seriously, if you don't want people to pick on you, don't use science to back up faith-based theories. all too often is the case that these theories are proven wrong when put under actual scrutiny by someone with an actual background in science.
2007-04-14 14:32:16 · 17 answers · asked by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
nobody "owns" science and i'll use it to the best of my knowledge, thank you very much :)
2007-04-14 14:34:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Please enlighten me and tell me the creationist theories that were PROVEN wrong because I do not know of any. In fact I do not know of the big bang theory to have been proven right! I notice that you haven't bothered to mention anything specific. I don't think much of the idea that the earth appeared out of no where and it rained on rocks for millions of years creating all of the beauty around you, as people who believe in bang would have us think. Something must have been there the whole time and that something was God. Look up a blade of grass and how complex it is. You think that something so very complex came from nothing? What about how the suns light bounces off of objects and creates colors. That seems like something to you that could have just happened by chance? I hope that you will come to someday realize the truth. Again, after reading answers above mine, I have not found any examples to be given.
2007-04-14 14:57:02 · answer #2 · answered by ggirlgail89 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off creationists only have a religious theory which would be a waste of time for them to try an apply science to it. Secondly the typical creationist has the understanding of science as that of a common river rock. And science has proven them wrong, time and time again.
2007-04-14 14:55:44 · answer #3 · answered by ChristOnAStick 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
those creationists are in simple terms ignorant. they can not p.c.. up a e book and study the definition of a scientific concept it rather is lots greater effective than purely a powerful wager. they can not face the actuality that evolution is one hundred% authentic and one hundred% shown actuality. there is not any conflict of words in the scientific community or in the area of knowledgeable human beings. all people with a million/2 a suggestions or a 6th grade instruction can see that evolution is actuality, identity and creationism are fantasy. Evolution could be duplicated the lab, speciation is a straightforward occurrence, the fossil record screams of developed species, genetics tutor it previous a shadow of a doubt. how are you able to ever convince a fool that he's a fool? comparable with creationists, they won't in any respect wreck out of their fantasy no count what the data say.
2016-12-29 11:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by drown 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As noted above scientists posit theories. If they are good scientists they then turn around and do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. If they are junk scientist driven by ideology they publish their theories and then lobby to get their peers to agree with them thereby forming a consensus. All too often is the case, sad but true.
2007-04-14 14:48:29 · answer #5 · answered by John 1:1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
We all have the right to understand how the universe works and put forth our hypotheses and findings.
And we all have the right to use the knowledge and inventions science has given us. Just because we don't agree on everythng doesn't mean we can voice what we think and believe.
2007-04-15 06:12:47 · answer #6 · answered by pinkrose 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are no creationist "scientists" who are willing to submit their theories to peer review, because they know that they have nothing of any scientific value to say. They just want to dress up religious dogma in scientific-sounding language because it makes them think that they're attacking the rest of us on our own turf. It's desperate.
2007-04-14 16:11:05 · answer #7 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is scientific evidence for both a young Earth and an old Earth, any honest scientist would agree. However it leans towards an old Earth more by quite a bit.
2007-04-14 14:37:45 · answer #8 · answered by Jay 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Probably when they actually figure out that the science is proving that their case is hopeless and proves exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, you are frequently dealing with people that will not listen to reason because they are absolutely convinced that they are right, even though they aren't.
2007-04-14 14:37:54 · answer #9 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
just: Like-wise ... I'm sure !!! If the shoe fits ! What kind of Christian or Atheist would shy away from evidence pointing either, pro or con about God ???
Each are faiths - having roots in experience.
2007-04-14 14:38:27 · answer #10 · answered by guraqt2me 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who needs science to prove God? I prove science by God.
Adam lived for Billions of years before he began to die. It took him over 900 years to die but he did.
2007-04-14 14:36:30 · answer #11 · answered by Bimpster 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋