Religon Vs. Science

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nicole_

Junior Member
Feb 10, 2015
3
0
0
#1
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#2
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
actually it would not have taken thousands of years for wolves to become dogs...a dog is basically a domesticated breed of wolf...you can produce a new breed of animal in a matter of decades through selective breeding...the vast majority of dog breeds are less than a few hundred years old...
 

jaybird88

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
4,569
223
63
#3
there used to be a time where science and spirituality could not exist without one another but that was long ago.

the earth being 6k years old is a concept of man, not the bible.
 

Nicole_

Junior Member
Feb 10, 2015
3
0
0
#4
Yes, selective breading but that wouldn't be the case. Its extremely doubtful that for 100s of years dogs were selected to be bread and then from those hand selected again.
I could see maybe only a few decades from a wolf to a dog such as a german Shepard, but a wolf to a dog such as a chihuahua?
 
Dec 31, 2014
64
0
0
#5
Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past.
The Bible is a book about history, while scientific theories only talk about prehistoric man. For example, the existence of the man Julius Caesar could never be discovered by examining the properties of the natural world. You would have to look at what was written about him by historians that lived around his time.

My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.
Science is the study of the behavior of the universe. If God created the universe, he would not be a part of it, in the same way that an author could not be found by any of the characters in his novel.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts.
The Bible does not say anything about the age of the Earth anywhere. In fact, the Bible is not very much concerned with this sort of thing. The telling of the creation of the universe in Genesis is obviously a simplification. The details of how God created everything from nothing would clearly surpass our understanding. How much the telling was simplified is debated, some people think that 7 days was a simplification, and some people think that this was literal. But the telling in Genesis does capture the important parts, or at least, the parts that are important for us to know - that there was a beginning, that God created us in his image. etc..

A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.
There are dinosaurs in the bible, they died in the flood. Dinosaurs and the Bible
"The worldwide flood rapidly buried millions of plants and animals, creating the right conditions for fossils to form. Typically when an animal dies, it decomposes or is scattered by scavengers over time. However, the fossils found in sedimentary layers were buried instantly. Fossils such as fish eating or giving birth appear to have been frozen in time without warning. Fossilized jellyfish must have been rapidly buried because their soft bodies float and decay within hours of death. The top mile of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary layers full of fossils that could not have formed by a slow and gradual process." - Fossils Confirm the Biblical Creation & the Genesis Flood

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Again, science is the study of how things in the universe behave. Many theories of how certain things happened are created based on scientific findings, but they are not really themselves, in the strict sense, science. A forensic scientist can say that he found your fingerprints at the scene of the crime, but that does not mean that you were the murderer - that would only be one theory that explains how your finger prints got there.

Here is a good video on some of the problems in modern science,

[video=youtube;eQVm8RokoBA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA[/video]

Also, there is no plausable scientific theory for the creation of the first living organism from non living organism.
Here are some pieces from an article from livescience.com (not a Christian site)
"Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid." of course this just pushes the question back of where that life came from. The problem is that evolution tries to explain how all life emerged from the first life, but if we don't know how that first life emerged, we don't really have much of a theory. They don't have evidence that shows that it's possible for life to emerge from non-life (and they have been trying), and yet they are insisting that not only is it possible, but that it happened. This is not supported by the evidence.

There is also no explanation for how consciousness arose.
 

Tintin

Senior Member
Jan 3, 2013
20,301
290
0
35
#6
there used to be a time where science and spirituality could not exist without one another but that was long ago.

The earth being 13.75 billion years old is a concept of man, not the bible.
There. I fixed your post for you.
 

TheAristocat

Senior Member
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
25
0
#7
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
I'm no scientist, and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of evolution (currently the jury's out on that one). But you could always watch the movie Evolution's Achilles' Heels. Might be some useful information in it. While you're at it, you could read Who Made God?: Searching for a Theory of Everything by Edgar Andrews.

And there may not be specific mention of the word "dinosaur" in the Bible, but there is mention of at least one creature whose description fits that of a sauropod more than it does any living creature today.

And, like someone else said, the Bible does not claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. This belief was held by James Ussher when he wrote his book The Annals of the World in the 17th century. Certainly he based his reasoning on what he found in the Bible, but his reasoning is that of a man - not that of God. James Ussher does not have the final say in all things biblical. In fact, the Bible does not make any claims as to how old the Earth is, and even in the human history that it does record there are genealogical gaps.
 
Feb 8, 2014
325
22
0
#8
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
This is the best topic!! I've been studying the heck out of this the last year. :D Thanks.

First of all, why is it a "vs?" You should really read more science news. Almost every day, discoveries are being made that lead us closer and closer to proving creation and that the Bible is true. Since your god created all things, he is science. (insert trippy music here.)

There's a flaw in general thinking, though. The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is only 6K years old. It says, in the beginning, he created the heavens and the Earth. The Earth was here before the 6 days of creation began.

"Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "

Folks also take the concept of 6 "days" very literally, yet we study a book that is full of metaphors and symbols. :confused:

So, I am going to share my opinion, which probably isn't worth the $.02. When we remove the mental blocks and take the creation account and lay that out over what we know about the Earth (not what we THINK we know) then it actually fits together quite nicely.

The fossil record reflects the Bible, not evolution. Most of life appeared suddenly on the Earth all at once: The Fossil Record - Evolution Evidence or Creation Science?

DNA is like computer code. For there to be a computer code, someone had to build the computer: DNA seen through the eyes of a coder

Really, this could turn into a very ugly link farm. ;) May I recommend that you pray, and ask for greater understanding in this area? The Bible does not conflict with science, even though science tries to conflict with the Bible. When we strip away the court of man's opinion, science looks an awful like like proof there's a god.
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
74
0
#9
Just keep in mind.....that all men are liars.... but ......God is True, and His Word is Truth. :)

Jeremiah 17:5[SUP]5 [/SUP]Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
 

jaybird88

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
4,569
223
63
#10
Just keep in mind.....that all men are liars.... but ......God is True, and His Word is Truth. :)

Jeremiah 17:5[SUP]5 [/SUP]Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
exactly! this is why so many have different interpretations of what scripture means. Truth will always be exactly that. no matter how many in the masses tell you the same lie, that lie will never become truth.
 
Feb 5, 2015
493
1
0
#11
Never trust a man, always back it up by the word. Then there is the question what is the word. The NIV or the KJV or the NKJV or the message bible or what. I could go detail but why?
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#12
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Christianity is meant to be a personal religious belief based on the writings within the bible, specifically the words of Jesus of Nazareth. It isn't a science textbook, but if you have questions about the scientific position in regards to creationism, here you can find all the scientific answers you could ask for:

An Index to Creationist Claims
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
245
0
#13
The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Don't be afraid. One aspect of having faith in Jesus Christ is that He brings peace and understanding. You will always have questions, having them is not disrespectful to God, but on the contrary it shows a steadfast desire to draw closer to God. Jesus said, ask and it will be given you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened for you.

Check out God of Wonders The Documentary 2009 on Youtube. Its awesome and you'll really like it !!!!!

Remember dear sister, God is always with you and He will not forsake you.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,023
428
83
#15
Christianity is meant to be a personal religious belief based on the writings within the bible, specifically the words of Jesus of Nazareth. It isn't a science textbook, but if you have questions about the scientific position in regards to creationism, here you can find all the scientific answers you could ask for:

An Index to Creationist Claims
So one who is NOT a Christian is going to tell us what Christianity is meant to be?
 
Aug 16, 2013
66
1
0
#16
Tell the scientists to explain this God declared unto us that He created Adam the first man 6019 years ago. 2744 years later came Abraham 42 generations later which is 1260 years our Lord King Jesus did come in the flesh. Now subtract 6019-2744-1260- your birth year or age.
Example; 6019-2744-1260-1966=49 in this year.try it with everyone every year add one year to 6019. Peace and blessings.
 

nogard

Senior Member
Aug 21, 2013
331
2
0
#17
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
The Biblical belief of 6,000 years is just one theory from Christians, it is not the only accepted viewpoint, and as you pointed out, it is not a very good one. Human artifacts alone can date older than 6,000 years, and the plethora of geologic evidence from the last ice age around 10,000 years ago is more than enough evidence to debunk that.

Evolution does not say we came from monkeys. It theorizes that humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. Most Christians believe in something referred to as "microevolution," which is really not a term acknowledged outside the Christian community, but basically acknowledges that small changes can occur within species over time. Of course, if you don't believe life on earth has been going on for that long, then there hasn't been enough time for any greater change to occur, but if life on earth is millions of years old, then the potential is there for "macroevolution" to occur. Basically, there is nothing really different between micro and macro evolution aside from time, which is why the scientific community doesn't acknowledge the terms.

When people say they don't believe in evolution, I think they need to be more specific, because evolution, in general, is both scientifically observable and provable. It's the extent of evolution that has occurred on this planet where belief comes in.
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
#18
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help

Nicole. I am an (ex) scientist and I do not find the contradiction, indeed it is only when such as Dawkins go way past the limits of science into his own nihilistic beliefs there is apparently even a contradiction.

Indeed the more I studied science (and I mean deep theoretical physics at quite and advanced level) the more I discover it not only is not but cannot be a fundamental underpinning of the universe, as scientists would have you believe.

I will answer in several parts - first the "evolution thing"

On your specific question genesis is an allegory not a historical truth. From big bang to matter and worlds, through simple life to man.

The question you should be asking those who point this out to you, is "what is the origin of life".

There is not only no credible theory for abiogenesis the start of life - but the minimum scale of a living organismbased on DNA so that it can reproduce and evolve is way past the possibily of springing into existence. Nor is there any credible lower form that could have evolved to that. Dawkins makes this stupid assertion that even if life is billions to one against happening, then given billions of places to happen, then it is likely to do so. The man has clearly never been anywhere near quantum physics, because if he had he would know, that it is so unlikely it cannot happen. Not billions against but 10 to the power < the biggest number you can think of and then some> against. No credible physical chemist thinks that life as we know it can simply have happened as an accident out of chemical soup. If there is a route to it, it is via things that are much simpler, and the obvious question discounts that, "if simpler existed, where are they now? and if they can happen why dont they"

There is also a problem in macroevolution. For sure - dogs with longer ears and shorter legs can happen. But there are serious problems in explaining how some of the major jumps are even possible.

The Intelligent Design court ruling - an issue for another day -- contained a massive contradiction in the ruling! Goodness knows how the judge managed that but he did! He ruled against ID because he declared it could not be science, as it was not repeatable, ruling in favour of evolution as science, despite the fact that nobody has repeated either abiogenesis or the holes in macroevolution.




Second - what is science anyway? - And sorry if I confuse you here!
Science is finding patterns in things that either do repeat or can be repeated. First at the level of finding the pattern in evidence, second at the level of trying to explain that model in terms of an axiomatic representation of the world, using all the concepts you know, like force mass, newtons laws, relativity, so on. The thing to get your head round is that that model exists on paper in heads and on computers. It is not the world, it is only a representation of it that works very well to allow us to build sophisticated things. But does an electron for example) actually exist in the world and what is it ?

The answer to that is it is a set of equations that seem to work to describe a set of experiments. But as proof the model is creaking a bit, you need two different sets of equations to describe it! one called "particle" the other called "wave" and which one you use depends! (stephen hawking was forced to admit the need for multiple models in his last book in a dogma called "model dependent realism")
Then you discover that some of the effects that are supposed to only happen when there are several of them "like interference" happen when there is just one of them not more, without which the experiments dont add up again.
It gets even weirder when in quantum physics it turns out an electron does not exist at a point and place, but just a probability wave , and then all you know collapses when you discover that two electrons (they repel because of charge right?) are more likely to be one end of a box than at opposite ends? What????
It gets weirder still when science decides that to get the math to work SMALL PARTICLES DO NOT EXIST AT ALL UNTIL YOU OBSERVE THEM! It is not that you do not know where they are, but quantum uncertainty demands they cannot exist at all! Einstein ***hated** that conclusion, but in the end was forced to admit it was the only way that experiments could line up with our wonderful axiomatic model. The only way modern physics has to explain that is get this...we live in a multiverse. An infinite number of universes of every possible outcome and every time you look at something, you select one to live in!

At one point, I was involved in serious astrophysics, big telescope design and such, and I found it somewhat remarkable, that none of the equations of big physics work (like galaxy rotation) unless you assume tha scientists calculated as the mass of the universe is has to be multiplied several times to get close to making equations work! The rates of expansion of the universe not accounted by relativity properly either! Unless you fudge it all that is...

Those paradoxes show that what science claims it is, which is objective (ie we all see the same underlying reality) , causal (ie nothing happens without a cause before it) and deterministic (ie there is nothing unpredictable in nature, only our power to predict it in practice)
Quantum physics violates every single one.

Third, so what science really is.
At which point I hope I have proved that science does not have the answer you think. It is not fundamental as they would have us believe All the problems vanish the day you go back to what science really is. A wonderful suit of clothes, that fits the body very well, but splits at the seams if you push it too hard at the armpits!

Let us go back to the beginning
Science is finding patterns in things and using them. The "explanation" for them, is just empirical. A model of the universe that works pretty well.

And the moment you accept that, all the paradoxes drop away as poor modelling, or trying to use an idea, beyond its useful envelope..

But to prove it cannot be fundamental. Imagine you live in a 2D television world - then you would look at a red dot, observe how it moves, and if it is repeatable, give it a name, and record those properties. If it consistently rebounds of another red dot, you might consider action, reaction momentum and so on. But in our 3D wordl you know, that red circle can be a cylinder end on. It can be a sphere, it can be a spiral end on, or lots of spheres. What is actually there in 3D cannot be uniquely determined in 2D - only "what it looks like" so patterns in observations are no longer fundamental (ie what is actually there), it is only empirical (ie what is observedl) . Even physics now admits (superstrings and ll that) that the world has many more dimensions hidden from us. IN which case physics cannot be fundamental.

It is not just me that saysthese things - A top theoretical physicist - Rizzi - responsible for proving such as gravity waves, and answering some of the theoretical questions in relativity. Wrote a book, "science before science" concluding similar things, and a proof of god.

Four, god of the gaps fallasy
Science maintains that as science "explains" more and more, there is less room for god needed to explain anything!
Which is simply not so, as I have shown science does not explain anything in any fundamental sense, it observes everything and uses the observations it finds.

Five, science is not objective at all.
The idea that science objectively studies truth is simply not true. It has massive prejudice against things it does not like.
Proven in how it rails against indisputable proof for such as telepathy. NO question it is real, but it is prevented from becoming science, by an army of dirty tricks. As witness - carl sagan (later Dawkins) "extraordinary things need extraordinary proof" is a barrier raised to ensure that nothing establishment does not like,ever is considered science.
Sagans statement is the antithesis of science. Either it is true or it is not, and all should be subjected to the same process.





Four, so what evidence is there of god in science?
Here I will get my self in trouble. The answer is a lot - but a lot of it confirms interpretations of biblical matters some here find abhorrent!

From simple things that question whether "conscience" is simply the function of a biochemical machine, the fact of inedia investigated by atheist scienctists, indeed what preserves the incorruptibles? To indisputable forensic proof that links the shroud to the sudarium, and demonstrates both are very old, that the mark is not a contact mark,and the only way known to produce it is a UV laser - ie a radiation burst emanating at the body.

Most remarkable of all is the scientific evidence of the real presence in the so called eucharistic miracles done by proper forensic labs whose day job is work connected with criminal investigation, they say it is real heart, real blood, and - the kicker - living at the time it was sampled. The scientists are at a loss to explain.

Darwin said, if anyone could show life originating by any other process, his theory was proven void.
This evidence says it has.

Read "unseen" by ron teseroriero, see some of the evidence.

Can send you references if you wish
I will get slaughtered for saying it, but as a scientist I go where the evidence leads.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#19
Nicole. I am an (ex) scientist and I do not find the contradiction, indeed it is only when such as Dawkins go way past the limits of science into his own nihilistic beliefs there is apparently even a contradiction.

Indeed the more I studied science (and I mean deep theoretical physics at quite and advanced level) the more I discover it not only is not but cannot be a fundamental underpinning of the universe, as scientists would have you believe.

I will answer in several parts - first the "evolution thing"

On your specific question genesis is an allegory not a historical truth. From big bang to matter and worlds, through simple life to man.

The question you should be asking those who point this out to you, is "what is the origin of life".

There is not only no credible theory for abiogenesis the start of life - but the minimum scale of a living organismbased on DNA so that it can reproduce and evolve is way past the possibily of springing into existence. Nor is there any credible lower form that could have evolved to that. Dawkins makes this stupid assertion that even if life is billions to one against happening, then given billions of places to happen, then it is likely to do so. The man has clearly never been anywhere near quantum physics, because if he had he would know, that it is so unlikely it cannot happen. Not billions against but 10 to the power < the biggest number you can think of and then some> against. No credible physical chemist thinks that life as we know it can simply have happened as an accident out of chemical soup. If there is a route to it, it is via things that are much simpler, and the obvious question discounts that, "if simpler existed, where are they now? and if they can happen why dont they"
This is false. Making calculations on the probability of life arising is meaningless. You assume that it is the scientist' position that the molecule formed by chance. Nobody says the molecules of first life formed by chance. Biochemistry is not a matter of chance, so calculated odds of probability are utterly meaningless. Biochemistry leads to complex products that themselves interact in complex ways. Complex molecules form in space, even. As for the calculation itself, it assumes narrowness in its scope, taking the position that life must arise from a certain specific molecule. There are in fact, contrarily, innumerable possible proteins and other molecules that may contribute to the development of life. The first life would have been also much, much simpler than it is.

Conditions today are also different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

T
here is also a problem in macroevolution. For sure - dogs with longer ears and shorter legs can happen. But there are serious problems in explaining how some of the major jumps are even possible.
Such as?

The Intelligent Design court ruling - an issue for another day -- contained a massive contradiction in the ruling! Goodness knows how the judge managed that but he did! He ruled against ID because he declared it could not be science, as it was not repeatable, ruling in favour of evolution as science, despite the fact that nobody has repeated either abiogenesis or the holes in macroevolution.
ID also require metaphysical interference, which is not just improbable or difficult (but scientifically and naturally possible) to repeat, but is literally impossible and falls outside the very definition of science, which is ''the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world (not metaphysical) through observation and experiment''.



Second - what is science anyway? - And sorry if I confuse you here!
Science is finding patterns in things that either do repeat or can be repeated.
Not according to the Oxford English dictionary and most scientists it isn't. See the definition above.

First at the level of finding the pattern in evidence, second at the level of trying to explain that model in terms of an axiomatic representation of the world, using all the concepts you know, like force mass, newtons laws, relativity, so on. The thing to get your head round is that that model exists on paper in heads and on computers. It is not the world, it is only a representation of it that works very well to allow us to build sophisticated things. But does an electron for example) actually exist in the world and what is it ?
It doesn't matter, practically. You assert theory must be material. That goes against the very definition of theory, the purpose of theory, which is representative of the material.

The answer to that is it is a set of equations that seem to work to describe a set of experiments. But as proof the model is creaking a bit, you need two different sets of equations to describe it! one called "particle" the other called "wave" and which one you use depends! (stephen hawking was forced to admit the need for multiple models in his last book in a dogma called "model dependent realism")
It just depends on the perspective and semantics you use. How you define energy dictates which model you'll use, but it's irrelevant to the discussion on evolution. Quantum physics plays virtually no part in the theory.

Then you discover that some of the effects that are supposed to only happen when there are several of them "like interference" happen when there is just one of them not more, without which the experiments dont add up again.
It gets even weirder when in quantum physics it turns out an electron does not exist at a point and place, but just a probability wave , and then all you know collapses when you discover that two electrons (they repel because of charge right?) are more likely to be one end of a box than at opposite ends? What????
Relativity is nothing new. The reason the electron has no determinable position at any one particular point is because it exists in probabilistic oscillation, like a lot of things in the world do.

It gets weirder still when science decides that to get the math to work SMALL PARTICLES DO NOT EXIST AT ALL UNTIL YOU OBSERVE THEM! It is not that you do not know where they are, but quantum uncertainty demands they cannot exist at all!
The can't exist in a temporal fixed position because it's a matter of probable oscillation.

Einstein ***hated** that conclusion, but in the end was forced to admit it was the only way that experiments could line up with our wonderful axiomatic model. The only way modern physics has to explain that is get this...we live in a multiverse. An infinite number of universes of every possible outcome and every time you look at something, you select one to live in!
Infinite possibility in infinite randomness is infinite variability in circumstance.

At one point, I was involved in serious astrophysics, big telescope design and such, and I found it somewhat remarkable, that none of the equations of big physics work (like galaxy rotation) unless you assume tha scientists calculated as the mass of the universe is has to be multiplied several times to get close to making equations work! The rates of expansion of the universe not accounted by relativity properly either! Unless you fudge it all that is...
Again, none of this is really relevant to evolutionary theory. We don't need to go to Planck length to read the scientific evidence for evolution.

Those paradoxes show that what science claims it is, which is objective (ie we all see the same underlying reality) , causal (ie nothing happens without a cause before it) and deterministic (ie there is nothing unpredictable in nature, only our power to predict it in practice)
Quantum physics violates every single one.
Just because we don't know the cause, doesn't mean there isn't one. As for your definition of science, again, it's wrong. Larger than planck length, we can make predictions about just about everything, but randomness exists. We can't see the future, and there ARE things unpredictable in nature. For instance, can you predict how many humans will switch on their lights tomorrow? No, you can't.
Third, so what science really is.
At which point I hope I have proved that science does not have the answer you think. It is not fundamental as they would have us believe All the problems vanish the day you go back to what science really is. A wonderful suit of clothes, that fits the body very well, but splits at the seams if you push it too hard at the armpits!
Whatever man.

Let us go back to the beginning
Science is finding patterns in things and using them. The "explanation" for them, is just empirical. A model of the universe that works pretty well.

And the moment you accept that, all the paradoxes drop away as poor modelling, or trying to use an idea, beyond its useful envelope..

But to prove it cannot be fundamental. Imagine you live in a 2D television world - then you would look at a red dot, observe how it moves, and if it is repeatable, give it a name, and record those properties. If it consistently rebounds of another red dot, you might consider action, reaction momentum and so on. But in our 3D wordl you know, that red circle can be a cylinder end on. It can be a sphere, it can be a spiral end on, or lots of spheres. What is actually there in 3D cannot be uniquely determined in 2D - only "what it looks like" so patterns in observations are no longer fundamental (ie what is actually there), it is only empirical (ie what is observedl) . Even physics now admits (superstrings and ll that) that the world has many more dimensions hidden from us. IN which case physics cannot be fundamental.
It can be fundamental in regards to what we can OBSERVE, which is, of course, part of the definition of science.

It is not just me that saysthese things - A top theoretical physicist - Rizzi - responsible for proving such as gravity waves, and answering some of the theoretical questions in relativity. Wrote a book, "science before science" concluding similar things, and a proof of god.
Nobody has proved God. It's God of the gaps.

Four, god of the gaps fallasy
Science maintains that as science "explains" more and more, there is less room for god needed to explain anything!
Which is simply not so, as I have shown science does not explain anything in any fundamental sense, it observes everything and uses the observations it finds.
Science explains lots of things in a fundamental sense. The depth of that explanation is simply not absolutely complete. Citing what we don't know, doesn't negate what we do know.

Five, science is not objective at all.
The idea that science objectively studies truth is simply not true. It has massive prejudice against things it does not like.
Proven in how it rails against indisputable proof for such as telepathy.
What indisputable proof?

NO question it is real, but it is prevented from becoming science, by an army of dirty tricks. As witness - carl sagan (later Dawkins) "extraordinary things need extraordinary proof" is a barrier raised to ensure that nothing establishment does not like,ever is considered science.
Science is the the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.There are standards for proof.

There's a reason we have theoretical physics and experimental physics, distinct.







Four, so what evidence is there of god in science?
Here I will get my self in trouble. The answer is a lot - but a lot of it confirms interpretations of biblical matters some here find abhorrent!
Most scientists disagree, for good reason.

From simple things that question whether "conscience" is simply the function of a biochemical machine,
that bbiochemical machine doesn't to anything ''simply'', and questioning is not anything near proof.

the fact of inedia investigated by atheist scienctists, indeed what preserves the incorruptibles? To indisputable forensic proof that links the shroud to the sudarium, and demonstrates both are very old, that the mark is not a contact mark,and the only way known to produce it is a UV laser - ie a radiation burst emanating at the body.
This is just nonsense.

Most remarkable of all is the scientific evidence of the real presence in the so called eucharistic miracles done by proper forensic labs whose day job is work connected with criminal investigation, they say it is real heart, real blood, and - the kicker - living at the time it was sampled. The scientists are at a loss to explain.
More nonsense ...

Darwin said, if anyone could show life originating by any other process, his theory was proven void.
This evidence says it has.
There is no evidence. Present it if there is.

Read "unseen" by ron teseroriero, see some of the evidence.
It's garbage.

Can send you references if you wish
I will get slaughtered for saying it, but as a scientist I go where the evidence leads.
You clearly go where your delusions lead you ...
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
#20
This is false. Making calculations on the probability of life arising is meaningless. You assume that it is the scientist' position that the molecule formed by chance. Nobody says the molecules of first life formed by chance. Biochemistry is not a matter of chance, so calculated odds of probability are utterly meaningless.
Who am I talking to? Clearly not a scientist - that is so wrong you cannot believe it if you know anything about quantum chemistry! Every event is random accident, bulk properties a result of the statistics of them.

The point I make stands. That the spontaneous creation of the minimum reproducing and evolving DNA organism we know is so complex it cannot have happened in a single event as a result of the coming together of the constitutents.

So to even be credible there has to be a path through a simpler (unknown) organism not based on something as complex as DNA, not so staggeringly unlikely, but capable of evolving to it I have seen no hypothesis for such an organism let alone a credible one.

I am not addressing all of your points because some of them are so way off base.. Take this..


The reason the electron has no determinable position at any one particular point is because it exists in probabilistic oscillation, like a lot of things in the world do.
My suggestion is you read the long background of the copenhagen interpretation leading to Einsteins statement "do you really believe the moon only exists when someone looks at it?" then the optics experiments in the late seventies that proved what he hated was actually true at quantum level! It really was uncertain! The probabilistic oscillation a convenient tool for working things out, not so useful at defining "reality" which is not a good concept to bring to quantum theory!

Many. Try jessica utts consolidation of federal data, or if you like simple video things to get your head round. Rupert Sheldrakes experiment with the Nolan Sisters on "who was ringing" . Try to find flaws in the experimental design. The statistics are way over that needed to prove significance. Dawkins and others have consistently refused to debate the eveidence with him, sticking with the established mantras. Indeed the way Dawkings dealt with that in respect of a UK TV series was simply shameful.


You clearly go where your delusions lead you ...
I am thankful for that, because you prove the problem so well. That you are willing to discount evidence before even see it, even be rude to the one mentioning it, because it offends your world belief set. Well done. You are the problem with science, it is not objective for anything it dislikes.

The evidence is there in many places, a summary in such as Unseen by Ron teseroriero one example for example investigated by both forensic labs in the US, Australia and a state pathologist. You would trust them implicitly in any criminal case. They were not told what they were investigating, until after they had declared results. The results included the presence of white cells, proving life had existed at the time of sampling despite the fact the sample had been in water for several months. When told of the origin they could not explain it.
 
Last edited: