Hold on...

[WarMonkeyMan]

as far as theory, and hypothesis, I am only stating that many hypothesis' are taken in as fact, which the evidence supporting it can be taken both ways, like carbon dating, and it's accuracy, because it can only go back 50,000 years yet it's claimed to go back further, another thing Radiometric Dating, yes it can date the minerals in the rock, based on the assumption that the radioactive decay is accurate with their dates, how ever, if a flood did occure, it would higher the rate of radioactive decay and increace the number of minerals in a fossil.

http://www.serve.com/~herrmann/pp7b.htm

Radiocarbon dating and other radiometric dating methods are extremely useful and based on perfectly sound scientific principles. The treatment of radiometric dating data is filtered through a rigorous process of peer review within the scientific community.

Also, I must again stress that theories can be and indeed often are facts.

Theorys can be fact yes, but if you look into various hypothesis' they are concidered fact without evidence, like abio genises, the big bang, also the age of our universe, they are concidered valid theorys, and stressed that they are fact, yet the evidence doesn't say they are direct fact, evidence is what we can observe, and repeatedly test, evolution has it's gaps and holes, creation as a scientific theory has just as many gaps based on what we know, but the evidence at hand can be interprited into both. I can see how evidence can line up for evolution, but I can also see how evidence lines up for creation. So therefor which side is taken ins cience is based off the majority. I have not seen any valid evidence against Christianity, except the opinions of man. one thing I find interesting that God created man and woman, evolution cannot explain how male and female came to be. there are various things that are overlooked in the realm of science based off the opinion that evolution is true.

Someone's been reading up on Lee Strobel, I see.

[Joshua-777]

as far as theory, and hypothesis, I am only stating that many hypothesis' are taken in as fact, which the evidence supporting it can be taken both ways, like carbon dating, and it's accuracy, because it can only go back 50,000 years yet it's claimed to go back further, another thing Radiometric Dating, yes it can date the minerals in the rock, based on the assumption that the radioactive decay is accurate with their dates, how ever, if a flood did occure, it would higher the rate of radioactive decay and increace the number of minerals in a fossil.

http://www.serve.com/~herrmann/pp7b.htm

Radiocarbon dating and other radiometric dating methods are extremely useful and based on perfectly sound scientific principles. The treatment of radiometric dating data is filtered through a rigorous process of peer review within the scientific community.

Also, I must again stress that theories can be and indeed often are facts.

Theorys can be fact yes, but if you look into various hypothesis' they are concidered fact without evidence, like abio genises, the big bang, also the age of our universe, they are concidered valid theorys, and stressed that they are fact, yet the evidence doesn't say they are direct fact, evidence is what we can observe, and repeatedly test, evolution has it's gaps and holes, creation as a scientific theory has just as many gaps based on what we know, but the evidence at hand can be interprited into both. I can see how evidence can line up for evolution, but I can also see how evidence lines up for creation. So therefor which side is taken ins cience is based off the majority. I have not seen any valid evidence against Christianity, except the opinions of man. one thing I find interesting that God created man and woman, evolution cannot explain how male and female came to be. there are various things that are overlooked in the realm of science based off the opinion that evolution is true.

Someone's been reading up on Lee Strobel, I see.

Actualy, I've been looking for a few articals by Lee Strobel, a few people have refered me to read his work, All I have read from him though are bits and pieces.

[Joshua-777]

Theorys can be fact yes, but if you look into various hypothesis' they are concidered fact without evidence, like abio genises, the big bang, also the age of our universe, they are concidered valid theorys, and stressed that they are fact, yet the evidence doesn't say they are direct fact, evidence is what we can observe, and repeatedly test, evolution has it's gaps and holes, creation as a scientific theory has just as many gaps based on what we know, but the evidence at hand can be interprited into both. I can see how evidence can line up for evolution, but I can also see how evidence lines up for creation. So therefor which side is taken ins cience is based off the majority. I have not seen any valid evidence against Christianity, except the opinions of man. one thing I find interesting that God created man and woman, evolution cannot explain how male and female came to be. there are various things that are overlooked in the realm of science based off the opinion that evolution is true.

Abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, yes. The age of the universe is part of the Big Bang theory, which is supported by considerably more evidence, though it has yet to be wholly accepted. While it is true that the media and other laypersons often confuse scientific principles, I am not aware of any qualified researcher who considers any of these three issues to be "fact." Regardless, the community certainly does not.

As for evolution, the "holes" you see are just gaps in history, not flaws in the theory. The logic used to find and identify these "holes" might be akin to saying that there were no casualties at Hastings because we can't find any dead bodies.

I'm glad that you do concider abiogenesis as a hypothesis, because many do concider it a theory and fact, as I have been through quite a few debates. As far as evolution, the evidence still stands neutral for both creation, and evolution, an explination for the data we have can be found on both sides of the argument. and it might not be akin to saying there where no casualties at hastings because we can't find any dead bodys. I personally do not concider evolution as fact, and evidence i have seen for evolution, I'll admit there is powerful evidence for micro evolution, not not macro evolution. There is no evidence that one species can turn into another species.

[Joshua-777]

Why do we have "Faith vs. Science?"

Why are we so intent on keeping the two apart?

God created them both, so how can we keep them apart?

However, we must remember that . . .

Faith can do many things that Science can never explain,

But, there is nothing Science can do that Faith cannot account for.

I agree

[Joshua-777]

Theorys can be fact yes, but if you look into various hypothesis' they are concidered fact without evidence, like abio genises, the big bang, also the age of our universe, they are concidered valid theorys, and stressed that they are fact, yet the evidence doesn't say they are direct fact, evidence is what we can observe, and repeatedly test, evolution has it's gaps and holes, creation as a scientific theory has just as many gaps based on what we know, but the evidence at hand can be interprited into both. I can see how evidence can line up for evolution, but I can also see how evidence lines up for creation. So therefor which side is taken ins cience is based off the majority. I have not seen any valid evidence against Christianity, except the opinions of man. one thing I find interesting that God created man and woman, evolution cannot explain how male and female came to be. there are various things that are overlooked in the realm of science based off the opinion that evolution is true.

It is true that abiogenesis is not strong enough to be out of the realm of hypothesis, but evolution is another matter. The debate about evolution vs ID is all but closed in acedemia. ID as a scientific theory has many many many more holes than evolution. If it is trying to be science it has to follow the same rules that all other theories have to:

1. Consistent with its self and with other theories (other than ones it

[hatsoff]

As far as evolution, the evidence still stands neutral for both creation, and evolution, an explination for the data we have can be found on both sides of the argument.

...

I personally do not concider evolution as fact, and evidence i have seen for evolution, I'll admit there is powerful evidence for micro evolution, not not macro evolution. There is no evidence that one species can turn into another species.

You would be mistaken. While anything is possible, as the old saying goes, the best explanation for the evidence is by an incredibly wide margin macroevolution. It is as certain to have happened as Hastings, to continue the analogy--and that is precisely why the scientific community does not entertain foolish notions such as irreducible complexity.

[Joshua-777]

As far as evolution, the evidence still stands neutral for both creation, and evolution, an explination for the data we have can be found on both sides of the argument.

...

I personally do not concider evolution as fact, and evidence i have seen for evolution, I'll admit there is powerful evidence for micro evolution, not not macro evolution. There is no evidence that one species can turn into another species.

You would be mistaken. While anything is possible, as the old saying goes, the best explanation for the evidence is by an incredibly wide margin macroevolution. It is as certain to have happened as Hastings, to continue the analogy--and that is precisely why the scientific community does not entertain foolish notions such as irreducible complexity.

then examine your evidence, as I will examine mine. The wide margin is opinions, and explinations of the evidence. I don't believe in irreducible complexity, by the way I do believe however, that the complexity of humanity couldnt evolve, I believe we where created with the ability to adapt to our surroundings, spread and pass knowledge and logic, and that is how we came to be what we are, do you honestly believe that you are just an animal, that is highly evolved? Well reason and logic to figure out the truth wouldn't really be relivent then, I have a question, How could you honestly believe that you are less that what you are? You have a brilliant mind, and your posts I find very challenging, but by the notion that macro-evolution is true, then you are limiting yourself to be an evolved animal, God created us so much more, he gave us the ability to reason, to use logic, we are created in his image, he is a creator, as are we.

[hatsoff]

then examine your evidence, as I will examine mine. The wide margin is opinions, and explinations of the evidence. I don't believe in irreducible complexity, by the way I do believe however, that the complexity of humanity couldnt evolve, I believe we where created with the ability to adapt to our surroundings, spread and pass knowledge and logic, and that is how we came to be what we are, do you honestly believe that you are just an animal, that is highly evolved? Well reason and logic to figure out the truth wouldn't really be relivent then, I have a question, How could you honestly believe that you are less that what you are? You have a brilliant mind, and your posts I find very challenging, but by the notion that macro-evolution is true, then you are limiting yourself to be an evolved animal, God created us so much more, he gave us the ability to reason, to use logic, we are created in his image, he is a creator, as are we.

If I were to examine the evidence for myself, I would still end up with macroevolution, but truly neither of us should be doing that. See, we aren't educated in the biology of it all, and otherwise simply unqualified. Therefore, we should be looking to our own authorities on the matter. Yours is the Bible. Mine is the scientific community. And it's fine if you want to believe in creationism and a young earth. However, those who try to take their religious beliefs and pass them off as scientific theories just look foolish, especially when they have such a meager grasp of the issues.

I would suggest that you take one of three stances: Interpret Genesis less than literally, give up the idea of Biblical inerrancy, or else reject the scientific conclusions on the grounds that, although they are based on hard evidence and sound reasoning, there is always the smallest possibility of error. Given your faith, it seems the latter is the best choice for you. Just don't forget that your own conclusions are based on divine fiat, not scientific inquiry.

Edited February 21, 2007 by hatsoff

[WarMonkeyMan]

Intelligent Design is a sad attempt to make Creationism into a hypothesis. How do you test ID? Do you send out a cosmic questionaire?

[GeneV]

A theory is NOT A THEORY if nothing backs it up. I believe I've said this before. A hypothesis is a suggestion that could be a solution to a problem; a theory is a hypothesis with some degree of support. DON'T MESS THEM UP. That's one of the major reasons that many atheists disregard Christianity as unthinking and closed-minded, and it does no good to live up to stereotypes.

Wrong!

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28)

See.....

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." (Proverbs 8:36)

And.....

Psalms 14

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

"The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God."

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

"Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD."

"There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous."

"Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge."

"Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad."

Therefore.....

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:33)

And.....

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16)

Wow!

"And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." John 1:51)

Hey Joe,

I like it - one thing 'scientists' conveniently forget is that they evolved from Christian roots The changeless 'book' ( personally I capitalise the B) has lasted just a smidgen longer than 'scientific knowledge' which seems to depend on what side of bed a scientist gets out of on a particular day or maybe a eureka or two.

Now lets have a look at science and the great things we have to thank for this marvel of human ingenuity