Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If you don't take the "7 days" interpretation too literally, the parallels between God's creation of the universe and the earth in Genesis
and the Big Bang/Evolution are striking, so religion and science don't have to be at odds.
But that's the thing. Genesis was literal. The Hebrew word for "day" that's used in Genesis is the one that literally means "24 hours"
or "a period of time like day and evening".
Just to be clear, the country where the Creation Museum is located was founded on the principle of religious freedom, so if someone wants to believe
that the universe was created in 7 "literal days" instead of 7 "time periods", that's their right. Science has no agenda or objection to that
religious belief. What science objects to, is any claim that such a belief is based on science, without scientific observations to back it up.
Originally posted by Totakeke
Science is supposed to objective, but there have been evolutionists whom have knowingly falsified data. The problem is that so many scientists regard
evolution as fact that any evidence that doesn't fit evolution is considered a fluke. Scientists seem to forget that evolution is just a theory until
proven true.
Thanks for the rational arguments. Yes this is all true, some scientists have fudged data, and other scientists have discarded
anomolous results. However in a court system there is something called "preponderance of the evidence" meaning you're more likely to believe the
thing you have more evidence for. In evolution the preponderance is overwhelming. And regarding the anomalous data, would it surprise you to learn
that some scientists actually seek that type of data out? The reason is that sometimes great discoveries have been made by pursuing anomalous data,
and learning why it's anomalous, the result of which can bring new insights to science and advance one's career as a scientist.
Originally posted by Totakeke
Scientists seem to forget that evolution is just a theory until proven true.
No scientist would argue the picture of evolution is complete,
since we don't have a complete fossil record, however that doesn't detract from the nature of the records we DO have. Both artificial selection
(man's selective breeding of plants and animals) and natural selection (nature's selective breeding based on survival) are proven facts, and natural
selection forms the basis of evolution. But I agree we have to call parts of it a theory until more evidence is in.
