This is the Home page of the science section. To return here just click on the Bible and science in the right hand frame.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bible and Science

    True science has been forced to accept that there indeed was a beginning to this universe that we obviously live in.  However, that leaves science in a bit of a quandary because it is also an accepted fact of science that every effect has a cause.  Since no one has come up with even an idea as to the cause of this universe we are, at this point, obliged to look at what the convoluted wisdom of man has decided is the force behind the creation of the universe, which their theories name as evolution.  Theories are used in the plural above because there are many theories of evolution.  The string theory is one, general relativity is another with quantum theory still another. Then there is p-branes, super-symmetry, along with holography all of which are completely different than what most folks are familiar with…the big bang theory.  It is the quantum theory, which gave birth to the current holography theory, which is saying that our universe, along with us, is really only a manufactured image like a motion picture.  This theory doesn’t seem to notice that this implies a projectionist.  Who could that be I wonder?)

    The string theory says everything came into being because of vibration.   What started or caused that vibration is anybodies guess.  Unfortunately, the starting force or initial cause for any of these theories has never been identified by its advocates and requires more faith for their explanation than that required for belief in a Creator.   Be that as it may, the backbone of evolution is made up of catch phrases such as, perhaps, maybe, it might be, conceivably, it could be, it is assumed, possibly, or one of its mainstays:  “The current theory is…” 

    Now most folks would assume from the statement “The current theory is…” that something came to light, or happened, to change it from the previous current theory.  Also if a theory changes, most would assume it does so because of deep study and new understanding concerning the issue in question.  However, lets look at what really takes place to cause what evolutionists believe is a new current theory to develop over an old current theory. 

    In July of 2003 an international team of scientists from the university of Poitiers in France declared they had found a seven million year old skull from Northern Chad, which they said, was the oldest or earliest known ancestor to the human family.  Here we are presented with a new current theory.   Six months later in Dec of 2003 Mr. Milford Wolpoff who is a well-known anthropologist at the University of Michigan stated for the press that the touted seven million year old first human skull was really only an ape.  However, Mr. Michel Brunet who led the expedition that found the ape skull disagrees.  He holds to his idea that this is a hominid fossil. 

So what is the layperson supposed to conclude from this debate between, not just two but, two groups of scientists?   Which by the way is most common in any fossil find.  It might also be added here that scientific debate, over fossil finds cannot be brought to a decisive conclusion by either side.  The reason for this is that there are no real undisputable facts that would allow a conclusion.   It is all the opinion of one person as opposed to that of another.   Therefore, to try and find an answer to this perplexing question let us go to the National Museum in London where a Mr. Chris Stringer the head of the Human Origin Programs, said back in July of 2003 when the skull was found: “Discoveries such as this are always complex, (by that he means debatable) because, he continued, evidence is usually incomplete and there is little agreement about what key features characterize a distinct human ancestor.”   In other words scientists cannot decide, even amongst themselves, what a human ancestor, or hominid, would look like to begin with.

    So why does Mr. Wolpoff declare this fossil skull as belonging to an ape?  He and his colleagues, at the Michigan University center, state the fossil is an ape because the skull does not share the single unifying feature of all humans and hominids erect posture and obligate bipedal locomotion.  In plain English he means it didn’t walk on two legs.

    The point of the above is all these scientists are dealing with something they have no real evidence to verify.  Their declarations are based solely on assumptions and their assumptions are based on shear guesswork, and the preconceived idea of evolution as its base.  Their conclusions are reached on what they themselves or others assume are fact or fiction.  Again not facts but what they think might be or could be facts if.   IF, my grandfather use to say, IF elephants had wings they would be big birds.  Also, it can be pointed out here, what is assumed or considered true today changes tomorrow.  How either group could conclude, from the evidence of the skull itself that it walked on two or four legs escapes me along with any clear un-debatable evidence that the fossil is indeed seven million years old to begin with?   I say clearly un-debatable because the age of anything is also hotly debated by different groups of scientists.

    What I find interesting about the whole discourse is why Mr. Stringer from London says, “Whatever comes of the debate it is still an important find.” Go to any zoo Mr. Stringer, and you can find live apes with arms and legs to go with their skulls.   Not only that but as soon as that ape moves about your eyes will show you it walks with the aid of its arms.  One doesn’t have to guess or theorize at all.  Since this is the case why would knowing that an ape from the past walked on all four limbs be an important find?  

    What all this actually shows is that Mr. Stringer knew, back in July when the declaration was made by the scientist from France, that it would be debated and debunked by other scientist around our globe.  He knew because the declaration was not based on provable fact, (such as gravity which cannot be disputed) but on assumption based on guesswork.  Assumptions and guesses that are different from one scientist compared to another

 

The following articles, about science, relate to the Bible.

A major contribution to this expose of a false science is taken from a very interesting book entitled,

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution, By Steven E. Dill, D.V.M.

Copyright 1995, 1998 by Steven E. Dill)

For obvious reasons all rights to Dr. Dill’s book are protected by his copyright and reprinted here with his permission for the purpose of information only.

Dr. Dill can be contacted at Stevendill@msn.com

A statement of reason:

How the Bible relates to our scientific knowledge.

Dr. Steven E Dill:

Scientists, and the strange myth surrounding fossils.                         All articles by Dr. Dill are copyright protected.

Simple facts:

Earthquakes, and the time of the end.

Dinosaurs

Yes, there are Dinosaurs in the Bible.

Skeptics and Science:

Is Evolution really Science?

 

For Bible Probe home page click home in top right frame----->