Christian Forums

Amen.

Quote from: Alan on Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 13:40:53

You've got it all wrong, but I'm not surprised in the least that you believe that secular science has taken a side against God. Believing or not believing in God isn't going to alter a good scientist's views, that is something reserved for the wacky world of creation scientists. As I said above, never has a scientist outside of religion agreed with the pseudo science of YEC, I wonder why that might be? 

Let's get a little more specific. Bring the wacky creation science you always refer to, to the table. Let's examine and discuss just how wacky it is. I've done this on these boards with many articles of the evolutionary persuasion. Instead of just making such a claim, how about doing the same. Actually back up that claim with a little time, thought, and expression. Thanks, if you will.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 14:42:52
Science (by that I mean scientists) is not immune from influence of money, politics, of personal bias.  This past two years has demonstrated that over and over.   Faulty mask studies, vaccine studies, and most of the words out of Fauci's mouth.

I don't argue that one bit, science is just another avenue for politicians to exploit it's public, however I feel that there is a vast difference between research and media blurbs. Even we were able to acquire some of the correct data through all of the pandemic mess, and it varied drastically from what we were being told on MSM.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 14:42:52
Science (by that I mean scientists) is not immune from influence of money, politics, of personal bias.  This past two years has demonstrated that over and over.   Faulty mask studies, vaccine studies, and most of the words out of Fauci's mouth.

Here's a video on that very subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoNZSLabLc

Wait, what?

I have lost track .

Who believes there were human type giants on this earth at some point and who thinks there were giant animals (ie dinosaur types) along with human types, and who believes there has never been any oversized living things on this earth at any point.

Quote from: Alan on Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 18:52:31
I don't argue that one bit, science is just another avenue for politicians to exploit it's public, however I feel that there is a vast difference between research and media blurbs. Even we were able to acquire some of the correct data through all of the pandemic mess, and it varied drastically from what we were being told on MSM.

Research is usually funded by government or business sources.  Often with an implicit bent. 

I am not arguing that the current best explanation of the evidence we have now requires an older earth.  I am arguing that scientists, even those with the best intentions are faced with their own bias, politics, funding requirements, and other things that may color their research.

Quote from: Rella on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 08:16:04
Wait, what?

I have lost track .

Who believes there were human type giants on this earth at some point and who thinks there were giant animals (ie dinosaur types) along with human types, and who believes there has never been any oversized living things on this earth at any point.

I don't know of any scientists that do to understand that there certainly were many creatures in the past much larger than today. Which does certainly suggest a different atmosphere and or environment supporting such. I think it is just the human giants many if not most have a problem with.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 08:36:25
Research is usually funded by government or business sources.  Often with an implicit bent. 

I am not arguing that the current best explanation of the evidence we have now requires an older earth.  I am arguing that scientists, even those with the best intentions are faced with their own bias, politics, funding requirements, and other things that may color their research.

Similar to the medical profession during Covid. Political bias won over common sense at the expense of the people, aka Fauci/NIH run amuck.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 08:36:25
Research is usually funded by government or business sources.  Often with an implicit bent. 

I am not arguing that the current best explanation of the evidence we have now requires an older earth.  I am arguing that scientists, even those with the best intentions are faced with their own bias, politics, funding requirements, and other things that may color their research.

As with most science, there are always teams of people attempting to better or improve on the current trend, we saw glimpses of that during the pandemic, and before that, climate change. I agree that there is bias in research, especially when it comes to funding, but there is a big difference between what is being purported on MSM and entered into weekly publications, than what we read in the texts in libraries. The biases and monetary gains are not on par with trendy research.

Quote from: Jaime on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 11:35:50
Similar to the medical profession during Covid. Political bias won over common sense at the expense of the people, aka Fauci/NIH run amuck.

Yep, but that doesn't speak for all science anymore than a politician getting into politics to run a personal agenda, a business owner opening his business as an affront for a money laundering scheme, or a pastor opening a church solely for monetary gain. It does happen, but it's not a hard and fast rule. 

Quote from: Alan on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 11:55:04
Yep, but that doesn't speak for all science anymore than...

It sure feels like its most of it.  Just follow the money.

If the science is being paid for a corporation, can we really trust it?  If it's being paid for by a charity, who's running the charity?  Half the time it's one of those corporations anyway.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 14:29:05
It sure feels like its most of it.  Just follow the money.

If the science is being paid for a corporation, can we really trust it?  If it's being paid for by a charity, who's running the charity?  Half the time it's one of those corporations anyway.

In the astronomy and paleontology worlds, a lot of the research is privately funded, and more often than not, through grants. These types of researchers are the Kraft dinner and wieners among scientists. I doubt any of them would sell their souls for the pittance they receive as a wage. 

I don't know this for certain, but I would bet a huge slice of the $6 billion allotted by the National Science Foundation goes directly to molecular science, immunology, and biology.

QuoteLet's get a little more specific. Bring the wacky creation science you always refer to, to the table. Let's examine and discuss just how wacky it is. I've done this on these boards with many articles of the evolutionary persuasion. Instead of just making such a claim, how about doing the same. Actually back up that claim with a little time, thought, and expression. Thanks, if you will.

I don't think the people you are debating with believe that the problem with secular science is a spiritual one as opposed to a methodology and academic one.  Secular means the exclusion of God/religion, so a spiritual problem automatically exists there, at all times and colors everything those secular scientists say and do.  Just as the inclusion of God should color everything a Christian scientist says or does.  Secular scientist's studies are always focused around the concept that God does not exist and everything happens by chance so nothing within those spheres of existence has any credence, because those secular scientists exclude those possibilities, before they even begin their studies.  Their studies are not purely objective, no matter what some people in this thread may say.  There is an automatic built-in bias from day one.  Christian scientists perform their studies with the built-in bias that God exists and made our creation so their studies revolve around that from Day One as well.  Both sets are biased.  The Bible contains science in many places.  It may be the kindergarten version, but there is certainly enough of a framework there to allow us to know, without doubt how the system was created.  I love science, always have.  But those who think that they can have a scientific system that operates and is accepted outside the Bible are dead wrong.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 03:16:55
I don't think the people you are debating with believe that the problem with secular science is a spiritual one as opposed to a methodology and academic one.  Secular means the exclusion of God/religion, so a spiritual problem automatically exists there, at all times and colors everything those secular scientists say and do.  Just as the inclusion of God should color everything a Christian scientist says or does.  Secular scientist's studies are always focused around the concept that God does not exist and everything happens by chance so nothing within those spheres of existence has any credence, because those secular scientists exclude those possibilities, before they even begin their studies.  Their studies are not purely objective, no matter what some people in this thread may say.  There is an automatic built-in bias from day one.  Christian scientists perform their studies with the built-in bias that God exists and made our creation so their studies revolve around that from Day One as well.  Both sets are biased.  The Bible contains science in many places.  It may be the kindergarten version, but there is certainly enough of a framework there to allow us to know, without doubt how the system was created.  I love science, always have.  But those who think that they can have a scientific system that operates and is accepted outside the Bible are dead wrong.

I disagree is regards to your ideas of biases, well not so much with Christian science which is very biased to manipulate the facts into a nice neat package that fits with their version of scripture. Secular science isn't an actual thing, astronomers, biologists, cytologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc, etc, simply study their field with the tools they have at their disposal. For the most part, creation doesn't need to enter the equation, scientists simply observe and study what is right there in front of them. You may be surprised to find out that many scientists also believe in a creator.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 03:16:55
I don't think the people you are debating with believe that the problem with secular science is a spiritual one as opposed to a methodology and academic one.  Secular means the exclusion of God/religion, so a spiritual problem automatically exists there, at all times and colors everything those secular scientists say and do.  Just as the inclusion of God should color everything a Christian scientist says or does.  Secular scientist's studies are always focused around the concept that God does not exist and everything happens by chance so nothing within those spheres of existence has any credence, because those secular scientists exclude those possibilities, before they even begin their studies.  Their studies are not purely objective, no matter what some people in this thread may say.  There is an automatic built-in bias from day one.  Christian scientists perform their studies with the built-in bias that God exists and made our creation so their studies revolve around that from Day One as well.  Both sets are biased.  The Bible contains science in many places.  It may be the kindergarten version, but there is certainly enough of a framework there to allow us to know, without doubt how the system was created.  I love science, always have.  But those who think that they can have a scientific system that operates and is accepted outside the Bible are dead wrong.

You are correct sir. Which has been one of my main points of contention. Both views are faith based. One places faith in God and His word, the other in the speculations of fallen humanity and their word. The latter though, has the audacity to tell the former, that their observations and findings can't even be called science. BALONEY!

Quote from: Alan on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 06:59:06

I disagree is regards to your ideas of biases, well not so much with Christian science which is very biased to manipulate the facts into a nice neat package that fits with their version of scripture. Secular science isn't an actual thing, astronomers, biologists, cytologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc, etc, simply study their field with the tools they have at their disposal. For the most part, creation doesn't need to enter the equation, scientists simply observe and study what is right there in front of them. You may be surprised to find out that many scientists also believe in a creator.

https://www.allaboutworldview.org/secular-science.htm

Article below from link above.

QuoteSecular Science

Secular Science – Introduction
The core of Secular Science is well-summarized by George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."1

Belief in evolution is as crucial to Humanism's worldview as are its atheistic theology and naturalistic philosophy. In fact, the Humanist's ideas about the origin of life can be considered a special dimension of these disciplines. Without the theory of evolution, the Humanist would have to rely on God as the explanation for life, which would necessarily destroy his atheism. Therefore, every Secular Humanist embraces the theory of evolution.

The Humanist Manifesto I states, "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process."2 This belief is echoed in the Humanist Manifesto II, which claims that "science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces."3 And in Humanist Manifesto 2000 Kurtz says, "The theory of evolution and the standards of ecology should also be studied."4

For the Humanist, atheistic evolution is not one option among many, but rather the only option compatible with their worldview. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is considered an enemy of science.


Secular Science – The Role of Science
Humanists rely on secular science as the basic source of knowledge. They claim that a true definition of science excludes any supernatural explanation for any event occurring in nature, including the origin of life. For Humanists, the scientist must only study what takes place in nature and arrive at naturalistic explanations for all events. In this way, the supernatural is ruled out of bounds.

Obviously, when one assumes that science is the best method of obtaining knowledge and that science must exclude the supernatural, one cannot accept supernatural explanations for the origin of life. Julian Huxley sums it up: "Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance."5

Why must "modern" science rule out creation? Because, as we have noted, science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it. But by this definition science cannot render judgment on the theory of evolution, either. That is because one-time-only historical events, such as the origin of life, fall outside the parameters of the scientific method. The reason: such events cannot be repeated, observed, tested, or falsified.6 Accordingly, neither creationism nor evolution is strictly "scientific."

Still, Humanists insist that evolutionary theory is scientific and the idea of a Grand Designer is not. Just how closed-minded the Humanists are toward creation is summed up by Isaac Asimov: "To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad dream, a sudden reliving of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment."7


Secular Science – Evolution as "Fact"
Secular Science is grounded in Darwinian Evolution. Carl Sagan states simply, "Evolution is a fact, not a theory."8 Huxley claims, "The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact...Darwinianism has come of age so to speak. We do no longer have to bother about establishing the fact of evolution."9 Antony Flew is scandalized by the notion that there was a time, "unbelievably," when the Vatican questioned "the fact of the evolutionary origin of the species."10

Thus, Humanists claim that the fact of evolution relates to changes within a species (microevolution) as well as macroevolution, or the transmutation of species. In other words, Humanists are not just claiming that science has proven that dogs can evolve into faster or bigger breeds; they also are claiming that all dogs, indeed all mammals, evolved from reptiles, and reptiles evolved from amphibians, amphibians evolved from fish, and so on back to the first speck of life. They wholeheartedly believe Darwin's conclusion that because microevolutionary changes occur among species, these changes can accumulate over time to produce macro-changes.


Secular Science – Conclusion
Secular Science rests its case for evolution on six specific planks: spontaneous generation, natural selection, struggle for existence, beneficial mutations, adaptations, and the fossil record (see "Related Articles" in the right sidebar). However, over the past thirty years, the fossil record has only hindered attempts to prove macroevolution. Therefore, some evolutionists have been forced to abandon Darwin's original theory of gradual change and postulate punctuated equilibrium in order to salvage the last plank of their theory.

Humanism relies on evolution for much more than a theory about the origin of life. The theory of evolution has significant implications for ethics, sociology, law, and politics. Humanists consider evolution the correct foundation for every individual's worldview and believe that a proper understanding of the world comes only from this perspective.

For this reason, Humanists encourage teaching evolution as "fact" throughout our educational system—thereby relegating the supernatural, especially God, to the world of literary mythology. Humanists do not just expect evolution to be taught as fact in the biology classroom, but rather believe, in the words of Julian Huxley, that "it is essential for evolution to become the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. Human history is a continuation of biological evolution in a different form."11

Since Huxley, however, a lot of discussion in the scientific community has been unfavorable for Darwin. As Stephen Meyer writes,

In the last decade a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of [natural] selection and [genetic] mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et. al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution.12

The reason there is neo-Darwinism (natural selection plus mutations or genetic mistakes) is because Darwinism (natural selection by itself) could not carry the evolutionary theory. The reason there is punctuated equilibrium is because neo-Darwinism can't either. Now, the entire edifice is beginning to crumble under the latest scientific investigations. It appears this major category of the Secular Humanist worldview is beginning to disintegrate before their eyes.

Quote from: Alan on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 06:59:06

I disagree is regards to your ideas of biases, well not so much with Christian science which is very biased to manipulate the facts into a nice neat package that fits with their version of scripture. Secular science isn't an actual thing, astronomers, biologists, cytologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc, etc, simply study their field with the tools they have at their disposal. For the most part, creation doesn't need to enter the equation, scientists simply observe and study what is right there in front of them. You may be surprised to find out that many scientists also believe in a creator.

Emphasis in the above quote is mine.

https://secular.org/key-issue/science/

If the United States strives to lead the world's nations into the future, our government's decision-making must be based on science and evidence, not dogma.

http://www.startsateight.com/secular-science-curriculum/

10 Secular Science Curriculum Options for Your Homeschool

https://royalbaloo.com/secular-science-curriculum-elementary/

Secular Science Homeschool Curriculum List for Elementary

https://www.forgetfulmomma.com/secular-science-curriculum/

Homeschool Secular Science Curriculum

https://happyhomeschoolhouse.com/elementary/science/best-secular-science-curriculum/

Best Secular Homeschool Science Curriculum for Elementary

https://happyhomeschoolhouse.com/high-school/science/best-secular-science-curriculum/

Best Secular Homeschool Science Curriculum for High School

https://biologos.org/articles/four-reasons-we-recommend-secular-science-curricula

Four Reasons We Recommend Secular Science Curricula

https://thehomeschoolresourceroom.com/2019/11/27/secular-homeschool-curriculum/

Secular Homeschool Curriculum Guide: 2021 UPDATE

https://www.lookwerelearning.com/secular-science-curriculum/

How to Choose a Secular Science Curriculum

https://seahomeschoolers.com/blog/2021/10/13/secular-homeschooling-vetting-secular-science-curriculum/

Vetting Secular Science Curriculum

10 Ways to Make Sure Your Science Curriculum IS Secular

https://homeschoolgameschool.com/giant-list-of-free-secular-homeschool-science-curriculum/

Giant List of Free Secular Homeschool Science Curriculum

Quote from: Amo on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 07:01:37
You are correct sir. Which has been one of my main points of contention. Both views are faith based. One places faith in God and His word, the other in the speculations of fallen humanity and their word. The latter though, has the audacity to tell the former, that their observations and findings can't even be called science. BALONEY!

You seem to think that your interpretations of God's word is based upon something other than "the speculations of fallen humanity". It isn't.

And there need not be any contradiction between believing in God and believing in the science that is discovered within God's creation.  Science is not produced; rather it is discovered. 

Quote from: Amo on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 07:29:02
Emphasis in the above quote is mine.
https://secular.org/key-issue/science/

So it exists in some form, big deal. That doesn't speak for the majority of scientific studies. Again, you're just stretching.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 08:40:12
You seem to think that your interpretations of God's word is based upon something other than "the speculations of fallen humanity". It isn't.

And there need not be any contradiction between believing in God and believing in the science that is discovered within God's creation.  Science is not produced; rather it is discovered.

Broken record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoRmZwsdS0Q

Not sure what message this video was intended to convey, but it appears to show remnants of the flood or other major catastrophes around the world. Imprints left in rock from structures long gone which were buried at one point. Some utilized and built upon, around, or in presently. The ruins of which no doubt many ancient cities, religions, and cultures were built upon. Explaining the enigma of apparently higher tech societies further back in time in certain areas around the world.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 23, 2022 - 23:54:42
Broken record.

Says the broken record.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 06:46:16
Says the broken record.

Yep, that would be us. We have gone over this same issue again and again and again.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 00:05:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoRmZwsdS0Q

Not sure what message this video was intended to convey, but it appears to show remnants of the flood or other major catastrophes around the world. Imprints left in rock from structures long gone which were buried at one point. Some utilized and built upon, around, or in presently. The ruins of which no doubt many ancient cities, religions, and cultures were built upon. Explaining the enigma of apparently higher tech societies further back in time in certain areas around the world.

The video is referring to melting rock, perhaps by a plasma surge or other anomaly.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 08:06:45

The video is referring to melting rock, perhaps by a plasma surge or other anomaly.

That could certainly explain the appearance of some of the rocks. Others seem more like mud rock or what have you, leaving imprints of structures that once were, being either partially buried by the same or completely buried and exposed later by other catastrophic events. If not human digging and or activity. Which seems more likely than such being carved out of solid rock with such precision long ago. Either case reveals fairly high tech. of long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4AI180llfU

Canadian guy sharing sharing ancient structures and such in Canada.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 06:46:16
Says the broken record.

we need help/said we need help/said we need help

Oh wait - that record was NOT broke -  just played backward.

? ? ?

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-fossils-giant-cloud-rats-philippine.html

More giants of the past. Rats this time. Can't see to find an article giving the actual size.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Apr 25, 2022 - 07:22:37
? ? ?

C'mon - you're old enough to remember the White Album?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Cm7UCdvGU

At about twenty minutes in, he starts talking about dinosaurs and humanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y1KQPAnuys

I thought I read somewhere a while back about a artist who said he was hired to create what is seen in this video. If so I think he did a pretty good job. Quite an elaborate hoax. Anyone else know details about this site.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 30, 2022 - 14:00:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y1KQPAnuys

I thought I read somewhere a while back about a artist who said he was hired to create what is seen in this video. If so I think he did a pretty good job. Quite an elaborate hoax. Anyone else know details about this site.

It is from an art exhibit on display at different outdoor sites at the southern region of Krabi from Nov. 2, 2018 through Sept. 28, 2019.by artist Tu Wei-cheng .

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-skeleton-battling-serpent/

Here is what snores says about my previous post video.

On the other hand, there is this -

https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/fact-checking-is-controlled-faked/