Dinosaurs, How they fit with the Gospel.
Q.
What's your take on dinosaurs, and how they fit in with the Gospel?
A.
In writing to Timothy Paul warned,
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called."
So Paul has advised Timothy to keep that which he knew to be true spiritually and avoid opposing ideas from science falsely so called.
The word "science" (Latin) means "to know" or "knowledge". However "modern science" is full of theories. The word "theory" (Greek) means "to speculate" or "guess". Therefore when someone speaks of a "scientific theory" the term is an oxy-moron. For if it is "scientific" it is known to be a fact and can't be a "theory".
Anyone professing that scientific evidence exists to prove that something is millions of years old, is talking illogical nonsense. For who has been back to prove that they are correct?
Almost all scientific discoveries have began with a scientifically "proven" theory which failed when attempted in practice. In spite of all the "scientific" evidence showing it MUST be right. Provable science (i.e. areas of science where a working product must be manufactured or where tests can be made to completely prove the idea) are the only areas of science where the term "science" can be said to be appropriate.
When we get to areas such as a proposed "dinosaur age" we are into deep speculation.
Have we found evidence of all types of extinct forms of life (including reptilian)? Most certainly! But when we get to creating the concept of an age were only certain creatures existed, we step far beyond science and get into areas of wild and totally unprovable speculation. Certainly the "scientific" community like to stand united in supporting many of these types of wild theories. And as some people find these ideas as fascinating as Darth Vader and death stars, a lot of money goes into "proving" that these theories are fact. Evidence to the contrary is quickly twisted or not mentioned.
Logic would suggest that if large reptiles existed during the early time of man they would have been wiped out for man's survival. We could speculate on whether anyone made hybrid large reptiles later, for war or any other purpose. However this theory would be as unprovable as the dinosaur age.
In spite of seemingly endless claims and statistics to support the idea that dating methods have some high degree of accuracy, SCIENTISTS themselves CONTINUE to discard the findings of all the ones that oppose their desired dates, and cling to the one that they can eventually find to support it (which may not be the method they accept next time): About as "scientific" as "Alice in Wonderland." Scientific dating methods are about as consistent as girls playing hard to get as a dating method to get a guy - I guess it works sometimes, with modification.
Students in science classes had been taught for years that the rings around Saturn were made of a continuous substance and that it was a liquid like oil or a gas. Yet upon us sending a probe past it we discovered that both these scientific(?) claims were false. It is made of rocks and they are separate. Zero out of 2 for the "scientists".
I could go on with virtually endless examples. Yet I don't need to because even "scientists" admit that they are constantly changing their minds as new ideas present themselves. An admittance that these areas of science aren't really science at all. It would be better termed "the search for science."
This having been established, it then becomes a question of do you believe God when He says He actually DOES know; yet it doesn't fit with the latest theories?
As people searching for the truth, we must look for real proof of claims in regard to scientific ideas. Firstly I look to see if that presented is as scientific as they claim. We must look through, what may only be, flimsy evidence, and see if it actually holds up. Secondly I look to see if claims are consistent with religiously known facts. If the Scriptures seem to oppose it then closer scrutiny is necessary.
The Scriptures tell me that no death occurred until mankind erred. And that this fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. Do I hear lots of claims that this can't be right? Yes. Do I see anything PROVEN by anyone to discredit this claim? No!
In my life I have sometimes challenged the ideas presented by God: I couldn't see how he was right. Yet experience has eventually made me come to realise that he is always right and man always wrong. Because of this trust in him and my distrust of "modern science" because of its many flaws, continuous change and blatant lies, I have to find no inconsistency between what God says and TRUE science.
What's your take on dinosaurs, and how they fit in with the Gospel?
A.
In writing to Timothy Paul warned,
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called."
So Paul has advised Timothy to keep that which he knew to be true spiritually and avoid opposing ideas from science falsely so called.
The word "science" (Latin) means "to know" or "knowledge". However "modern science" is full of theories. The word "theory" (Greek) means "to speculate" or "guess". Therefore when someone speaks of a "scientific theory" the term is an oxy-moron. For if it is "scientific" it is known to be a fact and can't be a "theory".
Anyone professing that scientific evidence exists to prove that something is millions of years old, is talking illogical nonsense. For who has been back to prove that they are correct?
Almost all scientific discoveries have began with a scientifically "proven" theory which failed when attempted in practice. In spite of all the "scientific" evidence showing it MUST be right. Provable science (i.e. areas of science where a working product must be manufactured or where tests can be made to completely prove the idea) are the only areas of science where the term "science" can be said to be appropriate.
When we get to areas such as a proposed "dinosaur age" we are into deep speculation.
Have we found evidence of all types of extinct forms of life (including reptilian)? Most certainly! But when we get to creating the concept of an age were only certain creatures existed, we step far beyond science and get into areas of wild and totally unprovable speculation. Certainly the "scientific" community like to stand united in supporting many of these types of wild theories. And as some people find these ideas as fascinating as Darth Vader and death stars, a lot of money goes into "proving" that these theories are fact. Evidence to the contrary is quickly twisted or not mentioned.
Logic would suggest that if large reptiles existed during the early time of man they would have been wiped out for man's survival. We could speculate on whether anyone made hybrid large reptiles later, for war or any other purpose. However this theory would be as unprovable as the dinosaur age.
In spite of seemingly endless claims and statistics to support the idea that dating methods have some high degree of accuracy, SCIENTISTS themselves CONTINUE to discard the findings of all the ones that oppose their desired dates, and cling to the one that they can eventually find to support it (which may not be the method they accept next time): About as "scientific" as "Alice in Wonderland." Scientific dating methods are about as consistent as girls playing hard to get as a dating method to get a guy - I guess it works sometimes, with modification.
Students in science classes had been taught for years that the rings around Saturn were made of a continuous substance and that it was a liquid like oil or a gas. Yet upon us sending a probe past it we discovered that both these scientific(?) claims were false. It is made of rocks and they are separate. Zero out of 2 for the "scientists".
I could go on with virtually endless examples. Yet I don't need to because even "scientists" admit that they are constantly changing their minds as new ideas present themselves. An admittance that these areas of science aren't really science at all. It would be better termed "the search for science."
This having been established, it then becomes a question of do you believe God when He says He actually DOES know; yet it doesn't fit with the latest theories?
As people searching for the truth, we must look for real proof of claims in regard to scientific ideas. Firstly I look to see if that presented is as scientific as they claim. We must look through, what may only be, flimsy evidence, and see if it actually holds up. Secondly I look to see if claims are consistent with religiously known facts. If the Scriptures seem to oppose it then closer scrutiny is necessary.
The Scriptures tell me that no death occurred until mankind erred. And that this fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. Do I hear lots of claims that this can't be right? Yes. Do I see anything PROVEN by anyone to discredit this claim? No!
In my life I have sometimes challenged the ideas presented by God: I couldn't see how he was right. Yet experience has eventually made me come to realise that he is always right and man always wrong. Because of this trust in him and my distrust of "modern science" because of its many flaws, continuous change and blatant lies, I have to find no inconsistency between what God says and TRUE science.
posted by Doug Towers at 6:11 PM
0 comments
