Theory anyone?

[armageddonman]

Is there a scientific theory that contradicts any scientific theory concerning evolution? Is there a scientific theory dealing with a "god" as the "creator" of life, the universe and everything?

If not, how can there be "creation science"?

If yes, please show me. Name the author and the scientific journal where it has been published.

 

[armageddonman]

26 views and no answer...how interesting .

Would it be a to early to conclude that there is no scientific theory in favour of creation or contradicting evolution?

 

[armageddonman]

Still no answer. I wonder why this forum is called SCIENCE, Creation and Evolution.

I thought that creationists claimed that there was a "creation science". Are they wrong, after all?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Science is interested in observations, and drawing conclusion on those observations. It isn't interested in what it can't see, or making speculations in scientific journals.

Many scientists are theists.

 

[Stormy]

Science does not take the Supernatural into account. It therefore eliminates God from all its findings. All scientific theories are thus void of God by the direct design of science.

But if science only wishes to deal in that which can be known by the senses... its wish has been declined.

Check out dark matter, dark energy, expanding universe, and travel through the links. You will be amazed that 80% of the total mass of the universe is invisible to us. You will learn of a dark energy that is everywhere and even in your very being. Find out why it is destroying the Big Bang theory. See and learn that the Universe is flat. Keep going and you will find the space-time ripple and other dimensions that exist.

Soon you will be on a trip along with Science into places neither of you ever wished to go!

Afterwards imagine having known all this first hand and then you will understand why I am desperate for Atheist to understand.

May God Bless us all.

 

[TScott]

When it comes to the universe, there are only 2 general possibilities as I see it: Either the universe has a beginning and an end, or it has always been here and has niether a begining or end. Belief in the latter would put you in the distinct minority among cosmologists, in fact you would be hard pressed to find mor than a handful who believe in the so-called "steady state" model. If you believe in the former, then you would find yourself with the vast majority of cosmologists. If you believe in the creation of the universe as described in Genesis, that would put you in the same general camp as the majority of cosmologists.

IOW, the only difference in the belief of a majority of cosmologists and the believers of Genesis is in the details.

 

[Morat]

  Just a note: Beginning and end are relative, to this universe. *grin*. Some cosmologists postulate a cycle of bangs and contractions, others a sort of branching series of bangs via black holes, others an eternal and primordial metauniverse.

   *shrug*. All heavily speculative at the moment, but cosmologists try not to box themselves in without reason to.

 

 

[armageddonman]

116 views an noone has come up with ANY scientific theory against evolution or in favour of creation.

So, why are people attacking evolution and promoting creation, if they are not able to back up their claims? The discussions on this borad seem rather pointless to me.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Just a note: Beginning and end are relative, to this universe. *grin*. Some cosmologists postulate a cycle of bangs and contractions, others a sort of branching series of bangs via black holes, others an eternal and primordial metauniverse.

   *shrug*. All heavily speculative at the moment, but cosmologists try not to box themselves in without reason to.

 

Yeah, don't box in your imaginations when there is no evidence to support it.  Anything to avoid the beginning, since it implies the Beginner.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Yeah, don't box in your imaginations when there is no evidence to support it.  Anything to avoid the beginning, since it implies the Beginner.

 

If everything need a "beginner" then your imaginary "beginner" also needs a "beginner".

Who began the beginner?

Scientific theory anyone?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by armageddonman


 

If everything need a "beginner" then your imaginary "beginner" also needs a "beginner".

Who began the beginner?

Scientific theory anyone?

The eternal needs no beginner.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by s0uljah


The eternal needs no beginner.

 

So, you claim that your imaginary "beginner" ist eternal. Can you proof this statement?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by armageddonman


 

So, you claim that your imaginary "beginner" ist eternal. Can you proof this statement?

You want me to prove God?  Isn't that against the rules here?

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by s0uljah


You want me to prove God?  Isn't that against the rules here?

Oh, you´re talking about your god? I thought your "beginner" was a theoretical construct. No, you don´t have to prove god. But you might show me a scientific theory that postulates an "eternal beginner".

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Oh, you´re talking about your god? I thought your "beginner" was a theoretical construct. No, you don´t have to prove god. But you might show me a scientific theory that postulates an "eternal beginner".

There are plenty of scientists writing about an eternal beginner.  Whether they are actual reports in journals or not is a different question.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by s0uljah


There are plenty of scientists writing about an eternal beginner.  Whether they are actual reports in journals or not is a different question.

 

Anyone can write about anything. You do, I do. But that doesn´t make our statememts scientific theories. Either there is a scientific theory mentioning a creator and creation or there is not. As long as there is NOT, there is no such thing as "Creation Science".

This is the Science board, remember? Back up your claims or be honest and admit that your statements have no scientific background but are purey expressions of your personal faith.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by armageddonman


 

Anyone can write about anything. You do, I do. But that doesn´t make our statememts scientific theories. Either there is a scientific theory mentioning a creator and creation or there is not. As long as there is NOT, there is no such thing as "Creation Science".

This is the Science board, remember? Back up your claims or be honest and admit that your statements have no scientific background but are purey expressions of your personal faith.

Which statements are you refering to exactly?

As far as a scientific theory, there are scientists writing about it, and they have their theories.  How is that *not* a scientific theory?

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by armageddonman

This is the Science board, remember?

Christian Forums was established as a free, non-profit and non-denominational online
Christian community to unite Christians of every denomination together as one body.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Which statements are you refering to exactly?

As far as a scientific theory, there are scientists writing about it, and they have their theories.  How is that *not* a scientific theory?

 

Because a scientific theory requires predictions and experiments to verify them. What predictions and experiments have been made to verify a theory concerning a creator and a vreation? Where, when and by whom has a scientific theory concerning vreation been published. Can you provide some NAMES or QUOTES?

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by gunnysgt


Christian Forums was established as a free, non-profit and non-denominational online
Christian community to unite Christians of every denomination together as one body.

 

So? Does that mean, you can´t discuss science on the science board?