YECist's tragically weak view of God

[chris777]

I'll let someone else tackle the science errors in this post, but I want to address the conspiracy theory idea. Are you aware that if the Global Flood could better explain fossil fuels than paleontology, oil companies would be using Creation science to find oil, not geology. Companies use what works best to make money. Geology has shown to be time and time again more effect than any Creation Science when it comes to finding oil.

I dont nessesarily believe oil is in fact a "fossil fuel"
There are a great many issues with that bein ga possibility that just don't add up.

On top of this, any scientist that disproves evolution wins $1 million dollars because he/she will win the Nobel Prize. Do you really think that evolution is wrong, but somehow, every single scientist and graduate student signed some blood pact to not collect the money and instead, support some fake science to get funding?

I think they take the work of their predacessors at face value as the gospel ,and ignore the problems and emphasize the "evidence"
As for the million dollars, It is like in this post evidence, and scriptures have been provided, and then the "academia" dismisses it, rather than admit the possibility that they could be wrong.
I ask you does anyone in the Evolution, or Tehistic evolution camp, believe that they could have possibly been Duped?, mislead, decieved, or how ever you want to word it, that makes you feel good about yourself?
I admit I don't know everything, But if you think I am a fool, well I frankly no longer care, what people think of me in that sense, I may be no einstein, but I was considered well "above average" in testing in my past. Back to the suppression topic, look at drug testing, recalls, marketing, how many "evolutions" of a product line marketing campaigns, do you really think people would be willing to part with? Most high end marketing campaigns run well in excess of a paltry million dollars.
Coupled with the fact that it is now a Global Belief System that would be trashed if evolution were proven false.
As for conspiracies, You don't know the half of it.
I do not believe in "conspiracies" like "roswell" or "jfk" or "illuminatis" But I do believe in a satanicly orchestrated multi pronged attack on Christianity. All it takes is doubt. The oldest trick in the book, satan casting doubt on the word of God. For thousands of years.

It's about as silly of an idea as energy companies suppressing a free energy machine in order to stay in business or drug companies hiding an AIDs cure from the general public. If you really think its possible to have a conspiracy so massive that 99% of biologists, almost every single university and college, and nearly every single graduate student is a part of it, then I suggest you put down the Da Vinci Code, and pick up a science papers and start reading.
I could ask you to do the same with the Bible, But I don't think you would comprehend my meaning in saying it, or the irony of you asking me to start reading scientific journals to get answers.
Are you a scientist? And I don't mean a like minded thinker,
I mean have you personally explored the things in the journals that you esteem so highly?
And as fo the scientific method, I don't nessesarily mean using it, I mean have you personally EXPLORED these things? investigated for YOURSELF? or do you just buy it wholesale and spoon feed it to yourself, to make you wise?

There is no conspiracy, just sound science. Until you show otherwise, it's just the same rantings as the people that think perpetual motion exists.

Let me ask you a question, I am at a crossroads in my life, I am planning on returning to college, so that I can position myself where I will have more opportunities for a job, as I have become all but crippled.
But that aside I ask you this? Should I devote the next 4 + years of my life, to taking science, getting some sort of degree in a scientific field, and then taking even more time out of my life to put together a hypothesis, and put fourth a theory, and either proove or disprove it?
Or do you think my time would be better used trying to reach as many of the lost in the world as I possibly can, so that as many as possible might be saved?

EDIT: BTW, I'm also taking a genetic engineering class and I'm attending several biology conferences. To suggest that scientists have a massive conspiracy would also imply that many Christians such as myself are a part of this conspiracy just to make money. I doubt I would be selling my soul for $5000 a semester.

I don't recall using the word conspiracy, I do however remember trying to point out, that the pathe to damnation is wide and their are many following it, and very few people, will turn against that path. By that I mean the same thing you are calling me A fool. I don't know about you , But I feel like I am on board the titanic, well aware of its fate, even before the iceburg has struck, and I am called a fool for saying it.
Their are several unfufilled prophecies as of yet, that are to be fufilled soon. And I personally feel like much of science, and medicine, and many of the "academics" are put fourth to waste our time, and distract us from our mission.

I could post more, particularly about topics I brought up and that have been brought up, that are largely ignored, But I don't know if they are worth bothering with, as it feels like no one is being edified.

 

[random_guy]

I dont nessesarily believe oil is in fact a "fossil fuel"
There are a great many issues with that bein ga possibility that just don't add up.

Okay, so you don't think oil is a fossil fuel. Basically, you reject theories in modern chemistry, geology, and paleontology, not just evolution.

I think they take the work of their predacessors at face value as the gospel ,and ignore the problems and emphasize the "evidence"
As for the million dollars, It is like in this post evidence, and scriptures have been provided, and then the "academia" dismisses it, rather than admit the possibility that they could be wrong.
I ask you does anyone in the Evolution, or Tehistic evolution camp, believe that they could have possibly been Duped?, mislead, decieved, or how ever you want to word it, that makes you feel good about yourself?

I don't take evolution as the gospel any more than I take math as gospel. I study both fields carefully, and based on the evidence, I came to the same conclusion as nearly every single biologist, evolution is the best theory in explaining the diversity of life.

To say that academia dismisses all evidence against evolution is to imply that a conspiracy exists to support an incorrect theory. However, this is wrong because a simple search for scientific papers will show many different papers being publish that refine evolution (correct mistakes or holes in the theory). If there was a conspiracy, none of these papers would be published.

The thing is, you think TEist think that evolution is right from an early age or that they are dogmatic in their beliefs. However, what you fail to realize is many TEists start out as Creationists, but then through education, become TEists. Not only that, there's a direct correlation between education levels and acceptance of evolution. If anything, this shows that evolutionists learn to accept that evolution is the best current theory.

I admit I don't know everything, But if you think I am a fool, well I frankly no longer care, what people think of me in that sense, I may be no einstein, but I was considered well "above average" in testing in my past. Back to the suppression topic, look at drug testing, recalls, marketing, how many "evolutions" of a product line marketing campaigns, do you really think people would be willing to part with? Most high end marketing campaigns run well in excess of a paltry million dollars.

Coupled with the fact that it is now a Global Belief System that would be trashed if evolution were proven false.
As for conspiracies, You don't know the half of it.
I do not believe in "conspiracies" like "roswell" or "jfk" or "illuminatis" But I do believe in a satanicly orchestrated multi pronged attack on Christianity. All it takes is doubt. The oldest trick in the book, satan casting doubt on the word of God. For thousands of years.

I don't know everything, and I know that. That's what makes a person wise. However, there are many smart people that don't accept evolution. My professor is one of them. However, he's not a biologist. Again, 99% of biologists accept evolution and nearly every single biology program teaches evolution. From your posts, you make a lot of errors when it comes to science. Why should I accept any of your points about science when you make errors and can not back up any of your claims with evidence? In the end, that's what wins out in science, which is evidence. A person's intelligence has no factor on a theory if they have nothing to back it up.

As for your second point, you're talking about millions of dollars spread an entire industry of millions of scientists, students, and researchers. You're telling there's not one single person that wouldn't collect $1 million and instant fame by disproving evolution? Very few of the scientists, students, and researchers are millionaires. Very few of them have Nobel Prizes. Somehow there's a power that prevents all of them from acting on this? This is the very definition of conspiracy theory. Whether you like it or not, your idea that all these people can't seem to notice "errors" when they spend lifetimes studying this is a conspiracy.

I could ask you to do the same with the Bible, But I don't think you would comprehend my meaning in saying it, or the irony of you asking me to start reading scientific journals to get answers.
Are you a scientist? And I don't mean a like minded thinker,
I mean have you personally explored the things in the journals that you esteem so highly?
And as fo the scientific method, I don't nessesarily mean using it, I mean have you personally EXPLORED these things? investigated for YOURSELF? or do you just buy it wholesale and spoon feed it to yourself, to make you wise?

Yes, I read the Bible. And yes, there are millions of other students, researchers, and scientists that are also Christians that read the Bible and accept evolution. And while I'm not a scientist (yet), I read scientific papers and I am helping to run scientific experiments. And yes, this also means that I understand the scientific method. This is more than what you seem to do if you think that evolution is not scientific.

Let me ask you a question, I am at a crossroads in my life, I am planning on returning to college, so that I can position myself where I will have more opportunities for a job, as I have become all but crippled.
But that aside I ask you this? Should I devote the next 4 + years of my life, to taking science, getting some sort of degree in a scientific field, and then taking even more time out of my life to put together a hypothesis, and put fourth a theory, and either proove or disprove it?
Or do you think my time would be better used trying to reach as many of the lost in the world as I possibly can, so that as many as possible might be saved?

You're attacking a theory that you seem to not understand. You are putting up a bunch of assertions without evidence. You admit openly that you don't study evolution, but yet you accuse people that do are either hiding a massive conspiracy, ignorant (irony here), or mislead by Satan. Not only that, you also make false claims about science. Do you think this is wise to do?

I don't recall using the word conspiracy, I do however remember trying to point out, that the pathe to damnation is wide and their are many following it, and very few people, will turn against that path. By that I mean the same thing you are calling me A fool. I don't know about you , But I feel like I am on board the titanic, well aware of its fate, even before the iceburg has struck, and I am called a fool for saying it.

I didn't call you a fool, but I pointed out that much of your statements are wrong. If anything, you are ignorant when it comes to evolution. There's nothing wrong with it because we are all ignorant of something. I am ignorant when it comes to advance geology, that's why I let others speak for me when it comes to that subject.

Their are several unfufilled prophecies as of yet, that are to be fufilled soon. And I personally feel like much of science, and medicine, and many of the "academics" are put fourth to waste our time, and distract us from our mission.

However, it is extremely short sighted to say that the end of times is near and that we should stop studying science or that studying science is a waste. We are not forced to choose between Salvation and science, it isn't an either/or question.

 

[Chief117]

Okay, so you don't think oil is a fossil fuel. Basically, you reject theories in modern chemistry, geology, and paleontology, not just evolution.

I just want to point out that evolution is not the same kind of science as these other fields--there is a huge difference between a historical science and an applied science. Personally, I find most historical sciences to be useless, as they meddle in things that cannot even truly be proven.

I don't take evolution as the gospel any more than I take math as gospel. I study both fields carefully, and based on the evidence, I came to the same conclusion as nearly every single biologist, evolution is the best theory in explaining the diversity of life.

Just so long as we all agree that is not solid fact and thus it must contain some degree of "opinion." A few hundred years ago, nearly every single cosmologist saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth. Majority opinion is not a convincing argument.

To say that academia dismisses all evidence against evolution is to imply that a conspiracy exists to support an incorrect theory. However, this is wrong because a simple search for scientific papers will show many different papers being publish that refine evolution (correct mistakes or holes in the theory). If there was a conspiracy, none of these papers would be published.

Well, I don't think there is a conspiracy myself, but if there were why wouldn't there be papers out there refining it?

Personally, I believe that most scientists are as indoctrinated as the common school child...that evolutionary philosophy has so permeated the education system that no one questions the established theories.

It's not that there is a conspiracy--I believe people's worldview is funneling their scientific thought. So I am also not convinced by the "convergence of various fields" argument either.

The thing is, you think TEist think that evolution is right from an early age or that they are dogmatic in their beliefs. However, what you fail to realize is many TEists start out as Creationists, but then through education, become TEists.

That may well be true. I don't know any TEists personally. But it also works the other way--as I can testify.

Not only that, there's a direct correlation between education levels and acceptance of evolution. If anything, this shows that evolutionists learn to accept that evolution is the best current theory.

I completely disagree. Many are recognizing the implausible nature of evolution. Of course, when you add God to the theory, it becomes at least possible. But you've left the realm of pure science at that point (and I doubt the majority of scientists hold to that view).

Someone once said something along the lines that "a little science will turn a man away from God, a lot of science will bring him back." That's what happened for me. Science solidified my faith.

Yes, I read the Bible. And yes, there are millions of other students, researchers, and scientists that are also Christians that read the Bible and accept evolution. And while I'm not a scientist (yet), I read scientific papers and I am helping to run scientific experiments. And yes, this also means that I understand the scientific method. This is more than what you seem to do if you think that evolution is not scientific.

Just thought I'd point out that this is NOT a sound/solid argument. You are implying that if one does not read papers, or run labs, then we don't understand science, the scientific method, etc. It just doesn't work that way.

I do not think evolution is "scientific" either. First of all, it is more of a faith. I am not aware of any solid evidence to support biological evolution. It is certainly not supported by the fossil record, which only shows fully developed life forms in fully functional form. We don't see it today, but according to the theory you shouldn't be able to anyway, since it is such a slow progression. It is a "historical" science, which ultimately means that it is neither observable nor testable--a fundamental requirement of science.

Ultimately, biology is NOT dependent on evolution. Biology exists without evolution. It is not important for you, while studying cells or whatever you are studying, to believe that these cells share common ancestry with an organism billions of years ago. Such a belief is superfluous to the science.

 

[random_guy]

I just want to point out that evolution is not the same kind of science as these other fields--there is a huge difference between a historical science and an applied science. Personally, I find most historical sciences to be useless, as they meddle in things that cannot even truly be proven.

So you think forsenic science, geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, and many many other scientific discplines where many of our advances come from is useless? Even though paleontology and geology has time and time again, proven themselves in the commerial world to find sources of oil? Even though astronomy and cosmology has helped refine our knowledge of physics and brought many new advances in physics? Whatever floats your boat. This is why scientists tend to not listen to the general public, since they only seem to hold back science.

Just so long as we all agree that is not solid fact and thus it must contain some degree of "opinion." A few hundred years ago, nearly every single cosmologist saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth. Majority opinion is not a convincing argument.

Funny, since evolution is both a fact and a theory, much like gravity. Again, its comments like this that show you have gaps in your scientific knowledge (unless you seem to doubt allele frequences change in a gene pool over generations). Second, you're using an example in which the scientific method was formalized yet, especially since cosmology wasn't even a real discipline back then. By your same logic, then germ theory, atomic theory, and gravitational theory can not be trusted, either. So I guess you don't accept any science then? Majority opinion may not be a convincing argument, but when back with evidence, it is. That's the thing, the reason why nearly every single biologist accepts evolution is because of evidence, not indoctrination.

Well, I don't think there is a conspiracy myself, but if there were why wouldn't there be papers out there refining it?

You tell me. You suggested that any evidence that goes against evolution isn't published. I gave examples of where it does get published. This also shows that scientists aren't indoctrined to believe evolution since many are actively trying to continue to fix it.

Personally, I believe that most scientists are as indoctrinated as the common school child...that evolutionary philosophy has so permeated the education system that no one questions the established theories.

Again, if they were indoctrined, then they wouldn't be trying to fix it. If they were indoctrined, they would've never found the major discovery (and error ) in evolution where it was thought that genetics (DNA) was the only source of inheritance.

That may well be true. I don't know any TEists personally. But it also works the other way--as I can testify.

Sure it works both ways, but the thing is, I have yet to see anyone going from TE->Creationist actually understand evolution. For example, most Creationists say they use to believe evolution. You don't believe in a theory, you accept it based on the evidence. Until I find a TE->Creationist that can correctly give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and then explain why none exist, I will continue to believe that no Creationist actually understand evolution. (Go ahead and try, no Creationist has ever done this).

I completely disagree. Many are recognizing the implausible nature of evolution. Of course, when you add God to the theory, it becomes at least possible. But you've left the realm of pure science at that point (and I doubt the majority of scientists hold to that view).

You say this, but yet the evidence is clear. The more education (any education, not just science) a person has, the less likely he will accept Creationism. Studies show this time and time again. Not only that, you say many recognize that evolution is improbably, but yet the number of biologists (actually learned people that study the field) that reject evolution has remained constant, less than 1%. If you look at their religious views, you'll find this 1% is overwhelmingly religious. If anything, it seems that religious views make people reject evolution, not scientific views.

Just thought I'd point out that this is NOT a sound/solid argument. You are implying that if one does not read papers, or run labs, then we don't understand science, the scientific method, etc. It just doesn't work that way.

I do not think evolution is "scientific" either. First of all, it is more of a faith. I am not aware of any solid evidence to support biological evolution. It is certainly not supported by the fossil record, which only shows fully developed life forms in fully functional form. We don't see it today, but according to the theory you shouldn't be able to anyway, since it is such a slow progression. It is a "historical" science, which ultimately means that it is neither observable nor testable--a fundamental requirement of science.

I'm not sayinig you need to be a scientist or read papers to attack evolution. However, from your posts, you show a major lack of understanding of science. I'm pointing out that your understanding is very bad, and it would help your case if you actually brushed up on science and biology. Not only that, you don't understand the scientific method. That's why you keep saying evolution isn't scientific and is accepted on faith. You seem to say that evolution isn't observable or testable which means you don't understand the scientific method when it comes to observation and testing. All these errors make it obvious that you lack of training and education in science.

Every single scientific organization (the organizations that define science) accept cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolution, etc... as scientific, and every nearly single university accept them as scientific as well as fund their scientific research. If it wasn't scientific (as you say) then how come there are thousands of scientific experiments in each of these fields that validate the theories in the fields?

Ultimately, biology is NOT dependent on evolution. Biology exists without evolution. It is not important for you, while studying cells or whatever you are studying, to believe that these cells share common ancestry with an organism billions of years ago. Such a belief is superfluous to the science.

You say that but according to Bush's (Bush supports intelligent design) scientific advisor,

During an on-line colloquy about science policy in the Bush administration conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, was asked about the Bush administration's scientific credibility in light of the president's reported skepticism about evolution. He replied, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology," adding, "Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history."

The Botanical Society of America, composed of the plant researchers, educators, and scholars of America:

The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.

Baylor University's Biology Department (This is a Baptist University)

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

This is just a sampling. So according to many of the major biological groups (universities, science advisors, scientific groups), they all agree that evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Who to trust, people actively researching biology, or someone that thinks scientists are all indoctrined to not question biology, that scientists are mislead by Satan or willfully ignorant, that provides no evidence to back any of their claims, that admits that they do not actively study the subject? Who would I trust more when it comes to science?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is a "historical" science, which ultimately means that it is neither observable nor testable--a fundamental requirement of science.


is yesterday history and hence unavailable to scientific study?
how about last week or last year?
where is this line between historical and laboratory science?

if i did an experiment yesterday do i have to repeat it today to be sure things didn't change?

how about if someone else did it a hundred years ago and all i have is written testimony of his experiment? do i have to do it myself over again?

two issues.

do i have to experience the experiments for them to be valid? or can i take testimony?

when is one more yesterday too many for laboratory science and it now is historical non-science?

how do you know the answers to these two questions?


seems to me i can pose exactly the same form of these questions to Scripture and end up with the same position that you are heading towards with respect to science-solipsism.

 

[chris777]

Okay, so you don't think oil is a fossil fuel. Basically, you reject theories in modern chemistry, geology, and paleontology, not just evolution.

Not nessesarily, I have issues with some of the theories and thinking behind, them , and am researching it further, I am saying I no longer just accept what they tell me, and I am looking into it for myself.

I don't take evolution as the gospel any more than I take math as gospel. I study both fields carefully, and based on the evidence, I came to the same conclusion as nearly every single biologist, evolution is the best theory in explaining the diversity of life.

Ok you are one of the first people I have heard that does not outright, and dogmaticly call Evolution proven fact, as that is most of what I have ran across, and I apoligize for coming off that way, as that seems to be one of the assumption made of me from many others as well, (that I am just some ignorant hick that was taught by the church to discount science ,where in reality I have a beef with both science and the church, as I came to many of my current beliefs completely on my own, as I know no one personally who holds these beliefs)

To say that academia dismisses all evidence against evolution is to imply that a conspiracy exists to support an incorrect theory. However, this is wrong because a simple search for scientific papers will show many different papers being publish that refine evolution (correct mistakes or holes in the theory). If there was a conspiracy, none of these papers would be published.

When you keep bringing up implying a conspiracy, would you also extend your implication to the Creationist, do you think they have a conspiracy to discredit evolution?

as for the papers you are refering to, what I am talking about is what I hear from the majority of evolutionist. let me elaborate They come from the world view that evolution is certifiable fact, period, and that even though all the "evidence" to back it up is not in yet, their is a continual effort to "evolve " the definition as time Goes by. Ans what I am saying is that both the evidence, and the mode of thinking behind it feed into the notion that it is correct, when the possibility does exist , that It may not infact exist. To reiterate, evolutionary thinking, (and I don't mean genetic, I mean the "continual improvement" mentality that is almost completely pervasive in society today.
For example Evolution as an artist, evolution as a singer, evolution of our relationship, evolution of an electronic device.
The whole "new and improved" mentality. Not everything evolves. But yet the notion that everything does is so pervasive, that everything from the methodology for gathering information to back up, the THEORY (not the notion or worldview) of Biological evolution, to the belief that the theory itself is evolving, to the belief that we are evolving while we are evolving the evolution, of the theory of evolution(biological)
Now granted I realize that it may sound odd and silly, But I am telling you , that what I see many evolutionist do and say, does not seem that far seperated from the behaviors of members of a cult( and no I am not talking about a "conspiracy", and no I am not saying the people that believe it are all like "cult" members) What I am saying is they follow it without hesitation, without question, And just like you and most evolutionist continually point out , I have not devoted 4 + years at a college or university exclusively studying evolution, but neither have the majority of the believers of evolution. And Again you may call it ignorance, or paranoia, or whatever, but seriously think about this, just as many evolutionist believe that Christians who Do NOT believe evolution are indoctrinated, or brainwashed by their churches, So to are the vast majority of the believers in evolution.
One of my friends pointed out a FACT to me that I long Refused to acknoledge, but Every day I come closer and closer to realizing its truth. The vast majority of the worlds population is just not that inteligent. That is not intended as an insult (and I am sure most of the TE crowd that bothers to read this is probably rolling their eyes, at someone who doubts evolution even saying this)
The Bible calls us Sheep, and even the smartest among us can be decieved, and most certainly led astray. Look at the abominations solomon was led into by his wives and concubines. (and adam and eve is a whole other topic)
But I do feel that aside from many believing it without any concept of it, along with many showing a cultlike devotion to it, and not accepting of any criticism of it. And Again Please Do not feel that I am Directing any of my statements directly at you personally (unless explicitly noted) But I ask You to step back from the science aspect of it, and look at its societal implications, and how people behave, and respond to it, and how many actually have any grasp at its concept save the superficial.

The thing is, you think TEist think that evolution is right from an early age or that they are dogmatic in their beliefs.

And agai nI apoligize for coming off that way, as I am a bit into thinking that as it has been the vast majority of all my encounters with it.

However, what you fail to realize is many TEists start out as Creationists, but then through education, become TEists. Not only that, there's a direct correlation between education levels and acceptance of evolution. If anything, this shows that evolutionists learn to accept that evolution is the best current theory.

Ahh a nice jucy statement ripe with implications. I have heard that the vast majority of students going into and coming out of seminary , come to reject Divine authorship of the bible once they graduate.
I also again ask you to observe, And pay close attention to modern education, as I propose it is mass indoctrination, Now granted I disagree with many of the things it teaches, but I ask you to objectively look at it, Right of wrong, true or false it is indoctrinated into the masses, through a variety of media, be it education, fiction, or science papers. And again I stress don't jump to conclusions when I say indoctrination, You could also say that their is a current trend to indoctrinate our people to stop smoking, or say no to drugs, etc.

TEists start out as Creationists, but then through education,(indoctrination) become TEists. Not only that, there's a direct correlation between education(indoctrination) levels and acceptance of evolution. If anything, this shows that evolutionists learn(are indoctrinated) to accept that evolution is the best current theory

Dont get all bent out of shape, by me re posting your quote with indoctrination placed in parenthesis, I did it as a demonstration, in that if evolution were changed into another topic, it would set off alarms if it were something you disagreed with.

evolution is the best current theory

So when you say that evolution is the best current theory are you open to other possibilities?
And when I say this I am not nessesarily refering to Creationism, I am asking you (HYPOTHETICALY) that if sufficent evidence were put fourth that would turn evolution, and or creationism up on its head are you open to changing your position, even if it were something completely different than evolution?

I don't know everything, and I know that. That's what makes a person wise. However, there are many smart people that don't accept evolution. My professor is one of them. However, he's not a biologist. Again, 99% of biologists accept evolution and nearly every single biology program teaches evolution.

Again if evolution has a monopoly on biological education what else do you suppose biology students will accept? Especially considering the "seperation of church and state"?

From your posts, you make a lot of errors when it comes to science. Why should I accept any of your points about science when you make errors and can not back up any of your claims with evidence? In the end, that's what wins out in science, which is evidence. A person's intelligence has no factor on a theory if they have nothing to back it up.

What exactly are my "errors" when it comes to science?
And what claims do you want me to back up, I am open to discussing them.

As for your second point, you're talking about millions of dollars spread an entire industry of millions of scientists, students, and researchers. You're telling there's not one single person that wouldn't collect $1 million and instant fame by disproving evolution? Very few of the scientists, students, and researchers are millionaires. Very few of them have Nobel Prizes. Somehow there's a power that prevents all of them from acting on this? This is the very definition of conspiracy theory. Whether you like it or not, your idea that all these people can't seem to notice "errors" when they spend lifetimes studying this is a conspiracy.

Again I feel you are jumping the Gun with conspiracy, But as for your question, I have been in several debates over the existence of Christ, whether he ever lived or not, and especially if he was Ressurected from the dead. I have Given them accounts where he was witnessed by peopl after the ressurection, and yet they still discount it. The same way you describe, If you were alive during that time, and someone told you a man was miraculously ressurected from the dead would you not investigate, especially if witnesses were mentioned? and if they were there and you found out their testimony were false would you not broadcast that it was a hoax? Yet you don't see that.
As for them spending lifetimes studying evolution And not disputing it, like I stated earlier the whole concept permeates society, very few people question it, if you dont question it, why look for evidence against it? Which was basically my own view, I just accepted it at face value because it had a nice little bow tie story to it ,and I honestly was too consumed with having fun as a kid so I just ate it up. Then I "defected" into the biblical side only, as I was once a TE as well, but at that time I had only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures.
The more I read the Bible , the Less I could reconcile the science I had been taught and loved all of my life with what the scriptures actually say. Then I started looking into evolution, and discovered that its just not as well founded as put fourth, for example and this also goes into indoctrination, any "documentary" you see on Discovery, or the animal channel, has all these elaborate stories and animations of dinosaurs, and their habits, and they give the obligatorial "Day in the life of" story , and they Don't even know what these creatures did, they just base it on reptiles and try to extrapolate a whole fictional senario from that. It doesnt work. Animals are different, Sure some of it might be right, but it is presented in a manner that gives it the appearance of being factual in that its a docudrama, Yet no effort is made to point out that the DRAMA aspect is a good large hunk of the presentation.

 

[chris777]

Yes, I read the Bible. And yes, there are millions of other students, researchers, and scientists that are also Christians that read the Bible and accept evolution. And while I'm not a scientist (yet), I read scientific papers and I am helping to run scientific experiments. And yes, this also means that I understand the scientific method. This is more than what you seem to do if you think that evolution is not scientific.

The Scientific method is inherently flawed, yet it is given the percieved status of being perfect, how is it then a flawed system can produce what many claim to be indisputable verifiable fact?
By its very nature a hypothesis is a guess, and while some guesses could be close or correct, they are inherently "shots in the dark" so to speak, in that you can have 2 people look at the same phenomena, or problem, and come up with 2 completely different interpretations of it. (much like the debates in these forums) But an example you might prefer would be the Rorschach inkblot test, now the psychological nature of the test is not what I speak of, but rather the issue, of perception, the different interpretation of what the blots can potentially represent to different individuals is what I specifically speak of. Now granted it is an simplistic, and rather abstract example, however those 2 natures of it are also its greatest strengths. It is at its core a black and white image, yet it can produce a miriad of ideas as to what they represent.
Just the same way as much of the evidence in science. It can be seen, but most people tend to try to frame it up in a manner that they can comprehend, and thus any interpretation based in that manner is at its root tainted.

You're attacking a theory that you seem to not understand.

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Like I stated earlier I am a defector from theistic evolution.

You are putting up a bunch of assertions without evidence.

Ask and ye shall receive
What assertation would you like evidence of?

You admit openly that you don't study evolution,

That is not what I stated if you would care to carefuly re read my post.
I Will say that I haven't Studied it in any depth lately.

but yet you accuse people that do are either hiding a massive conspiracy,

Uggh

ignorant (irony here),

I knew this comment would show up lol.
I do feel that many take evolution as a settled issue, and have not bothered to look into alternatives, biblical or otherwise.
For example many people believe aliens "seeded" the earth, and granted it is within the realm of possibility, (but I dont buy it for a second) The notion of evolution is so dominant in society most any other proposal, Wildly fantiasti or not, is not given much consideration.

or mislead by Satan.

And I take it you completely refuse this possibility?

Not only that, you also make false claims about science. Do you think this is wise to do?[/quote]
What false claims have I made?

I didn't call you a fool, but I pointed out that much of your statements are wrong. If anything, you are ignorant when it comes to evolution.

I recall you declaring them to be wrong, I dont recall any particular "evidence" put forth to refute anything I stated, along with much of it just plain out ignored, in favor of other topics.

There's nothing wrong with it because we are all ignorant of something. I am ignorant when it comes to advance geology, that's why I let others speak for me when it comes to that subject.

Physics was where my aptitude was

I assume the following reply you had was in responce to this statement..

I do however remember trying to point out, that the pathe to damnation is wide and their are many following it, and very few people, will turn against that path. By that I mean the same thing you are calling me A fool. I don't know about you , But I feel like I am on board the titanic, well aware of its fate, even before the iceburg has struck, and I am called a fool for saying it.
Their are several unfufilled prophecies as of yet, that are to be fufilled soon. And I personally feel like much of science, and medicine, and many of the "academics" are put fourth to waste our time, and distract us from our mission.

However, it is extremely short sighted to say that the end of times is near and that we should stop studying science or that studying science is a waste. We are not forced to choose between Salvation and science, it isn't an either/or question.

I wasn't speaking as to your salvation. I was speaking of the salvation of the lost. And I ask you what does evolution have to do with saving souls?
What does rocket science do to edify your brothers and sisters in Christ?
What does virus research have to do with eternal life , if God is the creator of plagues to begin with?
IT seems counter productive.
Our number one goal in life should Be to Reach the Lost Before its too late to, and while many of these scientific pursuits are interesting, and seemingly have use, What value are they to fufilling the great commission, which is largely being abandoned in exchange for these secular pursuits.
Not to mention the debates, I was flippong through a thread of debate in the TE forum, and I noticed page after page, of detailed biology Jargon, much of which I am honsetly not familiar, with, or have forgotten, out of disuse, And yet not a single mention of scripture. You say You dont have to choose between Salvation and Science, And I say actions speak louder than words. (an no this is not intended as an insult, It is to get you to think, and to look at what Fruit the Scientific community has produced in the growing of the Flock for Christ. Of which any other concern should be secondary, But I feel people are too enraptured with their studies and pursuits to have much concern for their neighbors.

 

[random_guy]

There are too many points in each conversation, so I'll focus on just one again.

Dont get all bent out of shape, by me re posting your quote with indoctrination placed in parenthesis, I did it as a demonstration, in that if evolution were changed into another topic, it would set off alarms if it were something you disagreed with.

So do you believe that education is nothing but indoctrination? If the majority of people think that .99~ != 1 before they had calculus, and after calculus the majority of people accept that .999~ = 1, is this indoctrination? If the majority of kids think that the Sun revolves around the Earth and after taking a basic lesson on astronomy, they learn that the Earth revolves around the Sun, this is indoctrination? If anything, it seems your position is anti-intellectual. Education (when is goes against your views) is indoctrination. So tell me, how am I being indoctrinated by learning about evidence that supports evolution, instead of just being told believe in evolution (which is how Creationists are taught since they don't use scientific evidence to back their position)?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Scientific method is inherently flawed,

what exactly is this flaw?


yet it is given the percieved status of being perfect,

what people think science is perfect?


how is it then a flawed system can produce what many claim to be indisputable verifiable fact?

the whole point of science is that it is NOT indisputable.
how about justified true belief? science produces theory, theory is never a fact. you are confusing the two.


By its very nature a hypothesis is a guess, and while some guesses could be close or correct, they are inherently "shots in the dark"

science talks about this all the time. See Michael Polanyi. the way the question is put is:
if science investigates the unknown, how does it know where to look? it is a good and continuing question in the philosophy of science, however most scientists are not bothered by it. they just do their science and leave these issues to the philosophers.

so to speak, in that you can have 2 people look at the same phenomena, or problem, and come up with 2 completely different interpretations of it.

the term is "underdetermination of theory by the data" and is another well known problem in the philosophy of science.


i don't think you have presented anything new. these are issues that are often discussed in 1st semester philosophy of science.

what would be interesting and new would be your exact idea of what is the flaw in science.
now that would be worthwhile looking at.

 

[Deamiter]

I'd like to address a couple of comments.

First off, I don't think anybody claims that creationists are conspiring to discredit evolution. However, it is the stated purpose of many key creationist groups and many key creationists to discredit evolution. The infamous wedge document describes how leading creationists have planned for years to actively "convert" the general population without in any way touching the scientific community.

Second, people who go to Seminary generally reject divine dictation of the Bible for very good reasons. It's not Biblical to claim that God wrote every word through humans... God inspired each of the authors, but not each word. Of course some people believe otherwise, but people who go into it deeply (for example, in Seminary) tend to reject it.

 

[chris777]

Well, you may not like it, but believe it or not, there's some science behind Pangaea and continental drift! Try reading about the Wilson cycle, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cycle
http://www.gsajournals.org/i0091-7613-31-6-e9.pdf#search="filetype:pdf wilson cycle"
http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/HartzTorsvik2002.pdf#search="filetype:pdf "wilson cycle""
... and technical references therein.
If you're going to continue to voice your disagreement on the subject on Pangaea, you're going to have to specifically refute and correct the science you so object to. "I've got an inkling my Bible says otherwise" is not a valid scientific answer, and certainly won't do anything to change the minds of the masses, Christian or otherwise.

Before I get into this, I want to state that it should at least attempt to be in terms that a layman can understand. And to also state that I would like some of my questions anwsered without links to someones 20 page snoozefest dissertation on the mating habits of snails, no matter how excited the author might be and feel the need to put it into words, many, many ,many words, This has already snowballed into something that has consumed far more of my time than I can spare, especially if it is not edifying anyone.

Now as to your specifics, I pulled up the wiki article myself to brush up on plate tectonics, before my last post, and I noticed
That the wilson cycle, was not something I have ever heard of in regards to pangea, Correct me if I am wrong, But am I right in saying that basically wilson has proposed that the continents are adrift on a sea of magma, and bouncing back and fourth against each other, much the way multiple waves do in a bathtub, or bumper cars so to speak. And if so I would say that is an even bigger arguement against pangea in that its akin to saying if I put a puzzle in a box and shake it back and fourth enough eventually the pieces will at some point assemble themselves into the picture, at least once, before being seperated again from the vibration.
So yes I have issue with it.

As for pangea itself, Again I ask do you or anyone else out there really believe that at some point in earths past all the above sea level land masses were agregated together in one big volcanic Zit on the face of the Globe?(sorry had to say it that way lol)

Plate tectonics, Pangaea, the Wilson cycle, etc. are spoken of outside the realm of evolution ALL THE TIME. Take some courses in geology before you spout off about something you don't know. It REALLY irritates me when someone discharges lies about a subject they know nothing of.

Are you stating that Geology, tectonics, and evolutionary biology are not interdeprndent upon each other?
AS Far as I am aware they all share each other data, as "evidence "when It can be made to apply. The so called fossil record comes to mind.

Jesus hated hypocrisy, and so do I. I appologize if this makes me intelectualy eliete (read: "intellectually elite"), but I try to refrain from being intellectually lazy, as others in this thread have admitted. An understanding of the world may not lead us to salvation, which is why we are encouraged not to rely only upon it (Ecc 1:18), but God encourages us to use our minds nonetheless (Pro 4:7, Pro 3:13).
We are all "intellectually lazy" in some respect ,just as Randon guy stated in his post, Yet he never anwsered my question as to the value of the study of science vs saving others.

Should I devote the next 4 + years of my life, to taking science, getting some sort of degree in a scientific field, and then taking even more time out of my life to put together a hypothesis, and put fourth a theory, and either proove or disprove it?
Or do you think my time would be better used trying to reach as many of the lost in the world as I possibly can, so that as many as possible might be saved?

The science says otherwise. Again, see the articles and references therein that I cited above, THEN comment.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I questioned getting back into this forum, I skimmed all 3 of your links, the wiki I had already glanced at before you gave it, as for the other 2 I frankly don't have the time to sift through and try to decipher what they are saying, their is too much technical jargon, that I am un familiar with, If their is a specific point tha tthey were trying to make state what it is that You think I either don't know or am ignoring, Otherwise I just dont have the time to translate their jibberish. Look at my post they are fairly time consuming, and I do look into things, but as to pouring over every nit picky little word. Its like physics, I had a whole set of my own theories and Ideas, and When I looked into what the "scientific" community thought I had to look up several of their own designations for terms, and theories, verses my own, And Its just too time consuming. If you have a specific question, ask it, and I will try and Give a specific answer, (AND I desire a SPECIFIC answer, for those reasons)

Coupled with the palaeobiogeographic distribution of things like lystrosaurs, the extension of mountain ranges on either side of the oceans, and the geologic evidence left by ancient glaciers, it doesn't seem so "coincidental" after all.

Your evidence of the "wilson Cycle" If that even occured could also be just as viable and valid an explanation. And thats part of my point, You people are so against the Biblical, yet you don't care to look at other explanations either.

Water doesn't push continents apart because it is not viscous. Cooling lava at divergent plate boundaries does. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to present it here.[/quote] I don't know If I want to touch this one as it wasnt a responce to something I stated, I will say I dont nessesarily agree with either of you.

 

[chris777]

Who'da thunk?

that is not a "super continent"

(I had a couple of pics, but I am not " good enough " to upload yet)

 

[Deamiter]

The point of those pictures is that there are HUGE areas that do not have any land masses. In fact, many of the solid planets (obviously excluding gaseous ones) have such huge mountains that if covered with water, they'd have a "huge zit" in one small place.

And no, it's nothing like shaking a puzzle together. What started as one raised landmass split into quite a few -- more like shaking an egg in a box and ending up with eggshell fragments all over the place.

I truely think that all the landmass on Earth was one single area. Not because of some sort of wacky jigsaw puzzle argument, but because we can observe today that the continents are moving apart. We observe that the igneous rock that has been formed in between (under the ocean) dates progressively older as you move from the rift to either shores. Along with the fact that the continents easily "fit together" if we rewind these dates, it's pretty solid evidence that the continents were, in fact, one mass far into the future.

 

[laptoppop]

I apologize that I don't have enough time to join in more fully, but I want to note a couple of points.

The Scientific method is inherently flawed,

what exactly is this flaw?


yet it is given the percieved status of being perfect,

what people think science is perfect?

The basic flaw of the scientific method is that it assumes a reality without God. It should not be surprising if one then ends up with theories that exclude Him from actively working.

The second flaw is in ascribing evolution as "fact." (a different poster, I think) If one is referring to natural selection or limited evolution, there's no huge issue. However, if by evolution, one is referring to millions of years of history, then one can only discuss probabilities, not certainties. If, instead of a closed system, we have an open system with a loving involved God, things can change radically. I'm sure most of us have seen Him work in ways that were statistically improbable, but glorious as He answers prayer.

While many people do not think of science as "perfect" -- I am deeply disturbed by people placing the current scientific thinking above scripture. That is to say, that if the Bible dares to disagree with science, the Bible passage in question must be myth or legend or whatever word you want to use. Especially since scientific thinking can change over time, it just seems wrong to put it on a higher level. In particular, I am not referring to various small passages using poetic language, but rather stories which are specifically presented as historical, with geneaologies that reach back to the specific people involved.

All that being said, I do think that most of what we see around us can be explained through natural means. God can and does work - but He also allows things to proceed naturally more often than not. It seems like the threads around here are quite often more concerned with the perceived flaws in creationism than the flaws in evolutionary theory. Of course, that is to be expected -- the general numbers here support TE more than YEC. I hope to have time in the next week or so to start some threads in the other direction.

The other point I'd like to make concerns "higher education". The basic truth that we learn statistically, is ::::gasp::::: students tend to believe what they are taught. Students who go to more liberal seminaries statistically tend to come out with more using liberal scriptural interpretations. Students who go to more conservative seminaries tend to come out with more conservative views. In general, a large number of people enter college believing in God, and leave without that belief. Again, I think the primary lesson from such statistics is that people tend to believe what they are taught.

Jesus came to fullfill the law in every respect. He talked about even the smallest parts (jot, tittle) not passing away. Why should we care about such things if we see it as a legend that is just trying to get spiritual lessons across? The details are important - sometimes crucially so.

It is interesting that "higher criticism" -- first coming out of Germany in the late 1700s -- would have so much influence. I personally think it is because it lets people put themselves in the place where they are judging the texts. Of course, another problem is that the theories were developed with a strong anti-supernaturalism bias. The miracles are legend because miracles are not possible.

Some have tried to make a lot of the late rise of dispensationalism. To me, it is a sign of what Daniel referred to in Dan. 12:4. We have an unprecedented ability to search and study the scriptures and other materials. Sitting here at my laptop, I have instant cross-referenced access to multiple translations, multiple commentaries and Bible dictionaries, etc. The rise of dispensationalism is itself a sign of the times!

Sorry about rambling - again, I hope to raise more points this week.

 

[chris777]

There are too many points in each conversation, so I'll focus on just one again.

So do you believe that education is nothing but indoctrination? If the majority of people think that .99~ != 1 before they had calculus, and after calculus the majority of people accept that .999~ = 1, is this indoctrination? If the majority of kids think that the Sun revolves around the Earth and after taking a basic lesson on astronomy, they learn that the Earth revolves around the Sun, this is indoctrination? If anything, it seems your position is anti-intellectual. Education (when is goes against your views) is indoctrination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Indoctrination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a science, or other system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion).

The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual defines indoctrination as "the initial security instructions/briefing given a person prior to granting access to classified information." Set within the contexts of religion, this would serve perfectly as a definition of the preparation for receiving esoteric knowledge not generally available to the world-at-large, a preparation that is a prerequisite for initiation into a mystery religion. Compare entries for Gnosticism or Mormons or Catechism.

At Princeton the Cognitive Science Laboratory's "WordNet 2.0" defines "indoctrination" as "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically." [1]. Another serviceable partial definition, drawn from the website of The Henry Wise Wood High School [2] is "To teach systematically partisan ideas— propaganda." This definition opens the most basic difference between indoctrination and education: indoctrination teaches the doctrina that structures a subject, as observed from within, whereas educatio literally "leads out" from a subject, one that is being dispassionately observed from without.

Yes I believe education is indoctrination. I however would like to again reiterate to you , that , just because something is indoctrinated, does not nessesarily make indoctrination itself "evil" That the point I am trying to make, As soon as we say indoctrination , its like we called evolutionist nazis or something and everyone gets all riled up.

Education (when is goes against your views) is indoctrination

So do you think that everything the schools teach our children is innoculous?
And I am not refering to evolution.

. So tell me, how am I being indoctrinated by learning about evidence that supports evolution, instead of just being told believe in evolution

What do you call commercials ? same principle, you listen to the advertisers "evidence" of why you should buy their product, And you either accept it, or not. But the principles are the same

(which is how Creationists are taught since they don't use scientific evidence to back their position)?

On one hand you try and come off as open minded, and not indoctrinated, , yet you refuse to look at anything unless it is filtered through science.
Thats one of the biggest problems I have with so called "creation science" is it tries to dress itself up in "science" so that you won't be "intelectually offended" at its assertations.
And No I DO not agree with it.

Here is apparently the bottom line,
I used to believe both evolution as well as what little I knew about the Bible, and God.
The more I learned about the Bible, the more I questioned evolution, and other long held beliefs.
Particularly I had several bible verses like those that portrayed women in a less than "womens lib" light, and So I investigated their validity, and decided to look at the issue from the perspective that Womens lib was wrong, and tha women , might just be subjected to men, like the Bible states, and little by little mor and more evidence, stacked up against my old belief, and I now understand why the bible specifically "ranks" the family under a chain of command.
I applied the same method to other verses I had beefs with , and had similar results.

On the scientific Front, I began investigating the creation of life itself, and Functionally evolution falls apart if you try and make it work at the earliest stages of life as proposed By most scientific theories.

Evolution, REQUIRES a system to already be in existence, and functioning, Before you can even remortely buy its validity. Much the same way that you hear that all the organs of the body have to be present, in order for the body to live.
(heart, lungs, stomach, brain etc)
Natural selection falls apart if their is no "competition"

Here is apparently the bottom line,
You refuse to accept information, unless it "fits" within the real of science.

While I have learned to put aside many of my old beliefs, and have learned to use the scripture to discern the truth.

I believe that the miracles in the Bible were in fact miracles, with no "scientific" explanation , Where it seems you do not.

 

[vossler]

Now there's a post I can agree with 100%. Those are my sentiments exactly. Wow! Great job!

Chris, are we twin sons of a different mother?

 

[chris777]

The Scientific method is inherently flawed,
what exactly is this flaw?

I think I will play your game on this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Philosophical_issues

For a few


yet it is given the percieved status of being perfect,

what people think science is perfect?
Randon Guy for one

evolution is both a fact and a theory, much like gravity. Again, its comments like this that show you have gaps in your scientific knowledge ..........So I guess you don't accept any science then? Majority opinion may not be a convincing argument, but when back with evidence, it is. That's the thing, the reason why nearly every single biologist accepts evolution is because of evidence, not indoctrination.

This also shows that scientists aren't indoctrined to believe evolution since many are actively trying to continue to fix it.

This quote almost proves the indoctrination for me its almost humorous. But the point was they continue to work on the theory, with the assumption, as well as the expectation, that they will in fact evolve the theory , which feeds back into the clever, cult like anwser, that I unfortunately hear many atheist use against christians time and again

both a fact and a theory,

By phrasing it that way it is inherently set up as an "evolving" notion. And therefore "un attackable" by question or doubt.
I was going to use an inventor, or a contract that is unfufilled, But I think Enron would make a good analogy. By using the both fact, and theory framing of the idea, you call it legitimate, by using "fact" as a cover for it, and to make up for any inadequacy, or questions of the "fact" or any other issues, It is also a " Theory", therefore a work in progress, continually improving, and of course "evolving" (such a useful and popular word) So any doubt or issues are also defended against.
So when it doesnt perform as proclaimed, you have an excuse.
Sort of like vaporware, or I am trying to think of a better "less offensive" analogy than enron, someone help me out here.

how is it then a flawed system can produce what many claim to be indisputable verifiable fact?

the whole point of science is that it is NOT indisputable.
how about justified true belief? science produces theory, theory is never a fact. you are confusing the two.

So therefore Science could be called a waste of time, if you can by definition never arrive at the answer. (Dont just dispute this, Chew the cud a bit)

By its very nature a hypothesis is a guess, and while some guesses could be close or correct, they are inherently "shots in the dark"

science talks about this all the time. See Michael Polanyi. the way the question is put is:
if science investigates the unknown, how does it know where to look? it is a good and continuing question in the philosophy of science, however most scientists are not bothered by it. they just do their science and leave these issues to the philosophers.

And you have led into yet another beef I have with science, it is a philosophy, and convienently "ignored" or swept under the rug

so to speak, in that you can have 2 people look at the same phenomena, or problem, and come up with 2 completely different interpretations of it.

the term is "underdetermination of theory by the data" and is another well known problem in the philosophy of science.


i don't think you have presented anything new. these are issues that are often discussed in 1st semester philosophy of science.

what would be interesting and new would be your exact idea of what is the flaw in science.
now that would be worthwhile looking at.

MAn that philosophy of science bit was interesting as I posted it earlier, I guess I am going to have to Go read it , See I have not had any classes or "been taught " these things, I was a bit freaked out at how I re itereted some of Chief 117 points before reading his responce, as I have basically been trying to follow each post in order, and responding to each, which I will not be able to keep up with.
AS for sciences flaw.
I will try and put it into words as best I can, apparently I am not entirely alone in my line of thought as has been pointed out, which is a bit comforting as I was beginning to feel that way.

UGH how do I do this without saying a million words (anyone know of a college, or tech school course, that helps with being more concise?)
I have heard many people refer to science as a tool, I have also seen them use it in a maner to see and determine reality, similar to Glasses, or a telescope. the problem is it has no True concrete undisputable, undeniable, foundation to stand upon. Think of it like being abandoned on a desert island and you have hobbled together a crude makeshift raft.( Now granted the purpose of a raft is to travel, so I suppose you could pretend it were a hut, if you wish)
Jesus Said If you build your house on the sand It will fall, when the storm comes.
Science is like that it is hobbled together by sinful, (which should be the first thing you should note, along with the most important )limited, imperfect human beings. It may be well crafted, aestheticly pleasing, comfortable, and functional, But it is not permanent, it does not suit all of your needs, if the storm gets strong enough it will even fall apart on you.
And yet many hold fast to the illusion that it is strength.
there is nothing new under the sun., (another verse to chew the cud on) Nascar is not new, the romans did it long ago,
and the advertising that the drivers have plastered all over their cars, is little more than the coats of arms, and flags and banners many knights used to wear, into battle, or tournament.
, and indeed evolution itself as a theory and belief is much older than the "science", that has proportedly "discovered" it.
We like to come up with all sorts of "theories" about how the pyramids, were built, but the truth, is the fact of the matter is We just don't know.
For everything that science, has discovered, do you even think we have begun to scratch the surface of knowledge? Really
there were a great many technologies, and theories, and discoveries, that have all been lost to antiquity, yet the bible has been here, and will continue to be here.
If science were as valuable and worthy as many believe, why is it more of it has not been preserved? If not by man, then why not By God?
Re read the account of the tower of Babel, again, and chew on it.

I don't know if that was the "interesting" anwser you were looking for, but It was what I felt compeled to share.

 

[chris777]

Now there's a post I can agree with 100%. Those are my sentiments exactly. Wow! Great job!

Chris, are we twin sons of a different mother?

Where do you folks usually post,
I am feeling like a foreigner here.

 

[chris777]

The point of those pictures is that there are HUGE areas that do not have any land masses. In fact, many of the solid planets (obviously excluding gaseous ones) have such huge mountains that if covered with water, they'd have a "huge zit" in one small place.

I was making a joke actually, pangea would be more accurately desctibed as a plateau, than a mountain. And again

And no, it's nothing like shaking a puzzle together. What started as one raised landmass split into quite a few -- more like shaking an egg in a box and ending up with eggshell fragments all over the place.

are you refering to the wilson cycle, or something else?

I truely think that all the landmass on Earth was one single area. Not because of some sort of wacky jigsaw puzzle argument, but because we can observe today that the continents are moving apart. We observe that the igneous rock that has been formed in between (under the ocean) dates progressively older as you move from the rift to either shores. Along with the fact that the continents easily "fit together" if we rewind these dates, it's pretty solid evidence that the continents were, in fact, one mass far into the future.

How about I throw in a curveball and really mess you up
http://www.nealadams.com/
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

And no I am not saying I buy into these theories either, but I find them as viable and possible as any other so called scientific theory.

Again I believe what the scriptures say, I throw the other "theory" up as an example of what I have been trying to say in here.

 

[random_guy]

This has gone very off topic, so I've started a new thread here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3307210-education-vs-indoctrination.html#post26267548