God Invented Science

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Predictions and Science

Scientists sometimes tell a story about predictions, and it’s partly true but completely confused. It’s confused because it doesn’t explain the difference between types of predictions. Below is a list of several types of predictions:

  • Tables of data that make it possible to predict what will work to build a car, a plane, a wiring circuit, a chemical formula, a building, or anything else we’ve made before
  • Tables of data that make it possible to predict what might work to make something we’ve never made before
  • Tables of data and historical documents from which we can make predictions that we can test
  • Postdictions that someone calls “predictions”
  • Phantom predictions using some form of flimflam
  • Affirming the consequent fallacies and Texas sharpshooter fallacies, thinking that predictions prove theories

We’ll investigate these thoroughly in the section called Predictability as a Way of Knowing.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Make-Believe Isn’t Reality

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Dr. Charles Jackson says it’s OK to make up a story or have a thought experiment, but it’s not OK to forget that made-up stuff is made-up stuff. And it’s not OK to think that a story is a reality. (Watch the video at https://youtu.be/HUbjlK1CJ_Q)

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

It’s Flimflam

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Well, the ungodly scientists say that they know the age of these rocks but not by observation. They know because the age fits their overall story about how the earth came into existence. We know storytelling can’t prove anything. So they tell a story that “proves” the age of the rocks, and then they test radiometric dating against the story. They haven’t validated against something they observed. Instead, they compared the radiometric dating method’s results against their biased expectations.

They’ll also point out that dating methods must be tested on several samples, discarding the results that don’t match the expected age. But that’s not science. It’s flimflam. If we tested the Law of Gravity, and every fifth time an object floated in the air, we wouldn’t have the Law of Gravity as we know it. Fortunately, we test the Law of Gravity by observing, and observation confirms the Law of Gravity. Radiometric dating methods fail when tested on rocks of known age.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Dating Methods Aren’t Validated

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Ungodly scientists will often say that a few missed predictions don’t invalidate an entire dating method, but this argument misses the point entirely. The point isn’t about something invalidating the radiometric dating methods. The point is that no one validated the dating methods in the first place. No one can. Show us how we can test these methods and show these methods to yield the correct results consistently on rocks of known age. Otherwise, show another method that involves actual observation rather than made-up stuff. Some ungodly scientists claim that they have validated the dating methods, but they’ll give examples of rocks of unknown age. They tested these rocks of unknown age and estimated them to be about as old as they had expected them to be. Their expectations were based on how old they want the earth to be. That’s not validation. That’s circular reasoning.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Science

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Consider this conversation between two people.

Sandy Sandbuilder: “I don’t understand why science is still rejected to this day. The big bang is a scientific theory supported by testing, observation, and logic. It’s not a belief or a myth. Why is it so hard to believe as opposed to an all-powerful spiritual being creating the universe in a week?”

Rocky Rockbuilder: “The big bang story is a made-up story based on interpretations of observations, and persuaders base those interpretations on assumptions. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff, so these stories consist of made-up stuff. God is real, and those of us who know Him through Jesus Christ experience His moment by moment leading, teaching, and correcting. He assures us that the Bible is His word without error. He commands us not to add our made-up stuff to His words since He speaks through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture—and what He reveals is enough.”

Sandy: “It’s not a made up story. It starts out as a hypothesis. It then is studied, and evidence gathered. There is enough evidence to support the Big Bang. Big Bang is the general consensus by the smartest men and women on the planet because enough data is there. We are not talking about assumptions but definitive facts.”

Rocky: “We can repeatedly observe definitive facts. Let me observe these facts if you insist they’re facts. I’m not going to take your word for it based on hearsay from people you say are smart. Hearsay doesn’t constitute a definitive fact. You can supply a test to show that it happened if you know it’s true. The test to show that it happened must include no assumptions. Let me observe the billions of years repeatedly without any stories or assumptions.”

Sandy: “Then look up at the stars. You are seeing history. What we see has taken millions of years to reach us, so you are literally observing history every time you look up into the night sky.”

Rocky: “So are you now telling a new story that God couldn’t have gotten distant starlight to the earth within the biblical timeline by any means natural or supernatural? Can you show me a way that I can test your new story?”

Sandy: “You are simply brushing aside all evidence by saying god didn’t make it happen that way. All based on one book you read.”

Rocky: “I didn’t see any evidence for your story. Show me the way to test your story about distant starlight and God’s limitations. If science shows that God has this limitation, then there’s a way we can repeatedly observe the history of how He couldn’t get the distant starlight to the earth. Show me how to test what you’re claiming. If you were to ask me to give you a way that you can know Jesus Christ exists, I would do it for you. I’m asking you for a way to test your bare claims.”

Sandy Sandbuilder has fallen for the fallacy of irrelevant evidence, using a real observation that doesn’t prove his conclusion. When thinkers irrationally try to apply science where they can’t test the conclusion, they often use irrelevant evidence to fool themselves and others. Sandy also uses the fallacies of phantom science and phantom evidence, mentioning the words “science” and “evidence” as if he had presented real science and evidence. But he didn’t present any science or evidence. We can observe stars, but we can’t observe Sandy’s story. We can’t physically observe or test a story about God getting distant starlight to earth within the biblical timeline or not doing so. We can’t observe the big bang happening by looking at the stars.

Rather than making unsupported claims about starlight, Sandy could have claimed that radiometric dating proves his point. But radiometric dating doesn’t prove his point since no one has validated radiometric dating. Validation is the scientific process of “proving” what we believe to be true by testing and observing, which would involve testing rocks of known age.

However, scientists can’t validate radiometric dating on rocks of known age. Every time a rock of known age is sent in for radiometric dating, the dating is way off. For instance, Mount St. Helens newly formed rock was zero years old, but it yielded a range of dates from 350,000 years old to 2.8 million years old. If Sandy had made claims about radiometric dating, Rocky could have just asked Sandy a question. “Can you point to any study that tested many different rocks of known age and proved that radiometric dating is consistently accurate on rocks of known age?” There’s no such study.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Can It Be Tested?

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
While it’s easy to understand that made-up stuff isn’t proof, an ungodly thinker can cloud the issue efficiently by trying to change the subject, argue over definitions, or use other fallacies. Consider the following example of this form of thinking from social media:
 
“You say you can’t do an experiment on yesterday, so you’re saying astronomy, geology, forensics, and archaeology are not science. For that matter, anything where you cannot directly observe the system you are working on is not science. This means all of modern astrophysics, molecular and cellular biology, quantum mechanics, genetics, etc. are not “science.” Indeed, why believe F=ma instead of F=2ma or F=ma^2? I hear some people are so crazy, they think we can actually measure things like the gravitational force or the distance from the earth to the sun.”
 
This persuader uses a special definition for the term “science.” He uses sarcasm and innuendo as a smokescreen to hide what’s happening. The disbeliever is trying to prove that the stories of evolutionism are true by defining “science.” He uses a package deal fallacy to forbid any discernment between made-up stuff and observation. In the process, he uses ridicule to argue against knowing the difference between reality and made-up stuff. That’s the difference between observation and hypothesis. And one of the ways he blurs this distinction is by committing a faulty comparison fallacy. He claims that it’s possible to “experiment on yesterday.” Then, to prove that we can “experiment on yesterday,” he mentions examples of observations and testable applications in the present. Observations of the present aren’t the same as stories about the past. For each of the examples this persuader gave, there’s a useful part, and, since it’s useful, it’s testable. In most of the examples he brought up, there’s also a deceptive part that isn’t testable.
 
The formula, F=ma is testable and useful in the present. But how would anyone test a story about the distant past (evolutionism) to prove that it happened, and why shouldn’t we consider the competing story (Creation-Flood) that fits the observations better? Regardless of which of these two stories scientists are considering, they test and observe physical reality in the present using the same proven formulas to create the different models of the past.
 
One model uses these formulas plus a presupposition of no God, made-up stuff, and the supposed power of the human mind to make up accurate information that would be required to extrapolate backward in time. The other model uses these same formulas plus divine revelation and made-up stuff to extrapolate backward in time based on God’s ability to reveal. We can see that both models use made-up stuff. No one can go beyond observation and divine revelation without using made-up stuff.
 
Scientists propose a hypothesis of a 4.7 billion-year-old earth. They also propose a hypothesis that a certain chemical will destroy a certain bacteria. Using the scientific method, we can’t test the age-of-the-earth claim since we can’t go back in time to make the needed observations repeatedly. However, we can put the chemical on the bacteria and watch, and we can have many observers perform this test repeatedly. The package deal fallacy tries to put these two hypotheses into the same package, claiming that rejecting the untestable hypothesis means that we reject all testable hypotheses that are confirmed by repeated testing and observation. It seems as if some scientists have lost the ability to tell the difference between observations and making up stories about observations.
 
Unfortunately, scientists have wasted an enormous amount of money trying to change science into a discipline that has the purpose of blurring the distinction between reality and make-believe. They blur the distinction because, when persuaders tell lies, they need a way to avoid separating the made-up stuff from the observations. Disbelievers need made-up stuff to give the illusion of support for their godless stories. Therefore, we can see why they won’t acknowledge the difference between made-up stuff and observation. God reveals reality through observations, but He doesn’t reveal reality through made-up stuff.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.
 
Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Choices

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

The fact that humans are three-part beings comes into play here. We are spirit, mind, and body. God designed the human spirit to rule over the human mind and the human mind to rule over the human body. The emotions and brain are part of the human body. Satan and his host try to influence us through our bodies, which the Bible terms “the flesh.” The Holy Spirit deals with our spirits and communicates with us through our spirits. When we’re born again, it appears that our spirits are in unity with the Holy Spirit and we’re seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Spiritual warfare is about the control of our minds, which are our souls. Satan works through our flesh, but the Holy Spirit works through our spirits. With our minds, we choose whether to follow our flesh or walk in the Spirit. At every moment of every day we decide.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Same Evidence

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Evolution scientists and creation scientists both use the same observations. However, the interpretation varies. Creation scientists also use divine revelation. So that’s another factor. Evolution scientists counter divine revelation with their worldviews and the groupthink worldview of the scientific establishment. They sometimes label this groupthink worldview with the confusing term “established science” or “mainstream science.” Evolution scientists try to interpret the observations to conform to their worldviews. Creation scientists also try to interpret the observations and revelations, and they also struggle with their own worldviews. The interpretation always goes beyond the observations and revelations. We can test the observations physically. We can test the biblical text physically. We can test the revelation spiritually. We can’t test the interpretations. The interpretations take the form of storytelling.

Evolution scientists often question revelation. God speaks through Scripture and every process of God’s revelation mentioned in Scripture. Evolution scientists might accuse us of merely making up a story that the Scripture is divine revelation. They may accuse us of circular reasoning, and here’s what they say we say:

“The Bible says that it’s divine revelation, so the Bible is divine revelation, so we can believe the Bible when it says that it’s divine revelation.”

But we have the assurance from the Holy Spirit that the Bible is God’s Word without error. God speaks through many means. When God speaks, that’s not circular reasoning. They can question God’s authority or question whether we’re experiencing what we’re experiencing, but the circular reasoning accusation is silly.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Writing Stories

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

When new observations conflict with the story of evolution, evolution scientists create new stories to shoehorn the new observations into the original story. Evolution scientists tell their stories in a way that avoids conflicts with what they observe, but that’s not the same as basing their stories on observations.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Observation or Storytelling

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

The Package Deal Fallacy in Science

During the Nye-Ham debate, Bill and Ken disagreed about whether there’s a difference between observational science and historical science. Rather than focusing on definitions, it’s often more helpful to focus on what’s happening. What’s happening is simple. On the one hand, we observe. On the other hand, we speculate about what we can’t test or observe. A better term would be “historical storytelling” rather than “historical science.” Science applied to the present physical realm depends on observation, testing, and experimentation. There’s a difference between observation and making up stuff. There’s a difference between observation and interpretation of observations. There’s a difference between divine revelation and interpretation of divine revelation. We can’t test made-up stuff.

We’re assuming that both creation scientists and evolution scientists begin with scientific observation. An evolutionist may say, “So you do agree that we base the stories of evolution on science, then.” Of course, evolution scientists base their stories on the stories themselves. Since the stories go beyond what scientists observe, they extend beyond the borders of the foundation, the foundation being observation. Therefore, evolution scientists don’t base their stories on observation.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail