Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
My science is not used to "confirm" the truth I believe, but is to support it.
The emphasis isn't on "confirm"; a little weaker word will suffice. It's still starting with the conclusion, which, to my best knowledge, ain't the way to do science.
That is what all the science can do. In the work of science, one must have some sort of faith in mind. Otherwise, the research would be meaningless and could not last.
Faith? I'd much rather have a good question. Oh, of course you have to have some sort of a hypothesis to start answering your Good Question, but having an idea isn't really "faith".
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
You can NOT fit data into your belief if the data do not fit.
Depends on how you collect the data. There are an awful lot of ways to muck that up.
The problem is on the interpretation of data. It can go either way in many cases.
What data go both ways WRT evolution?
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
You can NOT fit data into your belief if the data do not fit. This is logic, not faith. If the data say things different from your model, then your understanding just have to turn with the data. This is science. Otherwise, you may just give up before trying. On the other hand, if there is a possibility to fit the data into your model (through some manipulations), then it might just fit, like it or not.
The problem is on the interpretation of data. It can go either way in many cases. This illustrates how little we know and this is why we need faith in addition to science.
Let's look then at the entirety of the geological data, then. Was there a Global Flood a few thousand years ago? Clearly, the answer is NO. Only by ignoring the data that does not conform, or cannot be "manipulated" into the Flood paradigm, can we claim it is supported by the evidence. How do creationists get around this? All sorts of fun ad-hoc ways. Let's look at some that have been expressed here in this forum and by Creation Scientists:
1. The Flood was "Pre-Split" before the time of Peleg, when the physical and spiritual worlds were somehow combined together, somehow changing the laws of physics so that it somehow appears today that there was no global Flood.
2. God "cleaned up" the evidence after The Flood, so that the geological record does not reflect that there ever was a global flood.
3. Hydraulic sorting during the Flood caused the fossils in the record to be sorted by size, even though they clearly are not sorted by size.
4. The fossil record is reflected in the fact that fast animals (like mammals) ran up mountains to higher levels than slower animals (like reptiles). Too bad we find slow animals higher in the record than faster animals. Nor does this explain how plants are distributed in the fossil record, since they have trouble picking their roots up out of the earth and running up mountain sides.
You can try and force a round peg into a square hole with a hammer if you like, but please do not claim you are doing "science" or just "interpreting" the data differently.
Let's look then at the entirety of the geological data, then. Was there a Global Flood a few thousand years ago? Clearly, the answer is NO. Only by ignoring the data that does not conform, or cannot be "manipulated" into the Flood paradigm, can we claim it is supported by the evidence. How do creationists get around this? All sorts of fun ad-hoc ways. Let's look at some that have been expressed here in this forum and by Creation Scientists:
1. The Flood was "Pre-Split" before the time of Peleg, when the physical and spiritual worlds were somehow combined together, somehow changing the laws of physics so that it somehow appears today that there was no global Flood.
2. God "cleaned up" the evidence after The Flood, so that the geological record does not reflect that there ever was a global flood.
3. Hydraulic sorting during the Flood caused the fossils in the record to be sorted by size, even though they clearly are not sorted by size.
4. The fossil record is reflected in the fact that fast animals (like mammals) ran up mountains to higher levels than slower animals (like reptiles). Too bad we find slow animals higher in the record than faster animals. Nor does this explain how plants are distributed in the fossil record, since they have trouble picking their roots up out of the earth and running up mountain sides.
You can try and force a round peg into a square hole with a hammer if you like, but please do not claim you are doing "science" or just "interpreting" the data differently.
To you surprise, I think you might be able to just do that. How about separate the apparently misfit peg into parts and all parts could easily pass the hole? I am not saying the problem is solved. The parts still needs to put back together afterward. That is harder.
To you surprise, I think you might be able to just do that. How about separate the apparently misfit peg into parts and all parts could easily pass the hole? I am not saying the problem is solved. The parts still needs to put back together afterward. That is harder.
I am not sure what practical point you are trying to make here. Are you trying to invoke a miracle? That is the last resort of a failed approach.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
I am not sure what practical point you are trying to make here. Are you trying to invoke a miracle? That is the last resort of a failed approach.
No. What I am saying is that all essential "elements" in the description of Noah's Flood are, in fact, scientifically true, or possibly be true. But it would be troublesome to put all of them together unless we invoke some other factors we do not know at this moment.
No. What I am saying is that all essential "elements" in the description of Noah's Flood are, in fact, scientifically true, or possibly be true. But it would be troublesome to put all of them together unless we invoke some other factors we do not know at this moment.
Relax. I talk about science only.
Why do you claim that a world wide flood that left no traces in the geological record is "scientifically true?" or even possibly true? If there was a global scale flood, then there would be a clear record of it (a marker, so to speak) found world-wide in the geological column. There isn't. In fact, were it not for the biblical account, no one would even be discussing whether or not there was a global flood in the first place, since there is no evidence of its existence in the geological record to spark any debate.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Why do you claim that a world wide flood that left no traces in the geological record is "scientifically true?" or even possibly true? If there was a global scale flood, then there would be a clear record of it (a marker, so to speak) found world-wide in the geological column. There isn't. In fact, were it not for the biblical account, no one would even be discussing whether or not there was a global flood in the first place, since there is no evidence of its existence in the geological record to spark any debate.
Linear Mode
