

[Jordan]

Big Bang is just a theory as much as evolution is... remember all the supposed facts and undeniable truths they spread...

I don't say I believe or don't believe in it, just that there are other not so known ways of explaining the same experimental facts (look here for such an example: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/)

nowadays any scientist that tries to go on a different path than the one established from the majority finds huge blocks in the way, special if he is young... he can't get his works published, can't get a place in an University to teach (the Lisbon University is one of the rare places were this doesn't happen) , etc...

one other area where the obscurantism in science occurs is on the interpretation of physical world using quantum mechanics (for an example search on "de broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics" )

 

True Jayrtom. It gets crazy crazy...

 

 

What I do understand about what is being said at that website is a incongruous mixture of sciences. Science as I understand (I'm no expert) it confirms a singularity, which is in full accord to Genesis and makes perfect sense. Therefore leads us in the direction of a intelligent beginning and a point in time when it was created.

 

Hubble explained this red shift as being due to the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us. He concluded that the universe is literally flying apart at enormous velocities. Hubble's astronomical observations were the first EMPIRICAL confirmation of the predictions by Friedman and Lemaitre.

 

"Then in the 1940s, George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero. He said this would be a relic from a very early stage of the universe. Sure enough, in 1965, two scientists accidentally discovered the universe's background radiation-and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero. There's no explanation for this apart from the fact that it is a vestige of a very early and a very dense state of the universe, which was predicted by the Big Bang model.

 

"The third main piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the origin of light elements. Heavy elements, like carbon and iron, are synthesized in the interior of stars and then exploded through supernovae into space. But the very, very light elements, like deuterium and helium, cannot have been synthesized in the interior of stars, because you would need an even more powerful furnace to create them. These elements must have been forged in the furnace of the Big Bang itself at temperatures that were billions of degrees. There's no other explanation.

 

 

"So predictions about the Big Bang have been consistently verified by scientific data. Moreover, they have been corroborated by the failure of every attempt to falsify them by alternative models. Unquestionably, the Big Bang model has impressive scientific credentials."

 

Was and still is shocking to a lot of people like Albert...

 

"When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915 and started applying it to the universe as a whole, he was shocked to discover it didn't allow for a static universe."

 

I'm not saying it could be different however based on the evidence we have, its a greater and better argument for big bang then not. The interesting thing about that article is the problems they state with the big bang really weren't problems with the big bang at all, but rather the inability of science to explain the singularity without a CREATOR!  That is what the goal of that information is. The most widely know (and madly popular) attempt at this Stephen Hawking's  "A Brief History of Time" Hawkings said "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

 

Hawkings created this model where there was no singularity (even though it has a beginning) using "imaginary numbers" What are imaginary numbers you ask? They are multiples of the square root of negative one. imaginary numbers are used in science to "grease the equations to get the result the mathematician wants. That's fine but when you have to prove this theory and get real physical results you have to convert the imaginary numbers into real ones. Hawking refuses to convert them. Those that have converted them "for him" find without exception when you plug in real numbers the singularity reappears. Later Hawking concedes in his NEXT book that his computation were not realistic, and it was merely a mathematical way of "modeling the beginning of the universe in such a manner that the singularity doesn't appear."

 

No one at this point in time has been able to prove mathematically that there was no singularity but there is much evidence to support it.  There's a very simple reason why science is trying hard to disprove big bang (a singularity). If the universe had a beginning what caused it to begin and all the evidence leads to a creator and intelligent design so they resort to things like imaginary numbers and even lying.

 

The Big Bang was not a chaotic, disorderly event. Instead, it appears to have been fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and precision that literally defies human comprehension. In other words, the universe we see today-and our very existence-depends upon a set of highly special initial conditions. This phenomenon is strong evidence that the Big Bang was not an accident, but that it was designed. Theorists who are uncomfortable about this want to avoid the problem by trying to explain how you can get a universe like ours without these special initial conditions.

 

Evolution does NOT have the same credentials or proofs as cosmological data, in fact, just the opposite is true.  "Evolution has insurmountable hurdles involving the origin of biological information that simply cannot be resolved by more research and effort starting with the Cambrian explosion. I like how Stephen Meyer put it, "They are not going to wake up from their nightmare."

 

Stephen has written a few great books worth reading.  "Signature in the Cell and Darwins Doubt" the latter being the most damming book against Evolution I've ever read, completely destroys it. In a nutshell Evolution requires great leaps of blind faith whereas the cosmological arguments are at least products of some evidence.

 

Here's a little excerpt you might like reading:

"The most glaring deficiency of the fossil record is biology's Big Bang, the Cambrian explosion. The majority-or, according to some experts, all-of the world's forty phyla, the highest category in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago. The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of Life on its head.

Darwin predicted that new discoveries would explain away this quantum leap in biological complexity. In reality, they have only made matters worse. the Cambrian explosion is "inexplicable" under his hypothesis."

 

"Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. "Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties," he said. "We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source."

 

 

In addition, Meyer said the Cambrian explosion's dazzling array of new life forms, which suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil record, with no prior transitions, would have required the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information. "Information is the hallmark of mind,". "And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own-a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative."

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jordan

[seagull]

Big Bang is just a theory as much as evolution is... remember all the supposed facts and undeniable truths they spread...

I don't say I believe or don't believe in it, just that there are other not so known ways of explaining the same experimental facts (look here for such an example: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/)

nowadays any scientist that tries to go on a different path than the one established from the majority finds huge blocks in the way, special if he is young... he can't get his works published, can't get a place in an University to teach (the Lisbon University is one of the rare places were this doesn't happen) , etc...

one other area where the obscurantism in science occurs is on the interpretation of physical world using quantum mechanics (for an example search on "de broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics" )

 

I completely understand the point you are making however I think we are still obfuscating the use of the word "theory" when used in a scientific context.  A scientific theory (in itself) does not enforce unchangeable facts or espouse undeniable truths.  The whole point is that any scientific theory is subject to change on the basis of new data that is observed and verified.  My personal opinion is that when one understands the correct meaning of the term theory when using the context of science then there is no need to try to undermine the concept using words such as "just".  It becomes clear that a theory always may be and, in many cases, will be subject to change and therefore does enforce immutable "facts".

 

It might seem like semantics or pedantry however I believe it actually helps one not to be carried "hither and thither" (as per the old revision) by whatever the latest claim from the scientific community is.  The door for alternatives, for change is always open.

 

So, when considering the Big Bang, I am more than happy, as a lay person, to consider what the alternatives may be however the consensus amongst the scientific community that spend their lives researching these things is that the data that is observed and verified continues to support the theory.  It may modify aspects of it but does not falsify it.  More importantly, given that there is nothing in the theory that inherently is in conflict with Biblical truth then there is no reason to dismiss it.

 

The Awake of August 09 discusses the Big Bang theory and provides a sound and balanced view of how we should view such theories.  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009286

 

 

The issue raised about evolution is slightly different.  It too is a scientific theory and, from the point of view of worldly science, is backed up by evidence that is considered to be observed and verifiable.  By that I must stress that I am not claiming it is correct but that the view of most scientists would be that the way data is gathered, verified and interpreted fits the scientific model and therefore evolution is not a hypothesis but a theory and therefore can be viewed as broad fact until such time that new data is presented to falsify the theory.

 

This is where it comes into conflict with Biblical truth.  The general viewpoint of science is that the data backs up a the theory that it is possible for mechanisms, including natural selection, to favour genetic changes to the point where the result is new species.  Of course Genesis does not support that.  Science in general considers that the evidence is that the vast array of life we have now can be explained in purely biochemical ways with no need for a Creator.

 

The theory of evolution does not consider how life evolved hence why some so called Christians are prepared to consider that God may have used the evolutionary process to allow life to develop whist attributing the creation of life itself to God.  Again, our understanding of Genesis does not allow for this.

 

Regarding the beginning of life itself then again there are several hypothesis, none of which simply state that life was created by a creator.  Regardless of the position that these are just hypothesis - not scientific theories - we simply go to the Bible for the answer.

 

Given that any scientific theory is by definition open to change then I try to keep an open mind.  I am also slightly wary of latching onto the potential alternatives as these can suffer from the same negative influences as any other claim from the scientific community.  For example, whilst it is interesting to look at the evidence presented by people like Meyer, there is an agenda behind the "intelligent design" community.  It is interesting to note that the Society have distanced us from "creationists" as we are not YEC and do not have a political agenda.  There are plenty of tit-for-tat debunks and counter debunks for and against each of the lines of evidence pointed to by evolutionists and ID/creationists.  I for one wish to avoid accepting something just through "confirmation-bias".

 

Rather, I like the way the Society choose to handle this,  In all the articles we have about "Was it Created" there is generally little appeal to a point of science as the "proof" for creation.  Rather, the articles appeal to reason.  They are appealing to the heart - and this is what Jehovah sees and uses to draw ones to him.  In the world of claim and counter claim we ultimately need to exercise faith and it is our heartfelt desire to serve Jehovah that leads us to trust him and his Word.

 

Whilst I do like to consider how science helps us appreciate the marvels of the universe and I do like to think about the mechanics of how Jehovah accomplished things, I do try and keep in mind that it is not a given theory that is the basis for faith.  That comes through study, prayer and meditation.

[jayrtom]

Rather, I like the way the Society choose to handle this, In all the articles we have about "Was it Created" there is generally little appeal to a point of science as the "proof" for creation. Rather, the articles appeal to reason. They are appealing to the heart - and this is what Jehovah sees and uses to draw ones to him. In the world of claim and counter claim we ultimately need to exercise faith and it is our heartfelt desire to serve Jehovah that leads us to trust him and his Word.

Whilst I do like to consider how science helps us appreciate the marvels of the universe and I do like to think about the mechanics of how Jehovah accomplished things, I do try and keep in mind that it is not a given theory that is the basis for faith. That comes through study, prayer and meditation.

Totally agree ;)

@ Jordan - I would love to discuss those matters with you but I'm very short on time these days... Maybe some other day ;)

Edited November 20, 2013 by jayrtom

[Tia]

So glad I found this thread!