quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will) but at the dawn of our modern science era (approx 200 years ago) didn't most scientists believe in creation? Wasn't it after Darwin's 'origin of species' that an alternative to creation started to permeate the scientific community? When Darwinism first made it's appearance didn't it take some time to pick up momentum and support in the feild of science?
The idea of common descent of species had actually been around for a while before Darwin, actually. Darwin did compile a huge collection of evidence for common descent that no one else had done before, as well.
It was his idea of natural selection that was the next leap in our understanding.
quote:
In my very unprofessional opinion I don't think science is at such odds with the Bible as what may be promoted by some.
Science (Geology, Biology, Genetics, Cosmology, etc) is very much at odds with a literal reading of the Bible, particularly Genesis.
quote:
Scientists who hold an atheistic world view (which seems to be the majority) are biased agianst the notion of an intelligent designer/creator and I would expect that their evidence would bend to fit this world view. Just as an athiest would expect a Bible believing scientist to bend their evidence to support thier beliefs.
I don't think you really understand how science is done.
Evidence, first of all, is the facts found in nature. Scientists take into account all of the facts and formulate hypotheses and theories to explain why the facts appear as they do.
Science as a process just wouldn't work if scientists were slanting things and ignoring certain evidence in order to satisfy their own personal philosophical views. Happily, the scientific method, when correctly followed, corrects for personal bias through peer review and replication of research by other scientists.
The problem with so-called Creation 'scientists' is that they start with the conclusion they dictate must be true before they ever get to looking at any facts.
quote:
As a Christian I am skeptical of so called evidence being touted by a predominatly athiest community because I think they are overlooking/ignoring a very important aspect of our human existence, which is spirituality.
Science ignores the supernatural because it isn't able to address it. Science provides naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
quote:
Science is not complete and without error, theories are continuously being expanded upon and some outright rejected as new discoveries are made.
Correct.
quote:
There are some things that science simply can't explain, such as aspects of the supernatural, so this realm is mostly ignored by modern science.
Well, right, but then why do you criticize science above for ignoring what it is not able to explain?
quote:
I don't think they are looking at the whole picture and leaving a vaccum that is being filled by bogus science like ufology and the ilk.
Again, why do you fault science for not explaining what it is not able to explain.
It's like faulting a man for not knowing what childbirth feels like.
("Could you be more specific? Can you produce any specific evidence to support your claim that some scientists are not interested in firguring out naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena but in "social engineering"?")
quote:
In regard to the fraternal aspect that I spoke of, have you ever heard of the Freemasons?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
I laughed out loud when I read this.
You aren't actually serious, are you?
quote:
Perhaps the most powerful fraternal network on the planet, and social engineering is definately their forte. Darwin was said to have been a Mason. This in itself is a vast subject that deserves it's own thread. Give me some time and I will see what I can put together.
What I'd like is some evidence that shows that scientists are not, in fact, spending their time doing science, but are plotting to design the next master race or whatever kooky designs you think they have.
Is your life really boring or something?
("Let's say you work for NASA, and you and your team are supposed to design the next generation space craft.
Can you show me how the wisdom of god and the bible will help you with your design?")
quote:
LOL, I don't think NASA would be the best example to use.
Why not? You said that you trust God's word over man's word.
I'm just trying to determine if you think that Physics and Jet Propulsion texts would be less useful to you than the Bible if you were an aerospace engineer working on a new spacecraft.
What part of the Bible would be most useful to you?
quote:
Prior to becoming Christian I used to dabble in occultism, it was from this background that I came to realize the OBSESSION that the 'elites' have with the occult. NASA is a very occult/masonic organization.
You'd think, if what you say is true, that with all of the power the Freemasons have at the highest levels of society, NASA wouldn't be looking at funding cuts, wouldn't you?
quote:
I'll include more information about this in the follow up thread that I already mentioned in regard to the freemasons.
Oh, great, more paranoid conspiracy theories.
I'm not really interested in cloaks and daggers.
I'm interested in discussing specific scientific evidence. I do hope you are not then going to handwave it all way by claiming conspiracies around every shadowy corner.
(" Do you reject the idea of vaccinations?")
quote:
Given the fact that vaccinations are a product of the pharmecuetical complex,
Which has done much good in the world, like developing drugs to combat many fatal diseases and other conditions that you and I take for granted that we will not die from today...
quote:
and after reading what is actually in them, I would say yes I do reject the idea of vaccinations.
Killed or weakened bacteria or viruses are what is in vaccines. That's what we come into contact with every day anyway, a vaccine just delivers a controlled dose in order to cause our bodies to produce antibodies to that particular pathogen before we come into contact with a virulent, live version of the pathogen which might make us sick.
quote:
I think they are a trojan horse that essentially compromises our natural immune system and could POSSIBLY be related to our modern cancers.
Evidence from reliable, scientific sources, please. Your website was one huge paranoid rant with a lot of out of context quotes.
quote:
Schrafinator you certainly asked alot of questions in one post,
That's because you made a lot of unsupported factual assertions in one post.
quote:
questions that require many posts to fully explain a persons position, also questions that I can forsee resulting in a never ending debate of which neither of us are likely to change our beliefs.
I am always open to changing my beliefs as long as the information is based upon verifiable, empirical evidence.
™ Version 4.2