20050219

"truth" in science

i do not put much trust in "science." oh, it is not that i do not think some science is good, but some is very bad - very bad. i love listening to commercials about drugs that will "change your life." you know, the ones where you take a pill for your toe fungus with the side effect (always see as "mild") that can include, heart disease, kidney problems, low energy, stomach problems, diarere and excessive flatulence - and do you think people want to take that pill? no thanks - i think i would rather have toe fungus then all that other stuff.

but anyway, science is not something we need to bank on. recently, a professor reiner protsch von zieten - an anthropologist has been proven to be a fraud. what did he do that was so "bad?" he systematically falsified the dates on numerous "stone age" relics. this may not be important to some, but what it does is show that "modern" man and nethantal man did not live togther, and the human race is far younger the suggested.

check out the story, i think you might like it

3 comments:

silas jones said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
silas jones said...

I recently had a talk with my youth pastor about this. And I don't think it's so much that science is inaccurate - you can have your one anthropologist that is a fraud, but not all of them are liars and purposefully trying to deceive everyone and full on agaisnt God - they're just for trying to find what they believe to be true. I honestly believe that the bones and other stuff that scientists date really are as old as they say they are. (and please hang on here if you're a hardcore Arminian, because this is a hardcore Calvinist comment) I believe that God specifically planted things like bones that look like crosses between different species and gave them an age that matches what scientists are finding them to be because he specifically aims to make some people's hearts harden against him. Furthermore, we honestly don't know that Genesis's "7 days" are 7 days - how do we know that in the five days preceding our creation, all the animals were actually sitting around for millions of years? God created time with the universe, and therefore it is perfectly feasible. None of us were there to see Creation as it happened - in its entirety, that is - and so we can't say with 100% accuracy that we have all the answers.

We got off onto another line too, and this is very feasible: I'm pretty sure I now believe that the fall of Satan happened between the 5th and 6th days, primarily because of this: Perhaps he was plenty all right when God created creatures that were 'less' than the angels. When God created us, we were (and are) clearly superior to angels, and Satan didn't like the idea of anyone other than God being superior to him. This is why he rebelled - trying to reject everything God because he hated God for what he did, and you can see his hate manifested in the way he tries to deride and malign the aspects of God that we can find in our own personalities and charcters - for example, he derides woman about their looks, and men about their strength - both of which are innately aspects of God - feminine beauty and masculine strength.

Oh well, that was a little side blurb. But the point is: I'm more prone to trust science's findings because I am hardcore Calvinist (with an Arminian heart :-) ) and find it easy to believe that God specifically plants stuff like that to make people's hearts hardened. Cruel God... :-p

silas jones said...

And I get that the original point of the article was that you were showing how it proved that man is much younger than scientists think.