Religon Vs. Science

[JackH]

Here are a list of resource websites where you can look up practically any subject on origins, age of the earth or creation vs. evolution.

Answer in Genesis
Creation Ministries International
Institution for Creation Research
Apologetics Press

I think you'll find you're on solid intellectual ground if you just affirm the plain reading of the text.

Nah, those websites are full of the junk science you can find at museums like Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. Or Dr. Dino's (Kent Hovind) place in Florida where dinosaurs coexist with humans. Although that may have closed since Dr. Dino went to prison.

You know, the kind of junk science that can not get published in reputable scientific journals.

Nicole needs to go to the Smithsonian in D.C. or the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. They have real science at their websites. The kind of science that does get published in reputable journals.

 

[posthuman]

Sorry, what I should have said was making restrictive calculations on the improbability of life is meaningless because there are SO MANY variable ways that molecules can interact in infinite universal spacetime. However, the chance of life arising on Earth is 100%. It has arisen.

If we take the probabilistic viewpoint that there are infinite number of stars and planets in our universe, thus infinite possibilities for life to arise, then the chances of life arising on other stars are infinite. Can you reduce infinity into restrictive probability calculations? No. Calculations that conclude ''there is only X chance of life arising on Y planet given the complexity of Z molecule'' are inherently meaningless in that regard.

As far as Earth is concerned, calculations that state ''there is only X chance of life arising on Earth given the complexity of interaction of Y molecule'' are also false and meangingless, as there are innumerable ways in which molecules can interact, form complexity and further interact. These calculations are also calculated with a view to intelligent design, yet we have no evidence of a designer. They're not only based off an unrealistically restricted viewpoint of the conditions available in which life might arise, but off a base notion that such a calculation proves the impossibility of life arising by natural means, when we have absolutely no evidence of ANYTHING that's ''un-natural'' in the most fundamental sense, that being ''consisting or composed of energetic transfers of various kinds''.

i don't even know if you believe in alien life or not, haha

you're right, we can't establish with any accuracy probabilities such as P(life arising spontaneously | some planet and some conditions) -- what i meant to point out is that this is true not just for earth but for any planet.
P(does life exist on earth) and P(life spontaneously arose on earth) are not the same probability. obviously the 1st is 1, but the second is a union of an unknown number of conditional probabilities, most of which have unknown conditional distributions and i'd venture to say every one of the covariances are also unknown.
i say "most" of the dependent underlying conditional probabilities are unknown because some of them actually have been studied - maybe the ones you're referring to saying ''there is only X chance of life arising on Earth given the complexity of interaction of Y molecule.'' we do in fact have an idea about the distribution of amino acid geometry and formation in certain models of 'primordial soup' for example.
even though this is the case, probability calculations for life arising ex-nihilo based on this are still meaningless, because P(life out of nothing) is a combination of many dependent probabilities with unknown covariance and unknown distributions and unknown parameters. i disagree that these are an "infinite" sample space -- a very large one, for sure, practically infinite, such that actually doing this sort of math, we would certainly be looking at limiting behavior, but modern cosmology and particle physics suggests that the constituent spaces are all finite.

what i really wanted to point out though is that if we agree that this is the case for earth (that this probability cannot be calculated and reasonable lower bounds for it can't even be established) -- than it is also the case for every other planet - so it's equally as ridiculous to make predictions about the entire universe. the earth exists in the same universe as planet X - so what we are asking is a conditional probability, P(life on X | life on earth) -- and it is not at all established that these probabilities are independent, because that same unknown number of variables with unknown distributions and unknown parameters that is part of any such calculation for earth is in no way guaranteed by ignorance to be independent of all the like terms that must be considered for planet X. multiplying a bunch of unknowns do not give you a known.

short version: Drake's equation is a load of hooey.

i'm a mathematician -- sorry if this post is too dense; i did try not to get into it too deeply but it's easy to get carried away.

i do agree in principle with your post but would quibble over some details, that's all

 

[Calminian]

Nah, those websites are full of the junk science you can find at museums like Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. Or Dr. Dino's (Kent Hovind) place in Florida where dinosaurs coexist with humans. Although that may have closed since Dr. Dino went to prison.

You know, the kind of junk science that can not get published in reputable scientific journals.

Nicole needs to go to the Smithsonian in D.C. or the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. They have real science at their websites. The kind of science that does get published in reputable journals.

But the scientists that contribute to those sites have credentials that far exceed yours. I look at guys like Jonathan Sarfati (CMI) and Jason Lisle (ICR). I mean wow. These are brilliantly accomplished men. Sarfati could actually beat you at chess blindfolded. Don't they at least deserve a listen? I have to wonder what you're afraid of.

I'd also recommend Evolutions Achilles Heel, the book or DVD, put together by fifteen Ph.D. scientists.

Visually stunning animations and dramatic footage help to show how the theory of Evolution's supposed strengths are, in fact, its fatal flaws–Evolution's Achilles' Heels.

Like no other work that we are aware of, fifteen Ph.D. scientists colaborated to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. All of the contributors received their doctorates from similar secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in a field relevant to the subject: Natural selection, origin of life, geology, genetics, radiometric dating, the fossil record, cosmology, and ethics.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels directly demolishes the very pillars of the belief system that underpins our now-secular culture–evolutionary naturalism. It's coupled with the Biblical command to reach the lost with the Bible's Good News. In a nutshell, it's a comprehensive outreach tool like no other.

Appropriately, the Achilles' heels of evolution are often in the very areas widely considered to be impregnable strongholds of this belief system. These areas are the topics systematically covered in both the book and documentary. They are:

Natural Selection
Genetics and DNA
The Origin of Life
The Fossil Record
The Geologic Record
Radiometric Dating
Cosmology
Ethics and Morality

We believe evolution theory has no answer to these weaknesses, once properly explained and understood. The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by 9 Ph.D. scientists. The documentary involves even more PhD scientists, 15 in all, and features striking footage and brilliant computer animations. All of these scientists received their doctorates from similar, secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in various relevant fields. Continue Reading...​

Now I understand that people need to choose who to believe. But these guys are well worth the listen.

 

[Tintin]

Nah, those websites are full of the junk science you can find at museums like Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. Or Dr. Dino's (Kent Hovind) place in Florida where dinosaurs coexist with humans. Although that may have closed since Dr. Dino went to prison.

You know, the kind of junk science that can not get published in reputable scientific journals.

Nicole needs to go to the Smithsonian in D.C. or the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. They have real science at their websites. The kind of science that does get published in reputable journals.

Jack, you keep cutting down that beanstalk of yours. You don't see the stuff you've been taught to believe compromises the authority of God's Word. Don't hold up Kent Hovind as the pinnacle of biblical creationists. That's silly. He's entertaining, but he's not reputable. Keep putting more authority in a humanistic understanding of science rather than science as viewed through the God-breathed Word. See where it gets you. Oh, that's right? Nowhere. It's nonsense!

 

[JackH]

But we do find chronological genealogies (Gen. 5 and 11) which count the years from Adam who was created at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6) to Terah the father of Abraham. And we have other dating means after Abraham. These won't be perfectly exact since we don't know the year fractions at the time of each birth, but they get us real close, to the nearest century at least.

Even the inerrant, infallible, perfect (or so some say in these forums) KJV won't print those chronologies in the KJV any longer. Liked they used to be printed in the KJV for a couple hundred years, as in 4004 BC was printed right next to the verses in Genesis 1.

I wonder why those chronologies were removed from the KJV.

 

[JackH]

Don't hold up Kent Hovind as the pinnacle of biblical creationists. That's silly. He's entertaining, but he's not reputable.

You are preaching to the choir here.

Tell that to those who link to Kent Hovind videos in these forums.

 

[JackH]

But the scientists that contribute to those sites have credentials that far exceed yours.

And the scientists who contribute articles and such for the Smithsonian have credentials that far exceed yours.

Hey, you had your chance to debate a Ph.D. scientist right here in these forums. You mysteriously disappeared.

Please link me to even one article by any of those individuals you refer to that they have published in a reputable scientific journal that "proves" the world is 6,000 years old.

 

[ColinCat]

Out of interest, have any scientists attempted to look at how God created the universe and man?

Genesis says God did it, but it doesn't say how. Has anyone attempted to investigate?

 

[krow]

Out of interest, have any scientists attempted to look at how God created the universe and man?

Genesis says God did it, but it doesn't say how. Has anyone attempted to investigate?

Not really possible.

 

[jaybird88]

Out of interest, have any scientists attempted to look at how God created the universe and man?

Genesis says God did it, but it doesn't say how. Has anyone attempted to investigate?

I think a physicist tried it one time, he took one step into it and his brain exploded.

 

[posthuman]

Out of interest, have any scientists attempted to look at how God created the universe and man?

Genesis says God did it, but it doesn't say how. Has anyone attempted to investigate?

seems to me like that is exactly what all natural science is -- trying to figure out the details of creation, right?

just that some people choose not to accept that there is deliberate order and regularity at work -- which is a bit odd since order and regularity are just what they hypothesize and look for??

 

[Human]

i don't even know if you believe in alien life or not, haha

you're right, we can't establish with any accuracy probabilities such as P(life arising spontaneously | some planet and some conditions) -- what i meant to point out is that this is true not just for earth but for any planet.
P(does life exist on earth) and P(life spontaneously arose on earth) are not the same probability. obviously the 1st is 1, but the second is a union of an unknown number of conditional probabilities, most of which have unknown conditional distributions and i'd venture to say every one of the covariances are also unknown.
i say "most" of the dependent underlying conditional probabilities are unknown because some of them actually have been studied - maybe the ones you're referring to saying ''there is only X chance of life arising on Earth given the complexity of interaction of Y molecule.'' we do in fact have an idea about the distribution of amino acid geometry and formation in certain models of 'primordial soup' for example.
even though this is the case, probability calculations for life arising ex-nihilo based on this are still meaningless, because P(life out of nothing) is a combination of many dependent probabilities with unknown covariance and unknown distributions and unknown parameters. i disagree that these are an "infinite" sample space -- a very large one, for sure, practically infinite, such that actually doing this sort of math, we would certainly be looking at limiting behavior, but modern cosmology and particle physics suggests that the constituent spaces are all finite.

what i really wanted to point out though is that if we agree that this is the case for earth (that this probability cannot be calculated and reasonable lower bounds for it can't even be established) -- than it is also the case for every other planet - so it's equally as ridiculous to make predictions about the entire universe. the earth exists in the same universe as planet X - so what we are asking is a conditional probability, P(life on X | life on earth) -- and it is not at all established that these probabilities are independent, because that same unknown number of variables with unknown distributions and unknown parameters that is part of any such calculation for earth is in no way guaranteed by ignorance to be independent of all the like terms that must be considered for planet X. multiplying a bunch of unknowns do not give you a known.

short version: Drake's equation is a load of hooey.

i'm a mathematician -- sorry if this post is too dense; i did try not to get into it too deeply but it's easy to get carried away.

i do agree in principle with your post but would quibble over some details, that's all

I feel like the probability of intelligent hominids on Christian Chat might have just increased, though

 

[Human]

seems to me like that is exactly what all natural science is -- trying to figure out the details of creation, right?

just that some people choose not to accept that there is deliberate order and regularity at work -- which is a bit odd since order and regularity are just what they hypothesize and look for??

I know what you're saying doesn't directly say ''order is a sign of design'', but I'd wager the anthropic principle against the argument you're making. That's to say ''if it wasn't what it is (ordered in the ways that it is ordered) it'd be something else. It's a sort of, subtle form of ''God of the gaps'', at least from my perspective, to say there's DELIBERATE order and regularity at work. I'd dispute the deliberate part, as from a sense of ''exterior influence''. It's deliberate in that it's functional and regular, but I wouldn't say it's deliberate as a motive of some kind.

 

[tribesman]

So one who is NOT a Christian is going to tell us what Christianity is meant to be?

Actually they are often the "experts" on christianity. And taken they have infiltrated some theological faculties here and there their strange stuffs are actually influencing quiet a few professing believers.

 

[Utah]

Actually they are often the "experts" on christianity. And taken they have infiltrated some theological faculties here and there their strange stuffs are actually influencing quiet a few professing believers.

Here and there?" That's like saying Hitler killed a few people here and a few people there.

Please know I'm not attacking you, brother; I'm lovingly helping you be more accurate.

We have a catastrophic problem with wolves in the pastures. We are at war!

 

[Bowman]

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

According to scripture, the earth is ancient.

The 6k year is a myth propagated by those wishing to sum geologies...of which, is never commanded in scripture to begin with.

The same people that sum the generations to arrive at a birthdate are also the same crew that are into the end times, as well.

Bottom line.....if it looks old....it IS old!

Follow the facts...

 

[popeye]

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.

There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for the faith we call evolution. It is a totally baseless BELIEF.

 

[ColinCat]

There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for the faith we call evolution. It is a totally baseless BELIEF.

Cant the same be said about creationism?

Both of them can't be right... But they can both be wrong.

 

[popeye]

Out of interest, have any scientists attempted to look at how God created the universe and man?

Genesis says God did it, but it doesn't say how. Has anyone attempted to investigate?

Bingo!

They re indeed prejudiced.
Evolution "explains",rolleyes,godlessness. Disenfranchising God is it's motive aand intent.
Atheism is actually a religion. Its church is the public schools.Its bible is darwins origin of the species.Its spirit is the devil.Its blood sacrifice is the aborted millions.Its priests and gurus are colledge professors.Its statement of faith is evolution.

Note that it begins with atheism and all of atheism points to evolution,because evolution is the false peace man needs to ease the torment of a godless existance

 

[popeye]

Cant the same be said about creationism?

Both of them can't be right... But they can both be wrong.

My savior is real. Not a concept.
A person is not a theory. Evolution is a theory. Poorly and recklessly believed by faith.

This is why God tells those foolish enough to deny him that "they are without excuse,for all of creation testifies to my existance"