Evolutionist contradict themselves and debunked-Story of Creation is Biblical Fact

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

I do read a lot of scientific journals, and what I have found is that more and more scientists are starting to accept that there had to be a Creator of all this beautiful, perfect, harmonious, complex universe and world. But it doesn't really matter to me as much as it used to. Because people are going to believe what they choose to believe regardless.

Good point. Reality is non-intuitive and our brains weren't designed to grok relativity or quantum mechanics. That's why we have mathematics and science. If we can represent Reality numerically we need only manipulate the numbers then test the results with science. We can reach workable conclusions even if we cant fully comprehend the reality behind them.
"Apologist" --In philosophy or theology an apologist is one who advocates or agrues for a particular position.
The Theory/Fact argument comes up in virtually every discussion of evolution. In threads over 50 posts long you'll see it clarified multiple times.
Like "apologist," "theory" has a specialized meaning in scientific discussion. It does not mean speculation or conjecture. Understood correctly, most theories are facts. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That seems like a oxymoron to me "theories are facts". I must not understand it correctly. But anyways, I think now that I am not qualified to argue that topic because I do not possess the knowledge to hang with the Big Dogs! I have a belief that I cannot prove scientifically. I'm living proof of God's work! Also, I can't say that my theory of how it all is and came to be or the meaning of life should be considered fact, maybe to me, but otherwise, No Way that doesn't fly. However, the Bible does contains a lot of historical facts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That seems like a oxymoron to me "theories are facts". I must not understand it correctly.

You're probably thinking of 'theory' in the general layman's terms, and not on scientific terms. When it comes to science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, replicated, and shown to be true. And there are actually many theories of science that many people do not realize are theories, such as germ theory, plate tectonics, barometric pressure, magnetics, and electrical currents. And we know many facts from these theories, such as opposite poles attracting and that electricity is flows in a very predictable manner and is always seeking a ground.

 

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

Okay I can accept that, But who are the people who understand the math to prove the science, Other mathematicians and scientists. I only made it to basic Trig, Calc, son electronic math. I ban convert numbers to binary and hexadecimal. We just have to trust that what they (humans) know is true.
For me, I trust God over any human.
People are capable of lies, deceit, betrayal, manipulation, etc. But God never has done or will ever do any of those things. He is incapable of any evil. That's just my thoughts.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're probably thinking of 'theory' in the general layman's terms, and not on scientific terms. When it comes to science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, replicated, and shown to be true.....

Actually, they're never shown to be "true".
This is because it's always possible that different circumstances, & new observations might arise which are better described by a new theory.
Example: Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by general relativity, which accounted for things like Mercury's orbital precession.
So testing is about either disproving or verifying the theory in a limited way.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But who are the people who understand the math to prove the science, Other mathematicians and scientists.

Math proves itself.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It's okay, those are just scientific theories with beliefs in their truth possibility. They are being taught so maybe one could carry on continuing studying them to get more with hope they are possibly realized.

 

[sayak83]

Okay I can accept that, But who are the people who understand the math to prove the science, Other mathematicians and scientists. I only made it to basic Trig, Calc, son electronic math. I ban convert numbers to binary and hexadecimal. We just have to trust that what they (humans) know is true.
For me, I trust God over any human.
People are capable of lies, deceit, betrayal, manipulation, etc. But God never has done or will ever do any of those things. He is incapable of any evil. That's just my thoughts.

But the Bible is not the words of God. They are simply words of ancient men who claim to be speaking in behalf of God, just another set of claims made by men. Why trust one group rather than the other? Why trust the Bible, or rather the specific interpretation of the Bible found in your church community, more than the claims of science or other interpretations of your faith more compatible with the claims of science?

 

[Valjean]

I do read a lot of scientific journals, and what I have found is that more and more scientists are starting to accept that there had to be a Creator of all this beautiful, perfect, harmonious, complex universe and world. But it doesn't really matter to me as much as it used to. Because people are going to believe what they choose to believe regardless.

What scientific journals have you been reading that gave you that impression? I was under the impression that the more we understood the natural mechanisms for what formerly appeared miraculous, the fewer scientists would believe in miracles.

That seems like a oxymoron to me "theories are facts". I must not understand it correctly. But anyways, I think now that I am not qualified to argue that topic because I do not possess the knowledge to hang with the Big Dogs! I have a belief that I cannot prove scientifically. I'm living proof of God's work! Also, I can't say that my theory of how it all is and came to be or the meaning of life should be considered fact, maybe to me, but otherwise, No Way that doesn't fly. However, the Bible does contains a lot of historical facts.

Many of the things you accept as facts are also theories: germ theory, heliocentric theory, spherical Earth theory, &c.
Check out Gould's well-known essay on the subject: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What scientific journals have you been reading that gave you that impression? I was under the impression that the more we understood the natural mechanisms for what formerly appeared miraculous, the fewer scientists would believe in miracles.

Most of the time when I hear a scientist using the word god, they are using it a very esoteric, complexed, and highly unconventional way. It certainly is not "god" as is understood by most people.

 

[viole]

My son (3rd) is being taught the Big Bang theory in which he is having issues with. So while doing some research and what I found was amazing. I encourage you to watch you tube "what you aren't being told about astronomy by Skip Pssaris. He was an engineer for the US Military Program. He entered the program as an evolutionist and atheist. During his course of research and his findings he is now a creationist and Christian. He breaks down many claims from evolutionists have made and show how they are inconsistent , contradictory and lacking and facts to prove their theories. He speaks about how the universe began and it could not have been. Ultimately, the Bible accounts are true. He explains how our universe is not billions of years old more like 6000 years old. His backs up all his claims scientifically by what we know as fact. Such how a dust particle cannot become a planet and based on speeds of revolution with certain planets show how young our universe is. He also addresses the function of the moon, why its there, is for us. So, if you think about it, it really is the only thing that makes sense. There never was or ever will be life on another planet. So, God created everything for our benefit. and he is the Grand Master of everything. he is the ultimate scientist and He doesn't have to prove Himself.

That a 3rd grader has issues with some scientific estabilished facts like Big Bang cosmology or evolution is normal. They are not obviously supported by natural intuition.

Less normal for n-graders, though. With n larger than 3.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

Okay I can accept that, But who are the people who understand the math to prove the science, Other mathematicians and scientists. I only made it to basic Trig, Calc, son electronic math. I ban convert numbers to binary and hexadecimal. We just have to trust that what they (humans) know is true.
For me, I trust God over any human.
People are capable of lies, deceit, betrayal, manipulation, etc. But God never has done or will ever do any of those things. He is incapable of any evil. That's just my thoughts.

Have you ever flown or driven in a car, you've obviously used a computer. Well guess who worked out how they function, yes, scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
So why do you trust the science that makes aeroplanes fly but not the science that describes how the universe came about?

 

[Ouroboros]

I do read a lot of scientific journals, and what I have found is that more and more scientists are starting to accept that there had to be a Creator of all this beautiful, perfect, harmonious, complex universe and world.

It's more like they believe in a guidance or creative force, but not the kind of creator that made Eden and garden variety species 6,000 years ago. There's a difference between the in situ creation and evolutionary creation.

But it doesn't really matter to me as much as it used to. Because people are going to believe what they choose to believe regardless.

Kind'a true. People believe what they believe, but most people don't choose it. They choose the situations they're in, the books they read, the people they listen to, and so on, but the belief comes from what they choose to take in, so the belief itself is an effect of their choice, not so much a choice in itself.

That seems like a oxymoron to me "theories are facts".

They aren't. Theories are based on facts. Facts are the building blocks for a theory (scientific theory). The theory is the framework, the model, the concept that is drawn from and explain the facts.

The theory of evolution is a theory, but facts of evolution are facts. There are evidence that supports evolution, so the theory explain those facts.

I must not understand it correctly. But anyways, I think now that I am not qualified to argue that topic because I do not possess the knowledge to hang with the Big Dogs! I have a belief that I cannot prove scientifically. I'm living proof of God's work! Also, I can't say that my theory of how it all is and came to be or the meaning of life should be considered fact, maybe to me, but otherwise, No Way that doesn't fly. However, the Bible does contains a lot of historical facts.

Sure. The Bible does contain historical facts, and it also contains a lot of stories that are just religious analogies infused with some facts. It's like the story of Snow White. Apples, forests, and castles do exist, but witches who produce poisoned apples and talk to magical mirrors don't. The way we separate magic from reality is by using science and look at the actual facts.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I understand. But who determine their accuracy? Other human scientists. I believe they got a lot correct, but I don't trust it all. Probably because I can't understand it. I wouldn't know either way anyways. Science was never my favorite subject either.

I agree with the technology because I was a computer technician for several years, but there always so many bugs, patches, and fixes. Then by the time they get it right, it become obsolete and on to another version. What scares me, and it is just right around the corner, is virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and drones....oh and the RFid. Not good, I think they're playing with fire.

Which is why several methods are used in dating processes; not just one; and the most suitable dating processes are used depending on the environment in which a given artifact is located; and several sources are used; and rather than a specific date being set, a "range" is established. Those who lament against "dating" techniques have the idea that some guy in the field picks up an artifact, makes a declarative statement of its approximate date, then tosses it in a pile. Nope; samples of the environment are taken and tested by more than one source; the artifact itself is evaluated by several sources using different methods; the results are compared; inconsistent results are re-evaluated and on the basis of the inconsistency, discarded as erroneous; etc.

 

[Jainarayan]

That the half-life of uranium 238 is almost 4.5 billion years, uranium 235 is over 700 million years, and isotopes of thorium up to 14 billion years kind of bats the 6,000 year old Earth claim out of the park.

No, I'm wrong... it bats it into the next universe. Buh-bye Young Earth Creationism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I just don't trust some of the scientific truths that is accepted is accurate.

Another misconception.

Science does not bother itself with "truth". Science follows evidence to its most logical conclusion. All findings of science -- including that which we refer to as "laws" -- are subject to scrutiny and revision and refinement. "Truth" is never subject to scrutiny. This is why science does not seek "truth" in the philosophical sense; but instead seeks "facts" that help us form "predictive models of reality".

 

[Jainarayan]

Another misconception.

Science does not bother itself with "truth". Science follows evidence to its most logical conclusion. All findings of science -- including that which we refer to as "laws" -- are subject to scrutiny and revision and refinement. "Truth" is never subject to scrutiny. This is why science does not seek "truth" in the philosophical sense; but instead seeks "facts" that help us form "predictive models of reality".

Science is its own worst enemy relative to creationists. Science will question itself and change its conclusions with new findings, something creationism cannot or will not do.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Science is its own worst enemy relative to creationists. Science will question itself and change its conclusions with new findings, something creationism cannot or will not do.

Science begins with a question, then seeks evidence to answer that question.

Creationists, Conspiracy Nuts, Ghost and Bigfoot Hunters, etc. begins with an answer then seeks evidence to support said conclusion.

Pseudoscientists have it backwards.

 

[Jainarayan]

Science begins with a question, then seeks evidence to answer that question.

Or even to falsify it if possible. If it cannot be falsified, then we may have a working theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why bother making a bagillion other planets then? This Earth and this Sun is just for us, and there's no aliens around on other planets? Are the 100 octillion stars out there made especially for us too? Even the ones that blow up before we ever even get a chance to visit them?

That sounds intuitively illogical right? but

ever play minecraft? it's practically infinite world must have accidentally created itself also, since no intelligent being would intentionally create something so vast right?

Remember that similarly, our entire universe was contained in a self extracting archive of information, a 'primeval atom' or singularity, it's scale and scope were determined by the math, the algorithms, not a budget!

So if a vast awe inspiring cosmos, drawing us out and beyond ourselves, is no more 'bother' than a minimalist space-saver compact Truman show universe.. I would think the latter would be more consistent with a fluke than divine creation.


Also consider that the universe is not too big for us to know, you just quoted the number of stars, and many cosmologists including atheists, have marveled at how the universe so lends itself to our understanding

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which is why several methods are used in dating processes; not just one; and the most suitable dating processes are used depending on the environment in which a given artifact is located; and several sources are used; and rather than a specific date being set, a "range" is established. Those who lament against "dating" techniques have the idea that some guy in the field picks up an artifact, makes a declarative statement of its approximate date, then tosses it in a pile. Nope; samples of the environment are taken and tested by more than one source; the artifact itself is evaluated by several sources using different methods; the results are compared; inconsistent results are re-evaluated and on the basis of the inconsistency, discarded as erroneous; etc.

I just watched some show not too long ago where a group of archeologists were pretty sure they found a viking settlement in Canada, everything was even seeming to match up enough that the layout of the the building remnants matched up, bits of jewelyr they found matched up, and even an expect on vikings said everything looked as it should to be a viking settlement, but the dating said otherwise, which meant is was on the team of archeologists to find more to prove it was a viking settlement or what it was at all.