Just want to thank you for keeping me subscribed . Thank you for tour personal story and comments re Anne Rice. I have had my share of sad experiences but would choose not to write about them, except for this observation: there is no perfect church and in them I found some wounded people (including myself) who would wound others. Ms. Rise may have quit the church but I doubt she had given up on Christ.
Bless you.

(I sincerely apologize how long and large this post has turned out to be! I still hope that you may have time to read it and if you have any response I would be glad to hear them. Thanks Much!!!)

I have appreciated your website for awhile even though we may differ on things such as the Big Bang and such. I very much appreciate this web site and the Cosmic Fingerprints web site too.

You might file this under ‘helpful criticism’ and of course ‘your mileage may vary’ according to how ‘useful’ this criticism is to you!

I’ve noticed over time that ‘Scientific Facts’ or ‘Scientific Beliefs’ change… first with ‘Mainstream Scientists’ and then later with ‘The Public’ and unfortunately they don’t change together but lag behind usually ‘far behind’ in terms of years or sometimes they never coincide with current ‘best practices’ of the ‘Mainstream Scientist’s Beliefs’.

In case of ‘The Big Bang’, from what I understand, it was not ‘creation ex nihilo’ but all of the matter in the universe was contained in an ‘infinitesimally small ‘point”, so it didn’t come from ‘nothing’ but was already there and just ‘exploded’. But I have heard other ‘Big Bang’ explanations where from some ‘infinitesimally small point not only all matter exploded but the ‘universe too’ … in that case I would have the question ‘where was that small infinitesimally small point located? If it was not in ‘this universe’ then ‘where’ was it’… can that question even be asked?

The reason I’m saying this is that the ‘Big Bang’ has pretty much fallen out of favor with some cosmologists, astrophysicists and physicists it just has not made it into the ‘public’s mind’ or consciousness as yet.

This can be confusing because there are also some scientists that may or may not be directly in these fields that still support or think that it is ‘the current explanation’ for the origin of the universe’ and thus still promote the ‘Big Bang’.

Another problem is that on a number of subjects the mainstream scientist’s are not fully ‘here nor there’ in their explanations… What I mean by that is in the example of ‘Gravity’, that has been settled for over 300 years since Newton… that is until Newton met Einstein with his curved space explanation of Gravity, which is, that it is not a result of a ‘universal pull’ but that space being ‘curved’ in the presence of mass is what causes the ‘pull’. In addition to this we have scientists over in ‘Quantum Mechanics’ or ‘Particle Physics’ that are looking for ‘Gravitons’ a particle that is ‘Gravity’ or mediates the gravitational force.

So which is it? Is it ‘curved space’ a la Einstein or is it a particle ‘Gravitons’ a la Newton a ‘force’???

We have scientists using both explanations depending on their audience or the problem they are addressing or the explanation that they are giving, it just ‘all depends’ but logically it seems it has to be ‘one or the other’.
This is not the end of it!

But it is of my ‘explanation’ of ‘the problems of explaining Gravity or of the Big Bang.

The Bigger problem I see is that we are trying to make Christianity ‘relevant’ to ‘scientifically thinking modern man ‘ or at least, what he supposes himself to be! By trying to show that the Bible is ‘Scientific’ and therefor trustworthy because ‘Science’ is the 20th and 21st century ‘Religion’ and if Christianity is congruent with our ‘Science’ then maybe it could be ‘True’…?

Now here you may disagree with me or at first not understand exactly what I am getting at, but I think what I am trying to point out has resulted in ‘Joe Q Publics’ perception of what we call the ‘God of the Gaps’ in scientific thinking’… which is ‘it’s a Miracle until Science can explain it and so on… So God get’s ‘Smaller’ and ‘Smaller’ until he is no longer relevant because as in Calculus you are going ‘to the limit’ and the ‘limit’ here is ‘No God’ or ‘No God is needed to explain the observable universe’ because Miracle after Miracle has fallen to ‘Scientific Explanation and Proof’ and the gaps have gotten smaller and smaller and eventually no more supernatural explanations will be needed or even possible because ‘Science’ has explained everything.

It’s like 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15… or ‘n+1’ to infinity. I think that this is the thinking anyway. People see it as ‘Scientific Progress, that eventually Science will explain everything.

But what happens along the way as Christians tie the Bible to the current ‘Scientific Paradigm’ is that as the theories change the ‘Biblical Explanation’ doesn’t change and the Bible or ‘belief in the bible’ falls because the scientific explanation has changed, which is expected for ‘Science’ but not for the Bible… in other words if ‘the Bible says it happened this way ‘ then it did…absolutely unchangeably!’. But then when the ‘scientific explanation’ changes the Bible is left tied to a now ‘discredited’ explanation and seen as not only irrelevant but wrong. It’s not accorded the same ‘pass’ as Science get’s since we know that ‘Science’ or ‘Scientific Explanations’ change as we get more evidence or data. The problem is that if the Bible says something happened this way ‘Scientifically’ then it had to happen that way and it can’t change because that was the way the Bible said it happened and you can’t then change it to something else later! Because the Bible was wrong to say that it absolutely happened in the previous way and now we know that it didn’t!!! I don’t mean to belabor the point but I hope you can see what I’m trying to get at.

Now another ‘bad thing’ maybe the worse ‘Bad Thing’… Is that the Bible is not a Scientific Book!… By that I don’t say and don’t mean to say that the Bible does not have or make statements that are not ‘Scientifically (as far as it goes!) ‘testable’ or ‘provable’, some are some are not, at our ‘current level of scientific advancement…

But far worse then any of this is that or ‘Scientific Thinking’ or ‘Biblical Scientific Thinking’ is not even Biblical.

How in the world can I make such a statement?!

Well I don’t but I know someone who has and after getting familiar with him and his arguments, I have to agree with his assertions here.

Before I say more, this of course depends on his ‘Exegesis’ of the word in the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek languages and cultures.

I’ve found a few unique web sites (individuals) in traversing the Internet,( and I think your’s is also one of them!) and they have generally changed my thinking about most subjects at hand in the regular manner that I have grown up thinking about them and I suppose most others too… Christians at least!

That brings me to mentioning at least two and maybe three web sites that I may have already brought to your attention in an earlier communication? Can’t remember!

The reason that I think that these two web sites are ‘Game Changers’ or uniquely important is because, one ‘wrecked’ Science for me and the other ‘wrecked’ ‘Biblical Scientific Explanations’ using Science to validate the Bible or to show that the Bible is ‘A Scientific Book’ or ‘Scientifically Valid’. It all hinges on our definition or understanding of ‘Science’ I think.

The first web site that I came across in this manner, the one that wrecked science for me was here:

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

I rush to add here that ‘Science’ ha snot even gotten Science right!
What this person has done is to ‘fix’ or ‘correct’ problems, many problems, in Science that have not been fixed for hundreds or even thousands of years and the worst part is problems that were, are not, even seen or known to be problems, that is things ignored for various reasons or excuses.

Well that does not make any sense!!!

If they really are problems then in umpteen thousands of years would not somebody anybody seen them???!!!

Maybe indeed they have!

The problem is that if they have we don’t have a record of it or at least the solutions to these ‘universe shattering problems’ (Big Grin Here!)!!! So ‘they’ may have been seen and identified and solved before but I’m not aware of it and reading the papers that I’ve read on his web site I don’t think that the mainstream is much aware or concerned… Even though they, ‘these problems’, may be the reason for all of the problems in Quantum Mechanics (renormalization, -poppycock!-, as the inventor of renormalization put it…the physicist Richard Fenyman), in Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, etc etc! If this is indeed the case and Mainstream Science and Scientists have been getting it wrong (Not the Scientific Data [for the most part!] or the instruments that have collected that data) for all this time then how can Christians get it ‘Right’ depending on these Scientific Theories interpreting that data?

Granted! The formulas fit the data because in many aspects and respects they, the formulas, have been made to fit the data, the data does not necessarily confirm the formulas correctness! We don’t want to mistake the formulas and theories for the reality of which they are trying to explain! Or necessarily the interpretations of that data.

I’ll give you some quotes from the web site and see if they sound reasonable to you… and if so then you may want to look a little more and see if they might push your thinking in some other directions…(not necessarily ‘bad’! either).
Here are the quotes:

“It has been known for millennia that the Earth rests upon the back of a giant turtle. Only in recent centuries has this knowledge been added to. In 1794, in one of the high valleys of the Himalayas, one of the wise was asked, “Master, what does the turtle rest upon?” The Master answered: “It is turtles all the way down, my son.” But now that scientists have finally succeeded in mapping the universe, a turtle controversy has arisen. It turns out that level 7,484,912 is occupied not by a turtle, but by a man dressed as a turtle. It is not known how this will affect our other equations.

You probably aren’t used to having a book on science and math open with a joke. But a sense of humor is crucial to existing in a world where even our greatest accomplishments contain large elements of the absurd.

Some contemporary thinkers are of the opinion that we are very near to a complete understanding of the universe. I am far from agreeing with them. We have made some wonderful discoveries and are due a small dose of pride, I suppose. But the things we don’t know so overwhelm the things we do that any talk of a full understanding is just bombast. Worse, it is hubris. It may even be a scientific sacrilege, with real curses attached to it.

When we become too secure in our knowledge, we stop questioning. Failure to question is the ultimate scientific failure. Answers quit coming precisely when they aren’t sought, and they aren’t sought precisely when they are (erroneously) thought to be in hand. We are like the dog who discovers how to use the little flap-door and now considers himself master of the house. He lies in front of the fire and congratulates himself for his cleverness. He would be better outside chasing rabbits.

In this book I propose solutions for several of the greatest errors currently existing in physics and mathematics. I do not propose to solve all the greatest errors, of course, or even to know what they are. I only present the ones that have become known to me in my years of research. Many may find my list surprising or even shocking, since I do not seem to choose problems that are commonly acknowledged to exist. Rather I choose problems that are believed to have been solved. This, I realize, can have the appearance of caprice or insolence, but I have simply gone where my nose leads me. I suspect that the whole history of science has moved in much the same way, so I will not apologize for seeing problems where I see them.

Lest I be dismissed as a crank before my first equation hits the page (and this sort of dismissal has become pandemic in the field), I rush to add that I am not a so-called classicist, bent on refuting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics simply because they disturb my sense of balance or my love of Newton.* I attack Newton as well, long and—I like to think—shockingly. Beyond that, I am convinced of time dilation and length contraction and the necessity of transforms. I simply do not believe that Einstein provided the correct transforms. Likewise, I believe in the accuracy and usefulness of many of the equations of QED. But QED is still in large part a heuristic math posing as a theory. Even Feynman admitted this before he died, to the chagrin of most in the field. QED is not “the final solution” until it is fleshed out with a coherent theory. I believe, contra current wisdom, that QED will be provided with a coherent theory, one that makes sense even in the macro-world.

I am not a classicist, nor am I in any of the other dissenting groups that are opposed to the standard interpretation of Einstein.

That is to say, I am not proposing supra-luminal theories or any other theories that go beyond the math and theory of Einstein. I am not proposing any new particles, forces, fields, or maths. All the major chapters and findings in this book deal with straightforward mathematical analysis of famous historical papers and theories. For the most part, this analysis is high-school level algebra applied to these papers. In critiquing the calculus, some rather subtle number theory is used, but no higher math at all. This means that this book is unlike anything you have read or heard of before. It is not allied to the status quo, but it is also not allied to any of the dissenting groups. It is completely outside the 20th century argument, since it cannot be said to be ultimately pro-Einstein or contra-Einstein, pro-Newton or contra-Newton.

It is pro-Einstein in that his theory (and Lorentz’s and Poincare’s, etc.) is shown to be correct in many important ways. However, it is contra-Einstein in that my algebraic corrections falsify some fundamental assumptions and equations. How you would classify my correction is therefore more a matter of your own allegiances than mine, since I have none.

This book differs from all the other critiques I have seen of current theory in that my arguments are not mainly philosophical or even theoretical. They are mathematical. I rerun the original equations in the original papers and show where the specific mathematical errors are. In this I believe I may be the first.

Especially as regards Relativity, there has been a massive amount of criticism and absolutely no mathematical proof to back it up. A few mathematical variants have been put forward, some with a certain amount of validity; but no one has shown where Einstein’s math is wrong in itself. Herbert Dingle, perhaps the most famous critic of Einstein in the 20th century, said in the 60’s that he was astute enough not to search for mathematical errors in the theory. Whether his astuteness was based upon the recognition of his own mathematical limitations or upon some other factor is less clear.
I suppose current wisdom is that because they are assumed to have been combed by everyone from Bohr to Feynman, the equations must now be unassailable. But nothing in this world is unassailable, as Einstein’s refutation of Newton was supposed to have proved. Newton survived two hundred years of geniuses before Einstein appeared. If Einstein had been cowed by genius, I would now have nothing to critique. But Einstein did not see problem-solving as an attack upon genius or upon the status-quo, or as the solution to his career aspirations; he saw it simply as problem solving, let the cards fall where they may.”

END QUOTE ————-

This was the site that wrecked science for me, I was looking, at the time, for a site with a ‘new take’ on physics since I could see that physics was hopelessly broken from all I had read in the scientific and popular media. At first I was disappointed because, as he said above, he was not proposing any new theories or forces or particles ect. So I thought ‘what’s the point then?’ But then I got to the part where he said “When we become too secure in our knowledge, we stop questioning. Failure to question is the ultimate scientific failure. Answers quit coming precisely when they aren’t sought, and they aren’t sought precisely when they are (erroneously) thought to be in hand.”

“In this book I propose solutions for several of the greatest errors currently existing in physics and mathematics. I do not propose to solve all the greatest errors, of course, or even to know what they are. I only present the ones that have become known to me in my years of research. Many may find my list surprising or even shocking, since I do not seem to choose problems that are commonly acknowledged to exist. Rather I choose problems that are believed to have been solved.”

Now that last one got my attention

All the major chapters and findings in this book deal with straightforward mathematical analysis of famous historical papers and theories.

This too, he is going back to the original papers that these theories are based on, supposedly, and finding errors. This excited me because I realized that if the house’s foundation is not solid then nothing that comes after is solid either and maybe this is where things went wrong???! Why I had become disenchanted with the ‘mainstreams’ scientific explanations when they just did not add up! Well worse was to come!

And it happened here:

http://www.godsriddle.com/index.html

http://www.godsriddle.info/

What happened here, with cavets as mentioned above, is that I learned that the Bible is not ‘Scientific’.

What I mean is that the Bible is not based on Science’s First Principle, that things, matter is immutable, that they does not change.

Now this is where the problem lies, mine or yours, his exegesis here has to be correct for this to ‘fly’. That is for ‘Sciences’ First Principle’ to not be Biblical or the Bibles First Principle. If this is correct then you can’t tie the Bible in to today’s current Scientific Paradigm(s) without bringing about those ‘changing Science’ ‘unchanging Bible’ problems that I mentioned earlier’

Maybe to be more plain is that the Bible (according to him) says that the universe, the matter that makes it up is changing and getting larger…ar least more matter is entering the universe or ‘spreading out’ and until a Noble prize was awarded for an expanding accelerating universe the question was static, expanding, or oscillating universe? But again the Bible does not necessarily correlate here…it seems to say an ‘expanding universe’ but it does not say an ‘accelerating expanding universe’. Besides what ever it says the Bible said it first.

But the crux of the problem is that the people that wrote the Bible did not have, maybe could not have, a ‘scientific view’ of the universe that we have today not even the thinking that brought it about… In other words the Books of the Bible at least the old testament writers did not think ‘Scientifically’ or have a ‘Scientific World View’ as we have today. They didn’t think like Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas.
Well when I found all of that out I was floored! I didn’t realize that the people of that time, the ancient Hebrews and others did not think ‘Scientifically’ like we do today. But worse is that the translators of our modern biblical texts were not thinking as the Hebrews etc. Were but were thinking in a 20th century mind set and translating the scriptures with and in that mind set and ‘something had to give’!!!

So on this last site I think it’s, this, has been pointed out and more correctly, or more fully been translated to give the idea using more then just ‘one’ word to describe things that it takes more then just one word in our language to get across.
Now this is more in your territory so you will have to see what you think of his exegesis but again he has convinced me.

Going back to the science end of things one last web site to mention is this one:
http://www.blazelabs.com/
But especially here:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

This last site is maybe less relevant to the discussion at hand but it’s almost as important as the first site. He get’s our scientific units ‘in order’ and maybe even expands them farther then what we would think… That is like Mendeleev did, give us the periodic table to the elements, with holes in it, in his time that is, that were yet to be filled in with unknown elements, this person has done the same for scientific constants, he has given us a table and has been able to generate our known scientific constants from his theory but he has also given us a table with ‘holes’ in it that maybe points to more constans yet to be discovered and has also shown us that a number of scientific disciplines are in fact redundant… that is they both use the same set of equations so they are related to each other and may be able to shed some light on each related disciplines.
I’m sorry to take up so much of your time but since I’ve run into these two people, three people, I’ve felt that anyone doing science that is not aware of this (especially Christians) can’t in fact be doing Science accurately…that is trying to find out the principles and laws that our universe operates by as maybe Isaac Newton expressed.

Thanks for your time Perry I really do enjoy your web site and your Cosmic Fingerprints has some very unique challenges for Christians and Atheists alike as to the ‘provability’ of God’s existence!!!

Thanks Again

Sincerely, Joe Hyde

P.S. oh! Oh! I almost forgot! Plate Techtonics might need to be in for a revision too! There is much written on this subject that I won’t give or go into here but here is a video on youtube that will give the basic idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

This owrld is rational and we cannot disobey God and succeed. If we are to save the world we have to live in the way God intends and this is not Capitalism.
Robert

We, brothers and sisters need to create a Christian community that is not governed by the love of money but the love of God, that is not governed by strife and jealously but by a cooperative spirit. It is my belief that the church is a new community of people serving God within a new economy defined by the use of a local currency that is asset based, not debt-based and by the formation of cooperatives.

We the church need to be visible, we need to be a light, we need to make the unbeliever thirsty for the love of God and we cannot do it in this system of things. The church is not (in agreement with Dalibor) Pastors and leaders but nor is it people. The church is a separation of believer from the world.

May I suggest a blog regarding the actual building of the true Christian church a community separate from the world, in the world but not of it?
Robert

PS the economics and administrative details have been worked out