Differentiate the biblical and scientific theories?

Question

Differentiate the biblical and scientific theories?

Answer 1

Creation science is an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, our world and life on it based on observable evidence of a super-natural Creator as opposed to the materialistic and naturalistic view of modern science, secular humanism and atheism which are not based in reality. Neither creationism nor science can view or test the origin of life, laws of nature, informational systems such as DNA or the mass and energy of the universe...they must be indirectly observed and theories or explanations formulated about them based on the evidence. The scientific method utilizes repeatable testing and observations to formulate conclusions as does creation science but they differ on a foundational viewpoint, Science is useful in understanding and explaining the works of the Creator who has all-knowledge. Scientific laws are not created by man...they are discovered....and they are thought to be immutable or never refuted.

The materialstic and naturalistic viewpoint of modern science with regard to origins is a false viewpoint or belief system in that all informational systems such as DNA, which is present in every living thing, cannot arise by chance. Informational systems imply an intelligent designer or creator of them. A material object cannot produce a non-material product. Informational systems are non-material objects. A copy of the Bible weighs as much as a randomly lettered book of the same number of charcters....hence the information system of words and language has no mass. It is a non-material thing which requires a Creator.

Answer 2

You are trying to find a false difference.

According to Miriam Webster, a theory is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", or "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another".

The key point is everyone has the same set of facts - that exists in the present.

Facts do not speak for themselves, they have to be interpreted by people who have a worldview and a set of assumptions.

Atheists and Creationists, for example, have completely opposing sets of assumptions.

An atheists will consider any explanation above the possibility that God created, and assumes the non-existence of God. A Creationist assumes the existence of God, and uses the historical account in the Bible to interpret the evidence in a very different way to an atheist.

It is not a question of science versus the Bible. It is the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.

As an example, take the fossils.

Evolutionists tell us they are millions of years old, and were buried millions of years ago.

Creationists tell us that they were laid down recently as a result of the Global Flood.

What does the evidence show?

Fossils are only formed under catastrohic circumstances ( a dead fish doesn't sink to the bottom and get slowly covered by sand over many years!).

The whole world is covered in sedimentary rock, laid down by water, containing billions of fossils.

Many rocks contain tightly folded strata, which must have been folded when the rock was soft, and thus deposited rapidly.

There are many polystrate fossils - single fossils stretching through 'millions of years' of rocks.

All coal contains carbon 14 and is therefore < 100k years old, when it is alleged to be millions of years old.

Many articles here: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view...

Furthermore, even dinosaur fossils have been found containing blood cells - hardly 65 million years old.

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/...

But check the evidence for yourself - don't by brainwashed by dogmatic evolutionists who don't want us to think for ourselves :)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/...

So when one examines the evidence, which account of fossils gives the best explanation?

And what assumptions are people working under when the reject one or the other?

Answer 3

Both lack knowing.  Both contrive to explain what is unexplainable and/or unseen, while neither will listen to those gifted enough to provide such knowledge.  Both are coming to terms with the fact that there are energies, laws of Nature, and phenomenons that just are for the sake of just being so...there's hope in this.

The main difference of the two domains, is power & control...religion bases their efforts & focus totally in that issue, while science cares not for either--they have a wiser grip of truth being an ever-changing concept of discovery.

Religion holds onto Creation being key and evolution being not...evidenced otherwise, but held just the same.

Science, which is based solely in see-able facts as they are presented at any given moment, limit their discoveries by such.

Truth being that Creation began the Evolutionary process...all things growing & becoming as universal, planetary individual, and beings within those structures create of and adapt to their environs.  If both sides could grasp the fact that the design of Creation was for nothing to 'die', but to change/'evolve', that knowing would quickly replace alot of fear & limitations for future growing.  Understanding the other fact that we are not humans having spiritual experiences, rather highly evolved 'spirits' having human experiences, would open a whole new world of discovery.  Both sides really need to listen to those who come here with the burden of retaining this knowledge, simply to provide that door-opening opportunity...but there's proof of the power of free-will choice in full mode...makes life sooo interesting, doesn't it???

Good Journey!!!

Answer 4

the Bible is an idea of existence based on faith.

Science is a concept of understanding the world around us based on Ockham's razor... which simply states "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best"

Answer 5

Biblical theory is based on faith in the unseen.  You can't test any part of biblical theory; you can't test creation, you can't test the parting of the Red Sea, you can't even test the existence of God.  You have to take everything on faith that is happened and that He exists.  Scientific theory is rooted in the the scientific model.  You have a theory and then you test said theory and then you retest it.  For science to work you have to be able to reproduce the same results test after test after test.  You're putting your faith in the seen as opposed to the unseen.

As for the post from the gentleman above me, God doesn't need anything from us let alone our money.  I always find it funny that the same people who go out of their way to discredit God are the very same people who hold so tightly to evolution, UFOs, and any other theory that man has created to explain his existence.  For the folks who are so scientific minded they put a lot of faith in the theory that we evolved from something else, i mean has anyone actually seen someone evolve?  "No but we have the fossils to show a slow evolution"........well we also have historical proof that events described in the Bible happened as well.  So why is so hard to put your faith in the unseen, you do it everyday anyway.  But im pretty sure this will not be a popular post and I will get a billion thumbs down but its no worries.

Answer 6

To cut to the bottom line

Science takes facts and develops an explanation. It then tests the explanation. If disproved, then the explanation must be changed. That's the rules.

Biblical not only is "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." but cherry picking facts to match a preconceived explanation.

There's also misrepresentation. Consider the post that claimed: "Furthermore, even dinosaur fossils have been found containing blood cells -"

Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University is the person that extracted soft tissue from a 65 million year old dinosaur. What happened?

"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”...Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the h**l Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...

Answer 7

The biblical theories are based upon natural law while the scientific theories are based upon physical law.  Natural law is usually subjective and changes whenever social thought or social reasoning changes.  In other words, whenever it is convenient to do so.  Scientific theories, on the other hand, are based upon the practice of experimentation.  Such experimentation is correlated with the analysis of cause and effect.  And, the reliability of any such results are substantiated by the ability to replicate the experiment under exactly the same or very similar conditions over time and receive the same outcomes.  Changes in scientific law are few and far between.  

There are no such checks and balances for biblical theories.  How does one test what happens after death?  A successful scientific theory results in the experimenter being alive upon the conclusion of the experiment.  (DeGrasse)  Biblical theories also leave little room for disagreement, e.g., how does one respond to the concept of immaculate conception.  If the response is, "...it results from conjugation", well, then, the meaning has been subtly altered and the response deftly avoided.

Empiricism, the scientific, is a theory of knowledge that is practical rather than abstract, and asserts that knowledge arises from experience rather than from revelation.  

"In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."  (wiki)  Biblical theories are not so imbued.

Answer 8

science derives its notion of reality from producing questions about the world, making guesses, testing those guesses, and then analizing what the tests say....from there a picture is refined about our world and tweeked based on further testing....

the biblical basis of reality states that there's a man in the sky who is all powerful and all knowing, and yet always seems to need money so that one of his reps on earth can buy that next beemer he's had his eye on....or get a new, hotter secretary to give him hummers in the babtismal tank.....