B
buffalo
Guest
It must be true and illuminated by God.
Science by its own definition is limited. That means it is incomplete by itself. You will know good science by its fruits.
- Status
Science by its own definition is limited. That means it is incomplete by itself. You will know good science by its fruits.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Tim, God’s approval of science largely ended in 1543 with the publication of Copernicus’ hellish De Revolutionibus, which led to the heliocentric idolatry and consequent rejection of a literal interpretation of Joshua 10:12-13.
God hates geology because it led to Alfred Wegeners’s now universally acclaimed theory of plate tectonics, which invalidates a literal interpretation of the Noah’s flood story. God also disapproves of chemistry, because it led to the discovery of DNA, which invalidates a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story. And God loathes physics, as it invalidates a biblical 6,000 year-old universe.So, stick with medieval natural philosophy and you’ll do well. But, I forgot to mention – get rid of your computer, as God also hates electronics, and the godless unguided electrons on which it depends for operation.
StAnastasia
O
Orogeny
Guest
A
avflf
Guest
Not only did He create that which is good but also that which is evil -
(Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things).
That “God created all things” there appears to be general consensus. The impasse seems to be on how fast things were created. Some here maintain that their God is a real go-getter and a fast worker. Others believe their God to be rather lay-back and extremely slow in getting things done. Which God will win the debate, I wonder?
B
buffalo
Guest
Ahhh! That is the difficulty now isn’t it. How do you properly reason observations and data?
There are a couple of ways:
Absent God.
Include God.
Pick one.
B
buffalo
Guest
He created evil, or He permits evil?
A
avflf
Guest
Created, the same Hebrew word (baw-raw’) in Gen 1:1 - “God created the heavens and the earth” is used in this passage in Isaiah.
B
buffalo
Guest
Does it include evil? I thought the passages goes something like this “…and God saw that it was good”. Now how can evil be good?
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, help me here. I find a mineral. It is transparent, colorless, has a conchoidal fracture, scratches glass, displays no cleavage and has a specific gravity of 2.65 g/cm3. The particular specimen that I find is a crystal. Looking at the crystal, I determine that it is a trigonal prism with a pyramidal termination.
I decide to run an analytical test. That test tells me that the mineral is made up of silicon and oxygen.
Now, with all of that information, I deduce that I have found a quartz crystal. Unfortunately, I forgot to include God in my reasoning. Have I committed bad science?
Peace
Tim
A
avflf
Guest
I am referring to the word created as used both in Gen 1:1 and Isa 45:7, where you’ll find the statement that “God creates Evil”. This is in response to your question:
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
1.the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified…whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4
2.“In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.” Misia Landau,
3.“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22
4.“We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C…” George Simpson, pro-evolution
5.“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson
6.“The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine.” Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.
8.We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution
9.“If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?” ([11], p.62 John Durant
2.“In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.” Misia Landau,
3.“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22
4.“We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C…” George Simpson, pro-evolution
5.“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson
6.“The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine.” Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.
- I got a real chuckle from this qoute…those silly evolutionists haha '‘It was once thought that
...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to begill slits’ is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. Haha…Wow…
8.We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution
9.“If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?” ([11], p.62 John Durant
- “(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.” Solly Zuckerman (
B
buffalo
Guest
What philosophical pronouncement are you making regarding this finding?
O
Orogeny
Guest
What philosophical pronouncement am I making when I say the earth is 4.6 billion years old?
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
These verses do not refer to moral evil.
From the NAB"
4 I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.
4 [7] Create woe: God permits evil for the sake of a greater good.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you simply state that you found quartz you can test, repeat and predict this which rises to the level of empirical science. Every time we find this combination we call it quartz. We could call it whatever we want. What if we call it abcdef? So to communicate effectively we standardize the meaning of the word quartz.
When you state the earth is 4.6 billion years old you cannot test, repeat, or predict. It does not rise to an empirical test. So one must gather up other information and prior data to make this statement (illuminated) In addition the statement is made from the same frame of reference we live in. The assumption made is that we have all the necessary information to make the claim. Do we? How do we know? Does one’s worldview enter in anywhere? What if time is curled up, or radiates in all directions rather than linearly? Does this effect the conclusion?
Here again we butt heads at an intersect between Divine Revelation and our observations and reasoning.
Again -
Absent God.
Include God.
Pick one.
O
Orogeny
Guest
But what I was doing was science. I made observations and came to a conclusion based on those observations. I think that your statement that we either include or exclude God isn’t really a guide to good science. It is only for determining if one’s philosophy is good.
By the way, was the person who originally decided that a mineral with those properties is quartz doing good science? Do you know if he invoked God?
Says who? Of course we can test, repeat and make predictions.
What doesn’t? The conclusion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old or the science that we use to come to that conclusion?
(1) Yes. (2) Because it is indicated by numerous paths of investigation and is consistent with our repeatable, testible understanding of nature. Because we would have to accept a deceiving God to reject the knowledge we have (I know you will object to this, but it is true). (3) Only if one decides to reject the science as a YEC would do. (4) What if a purple dinosaur named Barney sprinkled magic dust on us and we just think there was a yesterday? Come on, buffalo. If you are going to use what ifs as an argument against the age of the earth, you have to show that a) the what if actually exists and b) it affects our ability to do science.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
Please show me peer-reviewed documents that show the age of the world is testable, repeatable and predictable. What is the margin of error?
I ask again - if you are walking on the beach and see a left set of footprints as far as you can see, should you conclude a deceiver is at work? The deceiving God argument is bogus. Don’t use it. By the very fact you are a limited human being you could conclude God is a deceiver because He didn’t infuse you with the total knowledge He has.
My belief is we do not have all the data. So with the lens we have on it looks like apparent age.
A
avflf
Guest
Gen 6:5 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only **evil **(Heb.rah, raw-aw) continually”.
Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (Heb.rah, raw-aw): I the LORD do all these things.
The Douay-Rheims Bible renders it also “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things”.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Wilde, S. A.; Valley, J. W.; Peck, W. H.; Graham C. M. (2001-01-11). “Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago”. Nature 409: 175–178. doi:10.1038/35051550
Wyche, S.; Nelson, D. R.; Riganti, A. (2004). “4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton”. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 51 (1): 31–45. doi:10.1046/j.1400-0952.2003.01042.x
Baker, J.; Bizzarro, M.; Wittig, N.; Connelly, J.; Haack, H. (2005-08-25). “Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites”. Nature 436: 1127–1131. doi:10.1038/nature03882
Bowring, Samuel A.; Williams, Ian S. (1999). “Priscoan (4.00-4.03Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada”. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134 (1): 3–16. doi:10.1007/s004100050465. Bibcode: 1999CoMP…134…3B
Emery, G. T., 1972. “Perturbation of nuclear decay rates” in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1990. “Time variation of fundamental constants: Bounds from geophysical and astronomical data” in Physical Review D (Particles and Fields) 41, no. 4, pp. 1034-1046.
tku-inf.jp/niizeki/%E8%AC%9B%E7%BE%A9/%E2%85%A2%E3%82%BB%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8A%E3%83%BC/%E5%85%83%E7%B4%A0/%E5%9C%B0%E7%90%83%E3%81%AE%E5%85%83%E7%B4%A0/Patterson_1956.pdf
nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/abs/409175A0.html
sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=468a679a877bc77fa3f63333c2f8e6a6
agu.org/pubs/crossref/1991/90JB02219.shtml
nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6901/abs/nature00982.html
How many more would you like?
It is not bogus because I can only work with the knowledge He gave me and He knows that. If He left evidence to indicate an old earth when it is in reality only 6,000-10,000 years old, He is deceptive.
So far ALL the data we have indicates an old earth. Deny it all you want by saying that you are waiting for the rest of the data to come in. You know as well as I do we will never have ALL the data. Lens or no lens, the data is unanimous.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
It is bogus. God is under no obligation to show you everything. How many more dimensions are there? Are you going to accuse God of being deceptive because you cannot see them? Is God deceptive because you cannot see the beatific vision? Is He deceptive because He does not allow us to prove Him empirically?
If we have a box of balls that have say three colors and we always select out one color we draw a faulty conclusion as to the makeup of the box. Say Joe puts on a pair of glasses that filters out one color. He now makes an assumption about the contents of the box. Who is right? Will you accuse God of being deceptive because Joe put on the filtering lenses? Will you accuse God of deceptiveness because I have a bias toward one color?
- Status