Errors in Science!

[TexasSky]

1) The Piltdown Chicken and the Hominid Skull?
a) The skull came out in 1912, and was reported to be a human with ape-like features. It was called "the missing link" for year, then they found out it was a hoax. A man-made hoax.

b)The chicken was "discovered" in China in 1999, and was also called the missing link. They said that it was proof dinosaurs came from birds. It was ALSO a hoax.

2) Nuclear Winter - Carl Sagan had to admit that his nuclear winter theory was based on a false temperature estimate.

3) Life on Mars - In 1996 NASA said there was probably life on Mars, claiming they found amino acids on a meteorite from Mars that hit in 1984. In 1998 they admitted that the amino acids came from the ice the rock hit when it landed on earth.

4) Killer bees are a mistake that scientists made. They deliberatly crossed a quiet honey bee with an agressive bee, thinking they would get a bee that survived better in different climates. Instead, they gave us bees that kill.

5) Deadly Meteorite To Destroy the Earth! - In 1998 they announced that a meteorite that was a mile wide, would pass close enough to earth in 2028 to do the kind of damage that some people
say caused the destruction of the dinosaurs. Then they "re-measured" the tajectory and discovered that instead of just 30,000 miles away it was 600,000 miles. What's a few 570,000 miles difference anyway folks?

6) Darwanism - All life evolved from single cell organisms. This was taught until 1995 when it was FINALLY removed from text books.

7) Fen-Phen

8) Silicone Implants

9) LSD

10) Ecstacy

11) Y2K - Year 2000 panic

 

[Paul33]

ether!

Darwinian evolution!

Denial of design!

 

[Deacon]

Science attempts to explain phenomena. Therefore by definition science deals with the physical aspects of nature; it seeks explanations of how things happen.

While science can't duplicate the origin of our universe it CAN study the phenomena relating to it.

Scientific theories relating to how things happened in the distant past will never be conclusive but will rely upon the preponderance of the evidence at hand. We are learning more about the event (in leaps and bounds recently).

I'm excited to see exposures of errors in a theory proposed by scientists. That's how science works!
If we saw more of this exposure of error in Creationist Science circles they might eventually become legitimate.

Rob

 

[Paul33]

Science attempts to explain phenomena. Therefore it cannot rule out the supernatural! The supernatural might be the best explanation!

Observation reveals design in nature. Refusing to admit the implications of this fact or skirting the issue by saying that design is only "apparent" in nature is a perversion of science!

 

[TexasSky]

Even non-Christian scientists have admitted that there is too much order for randomness to explain the universe.

 

[Deacon]

If science was satisfied with "God Did It" there would be no science.
That's what they call a "God of the Gaps" science.
"We know what we know, what we don't know, God did."

Current Intelligent Design Theory (ID) is interesting but still needs to be fully defined.

As Christians I think we ALL agree with ID.

Rob

 

[webdog]

I remember seeing a program on TV where they carbon dated a live moth and the age it showed the moth to be was something like 500,000 years old!

 

[P_Barnes]

Originally posted by webdog:
I remember seeing a program on TV where they carbon dated a live moth and the age it showed the moth to be was something like 500,000 years old!

That's because you can't carbon date anything that is living. The creationists who propogated this lie probably knew this, but felt that "lying for God" was fine.

 

[P_Barnes]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Even non-Christian scientists have admitted that there is too much order for randomness to explain the universe.

Even if this were true, it does nothing to prove the existence of the Christian God. That is, it could be any of the myriad gods that humans have invented over the centuries. (or none of them, etc)

 

[TexasSky]

Paul - Do you think all "mistakes in science" are "deliberate lies" or just mistakes made by those who support creation science?

 

[Charles Meadows]

The creationists who propogated this lie probably knew this, but felt that "lying for God" was fine

I wouldn't say that all creationists are liars.

But I do agree that some of the creation scientists are probably not being completely truthful.

After reading the average apologetics book at the local Christian bookstore I end up thinking that either the author simply is woefully ignorant - or is wilfully misrepresenting things.

I do not think that streching the truth is right simply because it advances an agenda felt to be morally superior by the author.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
1) The Piltdown Chicken and the Hominid Skull?
a) The skull came out in 1912, and was reported to be a human with ape-like features. It was called "the missing link" for year, then they found out it was a hoax. A man-made hoax.

b)The chicken was "discovered" in China in 1999, and was also called the missing link. They said that it was proof dinosaurs came from birds. It was ALSO a hoax.

2) Nuclear Winter - Carl Sagan had to admit that his nuclear winter theory was based on a false temperature estimate.

3) Life on Mars - In 1996 NASA said there was probably life on Mars, claiming they found amino acids on a meteorite from Mars that hit in 1984. In 1998 they admitted that the amino acids came from the ice the rock hit when it landed on earth.

4) Killer bees are a mistake that scientists made. They deliberatly crossed a quiet honey bee with an agressive bee, thinking they would get a bee that survived better in different climates. Instead, they gave us bees that kill.

5) Deadly Meteorite To Destroy the Earth! - In 1998 they announced that a meteorite that was a mile wide, would pass close enough to earth in 2028 to do the kind of damage that some people
say caused the destruction of the dinosaurs. Then they "re-measured" the tajectory and discovered that instead of just 30,000 miles away it was 600,000 miles. What's a few 570,000 miles difference anyway folks?

6) Darwanism - All life evolved from single cell organisms. This was taught until 1995 when it was FINALLY removed from text books.

7) Fen-Phen

8) Silicone Implants

9) LSD

10) Ecstacy

11) Y2K - Year 2000 panic

I love it!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The creationists who propogated this lie probably knew this, but felt that "lying for God" was fine

I wouldn't say that all creationists are liars.

But I do agree that some of the creation scientists are probably not being completely truthful.

After reading the average apologetics book at the local Christian bookstore I end up thinking that either the author simply is woefully ignorant - or is wilfully misrepresenting things.

I do not think that streching the truth is right simply because it advances an agenda felt to be morally superior by the author.

Your arrogance of superior knowledge is showing again!!!!!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
If science was satisfied with "God Did It" there would be no science.
Rob

That is incorrect. Much of what science has discovered/developed is an effort to eliminate physical work and physical suffering.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Oldreg,

Your arrogance of superior knowledge is showing again!!!!!

Notice I didn't say all creationists - I said some creationist authors.

And it's the truth. If a guy has an advanced degree in the sciences there is no way he should not know certain things. And when I read some of those apologetics books I ending up wondering, "does he really REALLY believe this theory?"

I don't mean to sound arrogant - but I cannot say it any differently. I think some authors DO think it's OK to stretch the truth a bit if it advances the right cause. And I disagree with that.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Oldreg,

Your arrogance of superior knowledge is showing again!!!!!

Notice I didn't say all creationists - I said some creationist authors.

And it's the truth. If a guy has an advanced degree in the sciences there is no way he should not know certain things. And when I read some of those apologetics books I ending up wondering, "does he really REALLY believe this theory?"

I don't mean to sound arrogant - but I cannot say it any differently. I think some authors DO think it's OK to stretch the truth a bit if it advances the right cause. And I disagree with that.

I guess I can't argue with that Charles.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Science attempts to explain phenomena. Therefore it cannot rule out the supernatural! The supernatural might be the best explanation!

Science cannot rule out the supernatural and the supernatural may be the right explanation. However, scientists cannot use the supernatural as an explanation or else it would no longer be science which deals with observing things with our senses in the physical world.

Metaphysical explanations are not science, even if they may be the right explanation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
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.

I think I need to reiterate that while honestly done science must make naturalistic assumptions, scientists do not have to accept naturalism as a cosmology or worldview.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Evolution assumes that no intelligent causes were involved in creation.

Yes, evolution and all honestly done sciences assumes that no intelligent causes were involved. This assumption needs to be made in order for science to be able to usefully describe the physical world we live in. Otherwise, it would have to account for all sorts of supernatural causes that we cannot observe, making scientific statements useless.

That doesn't mean that intelligent supernatural causes were not actually involved or that they weren't the designer of these natural phenomenon we are trying to describe. It means that when you do the honest work of science, those causes need to be set aside to impartially look at the evidence presented to us.

And when I look at it again, I marvel at the wonderful design of my creator who planned for the order found in evolution so that his creation (human and non-human) would not die off at the slightest change in environment.

Originally posted by Scott J:
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.

Your interpretation of Genesis is dependent on that proposition. Genesis stands on its own, whether any of our interpretations are right or not.

Why is it that we can only marvel at God when he works supernaturally which is basically beyond the level at which humans understand the natural. Why do we not also marvel at God when he works naturally (which may have been supernatural and beyond our understanding in the past)? Both the natural and supernatural bring glory to God.

 

[TexasSky]

Let me ask those of you who are so certain that Big Bang is correct.

How do you answer Grote Reber and the Astronomers who support the Hubble Research that say Big Bang is a myth?

For Big Bang to be accurate, you cannot be working in a closed system. Otherwise it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolutionary scientists who support Big Bang call Creatiion Scientists "liars" and accuse them of "twisting" the facts when the Creation Scientists point to this 2nd Law. Big Bang supporters say, "The univerise is not a closed system."

However, Reber's research says that the univerise MUST be a closed system. The ability to "bounce" radio signals in the manner Hubble does REQUIRES a closed system.

So, some scientists now go, "Well, Reber is right, but there are exceptions to every rule, even the laws of Thermodynamics."

Don't call Creationists liars without looking in your own backyard.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Let me ask those of you who are so certain that Big Bang is correct.

A couple of points.

1) The Big Bang is an astronomical theory independent of the theory of evolution.

2) I personally consider the Big Bang theories to be some of the best scientific supports for God creating "ex nihilo" (out of nothing).

Originally posted by TexasSky:
How do you answer Grote Reber and the Astronomers who support the Hubble Research that say Big Bang is a myth?

Do you have any links to Reber's research and commentary on the Big Bang? Thanks.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
For Big Bang to be accurate, you cannot be working in a closed system. Otherwise it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

From what I understand of the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang does not violate the 2nd law. The entropy of a system is increasing when the system expands. How does the Big Bang violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Originally posted by TexasSky:
However, Reber's research says that the univerise MUST be a closed system. The ability to "bounce" radio signals in the manner Hubble does REQUIRES a closed system.

Even if the universe is a closed system that is constantly expanding, how does this violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

And even if it does, all scientific laws have their breaking points like Netwon's laws of gravity at relativistic levels. I wouldn't be surprised if the Thermodynamic laws encounter breaking points when talking about the universe as a closed system.