@:Rossum -
*“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”
Code:
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "Letters and Papers from Prison"*
May I assume you are also a fan of Glenn Beck? Dietrich Bonhoeffer is often mentioned on his show.
@:Al Moritz
God would have to be nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for faith.
I could say the same exact thing about the evolutionary theory - it’s the same thing with abiogenesis. If you know just the rough history of spontaneous generation this becomes quite evident.
Spontaneous generation was a theory for 1,900 years and became a scientific law. Then Francesco Redi questioned it and had a convincing argument against it, so scientists shifted the argument to a place of ignorance. Redi did his experiment over again, improving it, and shattered the law, but most still didn’t want to believe him, and so instead of acknowledging his win, they shifted their argument to another area of ignorance. In the 1670’s it was believed that though certain other things, like mice or maggots, couldn’t spontaneously generate that microorganisms still spontaneously generated. This was also proven false by Louis Pasteur in 1859.
And so we skip to the modern-day equivalent of spontaneous generation - ie. abiogenesis. It’s the same basic concept shifted to an area of ignorance and allegedly backed up by another scientific theory which happens to appeal to the majority of secular scientists. - Matt, 7:5
Also, I must make a point that creationists do in fact have evidences of creation - The “open-minded” secular scientists generally don’t want to listen though, because they want to be open-minded to “logical” solutions. For instance, the dynamo theory vs. the rapid-decay theory.
The
dynamo theory [believed by most scientists] states that the motion of fluid in the earth’s outer core is caused by temperature differences in the outer core as well as the rotation of the earth. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, creating an electrical current. This in turn causes the earth to be magnetic.
The
rapid-decay theory [believed by a minority] states that earth’s electrical current is a consequence of how it was created. If a few assumptions are made about how the earth was created it is possible to calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That current would then slow down over time, as electricity is met with resistance when going through matter.
Now, the dynamo theory states also that the magnetic field is very prone to change, due to varying temperature, and so it will go up and down, and fluctuate.
The rapid-decay theory states that the magnetic field is gradually decreasing.
Testing shows that the earth’s magnetic field is in fact decreasing, but in an up and down manner. So essentially it is going up and down but it has a net loss. Some research has also suggested that earth’s magnetic field may have reversed a few times in history as well.
This is also compatible with both theories, but the condition requirements are still different, and this time the dynamo theory has an edge - Earth’s fluid is fluctuating in the dynamo theory, so the fluid motion could reverse every now and then. Rapid-decay states that this could only happen through cataclysmic geologic or volcano activity.
Now even though the dynamo theory has the edge there, the time needed for these changes to happen is a matter for skepticism. Many calculations done for the dynamo theory have had a 2,000 year minimum requirement for a reversal of the earth’s magnetic field. Since 1989 scientists have found evidence that at least some reversals have happened over a period of 15 days or less. This fits well with rapid-decay, as it assumes such reversals result from catastrophic events.
Granted I don’t have all the original sources for these facts at my fingertips right now, I still must have some faith in it, as the rapid-decay theory has correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the nearby planets that had any magnetic fields. Furthermore, when the dynamo theory was put to the same test on Uranus and Neptune it was off by a factor of 100,000 *. The rapid-decay theory accurately predicted
Voyager’s measurements in the same test.
The whole point of this is - scientists
are willing to bypass something that makes more sense for something that suits the personal agenda. And I won’t deny that it happens on both sides, but one side in particular I believe has a habit of doing so. Those who are honestly searching for evidence of the creation theory [generally Christians] have an honor and dignity to uphold because it is what they believe in, and they know they will be held accountable by God if they distort their evidence, because to do so would be lying.
Those who seek to prove evolution [generally atheists], as evidenced by the religious beliefs of that majority,
generally don’t believe they have anything or anyone to answer to, aside from maybe some civil authorities. That being said, what should prevent an atheist of dishonest intent from distorting evidence to fit his or her theory?*
)
