Latest evidence science is flawed???

Question

Has anyone seen the latest evidence that petrified trees from the S.t. Helens eruption were thought to be petrified for hundreds of years going by their previous theory? Not starting a debate. Just thought it was curious.

Evidence of evolution? Every piece of evidence is man made, but because the Bible is man made you say it holds no merit? Hypocrytical.

And those theories from a biology class came from where? Oh, right, man. Science is constantly proven wrong that is why it has to 'change' its formulas to fit its needs.

Answer 1

male_lonely_shy,
You should know better than to post something like this without providing a link. As you probably know, we scientists need to see the data before we can make a true scientific judgment about something. In other words, no data, no evidence. Please site your source or I will have no other choice than to assume you are making this up.

Answer 2

Yes, science changes all the time. That's what makes it accurate. If it couldn't change it would be like religion, outdated and illogical.

As we gather more evidence to certain theories, they begin to change less and less. Take evolution, we have literally thousands of pieces of evidence and observances over the last hundred or so years, and now you will very rarely see a modification to the mechanisms for which evolution occurs.

Science is about the truth, not blind faith.

EDIT: ARE YOU KIDDING? We can see evolution happening in the wild in simple species and reproduce it in the lab. Geez, you fundamentalists have no qualms about thriving in blind ignorance. Take a basic level biology class, there is no debate that evolution occurs, that ended long ago...

EDIT: You don't even know what a scientific theory. Science changes it's mechanisms, very rarely it's theories, because of evidence that proves its old mechanisms wrong, and either proves, or highly supports new mechanisms.

This isn't even worth it, you will lie and deceive anyone with no qualms, as any other fundamentalist.

Answer 3

Scientists don't necessarily understand the Bible at all. The physical sciences have a myopic view, viewing the physical only, and limit their insight. That's not scientific. You have to start with an open mind. If they only collect data to support a theory, that's scienitfic fundamentlism. Higher functioning scientists don't have such a limited view. Physicists are now calling themselves philosophers and science is studying spirituality at present. Look at the new biology, for instance at, brucelipton .com. Fundamentalist scientists are old guard trying to hold their money ego positions. Nothing ever changes with makind until they change. Scientists are beginning to realize that they are part of the experiment, tending to only see what they've decided to see. That holds for all disciplines. Since everything relates to everything else and if all thinking is by comparisons, as some suggest, you can't narrow in on a subject without being subject to reductionism, which reduces everything to absurdity. The same thing happens in religion all the time. At least some of us can see it and some scientists, for that matter. The common sources of information, the media, don't seem immune to myopia either and they are supposed to be up on 'things. Maybe they only tell us what keeps them in their positions also. Every coin has two sides or more. If it didn't it couldn't exist in three dimensional time, that is to say, in reality. Man is not just a machine. Who's want to believe that, anyway. He is also an awareness, something apparently outside the machine. Awareness exists and seems to have always existed. We didn't invent it. It's the other side of the 'reality' coin. Looking at life from both sides, now, you really can know life et al.

Answer 4

Mt. St. Helens is a great example of catastrophism which lends credence to a young earth which coincides with literal interpretation of creation in Genesis (Bible). Science tends not to correct their errors and bias- theories but promotes its dogma with little evidence in its favor. I have not heard science teachers point out that it does not take even hundreds of years for wood to petrify. Science will say that this rock dates from thousands to millions of years ago and thus anything found in that layer must be that old, as well. That's simply circular reasoning to say that the rock is as old as the fossil and visa versa. It doesn't prove anything when they try to prove one with the other. Evolutionists would be true scientists if they did publish their mistakes in the scientific journals and newspapers so the common person knows they have some accountability. Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980 (just 27 years ago). Any rocks formed from the eruption should be 27 years old.

Beyond rocks, looking at all creation and the specialization of each species with various unique abilities not duplicated in any transitional species stands as greater reason for creation by Intelligent (God) design. Sure there is adaptation or evolutionary changes in the micro but not macro sense. All species are capable of adaptation by the design of a loving Creator who cares about His creation that it thrives in a changing world He created perfectly, but which has taken a turn since The Fall and caused The Great Flood and other catastrophic events that have changed the perfect world into a less than perfect, colder, shaken world where creatures need to adapt to live.

Sorry, I've opted to debate!

Answer 5

You are not telling the truth when you say that every piece of evidence for evolution is man-made. Why do creationists need to lie?

I've never yet seen a creationist claim that doesn't depend on at least one lie.

Answer 6

To learn things you have to make mistakes........ I bet there is not one thing in the whole of reality that is perfect....... Maybe it's better that way, flaws make life interesting.

Answer 7

Are you a creationist? Did your preacher tell you to make these unscientific observations? Can you or your preacher prove that your sky fairy exists?

Answer 8

Science makes mistakes, then corrects them.

Religion makes ridiculous claims and acts like it's truth!

I'll stick with science.

Answer 9

science is flawed, science as understood and practiced by creationists is especially flawed.

Answer 10

HOW CAN WE LEARN LIFE FROM FAITH? Being that faith is a flaw, it cant change.Was iit 'poof' and there it was?