Adam And The Apes

[mfbukowski]

And since when is science immutable?

[mfbukowski]

I thought the evidence pointed to a local flood (their world)

If that.  It doesn't matter.

[Stone holm]

You are missing the point.  None of that will ever prove that the Man Jesus died for our sins.

 

Science cannot prove religion ever and it is a waste of time to pretend it can. What evidence could prove the atonement?  You are chasing an illusion by believing it can.  It has nothing to do with science.

Is that the issue or is the issue whether religion should be used to limit or guide scientific investigation and judge scientific conclusions?

[halconero]

Well...thats mans feeble interpretation absent of any Creator. Thats the problem we face today in discussion because we have what we call "scientific methods" that are supposedly true or considered as fact but yet lack the actual proof and validity because we werent around in the past thousands or millions of years ago to actually observe what realky was happening from the beginning through to the end. Nowdays everyone runs around saying dinosaurs are millions of years old despite the fact there is no scienifically verifiable test to prove this idea. Of interest is that every dinosaur bone that has been carbon dated has shown it to be in the thousands, not millions, of years old. Then, some scientists started noticing actual soft tissue in bones of dinosaurs which shows without any reasonable doubt that they are either far younger than previosly thought.

But, you know how these kinds of things get thrown out rom the view of science because of that holy ground they have created for themselves.

Of course any attempt to use carbon dating on dinosaur bones would show it to be thousands of years old. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, making it useless in dating methods beyond 60000 years.

Also, Iron can sometimes acts a sort of phermaldihyde once release from hemoglobin upon decomposition.

[cdowis]

Is that the issue or is the issue whether religion should be used to limit or guide scientific investigation and judge scientific conclusions?

 

I notice on my kitchen table two ant scientists who are surveying the universe.  They have come to several profound conclusions based on their observations.

Edited January 9, 2014 by cdowis

[Rob Osborn]

If you could prove intelligent design and a global flood tomorrow morning and all scientists suddenly miraculously agreed, you would still not show that Jesus is the Christ.  So what's the point of worrying about all the little subsidiary details of the argument when the main premise is still out there unsupported, and never can be supported?

 

Why spend all your time and effort fighting the wrong battle ?

I dont even get your point, what is it?

[thesometimesaint]

What if we turn the tables and say that the whole story of evolution can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles?

 

Your statement is oxymoronic. There are no supernatural miracles in science.

[thesometimesaint]

The science I believe in is filtered and then coupled by all my religious beliefs making the both connected and inseparable. I thus interpret the geologic column in light of the global flood in Noah's day.

 

A global flood is a scientific impossibility.

 

Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.

• How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
• If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
• If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
• A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
• Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree, the only caveat being I'm sure in the end we'll find out -- for God will reveal it -- that science and religion are in perfect harmony with each other. I think the thing that  causes the scientists to miss the mark is that they don't factor in to their creation scenarios there actually is a God of great miracles in the middle of it all. This same God will miraculously transform planet earth into a celestial kingdom virtually overnight, something the scientist will tell you is an impossibility.

 

Science doesn't rely on miracles to work. I'm fine with god doing whatever he wants. But if we are going to try to explain how he did something it is best to use science.

[thesometimesaint]

Sure, its science, just maybe not the same interpretation as you. There are real actual scientists who believe and show evidence for a recent global flood. There are also real actual scientists who believe and show evidence against Darwinian evolution. So, whats your flavor? You can say its not science all you want- whatever floats your boat but its science for me and also a very large group which include many noteworthy scientists.

A more supportable claim would there are many recognized scientist that believe in God(s).

 

Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute are fraudsters. They have been debunked many times.

 

CFR that there is a very large group of noteworthy scientists that support a Global Flood mythology.

[halconero]

Of course any attempt to use carbon dating on dinosaur bones would show it to be thousands of years old. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, making it useless in dating methods beyond 60000 years.

Also, Iron can sometimes acts a sort of phermaldihyde once release from hemoglobin upon decomposition.

 

To quote myself in order to elaborate further, using carbon to date dinosaur bones is like using a speedometer that only reads up to 100 km/hr in order to measure the top speed of a Lamborghini.

[Stone holm]

To quote myself in order to elaborate further, using carbon to date dinosaur bones is like using a speedometer that only reads up to 100 km/hr in order to measure the top speed of a Lamborghini.

Really? How so.?

[mfbukowski]

The science I believe in is filtered and then coupled by all my religious beliefs making the both connected and inseparable. I thus interpret the geologic column in light of the global flood in Noah's day.

The flood is of no theological significance whatsoever.

 

Think about it.  If it never happened and instead everyone died of a disease leaving no possible evidence, the results would be the same.

 

Even if that happened, there is still no theological significance to the story that the world was re-populated.  The only reason anyone fusses over the flood is to prove that the Bible is historical, and that doesn't even matter.

 

Yes, we have some place names, like "Jerusalem" that we know are real.  We have NO evidence for the BOM and we still see it as scripture.  You cannot prove religious faith by science.

[mfbukowski]

The evidence exists and stands on its own. How that evidence is interpreted is as stark as night and day.

BTW, "their world" is the world Moses saw in vision beholding the entire planet.

No, evidence is only "evidence" if you interpret it as such.

[mfbukowski]

I agree, the only caveat being I'm sure in the end we'll find out -- for God will reveal it -- that science and religion are in perfect harmony with each other. I think the thing that  causes the scientists to miss the mark is that they don't factor in to their creation scenarios there actually is a God of great miracles in the middle of it all. This same God will miraculously transform planet earth into a celestial kingdom virtually overnight, something the scientist will tell you is an impossibility.

I think the truth is the truth.  Whether or not science will ever actually seek the truth is another question.

[mfbukowski]

Is that the issue or is the issue whether religion should be used to limit or guide scientific investigation and judge scientific conclusions?

Should the commissioner of baseball have some say over what art the Getty museum buys?

 

They are totally independent realms which have nothing to do with each other.

[thesometimesaint]

The flood is of no theological significance whatsoever.

 

Think about it.  If it never happened and instead everyone died of a disease leaving no possible evidence, the results would be the same.

 

Even if that happened, there is still no theological significance to the story that the world was re-populated.  The only reason anyone fusses over the flood is to prove that the Bible is historical, and that doesn't even matter.

 

Yes, we have some place names, like "Jerusalem" that we know are real.  We have NO evidence for the BOM and we still see it as scripture.  You cannot prove religious faith by science.

 

We do have evidence for the BoM.

See http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

We accept the BoM as Scripture independent of the evidence. Evidence is nice. However It is the Truth Claims we're after.

[mfbukowski]

I notice on my kitchen table two ant scientists who are surveying the universe.  They have come to several profound conclusions based on their observations.

This is actually a profound thought!

 

Just as ants can only know what they are capable of knowing, humans can only know what we CAN know and observe and put into words.

 

And that ain't much.  It is all filtered through a human brain, such as it is.  Our reality is a human reality as much as ant reality is ant reality

Edited January 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

I think the truth is the truth.  Whether or not science will ever actually seek the truth is another question.

You must understand in my post I was talking about the laws of science (e.g. gravity, thermodynamics, electro magnetism, etc.), not the scientists, especially the kind of scientists who, for example,  say there is no God and then theorize how the universe was created and how it is now sustained without Him.

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I dont even get your point, what is it?

The overall goal here is to win the "chess game" showing that science and religion are harmonious.

 

Disproving evolution and proving the flood are only pawns in the game.  You could win or lose those pawns and it would not matter to the whole game one iota.

 

If you can prove the atonement scientifically, that would be "checkmate".

 

You are never going to get to checkmate spending your whole energy on pawns.  You have to think bigger and see the whole strategy.

[mfbukowski]

You must understand in my post I was talking about the laws of science (e.g. gravity, thermodynamics, electro magnetism, etc.), not the scientists, especially the kind of scientists who, for example,  say there is no God and then theorize how the universe was created and how it is now sustained without Him.

But notice that those laws change every hundred years or so.  They are human inventions based on observations and interpretations

[teddyaware]

But notice that those laws change every hundred years or so.  They are human inventions based on observations and interpretations

That's also true. Scientists are constantly revising and rethinking what was previously thought to be settled science.

[Rob Osborn]

Your statement is oxymoronic. There are no supernatural miracles in science.

There are quite a lot of supernatural miracles in Darwinian evolution. I will name two of them-

 

The first supernatural miracle is how life arose out of non-life materials. The second supernatural miracle is how that first life was encoded with ability to reproduce its own kind.

 

You see, the problem you have in debate is that you somehow chalk God up as being outside scientific reality and place him in the same category of a science fiction comic book hero that has no real value in all that is created.

[teddyaware]

Science doesn't rely on miracles to work. I'm fine with god doing whatever he wants. But if we are going to try to explain how he did something it is best to use science.

Or revelation?

[Rob Osborn]

 

A global flood is a scientific impossibility.

 

Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.

• How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
• If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
• If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
• A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
• Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

 

Who said I believe in a vapor canopy theory? I personally believe most of the water came from under the earths surface which then caused it to rain being recycled from ground level back into the atmosphere.