why this is important

[nebula]

How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!

If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.

If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?

 

Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges.

 

 

In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted?

 

That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool!

[nebula]

Well during my time here, I hope to get the creation thread going.  I love discussing this stuff.

 

If you were talking about the one I mentioned,

[gray wolf]

Not all evolutionists are atheist. Many scientists see evolution as a tool of God. Francis Collins is an example of one such individual. He remarked upon the wonder of God's work considering the human genome. Given that the mechanism (there may be others) is a fact, we ought to seriously consider the theory.

[Guest shiloh357]

Not all evolutionists are atheist. Many scientists see evolution as a tool of God. Francis Collins is an example of one such individual. He remarked upon the wonder of God's work considering the human genome. Given that the mechanism (there may be others) is a fact, we ought to seriously consider the theory.

Not all evolutionists are atheists, but for every one Francis Collins, there are thousands of evolutionist atheists.  The scientific community is by in large, overwhelmingly atheistic.  

[gray wolf]

I think that's a misconception.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They may not all be evangelicals, but they are not overwhelmingly atheist by any means.

[alphaparticle]

I think that's a misconception.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They may not all be evangelicals, but they are not overwhelmingly atheist by any means.

Well this is matter of perspective. When you compare scientists to the general public,  you see a rather large divergence. I do find it interesting there is a lot of 'higher power' belief out there, well, more than you might suspect anyway.

 

I find this interesting

"Given that scientists are much less likely than the general public to believe in God, it's not surprising that the percentage who are affiliated with a particular religion is also lower. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation -- describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular -- compared with 17% of all Americans.

 

Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%)."

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I think that's a misconception.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They may not all be evangelicals, but they are not overwhelmingly atheist by any means.

Well this is matter of perspective. When you compare scientists to the general public,  you see a rather large divergence. I do find it interesting there is a lot of 'higher power' belief out there, well, more than you might suspect anyway.

 

I find this interesting

"Given that scientists are much less likely than the general public to believe in God, it's not surprising that the percentage who are affiliated with a particular religion is also lower. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation -- describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular -- compared with 17% of all Americans.

 

Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%)."

 

 

I think that makes my point...

[Tristen]

 

I think for me, as others have basically said, the study of science automatically assumes that God is not real and tries to explain the world naturally.  If you drop a modern scientist in the Garden of Eden, he will get the chance to observe the world all around him.  He will look at the trees, fully formed and budding fruit; same with animals.  He would meet Adam and Eve, created as adults and capable of reproduction.  He would see the stars in the sky.  he would see everything fully formed and come up with a very *logical* opinion that the earth must be billions of years old simply from the stars, not realizing God put them there only days before for man to use, that the trees were fully formed so man could have something to eat.  he would probably wonder why Adam and Eve didn't have belly-buttons, but think that at the very least, the earth was several decades old. 

 

We see the earth as old and so it is very *dumb* for a creationist to say, 'Hey the earth is 6,000 years old!' when they have all this *evidence* that says it's billions.  This is why science and faith are not compatible.  Not to mention if you even mention the term 'intelligent design', you are instantly kicked out of the club.  You lose all credibility and more than likely your job.  There is a major monopoly on atheistic, naturalist science and if you don't agree with their interpretation of the evidence, you are a nobody.

 

That's why there are creation scientists who do the same studies and can use the same evidence, but come up with a different interpretation of that evidence. 

 

Science is the study of the natural world, science is not designed to study the super natural, it is the wrong tool.  An expression I once heard that I like is that to use science to study the super natural is like using a yard stick to weigh a chicken, it wont work.    Those that try and use science to either prove or disprove God or anything of the super natural realm are both equally wrong, science cannot answer questions of the super natural.

 

 

 

You said “Science is the study of the natural world, science is not designed to study the super natural, it is the wrong tool”

 

Depending upon how you define science, this statement is either too broad or too narrow. More accurately, science can only be used to attribute legitimate confidence to claims which are currently, naturally available for direct testing. That is, science only has direct access to currently available, naturally occurring phenomena – because that is all that can be directly observed.

 

Therefore, it is true that science cannot be used to directly attribute legitimate scientific confidence to any supernatural claim (e.g. the existence of God). Likewise, science cannot be used to attribute legitimate scientific confidence to any claim about the unobserved past (e.g. Big Bang/Inflation or Common Ancestry or Biblical creation). However, these claims can be scientifically investigated indirectly; through modelling the effects of the putative claims, then testing the model against the currently available evidence. Since only the model is currently available for direct testing, scientific confidence can only be attributed to the model – not the initial hypothesis itself. Any subsequent attempt to attribute scientific confidence to the unobserved, untested hypothesis itself is to commit the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent.

 

Any model which incorporates claims of interactions with the physical universe can be investigated through modelling. So since the logically identical method is utilised to investigate the existence of God, Big Bang/Inflation, Common Ancestry and Biblical creation, logical consistency requires that they either all qualify as legitimate science or all are disqualified as scientifically valid (all the while remembering that unscientific does not mean untrue).

[Tristen]

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

[alphaparticle]

 

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

 

Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?