Posted on 11/05/2015 7:28:52 PM PST by springwater13
Your effort here to have the Bible declare war on science is noted and rejected.
Rejected because the word your King James translates as "science" is the Greek word "gnosis" which in no way means today's science.
Instead, Paul's warning to Timothy uses the word "gnosis" meaning secret spiritual knowledge practiced by heretical Gnostics.
That's why only six of 54 translations listed at Bible Gateway use the KJV's mistranslation of "science".
The others all more correctly use the word "knowledge", which should be understood as referring to secret Gnostic knowledge.
fortheDeclaration: "You just create the definitions you want."
I don't, but modern science certainly does.
Science defines not only itself, but also everything it sees in the natural realm.
Sure, you may disagree with some of those definitions, but they are still science, and your own definitions not necessarily so.
fortheDeclaration: "Science is testable, evolution isn't. "
You may already know, in science a confirmed observation is called a fact.
A good example is the size, shape & rotation of the Earth, all have been observed, confirmed and classified as "fact".
Scientific explanations about how and why facts are what they are fall into two categories: hypotheses and theories.
The difference is, a hypothesis is a confirmable explanation, while a theory is a confirmed hypothesis.
Confirmation comes from several methods, including verified predictions.
So basic evolution falls into the scientific category of confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable verified predictions including many transitional forms.
fortheDeclaration: "The beginnings can't be tested, only believed, so both creation or evolution are accepted by faith (Heb.11:3)."
Your reference to Hebrews 11:3 refers to faith in God, and is true, but natural science is based on a different assumption, namely: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Modern science -- natural science -- by definition is the effort to find natural explanations for natural processes.
It rules out a priori any supernatural events and any supernatural explanations.
Science itself doesn't deny supernatural events might exist, only that natural-scientific theories are not the proper tools to explain them.
And the definitions don't line up with science's method, testing and observing.
Yes, when science can test something then it can be called a fact.
When it cannot, it isn't.
So, evolution by it's nature is not testable and therefore cannot be considered in the realm of scientific enquiry.
An hypothesis is simply an opinion, which is not a fact.
Yes,as I said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and how the universe was created.
Both of the creationist and evolutionist view must be accepted by faith.
That is what the evolutionist cannot stand, since he thinks that he is being 'scientific'
It's where I differ with both those claiming to be scientists and those calling themselves theologians.
Both are actually the study of the nature of the Almighty. And both rely upon words/concepts like "supernatural", "spiritual", to fill in that which at present is unknown.
Natural-scientific theories and the word of God are all tools to be used in the study of his handiwork (the natural, and for now, unnatural world).
While evidence exists of species evolving over eons, no one has to date proven if it was natural selection, intelligent design, or a combination of the two [my personal favorite] as being responsible.
There are way too many unanswered questions to say all life evolved on this planet due to natural selection. For example brain development. Sharks have been around for millions of years. By now sharks should be the smartest animal life on the planet because smarter sharks survive longer. Yet sharks are still pretty dumb when compared to humans who have really only came into their own, in intelligence, after the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
Evidence points to something, or someone(s), rather quickly increased human intelligence many fold in our recent history. And it happened worldwide and on separate continents relatively simultaneously.
Einstein said it best, "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Einstein's quote applies equally well to science.
All scientists, without exception, reject false science.
They also reject your attempt to redefine their work as false.
The truth here is that you know nothing about science -- zero -- except that you loathe and despise it, and wish to mock it by citing a misunderstanding of scripture as justification.
Instead, you wish to believe that science consists of one thing, and one thing only: observable facts.
But, as I have now explained, science is more than facts, it is also hypotheses and theories.
These are confirmable explanations of why and how facts operate.
Confirmations may come from verified predictions.
So basic evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is a confirmed theory -- confirmed innumerable times by daily discoveries and results.
Of course, it's true that many theories have been and will be overthrown when new data falsifies old ideas.
That's how real science works.
Nevertheless, after 150 years evolution theory is so grounded in fact, it's hard to imagine the basic idea might someday be falsified.
So, the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it "false science".
Your opinions are your own, and you are entitled to them, but science is still science, regardless.
fortheDeclaration: "And the definitions don't line up with science's method, testing and observing.
Yes, when science can test something then it can be called a fact.
When it cannot, it isn't."
Evolution theory is based on facts -- literal mountains of facts -- but long-term evolution itself is still a theory, not necessarily fact.
Yes, much of evolution has been observed in nature and in laboratories -- that much is fact -- but anti-evolutionists like yourself decry that as "just adaption, not evolution".
The fact is that "adaption" and "evolution" are the same thing, certainly short term, and doubtless also long term.
But, since long term cannot be directly observed, except by its results, that much remains theory.
fortheDeclaration: "So, evolution by it's nature is not testable and therefore cannot be considered in the realm of scientific enquiry.
An hypothesis is simply an opinion, which is not a fact."
No scientist is confused by the distinctions among "fact", "hypothesis" and "theory", but you obviously are.
So, once again: a fact is what can be observed and confirmed.
Much of evolution -- the part you call "adaption" -- can be and has been observed & confirmed.
The longer term portion of evolution which cannot be observed falls into the category of confirmed hypothesis = theory.
Theories are scientific explanations which have been confirmed, in this case my innumerable findings.
fortheDeclaration: "Yes,as I said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and how the universe was created.
Both of the creationist and evolutionist view must be accepted by faith.
That is what the evolutionist cannot stand, since he thinks that he is being 'scientific.'"
But natural-science -- modern science -- is not based on "faith" in any biblical sense.
Instead, it's based on an assumption: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Science rules out, a priori any consideration of the supernatural.
Science leaves all consideration of supernatural processes to theologians, philosophers, ministers, etc.
Many scientists are men & women of deep religious faith who consider their scientific work to be investigations into how the Mind of God works in nature.
They don't consider their science and religion to be at war with each other.
But your term, "loss of information" is not the problem, since DNA both gains and loses data in response to changing environments.
Some examples come easily to mind:
Point is: in each case, you can say that DNA information was "gained", evolving to adapt to different environments.
Yes, sometimes at the cost of future disease (i.e., cycle cell anemia), but certainly in no sense an "information loss".
wbarmy: "The loss of information in all of the species you were talking about shows that evolution, the gaining of information for a new species, is not occurring.
All of the examples you used are devolving, becoming less than what their ancestors were."
Total rubbish.
In fact, the only "loss of information" in evolution is data no longer required for survival -- for one example, whales over time losing their legs.
At the same time, other necessary information was "gained" -- in that same example, whales' front legs becoming flippers.
In reality DNA "lost" or "gained" nothing, but DNA did change to allow better survival in new environments.
wbarmy: "Because they all started with the same genetic information, a loss of some of that information still allows them to occasionally be bred.
However, they are not becoming a new specie in the manner that evolutionists are trying to push."
DNA often changes to permit better survival, with or without information "loss" or "gain".
The difference between breeds (which readily interbreed) and sub-species, species, genera, orders & families (which increasingly cannot) is simply the long-term accumulation of differences in their DNAs.
Totally agree, thanks for a great post.
As to how or why God might intervene in any "natural" selection, if we simply remember that God's Plan (word) was with God from the beginning, indeed, the Plan itself IS God, then it seems to me irrelevant whether God Himself makes "natural" selections, or whether the eventual outcome of those selections is predetermined by God's original Plan.
Does that help?
"...in this case my by innumerable findings"
Christians accept adaptation within a species.
What isn't proved is the idiocy of macro evolution, the idea that something came from nothing and life came from non-life.
That is a faith, not science.
And 'science' is always claiming that it has proved some 'evolutionally' truth only to find it was wrong later.
But their premise is that there is no God so evolution has to be true.
The DNA never “changed”, the information was already there in those situations you described. Those without that information died or failed to breed leaving the ones with the information to reproduce. Mosquitoes who survived DDT reproduced, those who did not have that specific information did not.
Bacteria resistant to antibiotics survive and reproduce, those that are not, do not. Again, no information gain.
But successive generations can eventually breed information totally out of the gene pool, and that is what I mean by loss of information.
All humans came from an original source, with all of the genes for everything, but successive generations bred the gene out, i.e. no red hair in pure African groupings.
There is no case of information being gained through mutations, except bad information.
As for the whales, show me the genetic information gained. All you have is fossils and fossils do not tell you who their ancestors were.
Is that opinion, or fact? If it's being stated as fact, you'll need documentation of every mutation that ever happened to back it up.
I believe Carson is a nice guy, Really.
Probably very interesting to talk with.
But do we really need a president who spends 8 years talking about things that belong at college professor’s cocktail party?
Grain in pyramids, fossils that turned lizards into men, or whatever?
Really, really? I said there is no case of information being gained as a pretty clear cut fact.
If only ONE case had ever been found, it would be front and center of EVERY Darwinist textbook ever wrote. Most biology textbooks pussyfoot around this by discussing the very same human genetic cases you just wrote about.
If only ONE case had ever been found, it would be front and center of EVERY Darwinist textbook ever wrote. Most biology textbooks pussyfoot around this by discussing the very same human genetic cases you just wrote about.
Again, the only way you can prove no mutation ever resulted in a gain of information is to have documentation on every mutation that ever happened. Absent that, all you have is a theory.
It's not irrelevant, if our desire is to fully understand the entire process by which the Almighty's grand biological "experiment" is being conducted.
And I disagree the out come is predetermined. It's apparent both in word and in nature that it isn't. God wasn't satisfied with his previous results and wiped out many species according to the word. Likewise, physical evidence of mass extinctions is fact.
Summarizing Einstein: our understanding is only what we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." It does all make for interesting study and lively debate and the rest I pretty much agree with you on. :-)
But science never "pretends to prove" anything.
You might "prove" a mathematical theorem, but never a scientific theory.
Even observations are not "proved", they are confirmed, as are scientific hypotheses, which makes them confirmed theories.
So all your babble-talk about science not "proving" this or that is ridiculous, a theory like evolution is a confirmed hypothesis -- nothing more, nothing less.
fortheDeclaration: "Christians accept adaptation within a species."
Most Christians accept evolution theory as a description of how the Hand of God works in nature.
By definition of both words, "adaption" is evolution, period.
fortheDeclaration: "What isn't proved is the idiocy of macro evolution, the idea that something came from nothing and life came from non-life.
That is a faith, not science."
No, it's just your misunderstanding of real science.
Because you loathe it, you misunderstand it, and misrepresent it in every word you post about it.
In fact, science makes no claims that "something came from nothing," (except where something like it has been observed) but the word "life" is a matter of definition -- which organic processes are "alive" and which are just chemistry?
It's a matter of definitions -- bacteria are considered alive, while viruses are sometimes said to be just complex chemistry.
When, exactly does complex chemistry become "alive"?
Hard to say, but there are organisms in nature today on both sides of whatever line you wish to draw.
fortheDeclaration: "And 'science' is always claiming that it has proved some 'evolutionally' truth only to find it was wrong later.
But their premise is that there is no God so evolution has to be true."
Again, because you loathe science, you misunderstand it.
Science makes no claims -- none -- to "truth".
Truth is the subject of philosophers and theologians, not natural-science.
Science instead deals in observations, hypotheses and theories, period.
All can be falsified by better equipment, more careful procedures, new data and improved ideas.
That's what science is, it's how science works.
There's nothing equivalent to religious faith in science -- certainly not supposed to be.
Of course their DNA did change, as has been observed, confirmed and analyzed through DNA testing.
It's not just a matter of latent instructions suddenly becoming active at high altitudes.
It is the fact that people living at those high altitudes have new instructions in their DNA which are not present in the rest of humanity.
Indeed, as I said, the new DNA instructions for Tibetans is different from those for Andeans, demonstrating separate evolutionary paths.
Likewise, some Africans have malaria resistant instructions which also cause cycle-cell anemia.
By definitions, these new DNA instructions are both adaption and evolution, short-term.
None of these changes restrict interbreeding amongst human populations, so there is no speciation involved.
But, were such changes to continue and accumulate over many generations, then slowly, slowly, people of one population would grow increasingly unable, or unwilling, to interbreed with others.
It's how adaption & evolution work.
wbarmy: "There is no case of information being gained through mutations, except bad information."
I have now cited several examples off the top of my head, and a little research could produce many more.
All are examples where DNA "gains information", meaning it developed new instructions for new environments.
Your desire to deny what is obviously true is understandable, but only up to a point.
At some point you have to grasp that DNA does change, does add information and not all that new information is killed off by natural selection.
Some of it benefits a population, and that, dear FRiend, is evolution.
By whose definition?
Interspecific variation DOES arise by the mechanism Darwin postulated. His extension of the principle of natural selection to explain the origin of species, as opposed to interspecific variation, was undoubtedly wrong, but to be fair he could believe in such plasticity of species because he did not know about DNA and the other core elements of species identity.
It's the anti-God zealots who seized on his work to promote their own cause that have made this a mess - not Darwin himself.
Agreed, my favorite analogy is of the Universe as a giant casino, with many slot machines, each of which randomly rewards players.
But the machines are "rigged" so that the House (God) wins overall, long term.
Just an idea...
Well even according to Einstein, "God does not play dice."
And while that theory may apply to the very fabric of the universe and I'm sure to God's "house", I'm not too sure it's applicable to our little planet and race of biological beings. And there is that whole war in heaven thing. But based on what I've read and experienced, he did provide us with an escape plan. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.