Any person or scientist who claims to pursue truth has to take notice of the astounding research available. Evolution will be seen as the shamanism of age.
January 27, 2012
-
Berlinski asserts that “a great many men and women have a dull, hurt, angry sense of being oppressed by the sciences. They are frustrated by endless scientific boasting. They suspect that … the scientific community holds them in contempt. They are right to feel this way.” With Darwin’s theory of evolution as a point of departure, he takes scientists to task for their antireligious assumptions and explores the conflict between the scientific community and those with firmly held religious beliefs.
-
"The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."
-
Is science faith-based? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine (via miocyon)
Yet it is acadamia that claims to have the only interpretation of those rules, therefore only their observations are correct. The article written by Phil Plait asserts materialism as the foundation for science. Unfortunately the deeper we study science the more we understand material world as a fabrication. Many faith based scientist agree that the material world is were we start, but not where we end. It is an embarrassment that scientists who are not of faith cannot treat those that are with respect.
(Watch the video with David Berlinski, a little scatological and hard to follow, and a touch high minded perhaps, but the point he makes about academics using science to seize power over the church (Who clearly, as often, were mis-using it), is spot on in my opinion.
Faith is a valid viewpoint to observe science from. Not at all a requirement, but valid.
(via miocyon)
January 1, 2012
-
-
(Source: shouldihonk, via roger-explosion)
December 25, 2011
-
"Without Excuse" [Paperback] Werner Gitt (Author)
Just read this. Worthwhile scientific apologetics for those of faith. Some great illistrations. The basic idea is that information demands an intelligent observer, (similar conlusion that quantum physics is bringing us to.), I love the proposal that DNA code should be the standard for information density. (the period before this could contain complete gene sequencing for 5,000 people as an example of how dense genetic code is.)
December 21, 2011
-
Skull Study Casts Doubt on Evolutionary Timeline
Remember the folks who claim the timeline is infallible? Yeah..well…that fussy “Selection” favouring things and mussing about, right?
What they are finding is that evolved skulls would require evolved bodies, but the fossil record does not contain them together. The few artifacts they have found are deformed aberrations instead of the hundreds of transitionary fossils you would expect to find. They keep looking for evidence to prove that man evolved from apes. But the fossil record doesn’t show it, the DNA record says it is impossible, and now bio-mechanics seems to be shuttering the notion as well.
December 1, 2011
-
"Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match."
-
Isaac Asimov on science, creativity, and education in a rare Bill Moyers interview circa 1988 (via taylorlorenz)
Materialism does leave much to be desired.
(via discoverynews)
November 3, 2011
-
What this nonsense is attempting to remedy is stasis. The more biological information we find the less we can prove anything but mutation. The answer has been to continue to stretch out the timeline, but we keep finding older things that are just as complex. As the theory becomes weaker and weaker, more ridiculous and absurd theories will be tendered. But in the end, the search for origin will come to one logical conclusion. Please don’t mis-interpret; the scientists carrying out these studies are brilliant, just brilliantly wrong. Because of concensus they continue to ignore the obvious. The geological and biological records show a young earth, with a stable biology with no change within species, only interrupted by catclysm, a lot of it. Which damns the theory of evolution and bolsters creationism. So we see an insistance on studies that claim a stable earth (all millions of years before the geological record reveals.), and shell games (no pun intended) of the fossil records that attempt to secure extinction as proof of evolution. While the conclusions in the article are well thought out, look at the chart, all of evolution ‘happened’ pre-history or in more common terms ‘whenever’. And that is just not good enough anymore.Mass Species Loss Stunts Evolution for Millions of Years
“Applied to mass extinctions, this idea is somewhat radical — but in a coral reef or rainforest, or even a computer network, it’s an accepted notion. Just as distributed systems are more secure than a handful of mainframes, ecosystems composed of many interlocking and sometimes redundant species are especially sturdy. Because they’re stable, they in turn nourish life’s diversification over evolutionary time. It’s a biological catch-22: A richness of life requires stability to develop, but stability requires a richness of life.”Full Story: Wired
November 2, 2011
-
(via smoot)
-
(via thejives)
October 25, 2011
-
Anonymous asked: i feel that flexibility in science is what makes it so grand. we are able to change theories and mold them. okay, so carbon dating. we have a way to test our own earth. i feel that even if theories are flexible, something like carbon dating isn't. i'm not challenging you to disprove, i'm just asking questions to understand. If we have a testable way to say that the earth is older than 10000 years old through fossil records and pieces of earth, then how can that tenant be true?
So in other words, how can my belief in a young earth be a valid tenant if you believe that carbon dating is empirical data?
That is just it, no radiometric dating is empirical.
Break down of what I mean:
Carbon14 dating is relatively accurate up to 7,000 years (as we have tree-ring data to corroborate.) So anything before recorded history is arbitrary and entirely speculative.
But inside of recorded history for example, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies, and therefore rely on records.
What about isotope measurements on rocks to determine radioactive decay? Same thing: the use of unprovable assumptions like-
• Starting conditions are known
• Decay rates being unchanging.
• Zero contamination.And then you need to understand how these tests are applied; if a “bad” date appears (and they do a lot), technicians will use surrounding artefacts that agree with the proposed timeline!
Am I proposing that evolutionists are conspiring to massage dating to get desired results? Not generally. The mainstream worldview is never challenged so observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. And that paradigm is strongly entrenched and not questioned—it is a “fact.”
