Science and the Bible

Another subjective statement is that I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a designer. But, I believe that too.

Henry Franklin

Good point! See... I notice that secular or atheistic evolutionists have already filled in all the gaps in their own theory (or hypothesis) and they're tirelessly doing their very best to search for and locate proof that their assumptions - their particular educated guesswork in attempting to connect the existing dots - is correct.

For example - they used to believe that there was a straight path of evolutionary development from apes right through early homonids to homo sapiens. But recently I saw a program on the Science Channel pointing out that a more primative homonid has been found that carbon dated (or whatever method they use to date fossils now - sometimes by rock strata) LATER in time than the more advanced looking Neanderthal man. They have recently had to alter their assumptions and create a series of branches in the family tree of mankind... they found that some of these presumed "links" actually co-existed as separate species.

Meanwhile, our "closest" genetic relative among the primates - the chimpanzee - with DNA that is analyzed to be 98% the same as ours - cannot be cross-bred with a human being to even produce a live hybrid offspring, much less a live fertile offspring (like a donkey and a horse, which can produce a sterile mule). So none of our supposedly close relatives among the great apes can successfully be cross-bred with a human being (the NAZI's tried this experiment, BTW... and today it would require gene-splicing... which would only prove the necessity of intelligent design... right?

*

I can't prove that God created earth, man, animals, and all that is good. But I believe it. That's subjective.

EXACTLY... and because it is a theory (or hypothesis), belief in evolution is subjective as well.

My subjective POV as an artist inclines me to think that the creative intelligence responsible for the universe has a particular design style, like the artist that it apparently IS, and that's why various creatures resemble each other so much, but are still fixed and separate species which cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

In my subjective hypothesis, our skeletons probably look so much alike because that is the design that the creator came up with originally, and then adapted over the eons into its various later versions of the mammalian creatures here on Earth... the Creative Universal Mind continues to refine its designs ... and that's why no transitional forms exist - the Creator probably didn't need to make any (IMHO, and based only upon the currently available scientific data). This subjective opinion of mine can (and probably will) change as new information becomes available... unless my hypothesis is actually confirmed! (How much fun would that be!) 8D

*

They have recently had to alter their assumptions and create a series of branches in the family tree

I have an in-law from West Virginia that recently had to do that very thing also. (just kidding)


While I am not on the same path as you, I didn't pan your book. (smile)


Henry Franklin

While I am not on the same path as you, I didn't pan your book. (smile)

Henry Franklin

I respect you for that, and I appreciate the fact that I am safe to be myself around here (big smile in return).

*

[redeemed2]

Originally Posted by PJT04

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A DISTORTED VIEW OF SCIENCE. DESPITE ITS FLAWS AND GAPS, EVOLUTION IS STILL THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE EVOLVED ON EARTH. THE ADVANTAGE OF USING A SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS THAT EVERYONE (ALL RELIGIONS, ALL RACES, ALL COUNTRIES,ETC) GET A SHOT AT RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY SO LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE SAME METHOD.

WHEN YOU DEAL WITH RELIGIOUS FAITH, YOU LIMIT YOUR CHANCES OF FINDING OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN ENDOCTRINATED TO BELIEVE THE WAY PEOPLE DID THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

I RESPECT PEOPLES FAITH SO LONG AS IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC. THIS IS THE ISSUE WITH INTEL. DESIGN NOWADAYS. THEY WANT TO TEACH IT AS SCIENCE WHEN IT'S NOT.

You need to take my distorted view up with these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I didn't write that definition, I cut and pasted that article.

Again PJT04.... You need to scrutinize what you have been led to believe is science. You have been indoctrinated and flat out lied to. Creation can't be proven, neither can evolution. Science can be proven. Therefore evolution is a philosophy or FAITH, or belief system, its not science....

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

EXACTLY... and because it is a theory (or hypothesis), belief in evolution is subjective as well.



*

Once again there's that word. Theory means a lot more than a simple belief. Creationists agenda is to distort the meaning of words.

Take a look at this:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Originally Posted by redeemed2

Again PJT04.... You need to scrutinize what you have been led to believe is science. You have been indoctrinated and flat out lied to. Creation can't be proven, neither can evolution. Science can be proven. Therefore evolution is a philosophy or FAITH, or belief system, its not science....

SEE MY PREVIOUS POST TO HEIDI.

[redeemed2]

Originally Posted by PJT04

Once again there's that word. Theory means a lot more than a simple belief. Creationists agenda is to distort the meaning of words.

Take a look at this:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The evidence of evolution isn't voluminous, diverse, or convincing. Much of it is manufactured. Scrutinize the "evidence" and you will find people tampering with it to support their philosophy.

[Dillon Hunt]

REJECTED TRUTH

It is a principle of scripture than when truth from God is proclaimed to an individual or to a nation, and that truth is rejected, then the individual or the nation will be worse off than they were in their prior ignorance. More light given from God also means greater accountability. Jesus expressed this in Matthew 13 when he said,
"For to him who has (received and acted upon truth) will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has (truth heard but not acted upon) will be taken away." (v. 13)
Similarly the Apostle Paul says that the penalty of rejecting truth is that we are given over to various deceptions which will culminate in one final world leader who will be evil-incarnate--a man predicted to come onto the stage in Genesis Chapter 3--the Seed of the Serpent.
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2:9-12)
The effects of rejected light from God and our tendency to suppress, or repress, the truth is the subject of the entire opening chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Hand in hand with darkening of the mind, deception of the intellect, and confusion in areas of knowledge and understanding--when we turn away from God, God releases the restraints against latent evil in the human heart allowing violence, immorality, occultism and lawlessness to increase progressively--in stages. Paul tells us in the chapter, in fact, why and how once-great civilizations collapse and are destroyed by God's often and gradual subtle judgments.

[Shoonra]

I was sufficiently intrigued by the item that started this thread that I did a little research.

"Orion" is not named in the original language of Job. The Hebrew text of Job 38:31 says something on the order of "Can you tighten the chains of Keema or loosen the restraints of Kiseel?" These evidently refer to two constellations known to the ancient Hebrews - but maybe not the same constellations as named by the Greeks and Romans (although the Greek Septuagint renders them Pleiades and Orion in this verse). After all, it is very possible that the ancient Hebrews connected stars into entirely different constellations than the classical ones that are familiar to us. The same Keema and Kiseel are mentioned in Job 9:9 and in Amos 5:8, without any detail to make them any more identifiable. Apparently Job 38:31 deliberately positions two constellations in contrast - one to be tightened and the other to be loosened, and they might also be in opposition in the night sky (which means they must be something other than the Pleiades and Orion). I doubt, however, that Keema really means the Pleiades as that cluster is virtually invisible except to someone with perfect eyesight. Kiseel is used in plural form in Isaiah 13:10 evidently to mean many constellations.

As for evolution: If a true science requires the ability to experiment and to predict results, then evolution is a true science. Evolution predicts that in a stratified geological formation, the earlier fossils will be in the lower layers and the more evolved fossils will be in the upper layers; this is consistently proven true -- which, at the same time, disproves creationism. There are also some transitional fossils that have been found, although mostly for fairly obscure animals.