Many Christians Preachers at war with Natural Science

by D wiltshire 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  Borgfree,

  I think I am remembering correctly, that it was scientists, who told us bacon was very bad for us, for some reasons, then it is not bad for us. Coffee was very bad for us then it wasn't. Milk, same thing, and many other food items and medicines, etc. I could be wrong but I do think it was scientists who were making those decisions.

  This is so funny because this very subject was talked about in my psychology class a year ago. My proffessor was discussing how some people view scientists as "going back and forth about something" and the above example was given. He cleared things up by stating that, although scientists make mistakes, usually it is the media who reports on the findings that will blow it by using headlines that the scientist would never intend.

  Also, think about your example. Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Do you really think that evolution is on that flimsy of grounds? You just cited a minor little matter when it comes to health and diet. Evolution is far, far more robust a theory than that. Although biologists disagree about the details (such as timing, exact mechanisms, phylogentic lineage) they are in near 100% agreement that evolution happens.

  No offense, but you really, really need to investigate this much farther than you have.

  Bradley
• 

  rem

  Borgfree,

  It is not surprising that you hold such a view of science. The way the media has presented scientific 'facts' makes scientists look pretty silly. The fact is, though, that scientists have not been changing their minds willy nilly. The problem is that the media doesn't understand what scientists are really saying, and for want of a buck, sensationalize the findings until they no longer resemble the intended meaning.

  The type of things you are talking about are called epidemiological studies. These types of studies on their own are quite worthless when finding the cause of disease. The only thing these studies can do (and only if they are done well) is point out interesting correlations. If the correlation is strong enough, further study is needed to see if there is really anything to it.

  What you see in the media is a scientist publishing a study with an interesting correlation that means nothing. The media report it like it's fact: "Study shows power lines cause Leukemia!!!". The study found no such thing. Then, ten years later when the correlation has been studied further and shown to be nothing, you see the following headline: "Study shows power lines do not cause Leukemia as previously thought!!!". This is a great misrepresentation of science, and I hope you now understand why scientists are not really going back and forth on topics like the media portrays.

  A great book about this is Junk Science Judo by Steven J. Milloy. It is a short, fascinating read and I highly recommend it.

  rem
• 

  rem

  Borgfree,

  It is possible to tell where rocks come from through spectrochemical analysis or spectroscopy. We can even tell what elements are inside distant stars with the technique.

  http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=404572

  Also, every planet's atmosphere has a unique atmosphere fingerprint. If the right ratio of chemicals are trapped in the rock then its source can be identified to a high degree of accuracy - much like DNA fingerprinting. You may not believe it, but it works.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  Evolution of all things from a single common ancestor by way of death, and survival is not compatible with scripture. Many atheists who have a familiarity with scripture admit this. Preachers who disagree with macro-evolution are being faithful to God's word. Those who advocate macro-evolution as "Gods method" are not being faithful to Gods word. For a sound Biblical postion on evolution. see http://www.answersingenesis.com
• 

  rem

  Heliocentrism (this sacred Earth moving about the Sun - hah!) is not compatible with scripture. Many atheists who have a familiarity with scripture admit this. Preachers who disagree with heliocentrism are being faithful to God's word. Those who advocate heliocentrism as "Gods method" are not being faithful to Gods word. For a sound Biblical postion on heliocentrism. see http://www.galileo-is-wrong.com

  rem
• 

  borgfree

  Rem,

  I can see merit in what you describe, using spectroscopy.

  It is possible to tell where rocks come from through spectrochemical analysis or spectroscopy. We can even tell what elements are inside distant stars with the technique.

  I still have to question the absoluteness of identifying a particular rock as coming from one certain planet.

  Is it possible that another object in the universe could have the same elemental makeup? How could that be proved?

  Is it possible that the atmosphere could have changed over millions of years on another planet etc. causing a difference in the elemental makeup of rocks, maybe differing from what can be observed today? Maybe different layers of different rocks on the same planet?

  Is it possible that light being bent as it passes another object in space could have an effect on the data used by spectroscopy?

  Borgfree
• 

  rem

  Borgfree,

  Surely you don't think you are the first person in the world to think of these questions. Scientists are highly trained and these things are obviously taken into consideration. Instead of speculating, it might be good to do some research on your own and find out why scientists are so confident the rocks are from Mars. There are plenty of free resources on the Internet to do this.

  rem
• 

  larc

  Borgfree,
  
  What is your point? The particular rock does not have the same composition of other rocks on our planet. It has the same composition as rocks on Mars. Could it have come from some place far away from us in another solar system? Well, I suppose so, but it is not likely. Odds are, that it came from Mars.
  
  Sometimes, science is a matter of estimating the odds of a particular conclusion. While this method is not always correct, it is right more often than it is wrong, something you can not say for any religion or any religious book, when they address questions related to the natural world.
• 

  borgfree

  Rem,

  No, I do not think I am the first to think of those questions, but, scientists sometimes act like absent minded professors, the hubble for example. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars to send it into space. Someone could have asked the dumb question,"are you sure the lenses are correct" but it took another shuttle mission to actually correct the lenses before the hubble worked properly.

  Larc,

  My point is, scientists sometimes make very bold statements, or maybe as someone said, the media inaccurately reports what the scientists say, but in any case the average person receives the bold statements, and it doesn't seem like the scientists are in any hurry to correct those statements. I chose the rock as an example.

  I have to disagree with your statement:

  Sometimes, science is a matter of estimating the odds of a particular conclusion. While this method is not always correct, it is right more often than it is wrong, something you can not say for any religion or any religious book, when they address questions related to the natural world.

  The bible is 2000 years old. Lets get a 2000 year old science book and see how accurate it is. I think much of the bible has been shown to be correct. There may be doubt in what is contained in the bible, but I personally do not believe it has been proven false.

  Borgfree
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Borgfree,

  There may be doubt in what is contained in the bible, but I personally do not believe it has been proven false.

  I honestly do not wish to attack your beliefs, which you are free to adopt whatever anyone on this Board thinks of them. The above statement however needs to be explained in practical terms.

  Can I ask whether you accept what the Bible indicates with regard to the antiquity of conscious man on this planet? Even with the discrepancy of the included generation in Luke that is absent in Genesis, we are talking approx 6000 years, do you accpet this?

  Best regards - HS