Can science really prove anything?
Ok, let us be honest. There is plenty of SUPPORTING scientific evidence for both creation and evolution, but absolutely no concrete evidence for either, (and absolutely NO feasable evidence for the big bang). Consider this, though: according to scientific law everything must have an origins, a beginning and an end. In the event there is no creator, no matter how you try to explain it, either the laws of science become flawed and irrelevant, or our universe is unexplainable and should not exist. However, if God is real and created both our universe and our concept of science, this would mean that he existed before science and is not, himself, subject to its laws.
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creati... - (quicktime presentation, give it a second.)
Just a few links; it is best to examine all points before you make any kind of "informed" decision.
By the way, I am not saying I doubt science.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
to Johnny, God is infinite. Our finite minds can only grasp things that are finite. The rationale that we invent in order to make sense of this finite world we live in and call laws don't apply to what is infinite.
to Grayson, the concept of carbon dating is based on the fallacy of a constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and the fallacy of a constant ratio between C-12 and C-14.
- 1 decade ago
No, Science cannot prove anything. Not even that the Universe even actually exists.
It just happens to work.
I guess it's possible that it's one really big coincidence, but my computer didn't build itself, so I'm going to assume there is something to it.
But let's take a closer look at your statment.
There is no scientific evidence supporting creationism. There are only arguments about why Evolution may be flawed. That is not evidence supporting creationism.
There is evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory. The Universe, from all indications, seems to be expanding in all directions. This is evidence to support the idea that it.
Science in general has never claimed there is no creator and infact stays pretty far away from religion. It just happens, on occasion, that scientific discovery conflicts with the religous beliefs of some.
You also seem to be under the impression that the very existance of a God somehow vindicates Christianity or any other religion.
A the existance of a creator is irrelevant to Christianity. If we DID find God, it is entirely possible he has no clue what you're talking about with all this 'Jesus' stuff.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Science can't prove anything in a TOTAL relatavistic framework, especially taking Einstein, Plank and Heisenberg in account.
Science can prove SOME things within a LIMITED FRAMEWORK of a GIVEN UNIVERSE. But the moment you exceed those paramenters the PROOFS may not hold up and EVEN in the PARAMETERS, the Heisenberg Uncertertainty principal states that THINGS DON'T ALWAYS WORKS AS EXPECTED. And for absolutely NO reason.
You can build 10 atom bombs totally pefectly, with the same everthing and according to Heisenberg ONE may not work and for NO reason, other than the results are simply UNCERTAIN.
With this in mind, you have a Universe with up to 11 or 14 dimensions and a variety of universes to occupy, hence NOTHING can be UNIVERSALLY pinned down by science.
Predictable results only occurs within a liminted framework and then only according to the Eisenberg Principal of Uncertainty.
And taht is why is rains when the night before the Weather man said it will be pleasant and sunny the next day.
- NemesisLv 71 decade ago
Science is very careful about calling something fact, there must be irrefutable evidence. That is why evolution is a theory and there is plenty of evidence indicating that it is correct, unlike creationism.
There is also plenty of supporting the big bang, you just refuse to see it.
If everything must have a beginning, this must include your god, therfore your arguement is also flawed. The problem is, christians state creationism and the existence of god as fact when it is unsubstantiated belief
Earl D that is NOT Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
Anything that can not be proven in ALL contexts is not proven. Your attempt to muddy the waters has not achieved anything except to show that you have chosen to misrepresent the truth
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think you are a bit off the mark with no concrete evidence. There are plenty of bones (tangible evidence) of prehistoric times. There is plenty of evidence of evolution too. For example do you know the cause of sickle cell? Sickle cell is a mutation (evolution ) of the red blood cells to deal with malaria. The shapes of our eyes are a evolutionary evidence of a group of peoples changing to deal with different light level and snow glare. We have Pigmy's and giants. We have black Skinned and brown skinned people. We have people with curly hair and straight hair. This is all body shapes designed to deal with environmental conditions. If there was no evolution then we would all look more or less the same no matter where we go. But peoples of certain areas share the same basic physical characteristics due to the evolution of their bodies to deal with their environments.
lets go deeper, we still have the remnants of our tails called the coxics. We have a appendix which is no longer useful but at one time it was used to help us process raw foods.
As for the big bang it is one of many theories for the creation of the universe. I also disagree with the therory that if some thing is en explainable it should not exist. Drs are still puzzled as to how asperine works, however it does. If you argument were correct then asperine would not exsit. Or this on which came first the chicken or the egg? I can't say and I don't think anyone could but yet again they still exsist. Your argument has good points but it is not fool proof, and this is were faith comes into play. Either you have faith or you do not. But to arbitraly throw away science because of no concret eveidence does nothing but create resentment towards religion and further devids people. Could be science is God, and God is science. No matter what we were created with the desire to learn, and you pose to do a diservice to anyone who is thinking differently then you with your queston.
- doublewidemamaLv 61 decade ago
Is this a question or a statement of your beliefs?
Scientific method is a simple means by which to solve problems.
You should have learned that in middle school at the latest.
Your own beliefs about creationism are yours to have.
I personally think that creationism and evolution can and do go hand-in-hand. There is no reason to think that evolution can't happen, and that it is and has been all in God's hands from the beginning.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Actually the first law of thermodynamics states the everything has neither a beginning nor an end. "Matter can not be created nor destroyed, it can only change form" The universe is subject to its own laws.
- AlexLv 61 decade ago
Wrong, there is an entire fossil record. Any valid theory has to match the FACT that the fossils started out simple and got more complicated over time. And that can easily be established by the order they come out of the layers of rocks without any radiological dating. This matches evolution, it does not match creationism.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
If this is true (which it's not), there is equal evidence for creation is there is evolution (there isn't), and everything requires a creator (which it doesn't), then a)why does the creation story have so many holes? and b)who created God?
- Abby CLv 51 decade ago
Like i said in a previous question, I believe that there are unexplained phenomena in this world, and that God MAY be a possible answer for them. But we don't know.
But I agree with you....If God was the creator, then who created him?