Science and faith ARE compatible!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Science can tell us a lot about WHAT happened, but science cannot tell us WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE for the history of life on earth.

God said that the earth brought forth living things. Science is coming to the same conclusion.

This is hardly surprising, since science cannot possible explain miracles, and that is what life on earth is - a serie of miracles that has unfolded over vast periods of time.

God says not. The initial creation was a miracle. But God does most everything by natural means in this world, and has since the beginning.

The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean that theory is a good one - and it isn't.

Let's ask YE creationist who's familiar with evolutionary theory:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationist

A scientific theory that attempts to explain a miracle of God is 100% guaranteed to fail.

Fortunately, God does most things by natural means, which we can learn about and understand.

The atheism-dominated scientific community...

Is a creationist superstition. In fact, the the majority of scientists are theists of some sort, mostly Christian.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
how might a paloentologist present a biased model of paleontology, iyo?
By presenting only evidence that supports the Darwinian model of evolution and not presenting any evidence contrary to that model. When have you ever heard paleontologists say there is are no evolutionary ancestors of insects or vertebrates in the fossil record, for example? When have you ever heard a paleontologist say the Cambrian Explosion doesn't fit the Darwinian model?
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
If you look at anything that sets itself up again God, you will find one thread that always runs through it. That is it is a battle of truth versus lies. That is the battle that underlies everything today. The reason for this is that Satan is the Father of lies so it is obvious that is his main battlefield. If you claim a lie is truth enough times it becomes the truth.

Back in 1983, the homosexual movement set out on a deliberate campaign to make homosexuality a civil right issue by adopting the idea that you are born that way, even though we know we are not he added. The person who said that also said if we knew what they did in the bedroom we would be horrified. So what is the accepted wisdom today? You are born homosexual. In exchanging a lie for the truth they have even convinced some Christians that they are born homosexual.

You will no doubt have noticed that those who throw their lot in with the Word of God are usually considered evil and those that throw their lot in with the homosexuals are usually considered as white as the driven snow.

I have a standard that I employ every time I hear something that is contrary to the Word of God. I take the opposite view. That way I know I am not believing a lie.

Evolution was just another lie and an attempt by Satan to get people to believe lies and ignore the truth that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. It is palpably ridiculous as I have asked atheists and evolutionists several questions that they claim proves evolution, but when the rubber hits the road, they know very little about what they are talking about. All they are doing is parroting one-liners to try and sound intelligent.


After buying and reading books about evolution, only a fool would believe such rubbish. In addition, Satan is using a person who believes in evolution as a tool to get back at God. Perish the thought. He could not give a damn about you as you are just a pawn in a larger plan.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
By presenting only evidence that supports the Darwinian model of evolution and not presenting any evidence contrary to that model.
interesting, hmm. In my experience another...paleontologist, in this case, would be crawling all over the first one with refutes though? Do you have any examples of evidence that are contrary to Darwin's model of evolution? Im trying to imagine what those might be, sorry.
When have you ever heard paleontologists say there is are no evolutionary ancestors of insects or vertebrates in the fossil record, for example?
or vertebrates? Or did you mean invertebrates? And wadr the way you have phrased the reply is...dissociating, at least, as i have never heard a paleontologist say anything lol; but i gather from the rest that there are no evolutionary ancestors of insects in the fossil record? Interesting, hafta search that manana, ty
When have you ever heard a paleontologist say the Cambrian Explosion doesn't fit the Darwinian model?
well, should they be? saying that? Why, iyo?
Wouldnt the diff in oxygen levels alone lead to quite a bit of variance from the D model?
 

Yan

Active Member
Jun 15, 2020
410
143
43
City of David
the-land-of-hope.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Indonesia
?
but the earth is, right
If God had known and love Adam, He will not put the forbidden tree on the garden isn't it ?
Instead God had put the forbidden tree of knowledge together with another (Genesis 2:9). God only test Adam did he trust God or not, because God knows when he ate the fruit he hadn't strong enough to accept the reality of this world (Genesis 2:16-17).
So, Adam & Eve was fall into temptation from the outside world who always judge their mind (spiritualy naked), that's why they were hid from the Lord God and feel shame to one another (Genesis 3:5-10).
But, the dawn of Adam and Eve was not a curse to them instead of they're spiritualy born becoming the children of God (Genesis 3:22; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10).
But, their newly spiritualy born was not accepted by heaven because of the works of the sins inside their flesh and their offsprings including Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) and all descendants of Noah until today (2 Corinthians 4), that's why the crucifixion of Jesus was to redeem our weakness under the shortcoming of the flesh but God had redeem our spirit that's why God put judgement under the flesh (Romans 8:1-8).
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
If God had known and love Adam, He will not put the forbidden tree on the garden isn't it ?
Instead God had put the forbidden tree of knowledge together with another (Genesis 2:9). God only test Adam did he trust God or not, because God knows when he ate the fruit he hadn't strong enough to accept the reality of this world (Genesis 2:16-17).
So, Adam & Eve was fall into temptation from the outside world who always judge their mind (spiritualy naked), that's why they were hid from the Lord God and feel shame to one another (Genesis 3:5-10).
But, the dawn of Adam and Eve was not a curse to them instead of they're spiritualy born becoming the children of God (Genesis 3:22; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10).
But, their newly spiritualy born was not accepted by heaven because of the works of the sins inside their flesh and their offsprings including Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) and all descendants of Noah until today (2 Corinthians 4), that's why the crucifixion of Jesus was to redeem our weakness under the shortcoming of the flesh but God had redeem our spirit that's why God put judgement under the flesh (Romans 8:1-8).
ah, so
the earth is, or isn't?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
By presenting only evidence that supports the Darwinian model of evolution and not presenting any evidence contrary to that model.

When have you ever heard paleontologists say there is are no evolutionary ancestors of insects or vertebrates in the fossil record, for example?

Probably because there are few paleontologists who are that ignorant of the fossil record.
Hallucigenia, the ancestor of arachnids and insects had needle-like fangs | Daily Mail Online

And there are chordates (ancestors of vertebrates) as far back as the early Cambrian.

When have you ever heard a paleontologist say the Cambrian Explosion doesn't fit the Darwinian model?

Probably because there are few paleontologists who don't know that there were many complex animals living before the Cambrian.
Ediacara fauna | Definition, Biota, and Facts

Darwinian theory explains why we see a radiation of taxa evolving when something critical changes in the population or the environment that opens up new niches for life. In this case, it seems to have been the evolution of full body armor in the form of sclerites. That was followed by a radiation of all sorts of body forms and taxa.

There were some partially-armored animals walking around in the Precambrian, but fully-scleritized bodies coincided with a sudden explosion of diversity in body forms. So not surprising.
 
Last edited:

Yan

Active Member
Jun 15, 2020
410
143
43
City of David
the-land-of-hope.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Indonesia
ah, so
the earth is, or isn't?
John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.

Indeed, we are part of the world but we should not take a part of sinful environment, everybody has their own duty to God to take their own cross.

Romans 12:2
And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Still confuse ?
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
interesting, hmm. In my experience another...paleontologist, in this case, would be crawling all over the first one with refutes though? Do you have any examples of evidence that are contrary to Darwin's model of evolution?
Exhibit A: Cambrian explosion
Wouldnt the diff in oxygen levels alone lead to quite a bit of variance from the D model?
Which scientific experiment demonstrated that an increase in oxygen levels increases evolutionary variance?

Which scientific experiment demonstrated that an increase in environmental oxygen will cause an evolutionary explosion, such as the Cambrian explosion?
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Probably because there are few paleontologists who are that ignorant of the fossil record.
Hallucigenia, the ancestor of arachnids and insects had needle-like fangs | Daily Mail Online

And there are chordates (ancestors of vertebrates) as far back as the early Cambrian.



Probably because there are few paleontologists who don't know that there were many complex animals living before the Cambrian.
Ediacara fauna | Definition, Biota, and Facts

Darwinian theory explains why we see a radiation of taxa evolving when something critical changes in the population or the environment that opens up new niches for life. In this case, it seems to have been the evolution of full body armor in the form of sclerites. That was followed by a radiation of all sorts of body forms and taxa.

There were some partially-armored animals walking around in the Precambrian, but fully-scleritized bodies coincided with a sudden explosion of diversity in body forms. So not surprising.
It should be remembered that at the end of the day, the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth s just a story that is totally useless as far as applied science is concerned. No practical application of science depends whether your Darwinian view of history is correct or not.
Furthermore, there is no way of testing how Fossil A "evolved" to Fossil B, so the whole matter is just a big, useless, balloon of hot air.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It should be remembered that at the end of the day, the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth s just a story that is totally useless as far as applied science is concerned.

Darwin didn't publish a history of life on earth. However, genetics has been greatly aided by evolutionary development, explaining much about the way humans develop in utero.

No practical application of science depends whether your Darwinian view of history is correct or not.

Sir Alexander Flemming comes to mind. He discovered the first antibiotic. And he cautioned that it should be used sparingly and carefully, lest natural selection quickly lead to the evolution of resistant varieties. He was of course, correct.

Science is not about applications. The truth of evolution is not dependent on what you might use it for. However agronomists and others have applied it well to make our crops more productive and resistant to pests and disease.

A cautionary tale is the Soviet Union. Because Darwinian theory conflicted with Marxist thought, Stalin banned Darwin from the Soviet Union. He elevated an anti-Darwinian crank to the head of Soviet biology, and his crackpot beliefs caused crop failures and famines. Russian biology is still catching up from that disaster.

Furthermore, there is no way of testing how Fossil A "evolved" to Fossil B, so the whole matter is just a big, useless, balloon of hot air.

Fortunately , there are numerous series of fossils showing how this happens. YE creationist Kurt Wise discusses a number of such examples, and explains why they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to learn about them?
 
Last edited:

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exhibit A: Cambrian explosion

As you learned, the Cambrian explosion coincided with the evolution of hard exoskeletons. While Precambrian animals had some hardened parts, complete exoskeletons did not appear until the Cambrian. And suddenly a host of new possible ways of life caused a radiation evolved forms.

Would you like to learn about that, and how we know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Exhibit A: Cambrian explosion
Which scientific experiment demonstrated that an increase in oxygen levels increases evolutionary variance?

Which scientific experiment demonstrated that an increase in environmental oxygen will cause an evolutionary explosion, such as the Cambrian explosion?
seems like a dearth of species after an ice age might splain that too?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
seems like a dearth of species after an ice age might splain that too?

Pretty much every catastrophic change does that. Reduction in species, followed by radiation of new species from surviving populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
”RogerDC” said:
I suspect it is just about impossible to learn what the fossil record really tells us.
It's possible to tell a great deal. Advances in chemistry, nuclear physics, and geology have allowed us to get all kinds of information from rocks that seemed impossible just a few decades ago.
How do you know what is in the fossil record? A: You rely on a relatively few paleontologists to inform you.

How do you know these paleontologists are providing you with an objection picture of the fossil record? A: You don’t - to have take their word for it. Paleontologists may ignore data that doesn’t fit the Darwinist model - data that is not presented to the public, because it is regarded as irrelevant.

“Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created ....
Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they [paleontologists] interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions. The error in their method is obvious …
The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.”
Grassé, Pierre-Paul, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, NY
Technically, evolution is an observed phenomenon.
None of the (alleged) neo-Darwinian process of the evolution of a single cell into all the life-forms on earth can be observed. We have fossils that show life “evolved” from simple forms to more complex forms, but we cannot observe HOW that “evolution” occurred. If birds evolved from reptiles, for example, fossils cannot tell us how that happened, so the evolutionary process responsible cannot be observed.
Evolutionary theory is the science that describe and explains it.
Evolution theory does not explain what was responsible for the history of life of earth - it attempts to explain to it. (Sounds suspiciously like, as most biologists are, you have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that the Darwinist explanation of life's history is a fact, when the truth is, it’s not even science, but just a story.)

For example (if paleontologists are to be believed), there is fossil evidence that suggests the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile … but evolutionary scientists have no idea why or how this could have happened. Another example: It is claimed that a double-circulation heart evolved from a single-circulation heart - but no one knows how that could possibly happen, since their respective designs mean that the latter could not possibly have evolved from the former.

The explanatory power of evolutionary theory is seriously overrated - it is impotent when faced with many realities. As German evolutionary theorist, Gert Muller, said: “the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior … actually arise in evolution”.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of [Darwinian] evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Grassé, Pierre-Paul, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, NY

Another weakness of the Darwinian theory regarding life’s origins is that it is untestable: How do you test the theory that a bird evolved from a reptile via the Darwinian process of mutations and natural selection? You can’t. Theories that can’t be tested are mere stories that don’t even qualify as science - they’re just stories.

‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’ [Emphasis added]. Dr. Colin Patterson, letter to Sunderland.


Seems unlikely, since even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.
If Darwin stood up today and declared his belief that God created the first living organisms, the atheism-dominated scientific community would laugh him out of the building and probably out of a job.
 
Last edited:

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
No, so far as I can see, they are deterministic. Would you like me to show you that? Environment changes in deterministic ways.
Yes, please show me how environmental conditions are “deterministic”.

The environment determines the direction of evolution. Scientifically speaking, the environment is un-predictable and random. Furthermore, scientifically speaking, the genetic mutations that would be required to enable a bird to evolve from a reptile are necessary are randomly produced. It is possible that God provided the mutations and the environmental conditions to steer evolution in the direct he wanted, but that is not scientific hypothesis.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Probably because there are few paleontologists who don't know that there were many complex animals living before the Cambrian.
Sticking one's head in the sand seldom produces good science. There is a world of difference between the relatively simple Ediacaren life-forms and what appeared in the Cambrian, which Darwinists ignore.
And there are chordates (ancestors of vertebrates) as far back as the early Cambrian
There were only soft-bodied chordates, then suddenly there appeared chordates with fully-formed skeletons. How does that huge gap fit your Darwinian model?
 
Last edited:

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sticking one's head in the sand seldom produces good science.

Yes, that's true. Most creationists are intentionally ignorant of the Precambrian fauna.

There is a world of difference between the relatively simple Ediacaren life-forms and what appeared in the Cambrian,

Well, let's test your belief...
iu

iu


Which of these do you think are Cambrian, and which are Precambrian?


There were only soft-bodied chordates, then suddenly there appeared chordates with fully-formed skeletons. How does that huge gap fit your Darwinian model?

You've been misled. The evidence shows the earliest chordates split from other deuterostomes in the Edicaran. By the Cambrian, we have "fully-formed" chordates. Chordates and vertebrates (chordates with skeletons) are all soft-bodied, like us. (I can't find an example of a chordate with an exoskeleton,but I suppose it would be possible to evolve one). Even into the Cambrian, chordates had no skeletons, just a notochord, and some cartilage around the gill rakers.

Skeletons were secondary adaptations. A good description of the evolution of chordates to vertebrates (chordates with skeletons) can be found in Leonard Radinsky's The Evolution of Vertebrate Design. It's rather detailed and informative, but simplified enough to be readable for a non-biologist.

There's no huge gap. The first true vertebrates from the Cambrian were not "fully formed" at all, lacking most elements now found in all vertebrates. But they did have ossified segments (all chordate bodies are divided into segments, something we retain in our nerves and vertebrae) supporting the notochord and spinal chord.

The actual data are much more interesting than the outline I've given you. Worth your time to find out about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009