• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Errors in Science!

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Scott J:
If they assume naturalism, they have already entered the realm of philosophy.
You are very correct, but I don't think in the sense that you thought.

If science assumes naturalism, it enters the realm of philosophy. Since all science assumes naturalism, all science is philosophical to a certain extent.

The extent being we assume that scientific principles based on what we can observe via our senses can adequately explain the world around us. And we assume that those principles will hold for other places and times under the same conditions.

God could decide tomorrow that non-relativistic gravity is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between the objects. That would throw all our science on gravity out the door. But for science to be useful to us, we need to assume that God will not do this and act supernaturally in this way.

That doesn't mean that supernatural forces do not exist or cannot exist. It also doesn't mean that there is no intelligence behind natural.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Not at all. This is observed science governed by recognized and experimentally demonstrated laws and theories... and btw, the situation is not governed by naturalism. The drugs don't occur naturally, they are engineered.
I don't see how this relates to the points I'm trying to make. But just an fyi that most drugs that we have been using throughout history are natural. Synthetic drugs are a recent development due to advances in biochemistry.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Everything about your example assumes physical and chemical laws... but also intelligence.
...
No. It means intelligence is a better explanation for the drug in question than a natural process.
Just an fyi that I am not arguing against intelliegence behind creation, since I believe that God is the creator of all things and that God is intelligent.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
If science assumes naturalism, it enters the realm of philosophy. Since all science assumes naturalism, all science is philosophical to a certain extent.
I forgot to add that "science" that does not make naturalistic assumptions is no longer science that is also philosophical to the extent above. It then becomes philosophy that is not science at all.

Once again I reiterate that just because science must make naturalistic assumptions, doesn't mean that scientists must hold to a naturalistic cosmology or worldview.
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No one saw creation at all. And I will readily concede that neither an old earth nor evolution have been PROVED.
THANK YOU!!!! This is the first time I've seen an admission that this topic is unprovable; as to either belief system I might add! So it boils down to which version of creation you believe, man's or God's.

But we do have fossil records, carbon 14 datings suggesting very old age, and geologic phenomena suggesting evolutionary change in the environment.
Can you honestly say that these conclusions have NO, NADA, ZILCH prior assumptions factored in? If your answer is "yes", then please give the basis or foundation, that undeniable rock-solid cornerstone, from which these data are derived.

There is no problem questioning these things or even saying, "sorry you have not convinced me."
Sorry you have not convinced me. ;) :D

But we cannot simply pretend that these things do not exist. That leads to a view that sees science as the antithesis of religious truth. And that becomes an unnecessary stumbling block for young believers in a world of increasing scientific knowledge.
No pretending here, just a difference of interpretation. My take is that God created "verbatim" as He states, and all this "age" is just a natural part of his creation, not evidence of a long duration. If you could have examined Adam 5 minutes after his creation, do you honestly believe any modern scientist would have deduced he was only 5 minutes old? I believe that should such be possible, a modern scientist would have estimated him to be 20, 30, 45 or so years old.
How old do you think he looked physically, being in truth only 5 minutes old?

So, rather than being a detriment to non or young believers, I believe just letting the Scripture speak for itself rather than trying to fit it to modern science, speaks volumns for the greatness and majesty of our God.

The only option is to say that God did not mean what He said , and it's downhill from there.

Since it's obvious that neither of us is going to alter the opinion of the other, I'm bowing out for now.

Edited to add:
Let me thank you though, CM, for the low key and gracious manner you have "argued" with me. I have enjoyed it!
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by just-want-peace:
The only option is to say that God did not mean what He said , and it's downhill from there.
God definitely meant what he said. Humans often misunderstand it, especially when they ignore the literary, historical and cultural context of the original authors and read the bible as if it was written by someone in today's culture in a scientific literary style.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
I realized I left a few unresolved issues.

Originally posted by Scott J:
"Random" is not my word. It is a word used in countless quotes I have seen from evolutionists themselves.

I know that evolutionists are now struggling with the fact that so much order and information exists in creation and that this has made "random" and "chance" very inconvenient things. I also know that there are efforts to reword the arguments so this problem just goes away... but anyway you word it, a random mutation that meets a random favorable environment for preservation is a random process.
Regarding the "randomness" of evolution, here are some views.

Talk Origins : Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
...
PBS Evolution FAQ

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science.

:rolleyes:

I don't think any of us has asserted that science is the ultimate authority. Science is nothing more than theories based on observations. And as such (as you have suggested) "science" has been wrong before, and undoubtedly is wrong about some things currently.

I would object to your initial remark however. You speak of science as if it is an entity unto itself - something that SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPPOSED TO RELIGION.
Charles you are not being very scientific in your observations. I did not mention religion! :D
 
T

TexasSky

Guest
This was posted: "You speak of science as if it is an entity unto itself - something that SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPPOSED TO RELIGION. "[/b}

Well, actually, Science has presented itself as opposed to faith, so it is really no wonder that Christians, and for that matter, members of non-Christian faiths, are feeling more and more "anti-Science."

More and more you hear that Science is "based on facts," and "faith is based on myth." Well, no, actually Christianity has a much great accuracy record than science does.

You hear Christians referred to as "ignorant" and already someone representing science has "apologized for being educated," as if those of us who question science are not educated.

Science is the making of observations based on things we see.

This accounts to why Science is so often wrong, and yet, it is used to challenge Christians time and time again. We're told if we can't see God, He doesn't exist.

They couldn't see germs and told Pasteur he was nuts, but he wasn't.
They couldn't see the atom, but it was there.
They couldn't see the neturons and protons, but THEY were there.
They couldn't see gravity, but it is there.

They'll come back and say, "Well, sure, but you know, with gravity you can see the affect it has on things! So you can prove it exists!" A Christian says, "With God, we can see the affect it has on things, He has proven He exists." We're laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and labeled "uneducated," and "unintelligent."

Science has BECOME the religion of many.
It has become the GOD, the IDOL of many.

Science is based on what man sees, but claims to hold the truth.
Faith is based on what man cannot see, and IS the truth.

Yet, the way science presents itself, it is "cold, hard, accurate, fact."

People point to God's word and say, "That's full of flaws. Look! Here in this chapter it says things happened in THIS order, and over here it doesn't even MENTION this thing!" But they never point to Science and go, "Hey, remember when they told us that the earth was flat? Or - how about how they swore that you couldn't fly out of the atomosphere? Or what about when they thought it was a great idea to wear a dirty lab coat so you could show how experienced you were? What about when they gave estrogen to cancer patients thinking it was a cure, and then found out it was a killer?"

Science went from a theory - to a faith.
Science asks Christians to set aside our blind faith, and accept their theories.

And when science did that, they DID make science an enemy.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
The "four elements" were the only things observed at that time by humans. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that those four were actually molecules made up of smaller atoms that we now call elements. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that atoms are made up of smaller things called protons, neutrons and electrons. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller things called quarks.
You make my point. True science is the search for truth. [True science should also admit that it cannot address beginnings.] That being the case why is it necessary for some to unequivocally state that those scientists who believe in Creation are not scientists but [I cannot remember all the pejoratives used on another thread to describe scientists who believe in Creation except liar and I am not going to take the tome to look them up.].

A list of scientists who believe in Creation and the contributions they made to science is presented on the following site:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm

I know already that, since this list is presented by the Institution for Creation Research, it will be dismissed out of hand and Henry Morris will be called a liar and a fraud. But it is there for those who want to use the scientific method.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Carbon 14 dating is erroneous for the simple reason that it assumes an old earth and that the formation/decay of Carbon 14 has reached an equilibrium state.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Since all science assumes naturalism, all science is philosophical to a certain extent.
You have incorrectly stated on a number of occasions that "all science assumes naturalism". See my previous post regarding the contributions of Scientists who believe in Creation.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
True science should also admit that it cannot address beginnings.
Why can't true science address beginnings? If that were true, what is "Creation Science"?

Originally posted by OldRegular:
That being the case why is it necessary for some to unequivocally state that those scientists who believe in Creation are not scientists
I guess I am no longer a scientist since I work in computers now, but I definitely believe in Creation, a Creation that includes evolution.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
I know already that, since this list is presented by the Institution for Creation Research, it will be dismissed out of hand and Henry Morris will be called a liar and a fraud. But it is there for those who want to use the scientific method.
ICR and AIG while they are some of the more academic attempts at presenting "Creation Science", they are still far from the quality of science expected from respected journals who are looking for papers that analyze the evidence, regardless of what view of origins it supports.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Since all science assumes naturalism, all science is philosophical to a certain extent.
You have incorrectly stated on a number of occasions that "all science assumes naturalism". See my previous post regarding the contributions of Scientists who believe in Creation. </font>[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Once again I reiterate that just because science must make naturalistic assumptions, doesn't mean that scientists must hold to a naturalistic cosmology or worldview.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Folks I know that all the errors in science have not been listed. Wasn't it the view of science at one time that the earth was flat? I know a lot of people blame that on the Bible but I don't recall reading that in Scripture.

Also, did not doctors? of medicine at one time bleed the sick?

I would like to see some more errors of science mentioned.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Not at all. This is observed science governed by recognized and experimentally demonstrated laws and theories... and btw, the situation is not governed by naturalism. The drugs don't occur naturally, they are engineered.
I don't see how this relates to the points I'm trying to make. But just an fyi that most drugs that we have been using throughout history are natural. Synthetic drugs are a recent development due to advances in biochemistry.</font>[/QUOTE] The specific example you cited inferred the latter.

The way it relates to your example is that you tried to make a point about acceptanace of naturalism... by pointing to an example that refutes the naturalism employed to limit explanations of creation. Evolution assumes that no intelligent causes were involved in creation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Everything about your example assumes physical and chemical laws... but also intelligence.
...
No. It means intelligence is a better explanation for the drug in question than a natural process.
Just an fyi that I am not arguing against intelliegence behind creation, since I believe that God is the creator of all things and that God is intelligent. </font>[/QUOTE]Another thing worth mentioning about God is that our creative abilities are limited by laws of the physical world we live in.

We cannot fully comprehend a person who can create by nothing more than willing it to be so. But that is exactly the kind of God the Bible describes. God may have used some mechanics that we could measure/describe naturally. On the other hand, He may have simply willed it to be without any "process" at all.

The Genesis account is dependent on either the latter proposition or else that God superceded the natural laws that He created and made things very quickly.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
Folks I know that all the errors in science have not been listed.
Everything in science is an error or will be eventually. The scientific method presents a way for science to continually correct itself.

The scientific views of gravity over time is an interesting study. Now that we know that Newton's laws of gravity don't hold in relativistic circumstances like the very big (astonomical) and the very small (subatomic). Eventually we will probably find an exception to Einstein's general relativity.
 

Paul33

New Member
I love it.

The Bible is accused of having errors, but then later, oops, the Bible was right.

Science, especially scientific naturalism, can't help but be wrong, because its philosophical assumptions are wrong. There is more to life than nature! It's called "the supernatural."

It was science, not the Bible that taught that the earth was at the center of the universe!

It is misinterpretation of Scripture that teaches that the "universe" was created in six days.

Both science and the Bible need to be interpreted correctly! God's two books, nature and revelation, must be compatible.
 

Paul33

New Member
The "earth is flat" myth was propagated by Haeckel and others in the 1800s to show that the church was wrong and Darwinism was right.

A professor from UC - Santa Barbara has debunked this myth! Neither Columbus or others believed that the earth was flat.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
It is misinterpretation of Scripture that teaches that the "universe" was created in six days.
Maybe... but I don't think so.

The Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. That very well could mean that He imagined it as he wanted it and willed it to be without anything we would recognize as "process".

When we imagine something, we still must "do" something within the confines of the natural laws that bind us to make it a reality. God is not bound by natural laws. His saying something makes it reality.
 

Paul33

New Member
Hi Scott,

I'm simply suggesting that young earth creationists may be misinterpreting Scripture.

Genesis 1:2 says that the Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the waters, but it doesn't say for how long!

They also misinterpret the passages in Exodus that speak of "in six days." The text of Genesis identifies "shamayim, eres, and yam" as "sky, land, and sea." Therefore the Exodus passage only teaches that in six days God "made" the earth's biosphere habitable for life. It does not teach that God created the universe in six days (IMO).
 
Top