As this blog certainly demonstrates the evolutionists are already in a tizzy over this student's paper!
My reaction? It's just more proof of the FACT that science always exists in the state of "catching up to God."
Loved this positive comment post over at that blog:
Samuel,
Keep up the good work. I am an Engineer. I actually study sound, its sources and affects with respect to electrical motors and gears for a living (pink noise) as well as many other areas of physics. I would like to read your paper. It would seem you have applied a Biblical perspective to the ongoing sonoluminescence studies at various universities around the country. I am currently at the on set of immersing myself in Creation Science. As an Engineer, I look at all the data. If a particular phenomenon is not repeatable, I begin careful scrutiny. I live by the old adage, “In God we trust, all others bring data”. The brief reading I have done on the subject of sonoluminescence has shown me that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon, (also known as Shrimpoluminensence – now there is a study). The application for sonoluminescence is cold fusion. That is why it is being studied al over the country. The objective is to use a standing wave to create a single bubble in a fluid medium that on collapsing releases enough energy to start a nuclear fusion reaction. The same standing wave would then be used to control the ongoing reaction. Granted, that igniting a star in the fluid medium of the near vacuum of outer space would require a power source on a Devine scale. The very word "Universe" literally means: Single spoken sentence or phrase. I would love to debate all of the scoffing responders to your findings. At this point, I will say that I have seen these criticisms before, either aimed at me personally or others that believe as we do. The scoffers either base their criticisms on facts that are already proven incorrect or impossible to verify. I look forward to reading your paper.
Thanks,
Jay
How wonderful it is that some people are able to give this obviously brilliant young man positive feedback for his efforts. The scoffers and naysayers don't seem to have the decency, nor will, to at least give the student some credit!
My comment over there:
I look forward to reading Sam's paper. The concept presented sounds (pun intended...too!) so exciting and like a breath of fresh air from the a priori "materialism only" dominance of secular theories. It's nice to see science, once again, matching up to the Genesis account on the subject.
So glad to see a positive post amongst the ridiculers. How special it must have been for this young man to read your encouraging comment, Jay.
How wonderful it is that some people, like Jay, are able to give this obviously brilliant young man positive feedback for his efforts. The scoffers and naysayers don't seem to have the decency, nor will, to at least give this student some credit!
Why all the immediate animosity, scorn, ridicule and debasement being leveled at this discovery and theory?
Don't most scientists believe in the "Big Bang" theory? Yes. God spoke and BANG! It happened!
Could it also be considered a threat against the tired, old, precious-but-silly HUGE extrapolation of evidence currently being cloaked as "Darwin's theory of macroevolution?" We are seeing that portion of the theory (micro is provable, of course) inching closer and closer towards the trash heap of history...where it belongs!
My reaction? It's just more proof of the FACT that science always exists in the state of "catching up to God."
HT: WKRN Nashville
HT: Faith and Ethics blogspot
Trackback URL:
http://www.news2wkrn.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/18503
*******
More blogposts about this:
J-Walk blog
Tammy Cardwell
*******
Articles about this subject:
Research: God did speak world into existence at World Net Daily.
The Beach Reporter
Posts
13 comments:
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but that paper, at least as described in the news video and the blog connection, seems destined for a well-deserved "F".
Assuming that sominoluminesence is legitimate, you simply can't make use of that to say "Sound over Liquid Creates Matter, therefore God is the source of the Sound" That's a giant leap with no factual basis to support it. There's nothing scientific about that conclusion.
So, you would give a paper that you haven't even read yet an "F" based on your own personal bias and ideology?
Glad you aren't that young man's professor!
All things that have become proven scientific facts were once only theories, and many were scoffed at from the start. I don't know if God spoke the universe into being, but nobody else knows it either. It's only through greater research that something can be proven or disproven, so to declare someone a failure because of a theory is very narrow minded. How many people thought the world was flat for centuries?
Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.
~Saint Augustine
Know what Jaded? You are right! You are absolutely right!
The main issue with the "anything but God" crowd is ALWAYS not to allow any inkling of that "Divine foot in the door" when it comes to scientific ideas.
Oh...they will accept Carl Sagan's notion that aliens are out there and "did it." But mention God and you are immediately rejected...even if the science being described is sound.
I think that it is so exciting that new, brilliant minds that have not been brainwashed into the secular-humanistic Darwinian mold are now questioning, investigating and coming up with new hypotheses.
No wonder the Neo-Darwinists are so nervous!
Christine, I haven't read the paper, but I did watch the video clip and I read Hunt's responses on the blog you linked to, and you'll note that in my post I said based on those, he'd get an F.
Of course, I also wrote liquid instead of light, so I should get an F too.
My argument isn't whether there is or isn't a God behing creation. I don't know that. Neither do you. It's a matter of faith, not science. My problem with people like Hunt is when they try to use science to prove matters of faith. What he's done here is say that because sound can create light, therefore the Genesis story of God saying "let there be light" proves that God exists.
How does it prove that? reading Hunt's own defense on the blog, he's just making a huge leap and assuming that the initial sound is God. He could be right for all I know, but he can't say he's proven it scientifically, because he has not. He's taken one theory, sominoluminesence, and then made an unsupported leap.
Pretty much ALL scientific theory starts as just that...a theory. Then scientists take an unsupported leap to see where they land.
I don't know if the guy is right or not. But, no theory is fact, it's just, well...a theory! Many of the things we hold as etched in stone facts today were once considered ludicrous. Maybe this will never pan out, but maybe it will. Never know.
Hey, Christine.
Just wanted to let you know that I joined Technorati and made "Talk Wisdom" one of my favorites. So, you're latest articles are streamed on my site. Don't let me down! :) (Just kidding. I intentionally put "though Kingdom Advancer may not always agree..." above the graphic as a disclaimer--whether or not it will ever be needed.)
On the subject that you are talking about: I don't know anything about it, so I'm not going to defend the paper or attack it, or discredit it. However, I find it rather amusing how atheists react when Christians show that science shows that God is logical--or, in the least, that all of atheists' ideas are ILLOGICAL. At some point, atheists fell into the delusion that science was their "brainchild," their possession, their area of expertise. This, of course, is erroneous, as devout Christians have made some of the most profound scientific discoveries and inventions ever. Still, though, atheists have latched onto science as a weapon against God, and are obviously frightened when it is shown that God is the Creator of the sciences as well. Atheists know that most people see science as "the authority," and if they lose that element in the debate, they don't have much left.
Take Evolution out of schools and replace it with Intelligent Design? Or, let them stand side-by-side? Where are the atheistic ideologues supposed to go? Philosophy and religion class? Oh....they probably wouldn't do any better there.
I should add...they pretty much have control of philosophy and religion classes, as well. What I meant is if it were a fair-minded debate class.
The more I thought about this, the more something limpy said bothered me...
"My problem with people like Hunt is when they try to use science to prove matters of faith."
I don't think that's the case at all. I think that the scientific community in general spends a great deal of time trying to disprove much of what religion believes is true. Usually, it can't.
I think that both evolution and "intelligent design" should be presented in schools, but both should be presented as theories. It's not up to the school system to teach my child anything about religion. That's my job, and the job of my church.
Can someone clarify for me why some Christians are so against evolution?
I've never understood it. As a scientist I know that evolution is the most likely explanation for life evolving in the way it did. I don't understand why some people feel that this threatens their Christian beliefs? Enlighten me please!
As to the paper. It's an interesting phenomenon but his conclusions are speculation at best. He's free to make them but he would need to do more research to prove them. :)
Ebsfwan, I wonder the same thing. I am a Christian, and honestly, I don't see how both Creationism and Evolution have to be taught at the exclusion of one another. The fact that evolution of species occurs doesn't automatically negate the concept of God creating the species in the first place.
Creationism wasn't taught in my school...we only learned evolution. It didn't make me question my faith. I don't understand why it's so threatening to some. Both can exist without trying to disprove the other.
Of course, Christine is often frustrated with my "version" of Christianity. Although, she and I have been playing nicely together most of the time lately, which is lovely.
Jaded, I probably should have clarified my comment to something along the lines of "My problem with Hunt IN THIS CASE", where he's using science to prove a matter of faith, and then, in my view, making an unsupported leap to say that he's done it. In looking over the links provided here, I don't think that Hunt has scientifically proven anything, and that's my biggest problem with him. Sorry about that.
Limpy,
The kid came up with an hypothesis that has the potential to show, and explain, how science could very well "match up" with the Genesis account regarding the Creation of the universe.
Evolution is also an hypothesis. But it has never explained how abiogenesis occurred, or demonstrated macro-evolution. The extrapolation of the evidence that fits in demonstrating micro-evolution is what I regard as a fallacy when it comes to the total theory of evolution. The fact that so much of our world appears to be designed and in need of a Mind, to have gotten it started, is becoming more and more evident as we dig deeper into the examination of genetics and DNA; as well as the fine-tuning of the universe.
Random chance does not explain how we got here. But many evolutionists "take it on faith" that the extrapolation of evidence from micro-evolutionary experiments automatically "shows that macro-evolution" has occurred. No. Not a chance! THIS is the part of evolutionary theory that is objected to by most who hold to a different hypothesis and theory. It is the common "thread" of objection that those who adhere to Creation Science, ID, and the Genesis account all have in common.
I think that Samuel Hunt's hypothesis that the universe began with a sound (and the fact that this matches up with the Genesis account) is fascinating! The need for more investigation into this hypothesis is one of the more exciting finds in science that we have seen in quite a while.
You many consider it a "huge leap of faith" but so is macro-evolutionary theory! It is only an hypothesis, extrapolated into Darwinian theory, held onto by scientists through faith. You seem to object to Sam Hunt combining faith and science within his hypothesis, but don't object to evolutionary theory scientists doing the exact same thing with their theory.
It is also interesting to note what Jay said in his comment:
"The very word "Universe" literally means: Single spoken sentence or phrase."
Post a Comment