Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfam1
I have to disagree. The Bible is filled with science. Many discoveries in science were made by great thinkers who took the Bible literally. Here is a cool web site on that topic.
Science In the Bible
I went to your referenced website. I found it interesting in so far as it actually does not answer any questions definitively. Science as a process was developed thousands of years after the bible. Unfortunately there is no science in the bible. The scientific method involves independent experiementation with hypotheses and as such there is none in the bible. The bible is fully subject to the interpretation of the reader, be they evangelical, catholic, lutheran, or otherwise. And, as such, the website you have referenced does nothing more than expand on interpretation to assume that the bible covers topics such as genetics, physics, etc. that have been discovered in the ensuing thousands of years, and place them in a different context. There is no evidence behind these assumptions.
And remember, 42% of all scientists believe in some form of creation theory.
And look at this list.
If you, or anyone else, is to post this type of statistic, can I, as a objective reader please have a reference? I, and consequently any other readers of this post, have no reason whatsoever to conclude it is accurate if this information is missing.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
(cut out for the sake of length; see above)
Although this list is long, it is by no means extensive. This by no means represents 42% of the scientific community. Also I cannot find any publications in reputable non-filtered resources by these scientists that implicate creationism. I may have missed something however, so again, if you are able, please provide me with some peer-reviewed research I can look into.
Science has not proven evolution and it still only exists as a theory. They can never prove it because they can not observe or demonstrate abiogenisis. And just becuase you find a fossil, the only thing you know for certain about it is that it died. You certainly don't know that it had any offspring that lived, let alone weather or not it is a link. Evolution clearly is more of a religion than a science. At least I know that when I study science I am approaching it from a believers standpoint, knowing from faith that science will point towards God. Evolutionists don't seem to be aware of just how much they must rely on faith in order to believe in evolution. |
Science's job is not to prove anything. As a matter of fact, science's main objective is to disprove various assumptions or hypotheses. These hypotheses are tested in a controlled environment and if they stand the test of time they are accepted. Scientists actually accept the fact that gravity can never be proven. They also accept the fact they cannot prove time moves forward any more than they can prove that light moves at ~3.0x10^8m/s however, they have never been able to disprove these concepts. And in the face of overwhelming evidence they conclude that these "assumptions" are correct. Indeed should an experiment ever be devised that disproves any such therory, serious consideration would be given to the experiment and revision of the theory may become necessary.
As for abiogenesis, all I wish to add to this topic is to say that various amino acids such as lysine, arginine and ~30 others can be produced via an electrical current passed through a cloud of gases. Although science has never proven that life would come from these building blocks, it is intriguing, is it not?