Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[kopilo]

John, the man could write dirty love letters to chocolate teddy-bears. It doesn't detract one little bit from the genius of his work in science. Your book might say otherwise but your book was written by men and is known to be wrong in many areas. This is just one more place where it contrasts with reality.

To be fair, science itself states that it is not pure fact. It is called the unknown variable, the same scientific test could be done 1000 times, but if everyone of those times something unknown was happening to the experiment then the conclusion may be false.

Scientific tests are done by man and using man's instraments as well.

 

[kopilo]

Could someone who believes the theory of evolution is false, explain to me how salt and fresh water fish could have survived Noah's flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Could someone who believes the theory of evolution is false, explain to me how salt and fresh water fish could have survived Noah's flood?

Beats me.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, science itself states that it is not pure fact. It is called the unknown variable, the same scientific test could be done 1000 times, but if everyone of those times something unknown was happening to the experiment then the conclusion may be false.

Scientific tests are done by man and using man's instraments as well.

IMO, there's way too much "science" being discussed in this forum.

Of course, that's the prerogative of the poster, but I think scientific remarks and such should be backed up by Scripture.

What I find very interesting, is how so many people who don't believe in God or the Bible prefer to remain here any length of time.

And I think I know why, too.

 

[kopilo]

Of course, that's the prerogative of the poster, but I think scientific remarks and such should be backed up by Scripture.

The issue with that is when science is testing something that scripture does not mention, such as the use of optic light to cut a design out of plastic as per described by a computer design.

 

[Tomk80]

IMO, there's way too much "science" being discussed in this forum.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, what do you expect?

Of course, that's the prerogative of the poster, but I think scientific remarks and such should be backed up by Scripture.

Scripture only has validity if you believe in it. Many here don't, so if you want to discuss the topic in a meaningful way, you'll have to come up with something better.

What I find very interesting, is how so many people who don't believe in God or the Bible prefer to remain here any length of time.

And I think I know why, too.

Well?

 

[Tomk80]

Hermeneutics 101 --- don't make a doctrine out of something that is not covered in the Bible.

Evolution is not a doctrine. It's the current best explanation of how life diversifies, given the evidence.

Did Darwin recant and accept a literal 6-day Creation? If he didn't, how do you know; and if he did, how do you know?

He didn't. We do know, because the people who were there at that point in time tell us he didn't, while the person who claimed to be there at that point in time and claimed he said it, was shown to be lying.

But it's irrelevant anyway. If Darwin did recant on his deathbed, evolution would still be the best current explanation on how life diversifies, given the evidence. Whether something is the best explanation given the evidence doesn't depend on a person accepting it or not, it only depends on the evidence. The evidence is what counts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

IMO, there's way too much "science" being discussed in this forum.



could it be that the title of the forum, that the reason people are here is to discuss evolution which is a scientific theory?

there exists another forum, just for Christian YECists that is all about religion. perhaps you would find it more to your liking?

http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html

they rarely talk about science and when they do they get it all wrong. you'd like it there.

 

[kopilo]

Whether something is the best explanation given the evidence doesn't depend on a person accepting it or not, it only depends on the evidence. The evidence is what counts.

A reports is only useful if it can persuade the reader that it is useful, that the evidence found from tests, etc supports the conclusion.
Otherwise we would be reading a conclusion and be wondering how that relates to the facts and figures given in the previous pages and what actually supports its allegations.

So even though report writing is one of the most objective types of writing it still requires persuasion.

So yes the evidence does count because that is what the conclusion will draw from, but there is no point in a report that no one will accept because no one will read it and no one will put it to use. (No matter how right the facts are).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Beats me.

Surely you have a theory, don't you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hermeneutics 101 --- don't make a doctrine out of something that is not covered in the Bible.

Did Darwin recant and accept a literal 6-day Creation? If he didn't, how do you know; and if he did, how do you know?

Oh please -- "Darwin recanted on his deathbed to Lady Hope..."

You're really scraping the bottom of the PRATT-barrel now.

 

[Beastt]

Oh please -- "Darwin recanted on his deathbed to Lady Hope..."

You're really scraping the bottom of the PRATT-barrel now.

And of course, despite the fact that we know there isn't any truth to this propaganda, it wouldn't have mattered if it were true. Darwin isn't some "god of evolution" as some try to paint him. He's simply the one responsible for first noting the process of evolution, and documenting it. And some of his ideas have been shown to have been wrong. But that's not at all uncommon with any theory. Most will require some adjustment and refinement as new evidence is discovered. If Sir Isaac Newton had "recanted on his death bed", would we all suddenly go drifting off into space? If Pythagorus had "recanted on his death bed", would it somehow change the relationship of the hypotenuse on a right triangle? If Rumsford had "recanted on his death bed", would friction suddenly cease to create heat?

Scientific theories aren't built upon the infallability of the first to be credited with their observation. They're built upon the accuracy with which they describe natural processes. You can't change the process even if the first to observe it decides they misunderstood their own observations. Einstein calculated that black holes should exist, but determined them to be too weird to actually exist. He assumed that some, as yet unknown, phenomena must prevent them from actually occuring despite his calculations showing that they should exist. He was wrong but that didn't make black holes go away and it didn't change the validity of his scientific theories because his methods were sound and his calculations accurate. It was his assumption which proved erroneous. And it is assumption upon which people rely when they decide that the Bible is the word of God. They simply have nothing else.

This is just silly creationist-rhetoric. But I suppose you do have to remember one thing. Creationists are attempting to provide support for a concept which is entirely without support. So it's a difficult task at best. I suppose they need to grasp whatever threads of hope they can find. It's not entirely unlike those who are members and followers of the Flat Earth Society. They wish to support an idea which is completely absurd so they'll grasp at anything they can get. And they seem largely motivated by exactly the same thing -- the need to have the Bible be what they wish it to be; the word of God. But the world isn't flat, it does orbit the sun, black holes exist and man evolved from other species which evolved from other species.

 

[Tomk80]

A reports is only useful if it can persuade the reader that it is useful, that the evidence found from tests, etc supports the conclusion.
Otherwise we would be reading a conclusion and be wondering how that relates to the facts and figures given in the previous pages and what actually supports its allegations.

So even though report writing is one of the most objective types of writing it still requires persuasion.

So yes the evidence does count because that is what the conclusion will draw from, but there is no point in a report that no one will accept because no one will read it and no one will put it to use. (No matter how right the facts are).

But still, if we accept the story of someone or not, if that story is the best explanation of the evidence, this will be so, regarding of whether we believe him or not.

This is also why, in science, there is a standardized way of writing such reports, which is checked by the scientific magazines publishing it. If the author doesn't adhere to them, the paper is not accepted. Furthermore, the scientists are trained to look at the methods and observations described and see whether they hold up when studying an article, which further diminishes the possibility of the bias you describe. But of course, it will stay present.

But that, again, was not the point of what I said. Whether something is the best explanation of the current facts, doesn't change if someone rejects that. Whether people accept something as the best current explanation of certain facts, is of course something entirely different.

 

[JohnR7]

Could someone who believes the theory of evolution is false, explain to me how salt and fresh water fish could have survived Noah's flood?

You really need to look into Noah's Flood. Recently National Geographics did a special on it. Even to this day the salt water and fresh water have not mixed. One is in a layer below the other. In fact, that is where science establishs their date for the flood is when there was a switch from fresh water to salt water fish. Of course the exactly moment in time when the fish went from being fresh water to sale water fish is a little bit difficult to determine. But science has a date they go by.

Of course the YEC's version of the flood may not hold water. But that does not fasify the Bible. As more information becomes available then Science helps us to better understand Noah's story in the Bible.

 

[JohnR7]

I think scientific remarks and such should be backed up by Scripture.

That is exactly right. The Bible sets the standard for the truth. Just like a carpenter needs a few basic tools to get the job done. So with the Bible in effect we can say: That is not square, or that is not level or that is not plumb. They can argue against that but time is always on the side of the truth. In time the truth will always be known. People maybe able to get away with something for a short while, but time will catch up with them.

God only gives us so much time, and then that is it. That is why we need to make the best use we can of the little bit of time we are given.

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

 

[Jase]

That is exactly right. The Bible sets the standard for the truth. Just like a carpenter needs a few basic tools to get the job done. So with the Bible in effect we can say: That is not square, or that is not level or that is not plumb. They can argue against that but time is always on the side of the truth. In time the truth will always be known. People maybe able to get away with something for a short while, but time will catch up with them.

God only gives us so much time, and then that is it. That is why we need to make the best use we can of the little bit of time we are given.

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

I agree that the Bible shows us theological truth, but the Bible isn't a science book. The Bible isn't the only truth God gave us.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the world isn't flat...

From a Q & A book I have:

Q: Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?

A: No - this false idea is not taught in Scripture! In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Erathosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well know to the New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

 

[Jase]

From a Q & A book I have:

Yes of course, those verses are figurative. But if you are gonna claim that some verses are poetic or metaphoric, such as the "ends or four corners of the Earth", why do you assume Genesis is literal?

Why do you take four corners figuratively, but 6 days literally? Just because you know that the Earth is spherical, but you don't know anything about evolution or geology? In other words, if it's something that you can verify, such as looking at the Earth to see it's a sphere, you take those verses metaphorically, but if it's something you don't understand, such as Geology or evolution, it has to be wrong and that part of the Bible is literal?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes of course, those verses are figurative. But if you are gonna claim that some verses are poetic or metaphoric, such as the "ends or four corners of the Earth", why do you assume Genesis is literal?

I've posted the dangers of taking Genesis figuratively:

• 1. The basic authority becomes the mind of the interpreter.

Thus if one thinks they're 6 literal days, and another thinks they're 6 epochs, neither is wrong.

• 2. The conclusions of the interpreter cannot be tested.

There's no way to independently verify anything.

• 3. It tends to put the interpretation into the hands of either a hierarchy, or a guru.

This leads to cultism.

 

[Asimis]

Of course the YEC's version of the flood may not hold water. But that does not fasify the Bible. As more information becomes available then Science helps us to better understand Noah's story in the Bible.

Here is a good article on the collapse of Flood Geology...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm


As.