Religious Scientists? (churches, Abraham, Christianity, beliefs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh I understand that all to well. However what is usually put forth here is stated as FACT.
So is it a fact the solar system is 4.5 billion years old or does most science only point towards that conclusion?
I read all the time this dinosaur or that dinosaur became extinct 85 million years ago or 65 million years ago, but does science back up that conclusion or just some peoples bias opinion of science. you know the science they prefer.
So if science will NEVER say how old the solar system is because the scientists don't have all the facts then any conclusion on how old the solar system is is based on faith.
Thus creationist and evolutionist both base their conclusion on faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Dinner time, then work,. but if you are really interested I will post some concerns hopefully tomorrow or the next day.
Don't be tempted to play the 100% card. There's always going to be doubt or some unknowns or new information will change the Facts. But Facts is rather shorthand for what science has found based on the evidence, and, while the textbooks confine themselves to what is more the best -supported conclusions, there are always going to be changes. .
But, if you are going to look at the science, then you should go with what it indicates, not say "One can't be sure - science is always changing it's mind".
It may change it's mind about whether the earth is spherical pr egg -shaped. But is will never go back to a flat earth. Ot may decide the earth and solar -system is more like 5 billion years old, with som Older meteorites or Archaeon -rock samples, but we will never go back to an earth a few thousand years old. Nor (as our old pal Eusebius constantly pointed out) can we prove abiogenesis. But all the evidence strongly points to a very simple origin based on RNA/DNA and the single cell evolving in a sea -environment. And since Gensis is already effectively disproven by the evidence, even a 'can't prove either way' means that the natural hypothesis is the preferred default.
We may have to completely rethink the process of Human evolution, dinosaur to bird. But we will never go back to a 6 day creation (pace splitting 14 billion years into 6 and calling it "Days" therefore Genesis is true, hooray - that's just cheating) and thus the way the evidence points is ..well you can either accept it as the best model of events, or reject it in favour of a literal Genesis account - which many Christians consider a metaphorical myth. But if you plump for genesis -literalism, you really cannot legitimately appeal to science in arguing, ans what Creationism does is fiddle the science to make it fit the Belief.
e. j Whale (etc) skeletons look like they were once land animals. Fossils of land animals to amphibious animal;s showing an evolving nostril -to blowhole sequence proves Macro - evolution. Oh no "God made them that way, to adapt them to their environment".
Dating donosaurs is done by the dat of the rocks the fossil are found in. At one time, even though the figures were a but guesstimate despite clearly being far older than a few thousand years, the dating methods have provided some solid dates and the efforts of a Creationist campaign to discredit radiometric dating failed.
Add dinosaurs to birds, and see the Creationist to make out that the feathered flying lizard Archeopteryx is 'true bird' (including quoteminging the opinion of some ancient biologist) as lying for Genesis.
You have a choice...(flexes fingers and hitches up belt ) you can credit the evidence as indicating This or that - even if you are not convinced yourself, but don't be tempted to lie about it or repeat creationists lies about it and pretend that's valid science - just for the sake of the Bible, chapter 1.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-17-2017 at 02:30 PM..
Sorry. my bad. should have said universe, but nothing said answers my question about those claiming our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. It could well be but there is scientific evidence that it cannot be that old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
What is that evidence?
He's probably referring 'creationist science.'
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
And though the article doesn't mention it, there's the claim that there's not enough dust on the surface of the moon for it to be as old as it is.
The article doesn't mention it because even "Answers in Genesis" has told people not use the moon dust argument anymore. It's been thoroughly debunked.
Most physicists are atheist/agnostic. I'll post stats later (once I google it); scientists as a whole are far less religious than the population at large
Mike I have no problem with how the solar system was made or evolution. I believe in evolution, just not the way most evolutionist believe. And I don't believe our solar system is as old as most scientist say it is, but I also don't believe it is as young as most creationist say it is.
We would be fascinated to hear why you believe that and what evidence you have for it. And you will have to much better tha (for example ) scientists can't be 100% sure, and they have got things wrong before". You will need some valid scientific evidence.
Yes, it is perfectly possible, but there's always the hypnotic command -code . The trigger word - anything that clicks up "That disproves something I believe in the Bible - do I add it to the list of things that can be ignored, or do I fight the science?"
That's always going to be the problem. And I've seen it - Able and valuable and award winning scientists talking absolute tosh about possible gods at the end of the universe (as if that mattered a damn -it is interactive gods here that concern us) or getting shirty because Dawkins doesn't believe the Bible is a useful guide for life and says so.
There's always the chance that the faith will at some stage, infect the method. And looking at Islam, that post Khalid had with the Muslim scientist. Nice guy. Good scientist probably. But his logical reasoning was to **** from the start because rather than reasoning along the evidence, he began with the conclusion in mind and just put in rather daft arguments so as to get there.
In principle, science and religious faith don't mix. And even keeping the two separate in the scientific head is always a worry.
So let's say the THEORY of human evolution that says man came from chimp.
If a community of highly educated and well qualified SCIENTISTS do not agree with this theory, they wouldn't be considered as "scientists" anymore?
I don't doubt science, I doubt the conclusion people draw from that science.
I am not a literist.
I am falling for nothing shirina, I have questions and doubt about how that science is being promoted and instead of helping me out so far all I have is being attacked as a young earth bible literlist, which I am neither.
You guys have a wealth of knowledge I am trying to tap into, but you guys don't seem to want to share.
This is not an agenda for me, I don't care if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old or not. I don't care if a literal interpretation of the bible is accurate or not.
This is not about creation verse evolution ( i believe in both) this is about what the science shows.
There are things science, not religion, brings forth that don't seem to add up concerning the age of our solar system or age of the dinosaurs etc.
Do you guys even look at these discrepancies or do you just sit there following the masses so to speak.
You have to understand that we get baited by people all the time to post lengthy descriptions of evolution, the Big Bang and solar system ages all the time -- only to simply be told "nuh uh!" and respond to our 5,000 word post with a sentence or two refuting nothing we've said.
I'm not saying your one of those people -- but that's why we might seem to be unwilling to share, as you said. We just don't want to waste our time explaining things.
In truth, you seem to be genuinely curious, so I'll say this: Be careful of "scientific evidence" coming from the mouths and websites of Christian apologists. Their science sounds like science, but it isn't.
Apologists have a Bible-shaped box -- and they are determined to make science fit into that box even if science is shaped like a decahedron and not a rectangle, know what I mean? They literally invent "science" out of whole cloth, using a lot of sciencey sounding phrases and terminology to wow and bedazzle a person into thinking their science is equal to real science.
Except, for all but a few, not a one of them has a relevant scientific degree; many call themselves "doctor" when they have no degree at all except for a certificate from a degree mill. They have no access to scientific equipment, they have never done a single scientific experiment, and use data from genuine science and then twist it to fit their Biblical views.
I say this because, while there is plenty of room for debate in science -- there is no scientific evidence that shows the solar system is any younger than 4 to 5 billion years. I can't imagine any reputable scientific institution claiming anything else.
As far as "following the masses" -- the irony is that the scientific community is a rather small, elite cadre of very intelligent people with access to state-of-the-art equipment that allows them to actually perform tests and experiments which allowed them to arrive at their conclusions.
At this late stage, it is so highly unlikely that a new discovery will throw off the current known age of the solar system by any significant degree that it's not worth worrying about.
Which is why I can't figure out where you're getting your scientific information that puts you into so much doubt -- except from Christian apologists who, DO, in fact, have an agenda.
Real science doesn't have that agenda. In fact, if a scientists came up with a new discovery that drastically altered the age of the solar system -- and that discovery was rigorously studied -- that scientist would undoubtedly win all kinds of academic awards and accolades, so there's certainly no incentive for anyone to lie or mislead the public -- and certainly there's no incentive for some kind of scientific conspiracy.
Unfortunately, none of us can do more than scratch our heads in confusion until you share with us -- what is this scientific evidence you say you have that causes you to think things don't add up?
Until we know that, the conversation is pretty much headed into a dead-end alley.
The article doesn't mention it because even "Answers in Genesis" has told people not use the moon dust argument anymore. It's been thoroughly debunked.
Oh, okay. I didn't know that 'Answers in Genesis' admitted to that. Actually, I don't even look at their stuff.
Mike I am talking about the first cause. science cannot explain this.
Doesn't need to 'We don't know' is good enough reason NOT to believe that a god dunnit. Chum, I'm making no assumptions about how YOU are thinking. I just post what seems to be a suitable to response to what you posted. Then you counter with more explanation and so do I, and we will likely come to mutual understand if not agreement.
I won't go into the talk of the conclusions based on the evidence claimed as FACTS, since even if that gets done by us, or by textbooks, science knows better and that it is merely constructing evidence -based models that best match what the evidence tells us about reality. It does not, like Creationism, try to fiddle or deny it as some creationists try to discredit science or accuse it of some conspiracy to undermine the Bible
No, I needn't go into that, but just observe the 'Relax lads, the cavalry's here!" feeling when Shirina turns up and starts posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Ah, collusion between right wing Christians and Muslims!
I sometimes think the best argument against atheism is that it brings Christians and Muslims standing shoulder to shoulder together
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) you can credit the evidence as indicating This or that - even if you are not convinced yourself, but don't be tempted to lie about it or repeat creationists lies about it and pretend that's valid science - just for the sake of the Bible, chapter 1.
) scientists can't be 100% sure, and they have got things wrong before". You will need some valid scientific evidence.
. The trigger word - anything that clicks up "That disproves something I believe in the Bible - do I add it to the list of things that can be ignored, or do I fight the science?"
