Positive Atheism

[theVOID]

I agree that the methodology of science is very effective and that one can certainly trust it. Your examples of GPS systems and Television broadcasting are right on point as is all the operational science that we use and observe every day.

But there seems to be a big difference between things like GPS systems and the formation of our solar system as presented in the wiki article.

The exact same stringent mathematics that makes the GPS systems work, that lead to atomic power, particle accelerators, keeping satellites in fixed orbit, lead to a useful understanding of time and space etc is the same mathematics used to describe the observations made of many many solar systems throughout the galaxy of all ages, shapes, sizes and energies. It is without a question the most accurate way of looking at how our solar system formed, and sorry if it offends, but your so called revelations are utterly silly in comparison.

While both may be based on the theory of general relativity and applications of it, the former (GPS systems) is something we can observe in the here and now. It is testable and repeatable. In contrast, applying that same science to the formation of our solar system is taking that same science and extrapolating it back to the unobservable (the impossibility of observing the formation of our solar system should be self evident, unless I am somehow mistaken) and unrepeatable (we cannot duplicate the formation of our solar system) past. It seems to me that to do so and come up with the conclusion that this is how our solar system formed (i.e., that which the wiki article said), one still needs to apply at least two unprovable principles: 1) uniformitarianism (i.e., the key to the past is the present or what we observe today came to be through processes that still are occurring) and 2) materialism (matter/energy are the only thing we deal with, i.e., no supernatural). These uniformitarian and materialistic principles are the assumptions/presuppositions I was talking about in my last post.

Am I correct here, theVoid?

1) You are forgetting that there are millions and millions of solar systems out there for us to look at, in all stages of development and under all kinds of conditions - we can see how they behave from birth till death by looking out to space, not only that, but when it is all described mathematically it is all self-confirming, that is too say it in the vast majority of cases it confirmed the current perception as extremely accurate and just added more credence to the theory of relativity. But that's not the best part about science, the best cases are the ones that don't add up, because they are the ones that lead to more research and more understanding, despite the fact they are comparatively very rare.

2) 'supernatural' conclusions do not help us understand anything at all. Remember that if something has an effect on the universe in any way it is detectable scientifically by inference and therefore testable - if it doesn't have an effect on the universe then it's irrelevant.

I can assure you that the science behind the conclusion is extremely sound and the Wiki article is well referenced and completely up to date, as is always the case with scientific articles on wikipedia - Scientists HATE misinformation, meaning they will immediately correct any apparent mistakes and always properly reference any point they make.

I really do not doubt what you say here. In other words, I really do not question the science behind the conclusion, I question the uniformitarian and materialistic principles used to extrapolate the science into the past as it relates to origins.

You want to reevaluate this statement after reading my response above? I'd be interested to see what you think after some new information on the process.