Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

What's with the widespread distrust of science around here?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006

Posts: 6772

Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject:

Pete wrote:

The world we live in could not have come about as a result of millions of years of chance happenstances. it requires a designer. This is science and logic 101.

If there was a designer, then don't you think there would be some evidence of design? If God designed us, and our DNA contains the blueprint, then why is our DNA such a mess? Why does it look exactly like what you'd expect from millions of years of evolution?

You also didn't answer my first question.

PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull

Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392

Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Pete wrote:

The world we live in could not have come about as a result of millions of years of chance happenstances. it requires a designer. This is science and logic 101.

Complexity is actually proof of an Intelligence!
And it looks exactly what you would expect from a Super intellegent Designer.
But lets us leave this for our OnO, Ok?
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Prys die Heer!

Pete
Tiger

Joined: 31 May 2006

Posts: 812

Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:00 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Pete wrote:

The world we live in could not have come about as a result of millions of years of chance happenstances. it requires a designer. This is science and logic 101.

Sure I did, if you are talking about your last post, unless we are not on the same page.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006

Posts: 6772

Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:43 am Post subject:

Pete wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

You also didn't answer my first question.

Sure I did, if you are talking about your last post, unless we are not on the same page.

I'm talking about this question:

Quote:

What's unscientific about the following statement: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and people's skepticism should be proportional to the extraordinariness of the the claim being investigated.

Please explain what is unscientific about this claim.

I don't think you answered it.

ace070590
Little Guppy

Joined: 08 Mar 2007

Posts: 39

Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject:

To answer the question "why do most people distrust science around here," I'll say, firstly, it's probably because people would rather rely on history (the Bible), rather then a scientists emotions during a certain time period. Scientists generally agree on evolution and other topics because this is the main stream thinking of science today. Anyone who becomes a scientist, but starts to believe in God in any form, becomes discontinued and not respected among any memebers. Yet, they still have the same education, degrees, etc that scientists have today. I thought scientists were "open-minded" not bias. Honestly, do I have to recall numerous examples were science was wrong but thought to be right during a particular time period? P, please look into history (like the documents of the Bible), rather then what main stream science feels is right. Science is always subject to change due to advancements in technology and new discoveries. Therefore, don't expect me to submit to evolution and asking you questions, rather then my Pastor, just because you and your buddies "feel" your right. I'll pray for you P.

Nobby
Board - Admin

Joined: 16 Sep 2002

Posts: 5037

Location: Missouri

Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject:

Hey ace, You haven't you havn't been here in a while, have you? Welcome back! Nobby

FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy

Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5860

Location: Memphis

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:14 am Post subject:

ace070590 wrote:

I'll say, firstly, it's probably because people would rather rely on history (the Bible)

You mean like those 40 years in the desert that didn't actually happen?

ace070590 wrote:

rather then a scientists emotions during a certain time period.

... If you seriously think that this is a major component of science you may well be beyond help.

ace070590 wrote:

Anyone who becomes a scientist, but starts to believe in God in any form, becomes discontinued and not respected among any memebers.

Stephen J. Gould was an extremely well-known evolutionary biologist and also a devout Baptist.

You are extremely incorrect.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006

Posts: 6772

Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:38 am Post subject:

ace070590 wrote:

To answer the question "why do most people distrust science around here," I'll say, firstly, it's probably because people would rather rely on history (the Bible), rather then a scientists emotions during a certain time period.

Science has nothing to do with emotions. That's the WHOLE POINT! No wonder you have no respect for science... You've got absolutely no clue what it's about!

ace070590 wrote:

Scientists generally agree on evolution and other topics because this is the main stream thinking of science today.

Have you ever even TALKED to a scientist? We accept evolution for the same reason we accept ANY scientific theory: Because there is a lot of good evidence which supports it!

ace070590 wrote:

Anyone who becomes a scientist, but starts to believe in God in any form, becomes discontinued and not respected among any memebers.

This just isn't true. There are plenty of religious professors in my department, and nobody cares at all. The issue *never* comes up.

ace070590 wrote:

Honestly, do I have to recall numerous examples were science was wrong but thought to be right during a particular time period?

Yes, you do. Please give me one example of a scientific theory which was WIDELY accepted by the entire scientific mainstream was shown to be TOTALLY wrong since, say 1960.

ace070590 wrote:

P, please look into history (like the documents of the Bible), rather then what main stream science feels is right.

Just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Look at the National Enquirer. Do you believe that everything in it is true as well?

Science is objective. A scientist making a claim can be my worst enemy, but if his claims are supported by the evidence, then I HAVE to accept them. The Bible relies on FAITH, whereas science relies on evidence and sound logical reasoning. I know which one I trust more.

ace070590 wrote:

Science is always subject to change due to advancements in technology and new discoveries.

That's the whole point: When something is wrong, you have to correct it. Funny how no religions have ever caught on to this little trick.

ace070590
Little Guppy

Joined: 08 Mar 2007

Posts: 39

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:34 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

ace070590 wrote:

I'll say, firstly, it's probably because people would rather rely on history (the Bible)

You mean like those 40 years in the desert that didn't actually happen?

ace070590 wrote:

rather then a scientists emotions during a certain time period.

... If you seriously think that this is a major component of science you may well be beyond help.

ace070590 wrote:

Anyone who becomes a scientist, but starts to believe in God in any form, becomes discontinued and not respected among any memebers.

Stephen J. Gould was an extremely well-known evolutionary biologist and also a devout Baptist.

You are extremely incorrect.

First off, FFT, I'm curious to know how you discovered that the 40 years in the desert didn't take place and we know that for a fact (I must of missed something huge!).

Secondly, what I said is true about scientists today. They react off emotion in terms of making decisions. Therefore, since evolution is the "thought" (I say thought because it's not a fact and has never been seen, nor repeated before our eyes) of today their already bias toward the idea. Let's never forget, evolution is nothing more then a theory that sounds good and seems to make sense according to what we have; however, even though it seems to make sense that doesn't mean it's correct, as you claim it is. Once again, scientists are not open to questioning evolution, but rather, get around the problems and avoid them.

Finally, I guess I should rephrase what I said. I meant, if a scientist starts to turn towards God, rather then believe the main stream thinking of evolution, it's very obvious he will lose respect and be discontinued, although he has the same education. In other words, if I went to a top university and got the same degrees as P, but didn't believe in evolution, I would immidiately become a stranger to most scientists, just because I feel that a creator started us the way we are, rather then us evolving. Yet, I'd be an "expert," wouldn't I? Now do you understand what I'm saying?
__________________________________________

P, please calm down.

First, if science is not based off emotions (to a certain extent) then I guess you better quit, because from my understanding evolution is an accurate prediction of the future, right? Therefore, would involve emotions, right? The definition for emotion is: a strong feeling of any kind. So you mean to tell me there's no emotion involved with evolution, whatsoever? Give me a break, P! Evolution may have a few "strong" backings, as you say, but it's never been seen or reproduced in front of you; therefore, emotion has to be involved with evolution, because science has a strong feeling that it will happen according to what we have. Duh.

P, you said, "Yes, you do. Please give me one example of a scientific theory which was WIDELY accepted by the entire scientific mainstream was shown to be TOTALLY wrong since, say 1960." Ok, what about plants needing sunlight in order to survive and vegetate, which was proven wrong because we discovered plant life miles down beneath the ocean in complete darkness. Hmmmmm..........?

ace070590
Little Guppy

Joined: 08 Mar 2007

Posts: 39

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:35 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

ace070590 wrote:

I'll say, firstly, it's probably because people would rather rely on history (the Bible)

You mean like those 40 years in the desert that didn't actually happen?

ace070590 wrote:

rather then a scientists emotions during a certain time period.

... If you seriously think that this is a major component of science you may well be beyond help.

ace070590 wrote:

Anyone who becomes a scientist, but starts to believe in God in any form, becomes discontinued and not respected among any memebers.

Stephen J. Gould was an extremely well-known evolutionary biologist and also a devout Baptist.

You are extremely incorrect.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006

Posts: 6772

Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:26 am Post subject:

ace070590 wrote:

First, if science is not based off emotions (to a certain extent) then I guess you better quit, because from my understanding evolution is an accurate prediction of the future, right? Therefore, would involve emotions, right? The definition for emotion is: a strong feeling of any kind. So you mean to tell me there's no emotion involved with evolution, whatsoever? Give me a break, P! Evolution may have a few "strong" backings, as you say, but it's never been seen or reproduced in front of you;

If by 'reproduced in front of you', you mean that nobody has ever witnessed macroevolution, then this is wrong. We have. But our evidence for macroevolution is even stronger than that.

There is no faith needed to conclude that macroevolution explains the diversity of all life on Earth.

ace070590 wrote:

P, you said, "Yes, you do. Please give me one example of a scientific theory which was WIDELY accepted by the entire scientific mainstream was shown to be TOTALLY wrong since, say 1960." Ok, what about plants needing sunlight in order to survive and vegetate, which was proven wrong because we discovered plant life miles down beneath the ocean in complete darkness. Hmmmmm..........?

What kind of plants are you talking about?

FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy

Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5860

Location: Memphis

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

ace070590 wrote:

First off, FFT, I'm curious to know how you discovered that the 40 years in the desert didn't take place and we know that for a fact (I must of missed something huge!).

All evidence points to the story being invented during the Babylonian occupation. There's nothing in the historical record (beyond the Torah) and there is nothing in the physical record that demonstrates a group of that size ever wandered around in the Sahara--much less for forty years.

ace70590 wrote:

Secondly, what I said is true about scientists today. They react off emotion in terms of making decisions.

Do you have any actual justification for this?

ace70590 wrote:

Therefore, since evolution is the "thought" (I say thought because it's not a fact and has never been seen, nor repeated before our eyes) of today their already bias toward the idea.

1. Speciation, one of the big "it doesn't happen before our eyes!" things creationists point at, has been observed.
2. A scientist that scientifically disproved the theory of evolution would become instantly famous.

ace70590 wrote:

Let's never forget, evolution is nothing more then a theory that sounds good and seems to make sense according to what we have; however, even though it seems to make sense that doesn't mean it's correct, as you claim it is.

By claiming that it is "nothing more then a theory" you are completely misunderstanding what a scientific theory actually is.

ace70590 wrote:

Once again, scientists are not open to questioning evolution, but rather, get around the problems and avoid them.

Again, do you have any actual justification for this? Or are these statements just platitudes?

ace70590 wrote:

Finally, I guess I should rephrase what I said. I meant, if a scientist starts to turn towards God, rather then believe the main stream thinking of evolution,

Bifurcation fallacy. There are plenty of theist evolutionary biologists. I pointed one out to you already.

ace70590 wrote:

it's very obvious he will lose respect and be discontinued, although he has the same education.

I've given you direct evidence to the contrary. Stephen J. Gould.

ace70590 wrote:

In other words, if I went to a top university and got the same degrees as P, but didn't believe in evolution, I would immidiately become a stranger to most scientists, just because I feel that a creator started us the way we are, rather then us evolving.

If you went through a top university studying biology and came out still a young Earth creationist, yeah, you'd be a stranger to most scientists.

See, the thing is, a person can be up to two of the following three things: informed, honest and creationist. It's possible to almost be all three, there is an individual whose name I've forgotten that readily admits that all the evidence points towards evolution and yet denies it because of his interpretation of God's Word.

Here's the story of a man that started as an honest creationist, and why he changed.

ace70590 wrote:

Yet, I'd be an "expert," wouldn't I? Now do you understand what I'm saying?

Your analogy is similar to if I got a theology degree and then went around still not believing in God. Yeah, other people with theology degrees would think me a stranger.

You'd see the same sort of thing if you went through with an astronomy degree and then went around claiming that the Sun orbits the Earth or any number of other such nonsensical combinations.

ace70590 wrote:

What? The theory of evolution does not work with what will happen. It certainly illuminates what could happen but that doesn't mean we can predict it. Evolutionary biology is comparable to archaeology.

ace70590 wrote:

The definition for emotion is: a strong feeling of any kind. So you mean to tell me there's no emotion involved with evolution, whatsoever? Give me a break, P! Evolution may have a few "strong" backings, as you say, but it's never been seen or reproduced in front of you; therefore, emotion has to be involved with evolution, because science has a strong feeling that it will happen according to what we have. Duh.

Have you ever been to the power plant that you get your power from?

How do you know it doesn't operate by magic?

This is, fundamentally, what your argument looks like.

ace70590 wrote:

Was this a scientific theory?

If you believe it was, do you have any evidence that anyone put something to the effect of "all plants depend on sunlight and this my theory of why" in a scientific journal, for instance?

P: Chemotrophs. First discovered in 1979.

45degreeN
King Kong

Joined: 02 Aug 2005

Posts: 2437

Location: Salem Oregon

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:43 am Post subject:

I'm guessing you mean the Negev desert not the Sahara. Two quite different places.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006

Posts: 6772

Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:09 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

If you believe it was, do you have any evidence that anyone put something to the effect of "all plants depend on sunlight and this my theory of why" in a scientific journal, for instance?

P: Chemotrophs. First discovered in 1979.

Yes, exactly: I doubt very much that even a single scientist wrote that there could never be any plants anywhere which do not use photosynthesis. And even if there was one, then certainly the whole scientific mainstream didn't accept it. I doubt very many people even thought about this question.

Another point is that it's unclear to me that chemotrophs are plants in the classical sense. How are they cladistically related to 'normal' plants?

I want an example of a scientific area where the majority of the best scientists on the planet agree on something, write lots of papers, have lots of conferences, and then it ends up being TOTALLY wrong.

Something like phlogiston or the interplanetary ether, only a post-1960 version.

FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy

Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5860

Location: Memphis

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:50 am Post subject:

45degreeN wrote:

I'm guessing you mean the Negev desert not the Sahara. Two quite different places.

Fair enough. They all look about the same.

1 Kings
6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites left Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, during the month Ziv (the second month), he began building the Lord’s temple.

So the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel was the 480th anniversary of the Exodus. Solomon ruled from 971-931 BC, so 967 BC was the 480th anniversary of the Exodus. This means the Exodus must have taken place sometime around 1447 BC.

Exodus
1:11 So they put foremen over the Israelites to oppress them with hard labor. As a result they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.

The city of Pi-Ramesses was ordered built by Ramesses II, who lived from 1303-1213 BC. That is, over 150 years after the Exodus must have occured. Further, according to Egyptian records, it was built by Egypt's own people.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5