Concerning Creation

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it is important to emphasize that science the Bible are not really at odds. Years ago, I remember a science teacher (who was a Christian) in my highschool biology class make an important point that has always stuck with me. He said that science is really the pursuit of knowledge. In fact that is what the word "science" means. It comes from a latin word that means "to know" or "knowledge." It is important because it shows that science and the Bible have something major in common. The Bible places a high premium on getting knowledge. The Bible also draws heavily from the natural world that God created and teaches us through the very things God created.

Furthermore, the Bible says that through study of the natural world, we should be able to come to a knowledge of our Creator. In theological terms we refer to this as "general revelation." The created order (the entire universe) is sufficent according to Paul to testify to man of a creator. So even the natural world is able, albeit in a limited way, to reveal God to mankind.

Everything about creation testifies of an intelligent, logical, omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing and compassionate and just Creator. The natural world doesn't simply speak of a Creator, but it also testifies to his power and his invisible attributes.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(Romans 1:19-20)

The important point to make is that due to the fact that scientists spend their time studying, learning, observing and constructing theories pertaining to the natural world, they will be without excuse should they choose to reject the knowledge of the living God. There is enough information present in science and the natural world to lead a person to the knowledge of his or her Creator if they are willing go where the evidence leads them.

Science confirms what the Bible already told us, really. It tells us that the world is ordered, uniform and logical. It takes an omnipresent God possessing all knowledge and all power to create and sustain it. Science is limited in that it cannot tell us WHO the creator is, but order and uniformity that science depends on tells us that a discernable design in present in creation. Sir Isaac Newton said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Source

Science is valuable to the Christian faith, but science can only take us so far. The Bible picks up where science leaves off. We refer to this as "special revelation." Special revelation (the Bible) teaches us about the person of God, about His love for us and His desire to be in fellowship with us. It teaches us about God's plan and purpose for our lives, and our need for a Savior. Man has fallen away from God and sin has separated mankind from God, but God has provided a plan of redemption through His Son Jesus Christ to any willing to receive it in order to make a way for mankind to return and be rejoined with His Creator.

[sysvr4]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

[Guest shiloh357]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future.

Tell me this:

• Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money?
  
  
• Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts?
  
  
• If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan?
  
  
• When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future.
  

So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle.

Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method.

[sysvr4]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future.

Tell me this:

• Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money?
  
  
• Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts?
  
  
• If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan?
  
  
• When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future.
  

So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle.

Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method.

Correlation is not causation.

Edited July 4, 2009 by sysvr4

[Guest shiloh357]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future.

Tell me this:

• Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money?
  
  
• Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts?
  
  
• If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan?
  
  
• When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future.
  

So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle.

Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

Okay.... so could you be a be little more vague? Honestly, do you ever post anything that has any substance?

[Guest shiloh357]

Correlation is not causation.

This post has been edited by sysvr4: Today, 05:25 AM

I never said it was. Again, your answer is no less vague than before. You simply restated the same thing a different way. I am not even talking about causation or correlation. I am talking about the past being an accurate indicator of future events.

[sysvr4]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future.

Tell me this:

• Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money?
  
  
• Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts?
  
  
• If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan?
  
  
• When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future.
  

So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle.

Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

Okay.... so could you be a be little more vague? Honestly, do you ever post anything that has any substance?

The point is that selected events which correlate with specious assumptions do not support a rational argument.

[Guest shiloh357]

The point is that selected events which correlate with specious assumptions do not support a rational argument.

LOL, I guess the entire scientific world, the banking industry, etc., has been working from "specious assumptions" all this time?

I have not presented any "specious assumptions." I have provided clear evidence based on REAL life examples that demonstrate we all operate off the assumption that the past is an accurate means of determining future events, particularly in the behavior department.

[nebula]

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.

Please explain.

Thanks!

[martin frobisher]

. . .

So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events. Hence chaos theory also.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events."

This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window.

A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable.

If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified.

Bye, bye scientific method.

..which is not what I'm saying at all, is it!?

If only people would actually digest a statement and then understand, rather than add in things that haven't been said!