Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Science" gives data, Friend. Some valid, some faulty. Contending over astronomy is off-topic. Why not read the OP and contribute something relevant?The Bible gives the true account about Gods creation. Science gives lies about Gods creation.
And you presumed to skip over the leading-to and make an end-run for an ID Youtube non-definition. Why can't you admit that your initial post was not relevant to the OP, as per the testimony of the very OP?Which would have lead to a question such as...in the scientific world is ID the truth?
know that the Bible is truth. Even in the middle ages, they knew all the academic areas held speculation and error, than is why Philosophy was king of the sciences, and Mathematics the queen, since the later had much more guaranteed truth. Science can not answer any of the questions of creation with total fact and certainty.I am new here so.
How do you define science? How do you define truth?
I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.
True science involves discovery of God's creation through observation and examination. Science can't observe or examine the origin of the universe, and therefore any "science" in involving that origin cannot be a true science.Science is an attempt to explain the workings and origins of everything without a creator God involved. Since science has a given presupposition that the natural universe is all that there is or can be, God is automatically left out of it and no matter what it finds out it is already a given that God is not an option. That doesn't mean science is not useful. It has done some great things and I expect it will do more, but the bottom philosophy is that God is absent. Truth is something else. You cannot find or define truth without some other ground to stand upon. Science is self-contained and it cannot reach outside of itself to find any truth. It isn't that it won't find truth but that it can't. A foundation of science is that it is its only truth and no other brand is allowed. That limits it considerably. In order to find what you are looking for you must search in the right places. I'm not going to find an elephant in my closet no matter how many times I may go and look. Truth transcends natural reality and truth will not be limited by it. It requires a different set of eyes altogether.
I agree. God said it, and He doesn't have to defend it. We either believe what He says or not. If people choose not to believe the first part of the Bible, then what's the use of believing the rest of it? I believe that God's attitude is, "Believe all of it, or none of it".Feel free to point out where my statements may be refuted by facts and/or reason. I do not expect "reason" to line up with God's word. Neither does God.
"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
Good posts Paul.I agree. God said it, and He doesn't have to defend it. We either believe what He says or not. If people choose not to believe the first part of the Bible, then what's the use of believing the rest of it? I believe that God's attitude is, "Believe all of it, or none of it".
I am new here so.
How do you define science? How do you define truth?
I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.
It has to be shown through observation through experimentation that it is actually repeatable.Science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeatable phenomenon. To dive deeper, we humans don't have ability to tell a future. If a theory which allows us to tell a future precisely without error, we thus know that this theory contains a truth. This is the way how a scientific truth is identified.
History and daily events are scientific because they can be observed directly. The historian gains his information from eye witness testimonies of people who were there. Daily events can be photographed which provides a permanent record that these events actually happened.Scientific truths are just small set of truth relating to a repeatable phenomenon. Most truths don't fall into this category, such as history and daily events and occurrences (which will turn to history at some point). They are the truths which do not repeat.
No one has ever been able to observe whether a big bang event actually happened. Also, experiments have been made involving explosions and it has been proved by observation that explosions create chaos and disorder and not order to the degree that an atomic clock can be set by the result, as our universe can. Also, it has been demonstrated that the heat produced by an explosion would render everything sterile and therefore there is no way that life, even in the smallest microbe can result from it, Upon the actual studies of explosions, it is confidently shown that it would be impossible for life to result from the big bang which would make our universe chaotic and totally sterile.Some phenomena may repeat but it's out of human capability to observe how they repeat to model them predictably as how we confirm a scientific truth. These include BBT and ToE. We treat them as a science because in hypothesis we suggest that they are a repeatable phenomenon. The Big Bang may not only occur to our universe, it may be a phenomenon on how other universes are born.
Similarly, the progress of evolution has never been observed, and even the theory that the fossil record is millions of years old contradicts it, because the evidence of the fossil record shows sea and animal life as being exactly the same as they are today, which means that evolution, if it ever started, stopped millions of years ago. Also, if man has existed on the earth for millions of years, then according to genetics which shows decay by genetic material being lost with each generation, man should be extinct by now through such decay of genetic information, that it would be impossible for man to survive. This is what has happened to many animal types which have become extinct, and not through human involvement, but through the natural decaying genetic process.Similarly, evolution may be a repeatable process for new species to be generated. However both BBT and ToE don't have the required predictability and falsifiability for humans to confirm them as a scientific truth. That's actually why CERN keeps trying to build up small scale experiments to try to understand what a Big Bang could be.
True. There are no human testimonies to support the progress of evolutionMore importantly, whether it is a scientific truth or non-scientific truth (such as a history), the only fundamental way for a truth to convey is through human testimonies.
The existence of black holes is verified through direct observation through powerful telescopes. Through that observation and examination, a lot of information has been collected concerning the characteristic of black holes.Take the existence of black hole as an example. Only few scientists have the privilege to use the expensive equipment to observe and get to the evidence of the existence of black holes. Humans in majority don't have any evidence. They rely on putting faith in our scientists' works in order to get to the truth. The truth is thus in the form of the testimonies of our scientists (a small group professed on black holes).
The example of this is the city of Pompeii. This is the best preserved example of Roman culture and daily life. This has been gained through observation and examination. We know that Babylon existed, because the ruins have been discovered by archaeologists; and underneath those ruins, they have found ancient foundations which have been discovered are what is left of the foundation of the tower of Babel. We have the historical record that the foundation was there for all to see until Alexander the Great destroyed it.History mostly exist in human testimonies, especially individual activities. They can neither be proved nor evidenced, unlike a science. Only under very rare cases that mass activities may leave a trail which is usually reserved by a fluke, say a city buried under by a disaster which allows today's humans to reach the site preserved by such a disaster. You may see some culture or behavior of the humans lived there. This is on a society basis instead of individual basis. You can't research into how each individual acts or speaks. We humans don't have the capability to track down the trails left by human individuals lived long enough ago. They only way left for us to understand a particular human is by how humans back then recorded down his deeds and speeches. They are human testimonies.
I agree with much of what you are saying..It has to be shown through observation through experimentation that it is actually repeatable.
History and daily events are scientific because they can be observed directly. The historian gains his information from eye witness testimonies of people who were there. Daily events can be photographed which provides a permanent record that these events actually happened.
No one has ever been able to observe whether a big bang event actually happened. Also, experiments have been made involving explosions and it has been proved by observation that explosions create chaos and disorder and not order to the degree that an atomic clock can be set by the result, as our universe can. Also, it has been demonstrated that the heat produced by an explosion would render everything sterile and therefore there is no way that life, even in the smallest microbe can result from it, Upon the actual studies of explosions, it is confidently shown that it would be impossible for life to result from the big bang which would make our universe chaotic and totally sterile.
Similarly, the progress of evolution has never been observed, and even the theory that the fossil record is millions of years old contradicts it, because the evidence of the fossil record shows sea and animal life as being exactly the same as they are today, which means that evolution, if it ever started, stopped millions of years ago. Also, if man has existed on the earth for millions of years, then according to genetics which shows decay by genetic material being lost with each generation, man should be extinct by now through such decay of genetic information, that it would be impossible for man to survive. This is what has happened to many animal types which have become extinct, and not through human involvement, but through the natural decaying genetic process.
Evolution involves the addition of genetic information to one animal family to be able to change to another animal family, and there has been no evidence of it, and attempts to add genetic information to a test animal in a laboratory has produced just animal versions of Frankenstein's monster that has not survived long-term.
True. There are no human testimonies to support the progress of evolution
The existence of black holes is verified through direct observation through powerful telescopes. Through that observation and examination, a lot of information has been collected concerning the characteristic of black holes.
The example of this is the city of Pompeii. This is the best preserved example of Roman culture and daily life. This has been gained through observation and examination. We know that Babylon existed, because the ruins have been discovered by archaeologists; and underneath those ruins, they have found ancient foundations which have been discovered are what is left of the foundation of the tower of Babel. We have the historical record that the foundation was there for all to see until Alexander the Great destroyed it.
You make a good point. You are correct. No one can actually see a black hole. They can only see where it might be. Thanks for pointing that out.I agree with much of what you are saying..
However, if they cannot get a good photo of Pluto.... How on earth can they "see" a black hole.
Especially when a black hole sucks up all light.. so how can you see it.
Nope.. there is a lot of this nonsense that started as theory and stays there.. concepts and notions. Speculation that they can look out into space and say "yep... we saw a black hole" and the world goes "ohhhh ahhhhh , they saw a black hole"
Who knows what they saw... only God.. But, until they can show crisp photos of things near to us in space.... I call "horse muffins" on the rest of this nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?