originally posted by: GreenGunther
Well, I believe the bible was created to enslave humanity.
So I don’t expect it to contain any facts.
Soo no suprise here...
It was actually created to set people free from the type of enslavement that people have been indoctrinated and conditioned to see as freedom (see
bolded quotation further below for an example).
Is evolution a scientific fact? Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier is very dogmatic. At an annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, he said: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world. That’s a
hundred million facts for evolution.” How 100,000,000 fossils, admittedly not the transitional ones the theory demands, constitute 100,000,000 facts
proving evolution, is not at all clear. Kier then adds that, while evolutionists may argue over details, “they agree that evolution is a fact and
should be so labeled.”
Famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is not so dogmatic. In the book Evolution
, Dobzhansky and his coworkers described it as a hypothesis
or theory and made this admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively
established.” Using Dr. Karl Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the
possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.” Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper
and says: “A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”
Why is all of this relevant to our discussion? Because it is on this basis that Gould and others eliminate creation as a science and therefore say it
should not be included in science classes. Creation is not testable, not falsifiable by scientific experimentation. Creationists say ‘God did it’
and there’s no way to test that or prove it false. “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase,” Gould says, “precisely
because it cannot be falsified.” But he is adamant that evolution is a fact.
Very interestingly, however, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a
testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to
these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific
method. Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research.
Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that
“its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created
the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking
in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means
they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous
Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Is there cause for reasonable doubt?
Is it reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish, lizards? or that lizards turned into robins and wolves?
The book “Evolution,” by Dobzhansky, said that while the truth of evolution could never be established, it was a hypothesis “corroborated beyond
reasonable doubt.” “Reasonable doubt” is legally defined as “such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent man in the graver and more
important affairs of life to pause and hesitate to act upon the truth of the matter charged [or, claimed].” One judicial decision ruled: “A
‘reasonable doubt’ is such a doubt as an upright man might entertain in an honest investigation after truth.”—“Black’s Law
Dictionary,” p. 580.
In court if there is reason to doubt a crucial piece of evidence, no conviction follows. Is it reasonable to have doubts that life spontaneously
generated by chance? Reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish lizards? or lizards turned into robins and wolves? Is doubting evolution
reasonable doubt or unreasonable doubt?
Do people believe it only because others have told them they should, otherwise they are anti-science, ignorant and/or stupid (religious fanatics,
etc., any negative picture or label)? Is it really true, “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt”?
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—JOHN 8:32.
“What Is Truth?”
... Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
He was referring to the Bible.
The Way to True Freedom
HOW TO GAIN TRUE FREEDOM
13, 14. How can we gain true freedom?
13 Some people think that having unlimited freedom would be best. But would it really? Even though having freedom has many benefits, can you imagine
what the world would be like if there were no limits at all? The World Book Encyclopedia says that the laws of every organized society are
complicated because they must protect and at the same time limit people’s freedom. This is not always easy. For that reason, we see so many laws and
so many lawyers and judges who try to explain and apply them.
14 Jesus Christ explained how we can have true freedom. He said: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the
truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31, 32) So to have true freedom, we need to do two things. First, we need to accept the truth that
Jesus taught. Second, we need to become his disciples. Doing these things will give us true freedom. But freedom from what? Jesus said: “Every doer
of sin is a slave of sin.” He added: “If the Son sets you free, you will be truly free.”—John 8:34, 36.
15. Why can the freedom that Jesus promised make us “truly free”?
15 The freedom that Jesus promised his disciples is so much better than the kind of freedom most people want today. When Jesus said, “If the Son
sets you free, you will be truly free,” he was talking about freedom from slavery to sin, the worst kind of slavery humans have ever experienced. In
what way are we slaves of sin? Sin causes us to do bad things. It can also prevent us from doing what we know is right or from doing our best. The
result is frustration, pain, suffering, and eventually death. (Romans 6:23) ...