Why do atheists think that science is the B-all and end-all of everything? it isn’t, TRUTH is. Science is merely one tool which can be used in the search for truth.
Creationist science is every bit as valid as evolutionist science (of which the Piltdown Man is one example) as a tool in the search for truth. Furthermore, there are circumstances where science can actually be used to discern the supernatural. If, for example, an event occurs for which there is no naturalistic explanation which does not violate well established, natural law then science must give way to the legitimate disciplines of reason and logic to conclude that the only alternative is a cause which is not bound by natural law and thus of a supernatural nature. Events such as the origin of the universe, the origin of information and the origin of life all rule out such a naturalistic explanation and are therefore in this category.
2007-01-30 07:47:59 · 16 answers · asked by A.M.D.G 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
novangeli.......
The only oxymorons, sorry, I mean morons are those people who keep claiming that evolutionists have a monpoly on scientific reasearch. Creationists have every bit as much right ot investigate the frequent extravagant claims of the evolutionists and subject them to critical scientific scrutiny. They have been doing this for some time and many so-called scientific findings have been found wanting. It seems that evolutionists start with the preconcieved notion that evolution is a fact, so they force science into an straightjacket which must always yield to the greater good of their evolutionary beliefs. Piltdown Man was an example of evolutionist wishful thinking, taking precedence over the strict scientific method. For 41 they fooled the public by claiming it was conclusive scientific proof of evolution. This is just one example of the sort of slipshod science which has become a hallmark of evolutionists. other examples: Nebraska Man, Orce man. Southwest Colorado Man.
2007-02-01 07:59:33 · update #1
Iformation Theory states:
THEOREM 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to arise by itself in matter.
THEOREM 27: Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false.
2007-02-01 08:08:56 · update #2
INFORMATION
Information is nonmaterial, but it requires material media for storage and transmission.
Information is not life, but the information in cells is essential for all living things. Information is a necessary prerequisite for life.
Life is nonmaterial, and it is not information, but both entities, matter and information, are essential for life.
2007-02-01 08:10:43 · update #3
Klaus Dose reviewing the conclusions of the 7th international conference on the origins of life (Mainz 10th - 15th July 1983) in association with the 4th congress of the ISSOL, writes: “A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e. the information residing in our genes today.” “The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides of even of poly-nucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth, should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard.
2007-02-01 08:13:05 · update #4
Nuclear physicist Hermann Schneider on the ‘Big Bang’: “In the evolution model the natural laws have to describe the origin of all things in the macro and micro cosmos, as well as their operation. But this overtaxes the laws of nature.” Zeitschrift factum 1981, Nr.3, pp.26-33.
2007-02-01 08:15:14 · update #5
A great big hand clap for you sir
2007-01-30 07:53:03 · answer #1 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Wrong on most counts. Yes, science is just one tool in searching for the truth. That is the limit to your correct statements.,
Creationist science is an oxymoron. Piltdown Man was revealed as a hoax by real scientists retesting the data.
Absence of naturalistic evidence for a phenomenon may simply mean that the process that formed the phenomenon may have been obliterated before the evidence was gathered. No event you described is beyond a naturalistic explanation. It is merely a reflection of limited understanding to make that assertion.
2007-01-30 15:57:32 · answer #2 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are very confused.
There is no such thing as Creationist Science. The term itself is an oxymoron.
Science ONLY deals with natural explanation, and can not and never will be used to explain supernatural explanations.
Truth, as you put it, doesn't exist in ancient tomes written by ignorant goat herders. The fact that you think it may only demonstrates your inability to discern logic from wish full thinking.
2007-01-30 15:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as "creationist" and "evolutionist" science. Science is absolute and unbiased, like math. However people manipulate scientific facts and statistics to further agendas or to prove points.
2007-01-30 15:53:29 · answer #4 · answered by ÜFÖ 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Science has been hijacked by scientists who pat each other on the back all the time and will howl you under the table if you don't agree with their preconcieved notions. Gravity and dark matter run the universe as far as cosmologists are concerned.
2007-01-30 15:54:21 · answer #5 · answered by Atlas 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No one thinks that. Science hasn't explained everything, but it has the potential to. Anyone over the age of five knows that, even if they don't admit it. As far as "supernatural" goes, even the word supernatural makes no sense. If something exists, it is natural. Period.
2007-01-30 15:54:22 · answer #6 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not all atheists are up sciences butt. some of them are indifferent but you do raise some very good points. i dont think religion and science have to be enemies i think they can work together to explain each other. yet i dont necessarily believe in a higher power at least not one who calls for war or any other of the crazy stuff going on. why cant god tell everyone to just chill and have a latte or something watch some cartoons
2007-01-30 15:54:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe.
Creationism/Intelligent Design is not valid. It is not science. It's not even bad science fiction. It's childish fantasy and it has no validity, whatsoever.
2007-01-30 16:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you apply the wrong mathmatical equation to a problem you might not get the right answer. It just means the method needs more tuning. Science allows for that Religion does not
2007-01-30 15:53:39 · answer #9 · answered by Magus 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Actually, I have a real problem undestanding why Christians do not embrace true science.
After all, God invented science...
Don't worry too much about it...in the end, science will embrace God...just as it was intended to do.
2007-01-30 16:08:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
My answer to your question is very very simple.
Time will tell.
God was the first scientist. Science proves to me everyday that He exists. We are just guessing. And the poor atheist are truely the blind following the blind...oops I mean the visually disabled.
2007-01-30 16:00:30 · answer #11 · answered by Daystar 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋