Evolutionism.

[Goonie]

Reading the physical sciences part of the forums today, and it occurred to me that for some on these forums the idea is that there is a conspiracy amongst scientists to promote evolution and an old earth regardless of the evidence.

Discuss.

 

[Btodd]

It's a pretty self-defeating argument. There are tons of scientists who are Christians that accept evolution and a universe that is billions of years old. On top of that, the greatest achievement you can make in science is to overturn a theory with startling new evidence.

There's simply no way to support a universe that is merely thousands of years old, and biology makes absolutely no sense without the Theory of Evolution. People who say it's a big conspiracy are just wrong about their conclusions, and unable to accept it.


Btodd

 

[James Is Back]

Never heard of that before but there are some off the wall conspiracy theories out there.

 

[ScottA]

I am no expert in quantum physics/mechanics, but it seems to me that the findings would indicate variable possibilities, just as variable as the opposing views. In other words, one reality may indeed be millions of years, while another reality...is not.

 

[bhsmte]

Never heard of that before but there are some off the wall conspiracy theories out there.

Oh, it is real.

Just on the creation board recently, someone claimed the devout Christian and renowned scientist and geneticist Francis Collins agrees with evolution and states the evidence is overwhelming, because he must to keep his position in science.

There are many that will claim the thousands of Phd level scientists in the world, all are in on a conspiracy to support evolution.

It really is quite amusing and also somewhat sad, people would need to call these folks liars.

 

[ScottA]

Oh, it is real.

Just on the creation board recently, someone claimed the devout Christian and renowned scientist and geneticist Francis Collins agrees with evolution and states the evidence is overwhelming, because he must to keep his position in science.

There are many that will claim the thousands of Phd level scientists in the world, all are in on a conspiracy to support evolution.

It really is quite amusing and also somewhat sad, people would need to call these folks liars.

History includes more than the scientific community is willing to allow. Only in recent times was it so, but they have placed limits (self-imposed limits) on what they consider evidence to the areas of space, time, and matter. Of course, if they limit the discussion to their own school of knowledge, the other school is simply left out. But that doesn't prove anything, it simply limits their area of knowledge. It is rather conspiratorial.

 

[bhsmte]

History includes more than the scientific community is willing to allow. Only in recent times was it so, but they have placed limits (self-imposed limits) on what they consider evidence to the areas of space, time, and matter. Of course, if they limit the discussion to their own school of knowledge, the other school is simply left out. But that doesn't prove anything, it simply limits their area of knowledge. It is rather conspiratorial.

That makes no sense.

 

[KWCrazy]

There are tons of scientists who are Christians that accept evolution and a universe that is billions of years old.

What did Jesus believe? Remember, he was there. He believed that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God.

... biology makes absolutely no sense without the Theory of Evolution.

That statement is so absurd it's laughable.
So prior to 1859 there was no biology?
One cannot perform a graft without bowing at the altar of molecules-to-man?

You seriously think that humans and daffodils share an ancestor? That's not science, that's foolishness.
Absolutely nothing that is known about biology would be any different based on the pairs of animals from the ark.
The fact is, biology precludes molecules-to-man. It may be possible to create a protein out of amino acids in a controlled, oxygen free environment, but it is NOT possible for the same thing to happen with exclusively left-handed proteins in conditions that never existed on this planet. Further, it has never been demonstrated that benevolent mutations could facilitate increasing complexity.

Evolution exists because there is nothing else in science to explain how we came to exist. The Scriptures not only explain how, but also why. From a strictly logical point of view, believing in something you know cannot happen (evolution) over something that millions of people have experience with (God) is the greatest foolishness of all.

 

[bhsmte]

What did Jesus believe? Remember, he was there. He believed that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God.

That statement is so absurd it's laughable.
So prior to 1859 there was no biology?
One cannot perform a graft without bowing at the altar of molecules-to-man?

You seriously think that humans and daffodils share an ancestor? That's not science, that's foolishness.
Absolutely nothing that is known about biology would be any different based on the pairs of animals from the ark.
The fact is, biology precludes molecules-to-man. It may be possible to create a protein out of amino acids in a controlled, oxygen free environment, but it is NOT possible for the same thing to happen with exclusively left-handed proteins in conditions that never existed on this planet. Further, it has never been demonstrated that benevolent mutations could facilitate increasing complexity.

Evolution exists because there is nothing else in science to explain how we came to exist. The Scriptures not only explain how, but also why. From a strictly logical point of view, believing in something you know cannot happen (evolution) over something that millions of people have experience with (God) is the greatest foolishness of all.

Why don't you ask your doctor if biology makes much sense without evolution. They can tell you.

 

[ScottA]

That makes no sense.

What makes no sense, is only considering half of an equation. Science denying the supernatural, when history is full of both natural AND supernatural, is just plain foolish.

 

[Btodd]

What did Jesus believe? Remember, he was there. He believed that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God.

That statement is so absurd it's laughable.
So prior to 1859 there was no biology?
One cannot perform a graft without bowing at the altar of molecules-to-man?

You seriously think that humans and daffodils share an ancestor? That's not science, that's foolishness.
Absolutely nothing that is known about biology would be any different based on the pairs of animals from the ark.
The fact is, biology precludes molecules-to-man. It may be possible to create a protein out of amino acids in a controlled, oxygen free environment, but it is NOT possible for the same thing to happen with exclusively left-handed proteins in conditions that never existed on this planet. Further, it has never been demonstrated that benevolent mutations could facilitate increasing complexity.

Evolution exists because there is nothing else in science to explain how we came to exist. The Scriptures not only explain how, but also why. From a strictly logical point of view, believing in something you know cannot happen (evolution) over something that millions of people have experience with (God) is the greatest foolishness of all.

First of all, what Jesus believed about it is irrelevant to me. That should be obvious.

But the statement I made is not some absurd conclusion, the fossil record alone makes no sense without Evolution. The 'scriptures' do nothing to make sense of the fossil record. That is not to say that we could not perform a graft without acknowledging evolution, but a graft is not the totality of biology. If you think the scriptures do a better job, start explaining why man shows up so late in the strata. According to the scriptures, fossils of man should exist in all strata, along with every other creature that has ever existed. There shouldn't be a 'timeline' at all.

But that isn't the case. Evolution makes sense of the fossil record.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

What makes no sense, is only considering half of an equation. Science denying the supernatural, when history is full of both natural AND supernatural, is just plain foolish.

There is no 'history' of the supernatural. There is a history of beliefs and claims about the supernatural, but we do not have access to the supernatural (if it exists). That's not a conspiracy on the part of science, that's a limitation on what we can know. If we cannot test it, with the possibility of falsifying it, then it cannot be a part of the scientific method.


Btodd

 

[ScottA]

There is no 'history' of the supernatural. There is a history of beliefs and claims about the supernatural, but we do not have access to the supernatural (if it exists). That's not a conspiracy on the part of science, that's a limitation on what we can know. If we cannot test it, with the possibility of falsifying it, then it cannot be a part of the scientific method.


Btodd

Speak for yourself. You may not have access, but I do. Many do and have all throughout history. Therefore, it is correct for me to say that there is a history of the supernatural.

The limitation is self-imposed. Some just don't want to hear it, but that does not make it not true or unknowable. We speak of what we know, which we do on our part; not believing us, is on your part. There is both, but science only deals in the one.

 

[Btodd]

Speak for yourself. You may not have access, but I do. Many do and have all throughout history. Therefore, it is correct for me to say that there is a history of the supernatural.

The limitation is self-imposed. Some just don't want to hear it, but that does not make it not true or unknowable. We speak of what we know, which we do on our part; not believing us, is on your part. There is both, but science only deals in the one.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge. While you believe you have access to the supernatural, you cannot devise any test that would prove or disprove it. So, it is essentially worthless to the scientific method. That's not a conspiracy on the part of science, that's simply the limitations we are bound by.

Btodd

 

[ScottA]

There is a difference between belief and knowledge. While you believe you have access to the supernatural, you cannot devise any test that would prove or disprove it. So, it is essentially worthless to the scientific method. That's not a conspiracy on the part of science, that's simply the limitations we are bound by.

Btodd

There again, speak for yourself. I said I know, and I do. And it is not I who cannot devise a test, but you. You cannot devise a test because you limit yourself to the limited field of scientific means. I need no more proof than I have. You, on the other hand have no proof, nor will you get any by refusing to venture into the correct area of knowledge.

The only thing that makes that self-imposed limit by science a conspiracy, is their closed-door policy against all other schools of knowledge.

 

[Btodd]

There again, speak for yourself. I said I know, and I do. And it is not I who cannot devise a test, but you. You cannot devise a test because you limit yourself to the limited field of scientific means. I need no more proof than I have. You, on the other hand have no proof, nor will you get any by refusing to venture into the correct area of knowledge.

The only thing that makes that self-imposed limit by science a conspiracy, is their closed-door policy against all other schools of knowledge.

No, really. Devise a test that will prove the supernatural. You'll be famous. Let us know what it is when you come up with it, and what would falsify it if it isn't true.


Thanks,
Btodd

 

[bhsmte]

What makes no sense, is only considering half of an equation. Science denying the supernatural, when history is full of both natural AND supernatural, is just plain foolish.

Please demonstrate how science should observe and test the supernatural?

 

[bhsmte]

Speak for yourself. You may not have access, but I do. Many do and have all throughout history. Therefore, it is correct for me to say that there is a history of the supernatural.

The limitation is self-imposed. Some just don't want to hear it, but that does not make it not true or unknowable. We speak of what we know, which we do on our part; not believing us, is on your part. There is both, but science only deals in the one.

If you have access to it and can demonstrate it exists in a falsifiable way, science can then observe it.

Ready, go!

 

[ScottA]

No, really. Devise a test that will prove the supernatural. You'll be famous. Let us know what it is when you come up with it, and what would falsify it if it isn't true.

Please demonstrate how science should observe and test the supernatural?

There is already a test, two actually: One that you can test God with, and one that he tests us with. Both, however, go both ways.

You can test God, by reading of him, by calling upon him to make himself known to you. Notice I said "known" to you. "Belief" is incorrect.

God also tests us. And if you decide to test him, you should know that he will be monitoring your sincerity. He doesn't like phonies either.

Do I still get to be famous?

 

[ScottA]

If you have access to it and can demonstrate it exists in a falsifiable way, science can then observe it.

Ready, go!

That would work, but only if science was open to hearing information from outside their area of study and understanding.