What Is Science?

Look, um, .

The danger of pitting god vs science is that so far god has yet to win unless people ignore evidence.

Is god really that weak?

3rd April 2003 at 08:28 PM Arikay said this in Post #15 Please tell me the context then.

Click to expand...

You really should, as a member of a CHRISTIAN forum, read the Bible yourself. I gave you the references, you can look them up and then you can understand what I really said.

Also, please tell me why you think god will have the "last laugh" at evolutionists?

Click to expand...

I thought you was going to check out the references I gave you? What do you think I gave them to you for? Sheesh!

Also, please explain to me how you arent ignoring gods creation by ignoring evidence that has been found in the earth and universe?

Click to expand...

Oh please! What kind of a question is that? It's the darwinites who have ignored the evidence of creation as per the Genesis model. It's not my fault the Darwinites misinterpreted the evidence in the earth and the heavens...

3rd April 2003 at 09:55 PM look said this in Post #20

Ah, the old "literal" vs. "figurative" reading trick. You could do better. Let's see, You live in a literal world, right? Yep.
God is literal, right? Yep.

So where does the "figurative" come in? God is not a storybook character.

Click to expand...

Figurative for two main reasons:

1) Who was the Bible originally written for? Highly trained scientists or illiterate peasants?

2) What is more important with respect to the creation account? The details or the overall message? (Keeping in perspective reason #1)

In the real world, there is a complete lack of verifiable, ongoing evolution.

Click to expand...

Then your "real world" is some fantasy land inside your own head. I have to break it to you, but even YEC organizations accept that evolution is occuring today (usually re-labeling it "microevolution" or "variation within a kind" or whatever, but the point is it's still evolution).

Tell you what though, maybe you can explain what is responsible for:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
2) Insect resistance to pesticides
3) Various new breeds of dog introduced over the last century

If it's not evolution, then what is it?

Mutations are genetic twisting of the original information needed to reproduce after their kind. they usually die within a short peroid of time.

Click to expand...

Actually, most mutations are neutral, not affecting an organisms survival one way or the other.

How does the proven existance of gravity and a country compare with the lack of any ongoing evolution? The first two are observable, while evolution is not.

Click to expand...

Wrong, evolution has been observed and documented (including formation of brand new species, which those links give various examples of).

Therefore, because of the exercise of faith in it, it becomes a belief system.

Click to expand...

Well, I have faith that France exists despite having never seen it, therefore it must be a belief system.

3rd April 2003 at 08:55 PM look said this in Post #20

Creation science on the other hand, now they didn't make the same mistakes the evolution scientists (henceforth I will call them 'darwinmites') made. The creationists actually went and built an biosphere to test their theories and they have managed to come up with a pretty good working creation model. They have been quite the through ones in their experiments. They can create any type of conditions ranging from the frequency of light, atmospheric pressure, oxygen nitrogen ratios, artificial eletromagnetic fields, in other words, they can recreate the living conditions of the pre-flood world. The biosphere is large enough for a body of water, fish, vegetation and different species of animals. The results they have gotten after a few generations are outrageous! But, alias, the darwinmites have fought tooth and nail to discredit and harrass these undaunted thinkers.

Click to expand...

References please.

Well I have read some of the bible (working through it) but I have come to many conclusions that christians dont have. So I Must ask you to get your view on the bible as its obvious you dont have the same view as others.

Darwinites? You do realize darwinism is old and isnt used anymore right?

Can you show me how the darwinites miss interpret the information? Please?

3rd April 2003 at 07:12 PM look said this in Post #22



You really should, as a member of a CHRISTIAN forum, read the Bible yourself. I gave you the references, you can look them up and then you can understand what I really said.



I thought you was going to check out the references I gave you? What do you think I gave them to you for? Sheesh!



Oh please! What kind of a question is that? It's the darwinites who have ignored the evidence of creation as per the Genesis model. It's not my fault the Darwinites misinterpreted the evidence in the earth and the heavens...

Click to expand...

Oh great, here come the evil scientist/atheist conspiracy theories.

Im really hoping this is going to be new information and not stuff from the PRATT list.

3rd April 2003 at 10:09 PM Arikay said this in Post #21

Look, um, .

The danger of pitting god vs science is that so far god has yet to win unless people ignore evidence.

Is god really that weak?

Click to expand...

??? I don't think you even know who we are talking about.

I don't think we have to worry about whether God wins or not. That's really all academic anyway.

The real problem lies with the darwinites unability to think or reason. They are the ones who willingly ignore God's signature writen all over the earth and the heavens.

Look, why do you try to insult people?

Ok, please, I asked once, Show me this evidence?

The "real science 200 years ago"? Oh please, ROFLOL! Tell me another one! You are a funny man! That was a good one, frum!!!

Click to expand...

You really don't know anything about the history of science do you? I am referring to Christian Geologists who went into the field expecting to find evidince of Noah's flood. Instead they found there was no evidence of Noah's flood and overwhelming evidence that the world was far more than 6000 years old. I say they were real scientists because they changed their theory to fit with their observations rather than distorting the results of their observations to the fit an ancient myth as so called creation scientists do these days. Many of them worked before Darwin and Louis Agassiz whose work on glaciers is often said to have driven the last nail in the coffin of the worldwide flood as a scientific hypothesis never accepted evolution.

Creation science on the other hand, now they didn't make the same mistakes the evolution scientists (henceforth I will call them 'darwinmites') made. The creationists actually went and built an biosphere to test their theories and they have managed to come up with a pretty good working creation model. They have been quite the through ones in their experiments. They can create any type of conditions ranging from the frequency of light, atmospheric pressure, oxygen nitrogen ratios, artificial eletromagnetic fields, in other words, they can recreate the living conditions of the pre-flood world. The biosphere is large enough for a body of water, fish, vegetation and different species of animals. The results they have gotten after a few generations are outrageous! But, alias, the darwinmites have fought tooth and nail to discredit and harrass these undaunted thinkers.

Click to expand...

Do you actually believe the absurd nonsense that you post or do you just make it up as you go along? Either you are a troll or something I would have thought impossible. A creationist even more totally irrational than Kent Hovind.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

3rd April 2003 at 07:47 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #18

Daniel 1:4
Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Click to expand...

Answers in Genesis
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.
To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.

3rd April 2003 at 10:12 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #23 
1) Who was the Bible originally written for? Highly trained scientists or illiterate peasants? 

Click to expand...

The Bible was given for everyone. Whosoever is willing, let them come. But only those who are willing to humble themselves as a child, will understand.

2) What is more important with respect to the creation account? The details or the overall message? (Keeping in perspective reason #1) [/]

Click to expand...

The creation account is important as a guide for truth. Whatever we discover, we can take it to the Bible as a test to know if it is true or not. If something conflicts with the Bible, then we know that it is not true. 

Tell you what though, maybe you can explain what is responsible for:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
2) Insect resistance to pesticides
3) Various new breeds of dog introduced over the last century

If it's not evolution, then what is it?

Click to expand...

It is not evolution to establish new breeds dogs. That is just animal husbandry.

As far as drug resistant bacteria. Bacteria has not actually evolved, the resistant bacteria was always there. It is just become more of a problem. For example, you have more men now going on sex related vaccations to "rare & exotic" places and they are bringing back rare and exotic diseases that are drug resistant. This has always been a problem, but it is on the increase right now. Did you ever follow the trail of death and destruction that Capt. Cook and his crew left behind from diseases? Did you ever hear the story of someone like Typhoid Mary, and how many people she managed to infect?

That is not evolution, that is just plain old sin that has been around ever sense Adam and Eve fell from the Grace of God. The bacteria they were successful in treating was during the war, the infections that set in from injurys. The more common bacteria.

As far as the insects. If you want to argue that the insects are evolving, than that would be an arguement for YEC, sense the "change" is taking place in just a few years. Rather than the millions of years that traditional evolutionary theorys call for.

 

 

3rd April 2003 at 10:09 PM Arikay said this in Post #21 The danger of pitting god vs science is that so far god has yet to win unless people ignore evidence. Is god really that weak?

Click to expand...

God is not weak at all. He is just patient in dealing with stubborn and rebellious people. The problem with people who fight against God is that for one thing, they waste away what precious little time we are given in this life. Also, they can bring a lot of problems on themselves. We are not given a lot of time in this life. So we need to use what little we have to be productive and accomplish as much as we can. I use my time to draw closer to God, to understand Him and His ways better and to become more the person He wants me to be, more and more.

3rd April 2003 at 11:00 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #31

It is not evolution to establish new breeds dogs. That is just animal husbandry.

Click to expand...

Mutation plus selection - looks like the mechanisms of evolution to me.

As far as drug resistant bacteria. Bacteria has not actually evolved, the resistant bacteria was always there. It is just become more of a problem. For example, you have more men now going on sex related vaccations to "rare & exotic" places and they are bringing back rare and exotic diseases that are drug resistant. This has always been a problem, but it is on the increase right now. Did you ever follow the trail of death and destruction that Capt. Cook and his crew left behind from diseases? Did you ever hear the story of someone like Typhoid Mary, and how many people she managed to infect?
That is not evolution, that is just plain old sin that has been around ever sense Adam and Eve fell from the Grace of God. The bacteria they were successful in treating was during the war, the infections that set in from injurys. The more common bacteria.

Click to expand...

This is simply incorrect. New strains of bacteria arise through evolution, mutation, and exchange of dna. These resistant bacteria have certainly not always been there.
http://whyfiles.org/038badbugs/mechanism.html

As far as the insects. If you want to argue that the insects are evolving, than that would be an arguement for YEC, sense the "change" is taking place in just a few years. Rather than the millions of years that traditional evolutionary theorys call for.

 

 

Click to expand...

Evolution does not say that it takes millions of years for evolution to happen. Evolution relates to generations. Insects have short generations and lots of offspring. Evolution predicts that changes will happen quicker in these types of populations (see bacteria above). You are using a strawman of evolution.

0 for 3 for John

John, as notto has pointed out, all three of those things are examples of evolution (as per the Theory of Evolution). Period.

If you think they are not then you are clearly working with your own private definiton of what biological evolution is. In which case, feel free to continue to use that definition, but it won't be applicable to most (if not all) discussions of the theory of evolution in these forums.

I will bring this point up one more time since there are those of you who have ignored it. Science is not anti-god because it makes use of a naturalistic methodology. I will ask this question to demonstrate this point. Are plummers, electricians, doctors and auto mechanics atheists because they also utilize a naturalistic methodology that does not take god into account? If your answer is no, then why do you label scientists as atheists because they utilize a naturalistic methodology? Please consider this and lets all try and keep things civil. Thanks.

3rd April 2003 at 09:55 PM look said this in Post #20




Creation science on the other hand, now they didn't make the same mistakes the evolution scientists (henceforth I will call them 'darwinites') made. The creationists actually went and built an biosphere to test their theories and they have managed to come up with a pretty good working creation model. They have been quite the through ones in their experiments. They can create any type of conditions ranging from the frequency of light, atmospheric pressure, oxygen nitrogen ratios, artificial eletromagnetic fields, in other words, they can recreate the living conditions of the pre-flood world. The biosphere is large enough for a body of water, fish, vegetation and different species of animals. The results they have gotten after a few generations are outrageous! But, alias, the darwinites have fought tooth and nail to discredit and harrass these undaunted thinkers.

Now, these are the guys I respect, because they are using science to prove that the pre-flood world was indeed as the Bible literally discribes and shows that evolution is false. Why do I say evolution is false? You can extrapolate backwards and get nowhere, the disappearance of the "missing link" keeps coming up. Whereas, with the young earth creationists, they can show by backwards extrapolation the exact same things as the Bible shows.

Click to expand...

:o Oh Boy... Guys, I have an apology to make! :o The above quote I made the other night is not found on the internet! *smacking my forehead* The story was told to me by a person I had met in North Carolina, a number of years ago.

After I posted this, I received a few requests to cite references, so *with an exasperated sigh* I started about looking for any information on this biosphere and there isn't any, at least on the internet anyway. I did find that the creation evidence museum is almost finished with their biosphere. It is the size of two school buses. There are a few interesting items on their website. Here is an very interesting article about rattlesnake venom from snakes that spent time in a small hyperbaric chamber. It's about eight paragraphs down. This article is connected to the snake's owner. You want to go down about ten paragraphs to find it. This shows that the theory of a higher atmospheric pressure would hold water, because when God saw that it was good in the Genesis account, there would have not been any pain or suffering or death from snakes in His brand new creation.

So anyway, this taught me to check for references before I post them. :o

4th April 2003 at 12:34 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #34

John, as notto has pointed out, all three of those things are examples of evolution (as per the Theory of Evolution). Period.

If you think they are not then you are clearly working with your own private definiton of what biological evolution is. In which case, feel free to continue to use that definition, but it won't be applicable to most (if not all) discussions of the theory of evolution in these forums.

Click to expand...

PETE, you need to learn to share if you're going to steal our observations.

We know that God created His animals with the the ability to diversify within the confines of their ''kind'' (dog is a dog).

Ok, follower,
So, define what a kind is?

So in your version of kinds:
A horse, a donkey and a zebra are like kinds or different kinds?

oh boy, here we go again with the definitions...

4th April 2003 at 11:01 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #37

We know that God created His animals with the the ability to diversify within the confines of their ''kind'' (dog is a dog).

Click to expand...

Yes, and that "diversification within a kind" is called biological evolution.

Are we all on the same page now?