How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[knowone]

creationism & evolution, to me, is the exact same thing.  the only difference is that the evolutionary scholars dont include the concept of time from the Creators standpoint in their theology.  i remember reading some writings of the early apostles that stated it was required that man was created over a long period of time, even centuries simply because the creature man, would not have survived if he instantly appeared on earth.  take the inspired version of the book of moses in the pogp for example.  it specifically states that God created everything 'spiritually' first & then 'naturally' on earth.  it followed that up by being specific with examples, such as the Lord created a tree in spirit & then naturally on earth.

 

with that being said, one can conclude, that the Lord created man in an instant in spirit.  then, a split second later sent that same spirit into mortal bodies in the garden.  when adam & eve sinned, their bodies were translated from flesh & bone to flesh & blood in an instant, while at the same time the earth changed to its terrestrial form.  the human vessel had to be 'prepared' for terrestrial living, i.e. build up defenses against viruses, bacteria, etc etc. 

 

to fortify that theory, we know that the Creator gave protection to adam & eve in their mortal bodies.  you read how He placed cherubim & the flaming sword to protect adam & eve from further sin 'lest they be destroyed'.  it could easily be deduced that He gave other protections to the mortals.  adam almost lived 1000 years right?  obviously their bodies were much more protected than ours are today.

[danielwoods]

Quote from an article   http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museums-ken-ham-says-evolutionists-fear-giving-creationism-exposure-113796/

An RDF article earlier this month argued that evolution is "backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus" and added that creationism "is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested."

When asked about such criticism, Ham said in the interview with Comfort that evolutionists argue that scientists cannot be creationists, and that creationists hold an irrational view. Both claims, he said, are incorrect.

 

"First of all, notice the way they misrepresent the situation all the time. Right there they are saying if you are a creationist, you can't be a scientist. That's how they indoctrinate children. It's science vs. the Bible, it's science vs. creationists," Ham said.

"When they say 'that will give us a platform' – that's what they don't want. There's been an incredible censorship in America and throughout the world, but particularly in America where students aren't even allowed to critically think about evolution, the issue of origins, they are not allowed to hear other points of view, they are taught incorrectly about science and taught that evolution is fact," he continued.

The Creation Museum CEO wonders what evolutionists are "so afraid of," if they hold the opinion that creationists are so obviously wrong.

"Why would they be afraid for people to hear what we have to say? What would it matter?" he asked.

 

I thought that was a great question, "What are they so afraid of?"

[Rob Osborn]

Quote from an article   http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museums-ken-ham-says-evolutionists-fear-giving-creationism-exposure-113796/

 

 

 

I thought that was a great question, "What are they so afraid of?"

Perhaps they are afraid that their mountain of evidence they tell everyone about will be found to be nothing more than an anthill about to be ran over by a herd of raging bulls.

[The Nehor]

 

Quote from an article   http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museums-ken-ham-says-evolutionists-fear-giving-creationism-exposure-113796/

 

 

 

I thought that was a great question, "What are they so afraid of?"

 

 

I agree it is a great question. I would posit that the answer is:

 

"Creationist hacks undermining scientific methodology by winning a political battle and misrepresenting unsubstantiated tripe as science."

[thesometimesaint]

White it is true that a watch (even one with a solar cell) and a living cell may possess means of function, both are limited in time and power.  Both will cease to function at some point (their lifetime).  Neither is immortal.  Both disintegrate from the moment they come into existence as functional machines.  The fact that one is biological and that the other is not, makes no essential difference.  Entropy brings an end to both.  The biological entity may be able to replicate itself before dying, but then an automated system designed by sentient beings (human or alien) can also replicate the watch of a same or similar design.  Eventually Entropy brings an absolute end to both:  The outside solar source of power ends, and all particles continue to dissipate, until the solar system is mere particles separated equidistant from each other in the vastness of space, as cold as can be.  Living organisms are certainly subject to Entropy.  Everything in this world is subject to Entropy.

 

 

Evolution is a theory.  It doesn't have emotions. So?

 

Theoretically, yes.

 

It is one thing to quote them.  It is quite another to understand what they are saying.  I always recommend that people who want to understand science should take courses in it -- with lots of lab work

 

A watch is a closed system, they must have energy added to them either mechanically or electrically. The universe is a closed system, there is no known mechanism for adding energy to it. A living organism is an open system, every time you eat something it transfers that food energy to you.

 

Do you even know what a scientific theory is? Theories can't have emotions. They are nothing more than a construct of the human mind to explain how something works.

 

That is what the evidence shows.

 

I am a scientist. I have taken college level courses in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, botany, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, along with courses in psychology, sociology, and clinical social work. Before I retired I was licensed by the state to practice social work. I strictly adhere to the code of ethics of my professional organization.

[thesometimesaint]

creationism & evolution, to me, is the exact same thing.  the only difference is that the evolutionary scholars dont include the concept of time from the Creators standpoint in their theology.  i remember reading some writings of the early apostles that stated it was required that man was created over a long period of time, even centuries simply because the creature man, would not have survived if he instantly appeared on earth.  take the inspired version of the book of moses in the pogp for example.  it specifically states that God created everything 'spiritually' first & then 'naturally' on earth.  it followed that up by being specific with examples, such as the Lord created a tree in spirit & then naturally on earth.

 

with that being said, one can conclude, that the Lord created man in an instant in spirit.  then, a split second later sent that same spirit into mortal bodies in the garden.  when adam & eve sinned, their bodies were translated from flesh & bone to flesh & blood in an instant, while at the same time the earth changed to its terrestrial form.  the human vessel had to be 'prepared' for terrestrial living, i.e. build up defenses against viruses, bacteria, etc etc. 

 

to fortify that theory, we know that the Creator gave protection to adam & eve in their mortal bodies.  you read how He placed cherubim & the flaming sword to protect adam & eve from further sin 'lest they be destroyed'.  it could easily be deduced that He gave other protections to the mortals.  adam almost lived 1000 years right?  obviously their bodies were much more protected than ours are today.

 

There is no scientific basis for creationism. That some untestable supernatural omnipotent being some 6000 years ago magically created our world/universe out of nothing, but a thought.

 

I have no problem with anyone believing in God. I believe in God myself. What I can't do is put him into my science.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Quote from an article   http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museums-ken-ham-says-evolutionists-fear-giving-creationism-exposure-113796/

 

I thought that was a great question, "What are they so afraid of?"

 

 

The so called Creationist Museum is no more real science than the Flintstones.

[The Nehor]

Deleted because I hated my own post. 

Edited February 1, 2014 by The Nehor

[danielwoods]

I agree it is a great question. I would posit that the answer is:

 

"Creationist hacks undermining scientific methodology by winning a political battle and misrepresenting unsubstantiated tripe as science."

 

If that were true, then why not use the interaction to strengthen peoples (students or whom ever) understanding of the methods used? 

 

To refuse to debate implies fear, whether it's real or not. 

[The Nehor]

If that were true, then why not use the interaction to strengthen peoples (students or whom ever) understanding of the methods used? 

 

To refuse to debate implies fear, whether it's real or not.

Because to debate creationists is exactly what they what. They want to pretend they are using science and it is a scientific debate. They want us to teach "the controversy". This strengthens their position and many would take it as an admission that they have a point. It is like chiropractors wanting a medical association and standing when their practice is not scientific. Many do not ask why they got this standing but just assume they are legitimate.

If we were all logical then debate would be fine. We are not amd acknowledging that does not imply fear. It is a recognition of reality.

[danielwoods]

Because to debate creationists is exactly what they what. They want to pretend they are using science and it is a scientific debate. They want us to teach "the controversy". This strengthens their position and many would take it as an admission that they have a point. It is like chiropractors wanting a medical association and standing when their practice is not scientific. Many do not ask why they got this standing but just assume they are legitimate.

If we were all logical then debate would be fine. We are not amd acknowledging that does not imply fear. It is a recognition of reality.

 

The interesting thing to me is that claims are made by evolutionists, and when pressed, the answer is, "well this is the best answer we have so far..." 

 

Which is true for them. Not so much for those who don't share their unscientific assumptions. 

 

For example. Time. 

 

Time is a huge issue, where the evolutionist and creationist are worlds apart. The evolutionary time scale is a "fact" in the mind of many who believe in evolution. Yet time isn't subject to repetition or observation. Making it outside the methodology, and outside the realm of facts. So, whether or not there has actually been an actual "evolutionary time scale" as hypothesized, the *fact* is that it can't be demonstrated using science. So, the conclusion is that it's the "best" answer we have. But, that isn't science, that's called conjecture. And conjecture always involves a large amount of philosophy. Now if you happen to agree with the assumptions and philosophy that lead to the conjecture, then you agree with calling them facts. Even though they are not facts. 

 

So, I agree with you. It is what the creationists want. They want to expose these so called scientific facts for what they really are, conjecture based on a philosophical point of view. 

[The Nehor]

The interesting thing to me is that claims are made by evolutionists, and when pressed, the answer is, "well this is the best answer we have so far..." 

 

Which is true for them. Not so much for those who don't share their unscientific assumptions. 

 

For example. Time. 

 

Time is a huge issue, where the evolutionist and creationist are worlds apart. The evolutionary time scale is a "fact" in the mind of many who believe in evolution. Yet time isn't subject to repetition or observation. Making it outside the methodology, and outside the realm of facts. So, whether or not there has actually been an actual "evolutionary time scale" as hypothesized, the *fact* is that it can't be demonstrated using science. So, the conclusion is that it's the "best" answer we have. But, that isn't science, that's called conjecture. And conjecture always involves a large amount of philosophy. Now if you happen to agree with the assumptions and philosophy that lead to the conjecture, then you agree with calling them facts. Even though they are not facts. 

 

So, I agree with you. It is what the creationists want. They want to expose these so called scientific facts for what they really are, conjecture based on a philosophical point of view. 

 

There is a difference between the fields that can be directly tested (quantum physics) and those that have to be studied over timescales or inferred from evidence left behind (Evolution and History). I don't think anyone would argue that evolution has as much backing as, say, quantum physics. You cannot then say it is not science because it is. Otherwise we have to toss out a ton of other fields as well.

 

Of course it is conjecture. It is a conclusion formed with incomplete information. Without omniscience all conclusions are conjecture. I think that generally but not specifically there is no philosophical point of view behind it. There are angry atheists still trying to get back at their religious dad who believe evolution because it is a weapon for them. That is popularized science.

 

One of the silly things we have tried to teach is the "scientific viewpoint". It is borderline impossible to have such a viewpoint unless you are actually a student of science and preferably a practitioner. Most scientists I know hate popular science for this very reason. It is a cultural weapon. Creationist "scientists" (scare quotes completely intentional) and the before mentioned dad-hater are two sides of the same coin. They are not interested in truth. They want a weapon. No scientist is purely rational and most want their theories to be true but this very bickering and pettiness is sadly what keeps many of them honest. There are plenty of scientists who would love to be the next Galileo or Newton who destroys a prevailing theory or creates a new one. The idea that scientists have closed ranks to protect an untenable theory is absurd.

[danielwoods]

There is a difference between the fields that can be directly tested (quantum physics) and those that have to be studied over timescales or inferred from evidence left behind (Evolution and History). I don't think anyone would argue that evolution has as much backing as, say, quantum physics. You cannot then say it is not science because it is. Otherwise we have to toss out a ton of other fields as well.

 

Of course it is conjecture. It is a conclusion formed with incomplete information. Without omniscience all conclusions are conjecture. I think that generally but not specifically there is no philosophical point of view behind it. There are angry atheists still trying to get back at their religious dad who believe evolution because it is a weapon for them. That is popularized science.

 

One of the silly things we have tried to teach is the "scientific viewpoint". It is borderline impossible to have such a viewpoint unless you are actually a student of science and preferably a practitioner. Most scientists I know hate popular science for this very reason. It is a cultural weapon. Creationist "scientists" (scare quotes completely intentional) and the before mentioned dad-hater are two sides of the same coin. They are not interested in truth. They want a weapon. No scientist is purely rational and most want their theories to be true but this very bickering and pettiness is sadly what keeps many of them honest. There are plenty of scientists who would love to be the next Galileo or Newton who destroys a prevailing theory or creates a new one. The idea that scientists have closed ranks to protect an untenable theory is absurd.

 

The very idea of what is tenable or not is based in philosophy not data. What is "reasonable" to a majority people is often what we read today as, "the best answer we have to date..." which has more to do with politics and funding than an actual search for truth where ever it leads. 

 

Understanding the basic assumptions (which in themselves aren't testable or science) underlying the interpretation of data, consciously or not is a difficult first step. 

[The Nehor]

The very idea of what is tenable or not is based in philosophy not data. What is "reasonable" to a majority people is often what we read today as, "the best answer we have to date..." which has more to do with politics and funding than an actual search for truth where ever it leads. 

 

Understanding the basic assumptions (which in themselves aren't testable or science) underlying the interpretation of data, consciously or not is a difficult first step. 

 

So if, quantum physics for example, was philosophically unsound, it would be rejected? Surprise! It pretty much is. It is so incredibly counterintuitive to how people believe things work that many people will not believe it when they are told how it works or will imagine they misunderstood. The more I learn the weirder it is.

 

So no, if the data contradicts the basic assumptions we are pretty good at tossing them. Politics and funding do, to some degree, decide WHAT we study.

[danielwoods]

So if, quantum physics for example, was philosophically unsound, it would be rejected? Surprise! It pretty much is. It is so incredibly counterintuitive to how people believe things work that many people will not believe it when they are told how it works or will imagine they misunderstood. The more I learn the weirder it is.

 

So no, if the data contradicts the basic assumptions we are pretty good at tossing them. Politics and funding do, to some degree, decide WHAT we study.

 

That's no fun. We pretty much agree on that point. 

[changed]

So if, quantum physics for example, was philosophically unsound, it would be rejected?

Yep, "God doesn't play with dice". 

I like these physics lectures:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+intro+physics+lecture+Balakrishnan&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=youtube+intro+physics+lecture+balakrishnan&sc=0-30&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=83DA7FF847F29129AAD683DA7FF847F29129AAD6

We're familiar with the length & time scales that we can touch and see, we have no physical intuition for anything else.

 

Edited February 2, 2014 by changed

[changed]

There is no scientific basis for creationism. That some untestable supernatural omnipotent being some 6000 years ago magically created our world/universe out of nothing, but a thought.

 

I have no problem with anyone believing in God. I believe in God myself. What I can't do is put him into my science.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1)...

One of my old students conducted an interesting survey - she interviewed students, friends, neighbors, professors, etc. about their religious beliefs, belief in aliens, belief in winning the lottery, etc. etc.  What she found was an interesting progression of beliefs with experience - undergrad students were "too smart" to believe in aliens, religion, etc.  They were trying to prove their intellectual prowress by distancing themselves from such things... but, for those who were older, the belief in aliens and God were brought back, these things were defined differently than what holywood would have you think of them of coarse, but older people had started believing again.

I love the Perry model of intellectual and ethical development - from the stage one dualists just entering colledge, who believe in facts, and trust authority figures... to adults who become their own authority figures, and by so doing realize and are able to deal with uncertainty in knowledge. 

 

 

"Have you ever looked in awe at the night sky with its billions of stars? Or studied the intricate details of a leaf or flower? Or marveled at the miracle of a tiny new baby? These beautiful and complex creations didn’t come about by chance. They are the creations of God, your Heavenly Father. They can remind you of His existence and of His love for His children. An ancient prophet declared: “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth... and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Book of Mormon, Alma 30:44)."

 

The childhood impressions and lessons give way to a more grandiose understanding of coarse, but the world truly is a witness of intelligence and creation.

 

Edited February 2, 2014 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

If that were true, then why not use the interaction to strengthen peoples (students or whom ever) understanding of the methods used? 

 

To refuse to debate implies fear, whether it's real or not. 

 

The methodology is pretty easy to understand. IE; Ask a question; read every already known on the subject; formulate a test to the answer that question; conduct the test; record the results; repeat. The reason why most don't go into science as a profession is pretty simple also doing actual science is hard work, and most labor in near total obscurity, for not much money their whole adult life. The only public notice they get is in their obituary. Ask most to name more than one famous scientist living today. You'll get blank stares. But they'll tell you all about their favorite TV/movie stars or favorite football team.

 

While scientists do need to do a better job of presenting what they do know to the general public. Science really isn't about debate per say. I can show a person that the earth revolves around sun till the cows come home, but nearly 1/4 of adults in the US really do believe the sun revolves around the earth. How do you debate someone who refuses to accept reality?

[thesometimesaint]

Yep, "God doesn't play with dice". 

I like these physics lectures:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+intro+physics+lecture+Balakrishnan&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=youtube+intro+physics+lecture+balakrishnan&sc=0-30&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=83DA7FF847F29129AAD683DA7FF847F29129AAD6

We're familiar with the length & time scales that we can touch and see, we have no physical intuition for anything else.

Yes God does play dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded.

 

[changed]

 IE; Ask a question; read every already known on the subject; formulate a test to the answer that question; conduct the test; record the results; repeat. The reason why most don't go into science as a profession is pretty simple also doing actual science is hard work, and most labor in near total obscurity, for not much money their whole adult life. The only public notice they get is in their obituary. Ask most to name more than one famous scientist living today. You'll get blank stares. But they'll tell you all about their favorite TV/movie stars or favorite football team.

 

While scientists do need to do a better job of presenting what they do know to the general public. Science really isn't about debate per say. I can show a person that the earth revolves around sun till the cows come home, but nearly 1/4 of adults in the US really do believe the sun revolves around the earth. How do you debate someone who refuses to accept reality?

The sci meathod is outlined in Alma 32:

Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than ^adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a ^aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a ^bseed may be planted in your ^cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your ^dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to ^eenlighten my ^funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own ^alikeness.

 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

"experiment on the word" we are told to be scientists.... the problems only come for those who refuse to do the experiment.

[changed]

 Science really isn't about debate per say.

Sience is full of debate.

Many of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientists_who_committed_suicide

were caused because scientists were arguing with one another over one theory or another.

 

We all see different things, we're blind mice describing an elephant.

 

Edited February 2, 2014 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1)...

One of my old students conducted an interesting survey - she interviewed students, friends, neighbors, professors, etc. about their religious beliefs, belief in aliens, belief in winning the lottery, etc. etc.  What she found was an interesting progression of beliefs with experience - undergrad students were "too smart" to believe in aliens, religion, etc.  They were trying to prove their intellectual prowress by distancing themselves from such things... but, for those who were older, the belief in aliens and God were brought back, these things were defined differently than what holywood would have you think of them of coarse, but older people had started believing again.

I love the Perry model of intellectual and ethical development - from the stage one dualists just entering colledge, who believe in facts, and trust authority figures... to adults who become their own authority figures, and by so doing realize and are able to deal with uncertainty in knowledge. 

 

 

"Have you ever looked in awe at the night sky with its billions of stars? Or studied the intricate details of a leaf or flower? Or marveled at the miracle of a tiny new baby? These beautiful and complex creations didn’t come about by chance. They are the creations of God, your Heavenly Father. They can remind you of His existence and of His love for His children. An ancient prophet declared: “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth... and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Book of Mormon, Alma 30:44)."

 

The childhood impressions and lessons give way to a more grandiose understanding of coarse, but the world truly is a witness of intelligence and creation.

 

 

That is a religious belief. It is not falsifiable. Therefore is not/can not be science.

 

I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want. It's a free country. Science doesn't concern itself with any idea that cannot be falsified. IE; You can believe that the five inner planets, and where they are in the sky, control your moods, and what you will become in life. Astrology, the predecessor of Astronomy, did just that. It wasn't/isn't science. Yet millions of people believe it today, including college students. What's your horoscope sign?

 

I am always in awe of nature, and the processes that she uses. I want to drink heavily of that ambrosia, and touch the mind of God. Evolution is the opposite of chance. That minute changes over immense periods of time has selected for life in all its glorious shapes, and forms. That God through his knowledge and love has allowed me a small opportunity to learn about how he did it, and participate in that Creation.

[danielwoods]

The methodology is pretty easy to understand. IE; Ask a question; read every already known on the subject; formulate a test to the answer that question; conduct the test; record the results; repeat. The reason why most don't go into science as a profession is pretty simple also doing actual science is hard work, and most labor in near total obscurity, for not much money their whole adult life. The only public notice they get is in their obituary. Ask most to name more than one famous scientist living today. You'll get blank stares. But they'll tell you all about their favorite TV/movie stars or favorite football team.

 

While scientists do need to do a better job of presenting what they do know to the general public. Science really isn't about debate per say. I can show a person that the earth revolves around sun till the cows come home, but nearly 1/4 of adults in the US really do believe the sun revolves around the earth. How do you debate someone who refuses to accept reality?

 

I disagree. Science is no harder than any other job. Work is work. 

 

The difficulty isn't in demonstrating how science does it's work in real time (Planetary motion), rather it's demonstrating what causes scientists to believe so strongly in something not so easily demonstrated.

 

Such as:

 

Intelligence is derived from non-intelligent sources. 

 

Life is derived from non-living matter. 

 

Billions of years in the past this or that happened... 

 

Demonstrating any one of these in real time? Not going to happen. Scientists rest on the old, "it's the best answer we have so far..." 

 

What makes it the best? Their commonly held Faith/belief/philosophy which helps to interpret the limited data into a popular hypothesis. A hypothesis that isn't directly testable. But, if you don't believe it, you're labeled a "Non-scientist"!

[thesometimesaint]

The sci meathod is outlined in Alma 32:

Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than ^adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a ^aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a ^bseed may be planted in your ^cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your ^dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to ^eenlighten my ^funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own ^alikeness.

 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

"experiment on the word" we are told to be scientists.... the problems only come for those who refuse to do the experiment.

 

That is not the Scientific Method.

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree. Science is no harder than any other job. Work is work. 

 

The difficulty isn't in demonstrating how science does it's work in real time (Planetary motion), rather it's demonstrating what causes scientists to believe so strongly in something not so easily demonstrated.

 

Such as:

 

Intelligence is derived from non-intelligent sources. 

 

Life is derived from non-living matter. 

 

Billions of years in the past this or that happened... 

 

Demonstrating any one of these in real time? Not going to happen. Scientists rest on the old, "it's the best answer we have so far..." 

 

What makes it the best? Their commonly held Faith/belief/philosophy which helps to interpret the limited data into a popular hypothesis. A hypothesis that isn't directly testable. But, if you don't believe it, you're labeled a "Non-scientist"!

 

If it is not hard why do so few people actually do it?

 

It is debatable what is intelligent life as people make so abundantly clear every day. What is not open for debate is that a single cell is intelligent in any meaningful way. While a certain collection of trillions of those cells is at least somewhat intelligent.

 

You eat food don't you? Your body breaks down food into nonliving compounds then reassembles those nonliving compounds to make you. Abiogenesis isn't fundamentally different from what your body does already.

 

Look up into the night sky. You are looking at light made billions of years ago finally reaching your eyes. Dig down into the earth. You are digging into billions of years of our earths' history.

 

Real time evolution? Right here in the lab. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

If we lived millions of years we'd see mountain ranges form, get worn down, and washed to sea. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years, only to die out to be replaced by other animals. About 200,000 years ago, less than a tick on the geologic clock, humans came on the scene. Now there is hardly a place on this planet we haven't been. We built space craft that have gone outside our solar system. Yet there is much much, much, more to learn and to do. So much in fact that our knowledge is as but a thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

It is always the best we yet have. There is always more to learn. The only people that are content with just what they know are the religionists who make that claim.

 

We test hypotheses all the time. That is how we learn. IE; How do I get water from here to there? How do I get to valley of the great Salt Lake? What is a good way to cook a meal? How do sun spots form? How far it is to the next star?

 

I have no problem with the non scientist. Just as I have no problem with non football players. Someone is going to watch the game. I'll bet dollars to donuts on that one today.