Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[DogmaHunter]

Airplanes today have two and three back up systems. They are very safe and that means the science behind them is true.

Actually, it just means that the engineering is well done.

Science and engineering are two different things.
It's perfectly possible to get the science right, and fail at the engineering.

Planes flying at all, sure says something about the accuracy of the science behind the engineering technology for sure.

But a plane failing to fly, doesn't necessarily mean that the science of aerodynamics or whatever is incorrect.

You have to look at the word true from the perspective of a Carpenter. In construction work a tiny mistake in the beginning can become a huge problem very fast. That is why you have a tolerance because if you get outside of that tolerance your going to have problems. A friend of mine is a journeyman machinist and he makes valves. You have to maintain an exact temperature to maintain quality control. Metal can expand and shrink and you can very easily end up with junk if you do not maintain your tolerance and your quality control. In some cases they have to work within a tolerance of a millionth. It is the same with the entire universe, there is a very little tolerance. People do not realize this because there is no much wobble. But even in all that wobble there is a very strict tolerance and the entire universe is very fine tuned. You do not want to get into quantum physics as to just how fine tuned and interconnected everything is, so I will just leave it at that.

No amount of "tolerance" or "balance" or "complexity", is sufficient to rationally conclude "design".

There's no reason at all why natural causes couldn't (or wouldn't) result into finely balanced and complex systems.

No matter how many times you assert the opposite.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then I go on to explain what true science is. If you crash and burn then your science was not true because you could not get it to work in the real world.

Again, you are ignoring the option that the science is actually rock solid, but that you simply failed at the engineering.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, you appear to not have realised that during the week of creation, God was actively controlling every step of the process, just as He did during the great flood of Noah's day. Do you really think that the awesome power of our Lord Jesus who created ALL things, including the very universe in which we live, could not also bring together the necessary processes to create our tiny planet and all that is on it? Do you really put you own knowledge on a par with that of our Creator?

Yeah well... I guess that once you allow for magic to be part of the equation, nothing is really impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does not matter if I understand science or not.

If you are going to make wild claims like "science proves the bible", then it kinda matters...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is there any legitimate evidence for macro-evolution?

I do not know how legitimate the evidence is

Perhaps you should first try to find that out, before arguing against (or for) it.

but what they like to talk about here on this forum is the evidence from retrovirus for common ancestors.

Which is just one of many, many lines of such evidence.
ERV's are a popular example, because in essence it's one that is very easy to understand and it also very clearly demonstrates the explanatory power of the theory.

Off course, if people simply shut their minds and unquestionably stick to their a priori religious dogma... You may show them black on white evidence all day long and it will not make any difference.

As Dr Gregory House once stated "You can't reason someone out of a position, that they didn't reason themselves into".

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know how planets form.

Hmm - not according to creationastronomy.com.

LOL!!!

I would suggest watching the second DVD for an alternative take on that idea.

I would suggest getting your science info from actual science sources instead of religious propaganda.

Question - Jesus rose from the dead and also rose Lazarus from the dead - please explain how that was done in scientific terms?

Easy: it never happened.

Just by these points alone, you have demonstrated what little understanding you have of the Biblical texts. I would suggest that you get hold of a good Bible and actually read what is has to say before attempting to ridicule its content.

I would suggest you get a high school science book.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I understand it just fine.

You do not even understand retrovirus, so I do not have much hope in your understanding something outside of your area of study.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which is just one of many, many lines of such evidence.

Are you saying that retrovirus evidence for evolution is a lie?

I would suggest you get a high school science book.

I have one, I even have quite a few college science books. They only cost about $5 used. Of course new they cost as much as $300 I am told. Just another way our young people are ripped off by the money grabbing academic community.

 

[Hoghead1]

Are you saying that retrovirus evidence for evolution is a lie?

I have one, I even have quite a few college science books. They only cost about $5 used. Of course new they cost as much as $300 I am told. Just another way our young people are ripped off by the money grabbing academic community.

Yes, the textbooks are expensive. That isn't the academic community. That is done by the publishers. Illustrations really run up the costs of books, and, more importantly, academic texts really don't sell all that well. You can tell how well a book is selling via the price. The cheaper, the better. Often, on academic texts, the augho5rs receive no or very little royalties. For journal articles, you receive nothing. Why publish, then? It always was publish or perish, in academia. No publications, no hiring, no tenure, no promotions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you saying that retrovirus evidence for evolution is a lie?

?????

How you understood that from what I wrote, is beyond me.

I have one, I even have quite a few college science books. They only cost about $5 used. Of course new they cost as much as $300 I am told. Just another way our young people are ripped off by the money grabbing academic community.

Errr... okay.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you saying that retrovirus evidence for evolution is a lie?

I have one, I even have quite a few college science books. They only cost about $5 used. Of course new they cost as much as $300 I am told. Just another way our young people are ripped off by the money grabbing academic community.

I think it's time that you presented your evidence that "science proves the bible is true". By that I don't mean rhetoric, I mean peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

LOL!!!



I would suggest getting your science info from actual science sources instead of religious propaganda.



Easy: it never happened.



I would suggest you get a high school science book.

Since your mind is obviously so closed to the truth of Christianity, one has to wonder what you hope to gain by posting on a forum like this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since your mind is obviously so closed to the truth of Christianity, one has to wonder what you hope to gain by posting on a forum like this.

If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we not allowed to see the evidence for such a claim?

 

[bhsmte]

If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we not allowed to see the evidence for such a claim?

No, that is not allowed.

 

[Lucillia]

Ahhh! The reprobate mind trump card. Don't you just love it? Lets you win every argument.

"i only listen to ideas from people who already agree with me"

 

[Not_By_Chance]

If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we not allowed to see the evidence for such a claim?

I would say that you are asking the wrong question. I think it should be, "If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we able to see the evidence for such a claim and if so, are we sure we are drawing the right conclusions or are there equally feasible alternative explanations?"

 

[Speedwell]

I would say that you are asking the wrong question. I think it should be, "If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we able to see the evidence for such a claim and if so, are we sure we are drawing the right conclusions or are there equally feasible alternative explanations?"

That is exactly the way that science arrived at the theory of evolution, by asking that question. And right now there are not any feasible alternative explanations, although there are undoubtedly eager young scientists looking for them, because that's how science gets on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would say that you are asking the wrong question. I think it should be, "If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we able to see the evidence for such a claim and if so, are we sure we are drawing the right conclusions or are there equally feasible alternative explanations?"

Not at all. If someone says they can back something up by science, then they should stick to that claim and actually try to back up what they say with science. Otherwise, they are just lying.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That is exactly the way that science arrived at the theory of evolution, by asking that question. And right now there are not any feasible alternative explanations, although there are undoubtedly eager young scientists looking for them, because that's how science gets on.

That may be the majority view, but there is a significant minority of scientists who would disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and would say that far from confirming the TOE, the available evidence leads to conclusions that actually refute it. There is some common ground of course, so while Bible/creation-believing scientists wouldn't argue against the idea that there is an enormous amount of variability built into the genes of living creatures, enabling them to change to adapt to their environments (hence the reason for instance that until the onset of rapid intercontinental travel, the fairest skinned people lived in the higher latitudes and those that lived in the sunnier climates of the tropics had the darkest skin colouration), they would disagree with the notion that one type of creature, e.g., dinosaurs, would eventually change into another, e.g., birds. Not everything can be explained by science of course (the resurrection of Jesus or His walking on water to name just two of God's miracles, let alone the creation of the universe), so some things have to be taken on faith, circumstantial evidence, etc. Those that reject the possibility of God creating everything "very good" either have to have an alternative faith to fill the gaps in our knowledge (Atheism) or somehow marry the idea of God using evolution, a cruel and wasteful process based on the survival of the fittest/destruction of the weakest, in order to... (I can't quite fathom out what God might have had in mind if I were to believe that that is what He has actually done).

 

[HitchSlap]

That may be the majority view, but there is a significant minority of scientists who would disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and would say that far from confirming the TOE, the available evidence leads to conclusions that actually refute it. There is some common ground of course, so while Bible/creation-believing scientists wouldn't argue against the idea that there is an enormous amount of variability built into the genes of living creatures, enabling them to change to adapt to their environments (hence the reason for instance that until the onset of rapid intercontinental travel, the fairest skinned people lived in the higher latitudes and those that lived in the sunnier climates of the tropics had the darkest skin colouration), they would disagree with the notion that one type of creature, e.g., dinosaurs, would eventually change into another, e.g., birds. Not everything can be explained by science of course (the resurrection of Jesus or His walking on water to name just two of God's miracles, let alone the creation of the universe), so some things have to be taken on faith, circumstantial evidence, etc. Those that reject the possibility of God creating everything "very good" either have to have an alternative faith to fill the gaps in our knowledge (Atheism) or somehow marry the idea of God using evolution, a cruel and wasteful process based on the survival of the fittest/destruction of the weakest, in order to... (I can't quite fathom out what God might have had in mind if I were to believe that that is what He has actually done).

No real scientist disagrees with ToE.