Jump to content

Guest

Recommended Posts

‘It’s not science’

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it. http://creation.com/its-not-science

Any Thoughts Or Beliefs

On Science And Philosophical

And Theological Assumptions And Such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

I agree that much of science falsely so called, is in fact theory supported by interpretation using an iron clad bent toward the evolutionary process that they try to prove occurred billions of years ago. Facts are no longer proven in an impartial scientific manner but are interpreted to support a pet theory in many cases.

This is as sad as when Christians interpret Scripture in such a manor as to support their dogma without considering other scriptures that seemingly contradict their pet doctrines. Since none of us truly comprehends the mind of God, (or His love, for that matter), there are many things that we shall never understand this side of eternity.

I can't wait to sit at His feet in the heavenlies, trying to comprehend the height and depths of His Love, then asking him about all the stuff Bary talks about on chat---quantum physics, astronomy, chemistry and all those things I am trying to grasp. But God will be even a better teacher that Bary, who might even be sitting nearby listening to the greatest Teacher of all explaining all the details and intricasies of how He created the heavens and the earth, and how it all works together.

Joe, there are so many of you that I feel so close to in the Lord: Jade, Chloe, Brat and Red Momma,

Wingy, Steve, Jacob, Omegaman and so many others. When we get to heaven I want to introduce you all to my amazing hubby who has put up with my off subject rambling for 50 years.

May the joy of the Lord by your strength, and may the peace of God act as an umpire in your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

~

..... May the joy of the Lord by your strength, and may the peace of God act as an umpire in your heart.....

:emot-heartbeat:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Ephesians 5:19

~

Just A Thought Or Two For Those Who Think A Lot

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

And As An Evolutionist For Thirty Years Or So, I Indeed Thought It Out :)

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

It is a mine of wealth, a Paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever.

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

Science = another word for knowledge or the Greek gnosis.

What is true knowledge?

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 2:4 If thou seekest her (wisdom) as silver, and searchest for her as [for] hid treasures;

Pro 2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

And the knowledge/science of the world?

Psa 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they [are] vanity.

When the two options are available to me, I will turn first to the Lord and ask for his kindness to deal with my troubles through his abundant knowledge but I must confess that if he says no I shall seek that which is of man that God graciously gives to aid in his trouble though it usually comes with adverse side affects. The knowledge of the Holy is sweet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  28
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  116
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   11
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/05/2013
  • Status:  Offline

‘It’s not science’

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it. http://creation.com/its-not-science

Any Thoughts Or Beliefs

On Science And Philosophical

And Theological Assumptions And Such?

Yes I agree that the science is often self serving and contradictory. Fascinating, but often people fail to realize it is still alot of theory when you get down to it. There are also flaws in many of these theories or 'scientific facts' that get shoved under the rug. One thing I disagree with is that science is always in this order: observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge. I saw in interview with a scientist and if I can remember who he is I will report back with his name, and he said that often in science they make some imaginative leap, and then throw some ideas around and find out it's not that far off, and that's how they come to a lot of observations. So with that said, who wants to help me come to scientific fact that grilled cheese sandwiches at one time were italian subs? :laughing: I posted this on another thread recently but just for fun pull google earth up. Pan in and out of it a few times, spin it around, zoom in and out again. And then tell me why we ever let one of those little grasshoppers called humans on there tell us what is fact about that blue/green ball or the universe it's floating in? I mean it's just a little arrogant don't you think?

Edited by 1peterlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  24
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  114
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   61
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

so how about evolution millions of years according to evolutionists who cannot see or more likely refuse to see their own contradiction that in an expanding universe and shrinking sun,the sun would have been larger and closer = scalding steam/boiling water and dust and ashes = no life ,not even Dinosaurs = no evolution millions of years ago - wincam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so how about evolution millions of years according to evolutionists who cannot see or more likely refuse to see their own contradiction that in an expanding universe and shrinking sun,the sun would have been larger and closer = scalding steam/boiling water and dust and ashes = no life ,not even Dinosaurs = no evolution millions of years ago - wincam

Amen~!

~

And How

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

About

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:16-17

That~!

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

~

Hum.....

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy 32:43

Is God Good Or What

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...