Butterfly28

A question about Science

87 posts in this topic

I'm a newbie here. Just joined yesterday. I have a question: As long as science supports the biblical concepts, science is acceptable right? It's only when science

opposes a Christian's fundamental beliefs that we are to ignore it, right? Obviously evolution is a lie.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Butterfly28 said:

I'm a newbie here. Just joined yesterday. I have a question: As long as science supports the biblical concepts, science is acceptable right? It's only when science

opposes a Christian's fundamental beliefs that we are to ignore it, right? Obviously evolution is a lie.

Evolution was never even proven. True science is a wonderful thing, without out it we wouldn't have any cures for cancer. 17 yrs ago my mother died from a kind of lung cancer that we now have a med for. And I don't mean chemo. Science taught us that cancer cells are invisible to our immune system. Wow, no wonder everyone who got cancer always died. But now we know why. So the new drugs work by making the cancer cells visible to our immune system. Once that's done it's a question of how advanced the cancer is and if it destroyed the immune system yet. If it didn't, today more and more people are living.

When I was in collage (a long time ago) the professors told us straight out that evolution was never proven. There's a thread called Science Disproves Evolution. The guy who started it provides a link to website that explains and documents, all the scientific problems with evolution. I've gone there and that website seems endless, that's how many problems there are with that theory. But I am told that nowadays most people blindly accept it. So if you're in school I'd advise you to not say a word. You won't win and you'll make yourself unpopular. Science is supposed to always be open to change. Usually it is but not where evolution is involved. But true science is now curing certain kinds of cancer. I'd say that's awesome.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2017 at 7:05 PM, Butterfly28 said:

 As long as science supports the biblical concepts, science is acceptable right?

Science isn't an ENTITY; it's a Method:  The Scientific Method.  Science doesn't SUPPORT anything.

 

Quote

It's only when science opposes a Christian's fundamental beliefs that we are to ignore it, right?

Again, Science doesn't OPPOSE (SEE: above).

Define Christian Fundamental Beliefs...?

There are no EXPERIMENTS (Science) that 'oppose' Scripture.

 

Quote

Obviously evolution is a lie.

evolution doesn't and never existed.

 

regards

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is GOD's Word. The theory of evolution is man's word. Of course we take GOD's Word over man's! Don't you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rick_Parker said:

The Bible is GOD's Word. The theory of evolution is man's word. Of course we take GOD's Word over man's! Don't you?

Yes, I agree with this. But Butterfly is probably a young person who was taught is school evolution is a fact. It isn't a fact because it was never proven. The atheists got hold of it and used it to try and discredit God. But they can't. Did you ever notice that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected over 2000 yrs ago and people have been trying to stamp out the belief in Him since His tomb was found empty. If Jesus wasn't God and if the story about Him wasn't true it would have died out by now. But it hasn't. I admit Jesus hasn't been very active here in the USA lately but in the Mid East He's as active as He was back in ancient Israel, Greece, Rome, and that whole area. We only know about this bc of the Internet and mostly You Tube. I love the videos where Jesus appears to a Muslim and then the person converts to Christianity. When they do that usually their whole family disowns them and sometimes they have to flee for their life. In most Muslim countries converting to Christianity is punishable by death. This is why I believe these videos.

Back to evolution. There's a thread called science disproves evolution. On that thread is a link to a website with a wealth of info as to why evolution is false. You should go read it. Some of it's very technical but the pages that explain how the fossil record doesn't support evolution is easy to understand. The irony is the more they search for evidence to prove evolution the more evidence they find that it's false. Today's kids may be the generation that will take a stand against it. Evolution will collapse like a house of cards. It's just that some group has got to be brave enough to stand up against it. The website I mentioned has plenty of proof that it's a false idea. The sooner we can get rid of this idea the sooner science can get back to discovering new things. God and science are not in opposition to each other. As Enoch said above, science is a method used to learn what we don't know yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God made the world (as we all believe He did), and if science describes that world accurately, then there should be no conflict.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

If God made the world (as we all believe He did), and if science describes that world accurately, then there should be no conflict.

SHALOM ! YES!   But most science on earth is driven by profit,   not by search for the truth.  

Most people in and out of science likewise,   so it is no surprise that science that is OPPOSED TO GOD,  wins the contracts and the money and the support.

It is WONDERFUL to read the scientists who KNOW (experientially) GOD in their lives,  and will not lie, even when it prevents them from getting much much higher paying jobs.   Their lives as well as the true science all is in line with and perfect HARMONY WITH GOD'S WORD,  and GOD'S SPIRIT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/30/2017 at 9:03 PM, Deborah_ said:

If God made the world (as we all believe He did), and if science describes that world accurately, then there should be no conflict.

I agree. Nowadays I just tell scientists.... read wikipedia's description of the Cambrian Explosion. Does it favour creation or evolution?   Point made

 

The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[17] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[18] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

 

If most life appeared abruptly without precursor that logically favors creationism. Not evolution.   They cannot find ANY precursors to explain the sudden appearance of nearly ALL phyla. That is the actual fossil evidence, most phyla appeared abruptly and fully formed in Cambrian layers which strongly supports creationism, not evolution.

 

Even genetics favors creation over evolution. They have never come across any new unique active gene evn though they have been trying to induce it in the laboratory. Observation shows devolving over time, not evolving. Observation shows net reduction in unique active genes over time, not additions as per the theory of evolution. 

Edited by ARGOSY
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Butterfly,

When applied legitimately, science is supposed to be objective; as in, it doesn’t “support” any position. It simply applies mathematical confidence to claims based on natural observations. It doesn’t speak to ultimate truth – and that is by logical design. Legitimate science encourages its adherents to be skeptical of every claim, no matter how well supported (a process called critical reasoning). 

 

Since science necessarily involves humans, there are several subjective aspects of the scientific process; namely presupposition and interpretation. As Christians, we presuppose by faith, the Biblical model of reality. Therefore we prefer interpretations of the facts/observations which are consistent with that model. Likewise, those who presuppose by faith a secular (a.k.a. atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic) model of reality will prefer interpretations of the very same facts, but which are consistent with their preferred model of reality.

 

There is no logical provision in either Christianity or science for ‘ignoring’ anything. It is a simple matter that humans have personal biases and agendas – which lead us to prefer the story that best suits our existing assumptions. That doesn’t mean we can’t consider alternative positions. But science itself is not designed to ‘take sides’. Unfortunately, there are people across the spectrum of belief who misuse the concept of science to imply that it exclusively supports their side of the argument, often claiming that it somehow renders the other side to be impossible. In reality, such absolute claims are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

 

The strict scientific method can only legitimately attribute confidence to current natural phenomena. So it is debatable as to whether claims about the past or supernatural can be legitimately called “scientific” at all. Logically speaking, we cannot go back in time to perform experiments or make observations in the past. Neither can we make natural observations of the supernatural. A logical departure from the scientific method is required to attribute any confidence to such claims. In my experience, Christians are more inclined than secularists to recognise the role of faith in such investigations. Attributing “scientific” confidence to such claims commits the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

The scientific process itself relies on faith; e.g. faith that observation itself (the fundamental currency of science) can be trusted. Consider that our perception of reality could well be being manipulated by some super alien race, like in The Matrix movie, or we could be hallucinating – so trust in observation is a faith position. Science also relies on faith in a rationally ordered universe, such that the laws of space and time are stable and consistent throughout the universe – which means we can expect consistent results from experimentation. Otherwise experiments would be meaningless.

 

Regarding “evolution” – the term is used equivocally. I am a young-earth, Biblical creationist. I have no issue with many of the concepts that are labelled “evolution”; i.e. Natural Selection, speciation, genetic mutations etc. None of these concepts are logically inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. However I contest Common Ancestry and its required time frames. The phrase “evidence of evolution” can be referring to evidence of Natural Selection – which is meaningless to this debate. The problem is that many listening may hear “evidence of Common Ancestry”. So I encourage use of more specific language to avoid equivocation.

 

So “evolution is a lie” is too broad a statement. Furthermore, I think we can be secure enough in our faith not to attribute nefarious motivations to the opposing position. I don’t think advocates of Common Ancestry are intentionally trying to deceive us – or even that their position is irrational. It is my personal opinion that Biblical creationists have a far stronger argument (based on the facts and logic) – so we don’t need to be emotively reactive to the secular position. Sincere people will hear our position, and those who have permitted themselves to become blinded by secular bias will not. God is still on His throne.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:05 PM, Butterfly28 said:

I'm a newbie here. Just joined yesterday. I have a question: As long as science supports the biblical concepts, science is acceptable right? It's only when science

opposes a Christian's fundamental beliefs that we are to ignore it, right? Obviously evolution is a lie.

As a Fundamentalist Christian and a scientist (Mechanical/Chemical/Design Engineer), evolution is man's attempt to explain the origin of life without giving God the praise He deserves.  Some Christians try to reconcile Christianity with the theory of evolution.  They are placing too much value on the ever-changing theory.  I reconcile the physical universe with the book of Genesis by the Gap Theory of creation.  The Gap Theory is a no compromise theory embracing both the literal interpretation of Genesis with the world of Science in all its forms.  It does not support evolution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites