quote:

Yeah, what's up guys? Why do y'all hate me anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grace-N-Mercy

quote:

Yeah, what's up guys? Why do y'all hate me anyway?

I don't hate you! What's your science?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I think that many are right to say that many scientists are wrong in their belief that life has evolved from a common ancestor, but I think that the belief that scientists are scheming bad guys is profoundly unintelligent, as is the belief that many christians subscribe to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Yeah, what's up guys? Why do y'all hate me anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
One of my professors in college was an anthropologist; he had a case in the hall with skulls and bones in it. He always had his office door open when he was in; one day a visiting preacher from the mid-West (I think?) was looking around our campus and saw it. He asked the biology secretary who was "responsible" for it, then gave a lecture to my professor about evolution (he'd said nothing to him about his beliefs, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



I have seen Biology change as new evidence has been discovered over the years of my life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

The problem revolves around the "Theory of Evolution", and mostly arises from those "Scientist", educators, and others that try to force thier theories as fact.

And enen us ole country bumpkins know that a theory is just a guess, (even if it is an educated guess) no matter how much some want it to be fact.

Christian do not have a problem with Scietific laws like buoyancy, gravity, heat conduction, etc. It is the trying to pass theories as fact that brings about the diaper rash.

quote:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

The problem revolves around the "Theory of Evolution", and mostly arises from those "Scientist", educators, and others that try to force thier theories as fact.

And enen us ole country bumpkins know that a theory is just a guess, (even if it is an educated guess) no matter how much some want it to be fact.

Christian do not have a problem with Scietific laws like buoyancy, gravity, heat conduction, etc. It is the trying to pass theories as fact that brings about the diaper rash.

Actually, you've illustrated one of the big, persistent problems in all of this. Your "country bumpkin" definition of the word "theory" is wrong. In everyday parlance, theory means just what you said it does. But in scientific jargon, it means something different:

quote:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Scientists don't really make "laws" any more, and the "laws" you're referring to are little more than basic observations: light objects float, objects with mass attract each other, heat flows from hot areas to cold. Those laws do nothing to explain how or why these interactions take place. There absolutely is a (currently incomplete) theory of gravity that tries to tie together not just that basic observation, but also things we know about quantum physics and relativity to give us a more holistic picture of gravity. A theory is more comprehensive than a law.

To follow on this and answer the OP: this is the same as any other conspiracy theory, where ignorance and fear fuels a belief that some shadowy group is conducting secret activities to undermine something we value. This particular one flies because most Christians don't know (m)any professional scientists, and it's easy to demonize a group when you can't identify with the individuals in that group.

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

The problem revolves around the "Theory of Evolution", and mostly arises from those "Scientist", educators, and others that try to force thier theories as fact.

And enen us ole country bumpkins know that a theory is just a guess, (even if it is an educated guess) no matter how much some want it to be fact.

Christian do not have a problem with Scietific laws like buoyancy, gravity, heat conduction, etc. It is the trying to pass theories as fact that brings about the diaper rash.

Actually, you've illustrated one of the big, persistent problems in all of this. Your "country bumpkin" definition of the word "theory" is wrong. In everyday parlance, theory means just what you said it does. But in scientific jargon, it means something different:

quote:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Scientists don't really make "laws" any more, and the "laws" you're referring to are little more than basic observations: light objects float, objects with mass attract each other, heat flows from hot areas to cold. Those laws do nothing to explain how or why these interactions take place. There absolutely is a (currently incomplete) theory of gravity that tries to tie together not just that basic observation, but also things we know about quantum physics and relativity to give us a more holistic picture of gravity. A theory is more comprehensive than a law.

To follow on this and answer the OP: this is the same as any other conspiracy theory, where ignorance and fear fuels a belief that some shadowy group is conducting secret activities to undermine something we value. This particular one flies because most Christians don't know (m)any professional scientists, and it's easy to demonize a group when you can't identify with the individuals in that group.

-Dan.

But Dan the definition you gave for theory, just builds the idea that a theroy is not set in concrete fact, but based a person or a group of persons observations. The problem come when those folks try to pass that observation (flawed or true) off as set in concrete truth.

In anyother thought except evolution, the powers that be are open to new evicdence that changes thier ideas. If biology had that same mindset then we would still be using leeches to cure sickness, and genes and dna would be considered fringe area 51 ideas.

In the area of the origins of man, dates, areas of the world etc. if it does not fit the "Established" theory; it is immediately dismissed as false and unpublishable, and that is sad.

I say that not from a theological point of view, but from a person who has great interest in the origins of man and the time frame that man came to be on earth; how ever he came to be on earth.

Peronally, I think man's appearance on earth is very old, as old or older than the primates that the evolutionist want us to believe we came from. But without allowing serious inquiries into the mountains of evidence of this antiquity the truth will never be known.

If it was proven that man evolved from lower class primates it would not shake my faith one bit, for I do not know how God made man; I just know that He did. Scripture does not go into detail.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

If it was proven that man evolved from lower class primates it would not shake my faith one bit, for I do not know how God made man; I just know that He did. Scripture does not go into detail.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

If it was proven that man evolved from lower class primates it would not shake my faith one bit, for I do not know how God made man; I just know that He did. Scripture does not go into detail.

Thanks
RC

That's my view as well. I really don't care how he did it. THAT he did it is the important bit, as well as the lesson of Genesis. The other important point of Genesis is how we messed it all up, and that God offers redemption.

Beyond that, I don't care to speculate. I certainly wouldn't want to hinge my faith on one particular view of HOW God created us - something that isn't really central to the story in the first place.

BT

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeminoleTom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
Peronally, I think man's appearance on earth is very old, as old or older than the primates that the evolutionist want us to believe we came from. But without allowing serious inquiries into the mountains of evidence of this antiquity the truth will never be known.

Could the majority of scientists be wrong? Sure. There are some that hold to a young earth or
even an old earth but that we didn't evolove from lower animals. But the majority do believe that we evolved as in macro-evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeminoleTom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
Peronally, I think man's appearance on earth is very old, as old or older than the primates that the evolutionist want us to believe we came from. But without allowing serious inquiries into the mountains of evidence of this antiquity the truth will never be known.

Could the majority of scientists be wrong? Sure. There are some that hold to a young earth or
even an old earth but that we didn't evolove from lower animals. But the majority do believe that we evolved as in macro-evolution.

Could the majority of Scientist be wrong? I will speak to Anthropology/Archaeology;

Let's take a boy who was always intereredted in Anthropology/Archaeology, and from the time he started school he was taught that man was a late comer to earth and evolved from the earlier primates. This teaching continues through high school, and throught college. When they get their first grant and do a dig; the evidence shows something different, then what?

If he reports it as to the finds, his grants will dry up; if he tries to publish his findings, there is no accepted field journal that will accept it and print it because it goes agains mid 19th century Darwinism. So then what?

Many times careers are destroyed completely (As in the Valsequillo dig in 1966), or they toe the line, get tenured and keep teaching the same "Theory" as fact.

My grandson is right in the middle of this, he has gone back to get his doctrate at the University of Texas and then contiue the search for the truth; what ever that truth is.

So much of the establishment has put forth fakes and frauds to uphold the Darminism view (Java Man, Piltdown etc.) that most of what is printed cannot or should not accepted. I mean really when a jaw bone is set 3/4 of an inch out of socket to give an ape shape and then covered with plaster; there is a major problem with the "Proof" of the evolution of man. The Darwin folks may have it right, but they have manufactored so much "Proof" that as a whole how can they be trusted.

As someone who has been blessed to travel the world for 45 years of my life, visiting every museum and dig within 100 miles of where I traveled, there is a lot of evidence of man being here on earth so far before it is acceptable to Darwinismist that their "Theory" becomes a joke.

I am just grateful that the biologist, chemist, mathimaticians, and physical scientist were not closed minded and refused to accept, publish, and support all the wonderful things that have came out of those fields in the past 150 years. If they had been as closed minded as others. If they were then there would be no space travel, tv, computers, dna, human genome, penicillin, anticeptics, organ transplants, paced makers, etc. etc.

So it is not scientist that I think are bad guys, just the closed minded ones.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
Actually you have it completely wrong. Anyone who finds verifiable evidence that conflicts with the status quo, and is able to prove it, is immediately catapulted into the science limelight.

quote:


Science is an exceptionally competitive field.