Hello the past few days here, It breaks my heart to see the negative reaction towards science. Science is not the enemy of God. Science is not athiest.



Ask me any question..I have a few friends a click away who are Scientists and academics in many different fields of Science.. If I cant answer the question ( I am not a scientist) then I can ask them.

If you beleive God spoke the Universe into creation, then science and math is no less the study of Gods Word.


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

Science will never address the reality of Gods existence because its untestable hypothesis....but in no way implies that God is some how "left out"It just a non physical non testable philisophical question that operates outside of the authority of the Physical.

What better Evidence is there of the truthfulness of science when we look at science applied technology. A hundred years ago %50 of all children died before adulthood...Because of the Scientific method applied in medicine, we can all see our kids grow up. Its a beutiful thing.

dont hate science because they dont quote bible verses or give homage to God...Science is an institiution that its function is to follow the scientific method and not make theological or ethical/ moral statements.

Not getting many takers, are you? C'mon folks, now you've got a theistic evolutionist to ask, too. Everything you were afraid to know about evolution. All you've got to do is ask!

reusablehuman wrote: › When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

A theory is not a "grown-up" hypothesis. Instead, hypotheses are more specific statements about the universe and theories are more general statements.

Both hypotheses and theories become supported after failures to show them to be false. Theories often incorporate supported hypotheses.

For instance, a hypothesis is that all the different birds on the Galapagos are types of finches. That turns out to be a well-supported hypothesis. That supported hypothesis is part of the theory of evolution.

Quote: › Science will never address the reality of Gods existence because its untestable hypothesis.

It's untestable because science doesn't have the tools to test it directly. Not because it is somehow "inherently" untestable.

BTW, you can't be an agnostic and an atheist. Pick one.

Well, reusable, if that's the case then how is evolution observable and then testable? If I'm not mistaken, it's not. I know I asked this before, but I'm not sure if you responded. How does evolution fit into the scientific method?

Testing things that are only directly, isn't that a naturalistic method? It should be, unless I'm mistaken, that if there is enough evidence towards something, not just directly testable, it should be a theory.

Where am I wrong?

I agree that science isn't the enemy of God, but I also believe that many "scientists" refute metaphysics outright simply because it can't be "touched', or rather, because it isn't directly testable as the case may be. To simply exclude something on that basis is somewhat arrogant because it says "you're wrong!" without even looking at it.

Maybe I'm wrong but aren't you supposed to be testing theories/ hypothesis to be true. Therefore, if you can test such and prove it is true then it is supported, not if you can't prove that it's false. I mean don't you need to prove the statement true, and if you can't then doen't it make it false?

I do have one other question though, if you will. How do scientist measure fossils to be millions of years old?

Templar wrote: › Maybe I'm wrong but aren't you supposed to be testing theories/ hypothesis to be true. Therefore, if you can test such and prove it is true then it is supported, not if you can't prove that it's false. I mean don't you need to prove the statement true, and if you can't then doen't it make it false?

You test hypotheses/theories to try to prove them false. You do this because you can absolutely prove statements to be false but can't absolutely prove them to be true. Science uses deductive logic. It does this because it is the only logic where the conclusions are wider than the premises.

Let me try to illustrate. The sun rose the day before yesterday, yesterday, and today. What we tend to do is called induction and say "the sun will rise tommorrow." However, strictly speaking, we can't do that. We can't extrapolate that way to a "proof". All we can really say is that the sun rose on those days.

To get to be able to go beyond the examples we have, we have to make a hypothesis: the sun rises every day. Now we test that hypothesis. We do so by looking each morning and seeing if the sun rose that day. Now you see a problem: no matter how many mornings the sun comes up, there are still an infinite number of mornings to check and the sun may NOT come up that morning. So, the day the sun does not come up we have conclusively falsified the hypothesis, but all the mornings the sun does come up gives us support that the hypothesis is right, but we can't ever "prove" it.

So, when we do experiments we try to falsify the hypothesis. If we really, really try and can't do it, then the hypothesis is supported. When the hypothesis is well supported, we treat it as (provisionally) true. Which is what we do with the hypothesis that the sun will rise each morning. We treat it as true unless and until it is shown to be false. And we plan our lives on the 'truth' that the sun will rise tommorrow.

Quote: › I do have one other question though, if you will. How do scientist measure fossils to be millions of years old?

They don't measure fossils, they measure strata above and below the fossils. You can get a relative age of the strata by seeing what is above and below it. This is based on the common sense principle that the strata at the bottom was laid down first and is the oldest.

To get an absolute age, you have to use radiometric dating. But since the sedimentary rock that fossils are in is made up of older rock that is eroded to make the sediment, dating the sedimentary rock would give you an age older than it really is. Instead, you look for igneous rock -- rock that is formed from lava. This rock is going to be the correct age because the isotopes in it were fixed when the rock cooled. So you look for either 1) igneous rock above and below the sedimentary rock and/or 2) a dike of igneous rock intruding into the sedimentary rock layer. Then you date them using several different series of radioisotopes. If you are doing igneous rocks above and below the sedimentary layer, you get a date between the two. So often you see a fossil reported as "between 2.5 and 3.5 million years old". Is that clear? If not, what isn't clear?

Anything else we can help you with?

Khisanthax wrote: › Well, reusable, if that's the case then how is evolution observable and then testable? If I'm not mistaken, it's not.

Evolution is made up of several theories. The two most common are common ancestry and natural selection. Both can be, and have been, tested several ways.

Now, remember, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Anything else denies basic cause and effect. Creationists eventually get around to this with the Appearance of Age argument, but you haven't used it yet, so I presume you accept cause and effect so far.

1. Phylogenetic analysis. This tests the basic concept of common ancestry. Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

2. Biogeography. this looks at the distribution of plants and animals around the world -- geography. Common ancestry and descent with modification predicts very similar species separated by areas where the species hybridize (hybridization zones) as you move from one place to another. And this is what was found in the period 1820 - today.

3. Morphological and physiological comparison. This does not show a common designer but rather common ancestry. The fact that organisms can be grouped in a nested hierarchy shows common ancestry and descent with modification. Only entities related by this process can be grouped into nested hierarchies.

4. The fossil record. There are sequences of transitional individuals that show evolution from one species to another extending across to new genera, families, orders, and even classes. Proffesional creationists tend to either not know about these or pretend they don't exist. I can supply references whenever you would like.

Natural selection:
Mendelian genetics say that the frequency of an allele in a population will remain constant if it is not acted upon by selection. Since physcial traits like color, amount of fur, length, width, size of bones, etc. are all determined by genetics, this allowed geneticists in the 1920s and 1930s to precisely measure selection by measuring the change in frequency of traits in hundreds of species from generation to generation. This has now been extended to seeing the formation of new species both in the lab and the wild. Below are some references you can find in your public library:
1. Case, TJ, Natural selection out on a limb. Nature, 387: 15-16, May 1, 1997. Original paper in the same issue, pp. 70-73 (below). Discusses natural selection in the wild where lizards were introduced to various islands in the Bahamas. Length of limbs varied according to the plant life present on the islands.
JB Losos, KI Warheit, TW Schoener, Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature, 387: 70-73,1997 (May 1)
1a. JB Losos, Evolution: a lizard's tale. Scientific American 284: 64-69,March 2001. Phenotypic plasticity and evolution of Anolis lizards.
2. Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Evaluationof the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poeciliareticulata). Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article isPredatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.
3. Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches inthe Galapagos by Boag, PT and Grant, PR appeared in Science vol 214 pp82-85, 1981.
4. Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials.In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote: › I know I asked this before, but I'm not sure if you responded. How does evolution fit into the scientific method?

The "scientific" method is also called the hypothetico-deductive method. The H-D method can be used whenever people agree on what consitutes data. For instance, the theory of Trinity is a product of the H-D method where the Christians involved agreed that salvation and the Bible were data.

In the HD method you do:
1. Make a statement about the physical universe.
2. Make deductions of consequences of the statements. IOW, what you should find in the physical universe IF the statements are true. This step is sometimes called "making predictions".
3. Go look for the consequences.
4. If you find the opposite of the consequences, the hypothesis is falsified. If you find the consequences, the hypothesis is supported.

Let me give just one example:
scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. The hypothesis was that Diptera evolved from Mecoptera. A deduction/consequence of this hypothesis is that there was a fossil fly with four wings. Another deduction is that there should be genetic changes to convert a 4-winged fly to a two winged fly. In 1976 a 4 winged fly is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene. Thus the hypothesis is supported.

Quote: › Testing things that are only directly, isn't that a naturalistic method?

That science can only test material causes is a result of how experiments are done. When we do experiments, we compare an experiment where the entity is present to one where the entity is absent -- this last is called the control. We can't control for God. That is, I can't point to a test tube and say "God is in that one." Or point to one and say "God is NOT in that one." So, we can tell what the material causes are, but science cannot tell IF God is present and involved. Science simply cannot tell. Science doesn't say God is nor does it say God isn't. Science simply can't comment AT ALL.

When you say "naturalistic method", you are actually accepting the faith of atheism that natural = without God.

Quote: › It should be, unless I'm mistaken, that if there is enough evidence towards something, not just directly testable, it should be a theory. Where am I wrong?

What is a theory and what is a hypothesis doesn't depend on evidence, but the generality of the statements. For instance, a hypothesis is that fibroblast growth factor causes skin fibroblasts from humans to divide. That's a hypothesis. Specific. A theory is that fibroblast growth factor causes mesodermal cells (fibroblasts, cartilage cells, muscle cells, bone cells, etc) from mammals to divide. A much broader statement. The supported hypothesis of FGF causing human skin fibroblasts to divide now becomes part of the theory.

I agree that science isn't the enemy of God, but I also believe that many "scientists" refute metaphysics outright simply because it can't be "touched', or rather, because it isn't directly testable as the case may be. To simply exclude something on that basis is somewhat arrogant because it says "you're wrong!" without even looking at it.[/quote]

lucaspa wrote: › Quote: › I do have one other question though, if you will. How do scientist measure fossils to be millions of years old? They don't measure fossils, they measure strata above and below the fossils. You can get a relative age of the strata by seeing what is above and below it. This is based on the common sense principle that the strata at the bottom was laid down first and is the oldest. To get an absolute age, you have to use radiometric dating. But since the sedimentary rock that fossils are in is made up of older rock that is eroded to make the sediment, dating the sedimentary rock would give you an age older than it really is. Instead, you look for igneous rock -- rock that is formed from lava. This rock is going to be the correct age because the isotopes in it were fixed when the rock cooled. So you look for either 1) igneous rock above and below the sedimentary rock and/or 2) a d**e of igneous rock intruding into the sedimentary rock layer. Then you date them using several different series of radioisotopes. If you are doing igneous rocks above and below the sedimentary layer, you get a date between the two. So often you see a fossil reported as "between 2.5 and 3.5 million years old". Is that clear? If not, what isn't clear?

Your assumption that it had to happen one way. I'm sure that you know that these same layers of rock claimed to form over "millions of years" can actually happen in less than a few weeks. So, I want to ask you a couple of questions about radiometric dating...

1.) How do we know that the decay rates have remained constant?

2.) How do we know the initial amounts of the parent and daughter element in a sample?

3.) How do we know a sample hasn't lost some of it's parent or daughter element after formation?

4.) Since these processes can also happen in much less time under certain conditions [such as those a flood would fulfill], how can we be sure that they happened over a long period of time and not much, much shorter?

1.) How do we know that the decay rates have remained constant?

If the constants of partical physics wasnt constant , then my world would be doing some stange pshchodelic things. Think of the sheer number of atoms around us. They all follow Natural Law to the letter. If constants like decay rates change, the universe would not look the way it does.

The lasted Hubble pic is billions of light years away..or billions of years in the past,

Christian_Poet wrote: › Your assumption that it had to happen one way. I'm sure that you know that these same layers of rock claimed to form over "millions of years" can actually happen in less than a few weeks.

This comes from Steve Austin's claims about the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and the sediments washed down from it. Austin has some problems with this:
1. We have no independent documentation of the "layers" and I haven't seen pictures, just his say so. That isn't good enough.
2. Even if we allow the layers, Austin is talking about mud, not rock. The "layers" would not persist once the sediment was compressed, the water extruded, and the sediment consolidated to make rock.

So, we don't "know" this. It is claimed by YECers, but the claim 1) isn't substantiated by data and 2) is talking apples and oranges, since it is not addressing rock.

Quote: › So, I want to ask you a couple of questions about radiometric dating... 1.) How do we know that the decay rates have remained constant?

1. Radioactive decay involves the strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing that will influence them to the extent needed. The one example where decay rates have been observed to change involve atoms where most of the electrons have been stripped off and the atom has a +50 or more positive charge.
2. For the rates to vary enough to give a 10,000 or less year earth, it would mean that the earth would have been melted. Remember, the decay products react with nearby atoms and a byproduct is heat. Speed the decay processes up by 6 billion times and you get so much heat released that the planet melts.
3. Isochron dating methods would detect that because, if the decay rate had varied, there would not be the straight lines that we obtain.

Quote: › 2.) How do we know the initial amounts of the parent and daughter element in a sample?

This depends on the particular decay ratio used. This is a possible problem in the U-Pb series, but isn't in the K-Ar sample. Ar could not be in the original molten rock because it is a gas and would leave. It can't be entrapped later because Ar has no charge -- it's a noble gas and can't bind in the crystal lattice. So the only Ar present in the sample can come from decay. Finally, isochron methods -- such as the Sr-Rb series -- don't assume any initial ratios but the ratios are calculated from the isochron line derived from measuring the different elements in the rock.

Quote: › 3.) How do we know a sample hasn't lost some of it's parent or daughter element after formation?

The rocks used involve a crystal lattice. Atoms in such a lattice are fixed by geometry and charge. Unless the crystal melts, there is no way for significant substitution. Did you ever make a copper sulfate crystal in grade school science class? If you did you know there is no way to get particular atoms either in or out of the crystal.
However, once again the isochron methods don't assume that the elements were constant.

Quote: › 4.) Since these processes can also happen in much less time under certain conditions [such as those a flood would fulfill], how can we be sure that they happened over a long period of time and not much, much shorter?

You are saying that the sedimentary rocks can form. That is not so, even tho it is claimed by Austin. Back to the top. A Flood would not interfere with radiometric dating since none of the conditions would affect the strong and weak nuclear forces. Remember, strata are dated from the igneous rock, and the Flood doesn't affect that.

Finally, we have the testimony of Duane Gish, Associate Director of the ICR:
"Furthermore, it will be maintained that even though any given age measurements may be completely erroneous due to leaching or emanation or some other effect, there are many cases now known where the age estimate has been checked by two or more different methods, independently. It would seem improbable that the elements concerned would have each been altered in such a way as to continue to give equal ages; therefore, such agreement between independent measurements would seem to be strong evidence that alteration has not occurred and that the indicated date is therefore valid." Duane Gish, The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, pg. 136.

That is, Gish considers it impossible that the U-Pb, K-Ar, and Rb-Sr series would have independent changes in initial amounts of parent and daughter elements, changes in decay rates, leaching of elements in and out of the crystal, etc. such that they would coincidentally give the same age. I do too.

There is also this to consider, forgetting individual methods for a minute:
There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old.

Lucaspa, Could you give a brief explination how your Christian beliefs and naturalistic science are not contradictory ? I am curiose, you know I came from a fundy YEC background,so I tend to polarize issues into black/white either/or .... so from my POV It seems like a contradiction, I have a hard time accepting the resurrection and other supernatural events recorded in the bible.

Lucas,

The problem with your dating is that only carbon 14 has been proven to have a constant linear decay rate.

Quote: › It breaks my heart to see the negative reaction towards science.

So you speak for science? I don't know anyone that hates science. I know plenty who realize that science has been overtaken by agenda driven maroons. Those same maroons hold up real progress in science.
Somehow, magically, the science establishment machine purposely ignores anything that doesn't comport.
Just the mere act of questioning science dogma is seen as heresy. Yet these same dogmatists base most of their tests on observed changes.
Hypocrisy runs rampant. Anyone in the scientific fields knows that you cannot just say what you think. You cannot just report what you find. It has to fit approved assumptions or a career can be quickly ruined.

I think the bible sums it up quite nicely:

1Ti 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

and..

1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

ALS wrote: › Quote: › It breaks my heart to see the negative reaction towards science. So you speak for science? I don't know anyone that hates science. I know plenty who realize that science has been overtaken by agenda driven maroons. Those same maroons hold up real progress in science. Somehow, magically, the science establishment machine purposely ignores anything that doesn't comport. Just the mere act of questioning science dogma is seen as heresy. Yet these same dogmatists base most of their tests on observed changes. Hypocrisy runs rampant. Anyone in the scientific fields knows that you cannot just say what you think. You cannot just report what you find. It has to fit approved assumptions or a career can be quickly ruined. I think the bible sums it up quite nicely: 1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called and.. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

ouch, and you include bible verses to demonize me as well...double ouch.

what made you come to this conclution about science?
agenda driven? whats the agenda? Does the existence of technology and applied science indicate to you the validity of the scientific method?

""" You cannot just report what you find. It has to fit approved assumptions or a career can be quickly ruined."""
Why do you think the smartest people in the world pursue science?
What do you think their personal motivations are?
Do you think they are all willingly part of some secret org the decieve the masses?
??? Its every scientists fantasy to be the discoverer of some Law or something that turns the science world upsidedown
The greatest heros of science are the ones who can falsify with evidence prevously held beleifs about the properties of Nature. Check out Einstien, he was no "science heretic" even though his theories contradict ( and still do) classical physics
For you to make such an outrageous claim, I need evidence, otherwise it sounds a little paranoid.
What agenda is science hiding? The entire institution world wide would need a common reason why it would be willingly decieving the masses. They would also need to agree on how to consistantly lie so all the data, research, results world wide will not be contradictory

Quote: › agenda driven? whats the agenda?

well, i dunno.. maybe you should take a look at your own signature there for a clue.