Honest question to all who contribute to science.

[DoseOFReality]

Hi. I am an ignorant believer in the "creationist" because that is what I am taught, experienced, and have known.

My question to all, including but not limited to christians, is this;
Does science really rule out creation? Is there more to truth than theories and methods? I know I may sound very amateur minded, but I humbly ask that anyone who can answer particiate.

If you can understand the weight of living by faith, you would know that it is just as hard to understand why I live this way as for christians to understand science in replace of God.

Why is there such schism between two worlds of ideas? Does it not in anyway compliment or coincide with each other?

The reason I ask these questions are because it compels me to believe that everything is done by faith in every areas of life. I'd have to have faith that you actually exist and that I'm not just dreaming or in someone else's dream. Though it may sound silly, every detailed knowledge of both creation and evolution can be wrapped up and overlooked by simple philosophical idea that reality can be deceived. "The only thing we know for sure in this world is that even if I am deceived, I know that there is someone being deceived, and that idea of being deceived is the only certain thing, my own existence." - Descarte's Meditation.

Thanks for your replies

 

[notto]

Science doesn't replace God. Science examines and tells us about God's creation.

There really isn't that much of a schism. Many (most) Christians accept mainstream science and it has no impact on their faith.

Science explains how God created. The bible tells us why.

Evolution is not equal to atheism and the theory says nothing about the existence of God. Some have said that the theory is anti-God because it conflicts with their interpretation of the early books of Genesis. Don't believe them. Scientists go to the actual Creation to learn about it instead of relying on an interpetation of the Bible. This can be an acceptable and proper way to learn how God created. Why would the Creation lie to us?

 

[Aeschylus]

Science rules out absoluely YEC and simlair theories, they simply cannot be made consistent with the evidence, but this does not in any way rule out God and Jesus Christ - see notto's post.

 

[tryptophan]

Science does not rule out the existence of God. It helps us to understand the world, and perhaps how God helped bring it about. Evolution doesn't flat out deny creation by God.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Science rules out things like a global flood by thinking about what a global flood would look like and then looking at the world to see if the things that are predicted by a flood exist. Looking at the world, we don't see evidence of a global flood a couple of thousand years ago. For example, archeology shows us that civilizations kept trucking along during the time when they should be under water. Genesis as history doesn't work. Genesis as theology does.

Hi tryptophan! I didn't realize you visited these parts.

 

[DoseOFReality]

So then why is there such a huge debate over God? Why is he such an issue in everybody's lives? Does the idea of God impact our society in a negative way? because even if he was proven to be true, it comes down to this: Does our society need God?

If you answer no to this, then validity of his existence does not matter.

 

[seebs]

Society doesn't need belief in God; I think that society, like every other aspect of Creation, needs the Creator to keep it existing.

 

[DoseOFReality]

so you need God in a sense that he keeps things in existence, but as far as morality goes, he has no say in our lives is your suggestion?

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Morality is not equal to faith or God and sure as heck has nothing to do with this message board.

 

[gluadys]

Hi. I am an ignorant believer in the "creationist" because that is what I am taught, experienced, and have known.

My question to all, including but not limited to christians, is this;
Does science really rule out creation?

Most emphatically, NO!!!
What science rules out is not creation by creationism---the belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis describes how God created.
But no, it does not rule out God as creator of the universe and all that is in it.

Is there more to truth than theories and methods?

Sure. And there is more to truth than "fact" too, something literalists tend to forget.

The reason I ask these questions are because it compels me to believe that everything is done by faith in every areas of life. I'd have to have faith that you actually exist and that I'm not just dreaming or in someone else's dream.

Did you know that that is one of the fundamental assumptions of science? And many historians believe modern science emerged in Europe (rather than, say Asia with its great civilizations often far in advance of Europe's) because that is a basic assumption of Christian faith that permeated European culture.

Compare, for example, the fundamental Hindu concept that the world is "maya" (illusion). What motivation would there be for studying "maya"?

But many early scientists were profoundly devoted to the study of nature because they believed it is real---not a dream or illusion---and they believed it was worthwhile to study God's creation.

Though it may sound silly, every detailed knowledge of both creation and evolution can be wrapped up and overlooked by simple philosophical idea that reality can be deceived. "The only thing we know for sure in this world is that even if I am deceived, I know that there is someone being deceived, and that idea of being deceived is the only certain thing, my own existence." - Descarte's Meditation.

Thanks for your replies

Since you quote Descartes, you probably know that he resolved this dilemma by affirming that the Creator is not a deceiver. And that is the same basis on which TEs affirm evolution and the rest of science.

Creation does not deceive us about its origins, because it comes from the hand of God, and God is not a deceiver.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Creation does not deceive us about its origins, because it comes from the hand of God, and God is not a deceiver.

No, but the 'laws', theories, hypotheses, and interpretations of men can. One man's incontrovertible evidence is another man's cleverly designed fraud. See information on the Piltdown and Peking 'Men' for example. Yahweh God is not a deceiver, but Satan is. Scripture calls Satan the "prince" and "god of this world" (See John 14:30 & 2 Corinthians 4:4). By default, he is the master of all who have not been saved by Yahshua. Expecting "the father of lies" and "the children of disobedience" to help you discover the truth about the nature of reality is foolhardy best.

Just because something is published in a newspaper, written in a textbook, or taught at a university does not make it true. Scientists are quite capable of lying, stretching the truth, or ignoring contradictory evideance. Also, the amount of people who believe in something is not a measure of that idea's veracity.

KJV 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

KJV 1 John 4:1-3
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

No, but the 'laws', theories, hypotheses, and interpretations of men can. One man's incontrovertible evidence is another man's cleverly designed fraud. See information on the Piltdown and Peking 'Men' for example. Yahweh God is not a deceiver, but Satan is. Scripture calls Satan the "prince" and "god of this world" (See John 14:30 & 2 Corinthians 4:4). By default, he is the master of all who have not been saved by Yahshua. Expecting "the father of lies" and "the children of disobedience" to help you discover the truth about the nature of reality is foolhardy best.

Just because something is published in a newspaper, written in a textbook, or taught at a university does not make it true. Scientists are quite capable of lying, stretching the truth, or ignoring contradictory evideance. Also, the amount of people who believe in something is not a measure of that idea's veracity.

KJV 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

KJV 1 John 4:1-3
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Science is self-correcting. Frauds are exposed by scientists.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Science is self-correcting. Frauds are exposed by scientists.

How do we know that will always be the case? And how much time, how many years in fact, might pass before the frauds are exposed? It took forty years for Piltdown man (1912-1953). In the meantime, atheism flourished, anti-christ Communism took root in Russia, and two World Wars were fought.

I'm not willing to place that much faith in men and their institutions. Science has developed its own dogma and doctrines over the years. In many ways it's just as much a religion as any other system of interpreting and explaining reality that man has created. Science may be more adaptable than most, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is more true.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How do we know that will always be the case? And how much time, how many years in fact, might pass before the frauds are exposed? It took forty years for Piltdown man (1912-1953). In the meantime, atheism flourished, anti-christ Communism took root in Russia, and two World Wars were fought.

You're blaming Communism and both World Wars on the Piltdown man?!?!

I'm not willing to place that much faith in men and their institutions. Science has developed its own dogma and doctrines over the years. In many ways it's just as much a religion as any other system of interpreting and explaining reality that man has created. Science may be more adaptable than most, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is more true.

Science does have its paradigms, but paradigms that don't work will be replaced. This happened numerous times in the past. Special relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics did the same. Ether was rejected along with phloghisten. Plate techtonics replaced whatever was before it, which in turn had replaced catastrophism (which relied on a global flood).

 

[gluadys]

No, but the 'laws', theories, hypotheses, and interpretations of men can. One man's incontrovertible evidence is another man's cleverly designed fraud. See information on the Piltdown and Peking 'Men' for example.

But although Piltdown man (as assembled) was a fraud, the pieces it was assembled from were pieces of God's creation. And the flouride test used to date the skull and jaw was based on the nature of God's creation.

So, God's creation revealed the truth, even when men tried to use it to lie.

It was also scientists, who by profession study nature (God's creation) who were doubtful of Piltdown man and put it to the test in the first place.

Scientists are quite capable of lying, stretching the truth, or ignoring contradictory evideance.

Your statement would be more credible if you formally and openly accused a scientist of lying, stretching the truth or ignoring contradictory evidence, btw, except for the lying part, what do you think a scientist faces in peer review if not accusations that s/he is presenting an overly optimistic view of the evidence and ignoring contradictory evidence. That is what peer review is all about.

Also, the amount of people who believe in something is not a measure of that idea's veracity.

Well, at least you got one thing right.

 

[tryptophan]

Science is self correcting. If new evidence comes forward to test a certain claim, then a scientist tries to figure out how to make it all fit. If the evidence goes against a certain theory, then that theory is either modified to take in the new information, or it is dropped. So far, there has been no evidence to conclude that the theory of evolution is false, although there has been much over the years to modify it to a certain degree. I'm not going to say there has never been a case of incomptance or corruption in science, but it does not discredit all of it. This is why we have peer reviewed journals that make sure an experiment was done soundly, and experiments are done more than once to insure reliability.

By the way, hi fragments.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

You're blaming Communism and both World Wars on the Piltdown man?!?!

No. But Piltdown Man led many people to accept the theory of evolution as fact. I understand that some people find a way to reconcile evolution with their faith, however, the majority of people who believe in evolution are atheists or agnostic and accept the idea that humans are little better than animals. They believe that life is an accident, their lives have no ultimate purpose (besides that which they create for themselves), and there is no higher destiny to which they must attain. If people who accept evolution don't reject the Bible outright, at least they have far more doubt in their minds about the truth of revealed knowledge than those who reject evoluion. The idea that life could arise through a purely naturalistic process as opposed to the miracle of supernatural, intelligent design allows for people to take God and other spiritual realities less seriously than they otherwise would.

Furthermore, people who do not believe in God are usually far less compassionate and moral than those who do. Atheists are also much more afraid of death, as they believe they simply cease to exist when their physical bodies cease to function. Not believing in any punishment or reward for their actions beyond this world makes them much more willing to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others in order to insure their own survival. While their has been no shortage of evil and murderous men throughout the history of this world, I would argue that this sort of mindset allowed (and continues to allow) for much greater cruelty on the part of politicians, soldiers, businessmen, and men and women of all walks of life. If someone truly believes that human beings are just evolved, intelligent apes, then he will show far less compunction against killing them than if he believes they are special creations of a supreme being. He might reason to himself that housands upon thousands of animals are slaughtered every day in order for humans to live. What difference is one more going to make here or there?

Again, I make no claims that Piltdown man itself led to the rise of Marxism and atheistic Communism. However, there is no doubt that the theory of evolution played a major role in it. Darwin planted the seed of despair in the minds and hearts of men that individuals such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would subsequently water with materialistic philosophies and anti-Christ doctrines.

"I should prefer the part or volume [Das Kapital] not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would, in a certain extent, suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted. Although I am a keen advocate of freedom of opinion in all questions, it seems to me (rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and Theism hardly have any effect on the public; and that freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightening of human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science. Possibly I have been too strongly influenced by the thought of the concern it might cause some members of my family, if in any way I lent my support to direct attacks on religion." Letter to Karl Marx October 13, 1889

From http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm

COMMUNIST DARWINISM-*Marx and *Engel's acceptance of evolutionary theory, made it the basis of all later Communist ideology.

"Darwinism was welcomed in Communist countries since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had considered The Origin of the Species (1859) a scientific justification for their revolutionary ideology. As far as Socialist theorists were concerned, Darwinism had proved that change and progress result only from bitter struggle. They also emphasized its materialist basis of knowledge, which challenged the divine right of the czars." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

From http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch33b.htm

Many would also point to evolutionary theory as the source of eugenics (in Europe and America) and some of the Nazi's stranger and more repulsive ideas.

So far, there has been no evidence to conclude that the theory of evolution is false, although there has been much over the years to modify it to a certain degree.

I disagree wholehearedly. The theory of evolution is false. There has been no evidence to conclude that the theory of evoution is true except in the biased minds and deluded imaginations of those who refuse to accept any other alternative for the origin of life.

The highly touted evidence for evolution: a few scattered bone fragments here and there. A couple of skeletons that are definitely either ape or human, and only made to appear to be at some intermediate stage by clever manipulation of the data and otherwise false presentations of the facts. Most of the people who actively seek out fossils on a regular basis are establishment anthropologists and paleontologists who are usually trying to prove evolution. These scientists interpret the data they find according to the confines of the paradigm which has been created for them and in which they choose to operate. However, before evolution became standard scientific doctrine and disagreeing with it become tantamount to heresy, there were several anamolous finds in the archaelogical and fossil records. See the book Forbidden Knowledge by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson for example. Unfortunately, all data and evidence that does not fit within the standard evolutionary paradigm is either discredited, destroyed, covered-up, or simply ignored.

The following is a quote from a Space.com article concerning a recent expedition to Tunguska which is interesting in light of this:

"They are not undertaking a scientific expedition, that is, an unbiased investigation to see what happened," Plait said Thursday via e-mail. "They are going to try to prove their preconceived ideas. That's not science, that's religion. And it almost certainly means that they are more willing to ignore or play down any evidence that it was a comet or rock impact [substitute intelligent design - Ebed], while playing up anything they find consistent with their hypothesis [human evolution from apes in the case of our discussion]."

 

[notto]

Ebed,

Evolution is not equal to atheism. You have a lot of misconceptions and accusations in your post that don't really check with reality.

Can you show us where Piltdown man led anyone to accept evolution as fact? From a scientific perspective, it was a relatively small part of the evidence used and it was trumped up more by the press then by scientists.

You seem to be accusing atheists of being less compassionate and less moral than believers. Do you have any evidence to this?

To suggest that the evidence for evolution consists of a few scattered bone fragments here and there is basically a lie and your description of how this evidence is used and how the conclusions are come to is false as well. From your description, I think it would be safe to say that you don't actively research or read scientific materials, books, or journals - is that correct? If it is, how can you make the claims you do when you haven't even looked at what you are attacking? If someone attacks the bible without reading it, I'm sure you would have a problem with that.

There are several independed lines of evidence that support evolution. Each of the anamolous finds have been addressed. You suggest that it is being ignorned, that is not the case. Can you name one anamolous find that you feel is being ignored and show us why it should be addressed differently than it has been? There are standards to evidence and most of them don't fit that standard. People can say they have found a lot of things, but unless the evidence is handled correctly and can be verified for authenticity, it can't be treated as such.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Evolution is not equal to atheism.

I didn't say evolution is equivalent to atheism. But evolution definitely helps to foster atheism. While some people in the West may have started to become more humanistic starting with the Renaissance and the 'Enlightenment', atheism did not become widespread until after evolution began to be taught widely in schools and universities.

You have a lot of misconceptions and accusations in your post that don't really check with reality.

Reality is a matter of perception, and perception is shaped by beliefs. I perceive reality differently than you do because I have different beliefs. You've learned and experienced things that I haven't, just as I've learned and experienced things that you haven't. Neither of us will truly know beyond all doubt whether our perception of reality is the right one until we die.

Can you show us where Piltdown man led anyone to accept evolution as fact? From a scientific perspective, it was a relatively small part of the evidence used and it was trumped up more by the press then by scientists.

Can you show evidence that Piltdown man was not influential in convincing the laypeople of America and Europe of the plausibility of evolution?

You seem to be accusing atheists of being less compassionate and less moral than believers. Do you have any evidence to this?

I've seen evidence of this in my own personal experience and what I know of history. Do you have any evidence that atheists are as compassionate and moral as true believers in Christ?[/quote]

To suggest that the evidence for evolution consists of a few scattered bone fragments here and there is basically a lie and your description of how this evidence is used and how the conclusions are come to is false as well. From your description, I think it would be safe to say that you don't actively research or read scientific materials, books, or journals - is that correct? If it is, how can you make the claims you do when you haven't even looked at what you are attacking? If someone attacks the bible without reading it, I'm sure you would have a problem with that.

There are several independed lines of evidence that support evolution. Each of the anamolous finds have been addressed. You suggest that it is being ignorned, that is not the case. Can you name one anamolous find that you feel is being ignored and show us why it should be addressed differently than it has been? There are standards to evidence and most of them don't fit that standard. People can say they have found a lot of things, but unless the evidence is handled correctly and can be verified for authenticity, it can't be treated as such.

I said that the "highly touted evidence for evolution consists of a few scattered bone fragments here and there". I didn't say it was the only supposed evidence. But that is the 'evidence' usually paraded before children when they're first learning about evolution in school. Anyway, what other 'evidence' would you say there is for evolution? If you could give me a short, concise list of what you believe to be the best proofs for evolution, I would appreciate it.

And just because an anmalous find has been addressed by establishment scientists doesn't mean they told the truth about it.

From your description, I think it would be safe to say that you don't actively research or read scientific materials, books, or journals - is that correct? If it is, how can you make the claims you do when you haven't even looked at what you are attacking?

I find it entertaining that you are trying to shut me up by subtly claiming that I'm ignorant. I have a good friend with a B.A. in Anthropology. I also know how to do research on my own. Even though I may not know something now, doesn't mean I won't know about it tomorrow.

By the way, I find it kind of odd that you didn't capitalize the Bible in your post. Was that a typo?

 

[notto]

Ebed - it is usually up to the person making claims to provide evidence, not for others to disprove the claims or otherwise accept them as valid.

Can you show me that there are not invisible unicorns under my bed?

You didn't answer a lot of the questions I asked.
Can you point to a anomalous find that has not been addressed?
You didn't provide evidence of Piltdown man having much of an affect on acceptence.
You didn't provide any evidence for atheists being less moral than Christians.


The evidence 'paraded' to students is certainly more robust than you suggest. Pick up a high school biology book to see that this is the case. Have you done this? When discussing evolution, fossils are only a minor part of the discussion and in biology, they really don't get discussed a whole lot other than to show that they verify what study in biology has shown us.

Evidence for evolution
Double netsted hierarchy
ERV's
Fossil Record order and dating
Observed variation and speciation
Ring Species
Commonality of non coding DNA and broken genes across species

Evolution explains this evidence in a way that no other theory comes close to and encompasses evidence we find from geology and biology in a consistent and reliable way.

It predicts what we continue to find as we look further into both the fossil record and genetics.

What journals and mainstream scientific sources have you researched and read? Have you read Origin? It (along with other publications and materials) is filled with the evidence and data you say is lacking and does not rely on a 'few bones' to make its claims.