Operational verses Historical Science

There is much debate in Evolution and Creationism. However, before jumping into the debate, most need to understand the difference of operational/historical science.

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.

Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.

Most can agree on what they currently see, but the dichotomy comes on the source of what they see.

A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.


Let's face it, everyone comes in with some bias. It's similiar to relationships, eveyone has baggage. We cannot help it.

However, it's important to accept the fact, that all have bias, irregardless of how many initials behind ones name.

Assumptions can be likened to faith. A creationist assumes (has faith) that God created the earth and an evolutionist assumes (has faith) that random chance created the earth. An assumption is a belief that is based on something that cannot be proved. Assumptions are used to help interpret facts that do not have a clear meaning. For example, evolutionists look at rock layers they find in the ground and because they assume, believe, or have faith in the idea that the earth is very, very old they interpret the fact that there are layers in the earth to mean that they were laid down over long periods of time. However, a creationist can take that same fact, that there are layers of rock in the earth, and because he or she assumes, believes, or has faith in the idea of a young earth can interpret the layers as being laid down quickly during the flood of Noah. However, if an assumption is wrong then the conclusion will most likely be wrong as well.

As the statement above says, assumptions must be made on historical science. When those assumptions fail, we must look for another. I find it very interesting man's assumptions seem to change as we continue to learn more. However, as scripture states, the Bible (JudeoChristian) remains the same, now, before and forever.


Assumptions are fundamental in Historical Sciences. Because a historical event cannot be recreated and observed, there will always be assumptions built into any theory about that historical event. Therefore we can see that in the Creation/Evolution debate nobody has proven anything about the origin of the Earth, life, and man. There are basic assumptions being made on both sides of the argument which cannot be definitively proven.

Christian Youth with an Edge

I came across this interesting article regarding a new movement among youth christians.

Youth With a Mission is a nondenominational Christian network that takes in just about anyone -- punk rockers, misfits, retired engineers, schoolteachers, fresh-faced teens. After a little training, they are sent to preach the Gospel in some of the most dangerous parts of the globe.

It seems this group has found a way to take the 'generation me' and make them disciples of Christ!

Implanted Fetal tissue in mouse hybrids

Another genetic hybrid test goes on. This time using Aborted Fetal Tissue in Mouse Hybrids. Your tax dollars at work for you again.
.

Wasn't it just recent news of the startling revelation of using skin for stem cells, as opposed to embryo's? This is what many scientist were saying before.

So why are we still back in the stone age, using babies?

South Korea hostages freed by Taliban leave hospital

The South Korean Christian volunteers that were hostaged in Afhanistan, were released from the hospital today.

They were held captive for nearly 6 weeks. 2 were killed during early negotiations, by their Taliban, islamic captors. A total of 23 South Koreans were taken nearly 6 weeks ago.

They were held in the hospital 10 days before being released to go home. The chief of the hospital did same "They may be coming individually for treatment on psychological issues."

Why Psychological?


"They demanded we convert to Islam, and some of them were violent to us, although it wasn't constant," one of the hostages, Jae Chang-hee, said. "They would throw rocks at us. They threatened us with their guns."


The Islamic Taliban took them hostage, killed 2 early on, but the christian missionaries "apologised for the trouble they had caused".

Wow. Talk about an incorrect view.

The full article can be found here

7 Point Creed

I am subscribed to New Man magazine (which is a great magazine) and came across these creeds. I wanted to share them to all. The article related to a man having these 7 creeds for his own personal daily walk.

• Be true to yourself
  
• Make each day your masterpiece
  
• Help others
  
• Drink deeply from good books, especially the bible
  
• Make a friendship a fine art
  
• Build a shelter against a rainy day
  
• Pray for guidance and give thanks for your blessings everyday
  

Human-animal embryos. The Hybrids are here.

I saw a tickler last night speaking of placing human genes in a empty animal embryo. The tickler mentioned the hybrid would be 99.9% human and .1% animal. The scientist would be required to destroy the embryo before 14 days and it is banned to be placed in a womb.

I thought 2 things when I seen it (after my wow).

1)Why 14 days?
2)Have we really gone this far?


Seems the Government previously agreed stem cell embryo's have a 14-day limit. I guess you have to start/end somewhere.

Legislative references to the 14-day rule cite ethics committee reports. The most influential of these reports were sponsored by the U.S. government (1979, 1994, 1999, 2004), Britain (1984), Australia (1984), Canada (1994), California (2002), the leading U.S. IVF medical association (the American Fertility Society, 1986 and 1990), and a leading U.S. biotech company (Advanced Cell Technology, 2000). If you read these reports, the first thing you'll notice is that they refer to each other. We've agreed to the line because we've agreed to it—and could just as easily move it. The next thing you'll see is that many of them admit that the date is "arbitrary." The British report, from which others copied the rule, concedes that "biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive."

A fact of prenatal development.

Pregnancy begins at conception, the time at which the male sperm and the female ovum unite. What results is called a zygote, a one-celled biological entity, a stage in human development through which each of us has passed (just as we have passed through infancy, childhood, and adolescence).

It is a misnomer to refer to this entity as a "fertilized ovum." For both ovum and sperm, which are genetically each a part of its owner (mother and father, respectively), cease to exist at the moment of conception. There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:

• (1) metabolism,
  
• (2) growth,
  
• (3) reaction to stimuli, and
  
• (4) reproduction.
  

Second fact of prenatal development

Second, not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new -- although tiny -- individual.

It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human.

Quote

This is why French geneticist Jermoe L. LeJeune, while testifying before a Senate Subcommittee, asserted:

To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.

It is vital that you -- the reader -- understand that...

You did not come from a zygote.

You once were a zygote.

You did not come from an embryo.

You once were an embryo.

You did not come from a fetus.

You once were a fetus.

You did not come from an adolescent.

You once were an adolescent.

But have we gone so far as mixing DNA to create hybrids? We have attempted pig heart transplants in the past.

I recall a bible prophecy stating "37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.38 "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,39 "and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. "

It is found in the book of Matthew chapter 24. The coming of the Son of Man refers to the rapture of the true church. Noah was found to be righteous with God. He with his immediate family were saved by the Ark. We recall the story from Sunday school.

The Noah story is found in Genesis chapter 6. The chapter makes reference to 'sons of God' taking the 'daughters of men' as wives, creating offspring referred to as 'giants' and men of name.

Some scholars believe Noah not only found grace, but was also pure in genetics. These sons of God and daughters of men had created a different gene pool.

This thought came to me as I watched the tickler, referring to 99.9% human and 1% animal. With the stem cell research, we could easily begin to change our gene pool.

Two new movies- I ordered

I went ahead and ordered two new christian movies. I found a site that sells Christian Movies. They should be in 2-5 days. I will post a review on them, most likely.




I originally found this one. It doesn't look to be long, but I am fascinated with the spiritual warfare.

This movie was named the number one movie of the whole website. Since I use to be into UFO's, I figured I would check it out as well.

How To Share Videos With Your Friends And Get Paid! Click Here.

Q: Don’t evolutionists have different “evidence” than creationists have?

A: No. Think about these questions:

* Do creationists and evolutionists have the same animals?
* Do creationists and evolutionists have the same fossil record?
* So do they have the same earth?
* So do creationists and evolutionists have the same facts/evidence?

The battle between creation and evolution is not about facts—the facts are the same.

The real difference is how one interprets the facts in relation to the past. This is all determined by one’s beliefs to start with. A creationist starts with the belief that the Bible’s history is true and interprets the evidence on this basis. An evolutionist starts with the belief that most, if not all, things can be explained without God, and interprets the same facts differently.

But only the biblical basis makes consistent sense of the facts … and fits directly with real observational science.

Richard Dawkins on Orielly Factor

Atheist Richard Dawkins on Orielly Factor

Duration 4 minutes 23 seconds

Click pic to view video.

You can view other Movie Trailers here.

Richard Dawkins stumped on Christian Question

Release Internation on Persecuted Church May 2007

Release Internation Web report for May 2007 The release of the world report, May 2007, on the Persecuted Church.

Release Internation on Persecuted Church- April 2007

Release Internation Web report for April 2007 The release of the world report, April 2007, on the Persecuted Church.

March 2007 Webcast of the Persecuted Church- World Report

Webcast release for March 2007

The March 2007 release of the world report. This is regarding the Persecuted Church by Release International.

Uploaded May-23-2007

Are mammoth genes making a comeback?

As far as we know, the woolly mammoths (such as those we find as fossils in Siberia) are extinct. But not so long ago, a team of scientists reconstructed a portion of the genetic code of the mammoth. They found that half of the “meta-genome” they sequenced from the mammoth is very similar to the African elephant.

Scientists in Japan and Russia have even announced plans to attempt to clone this well-known symbol of the Ice Age. One scientist in the United States said it might even be possible to genetically alter an elephant to turn it into a mammoth.

It shouldn’t surprise us that some of the genes of the wooly mammoth are found in the elephant populations of today. In the book of Genesis we read that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants—each to reproduce after its own kind. Just as there’s only one kind of dog, with different species within the kind … there’s probably only one kind of elephant.

From biblical history, two elephants came off Noah’s Ark. As they increased in numbers, and different groups moved in varying directions, different species within the kind would form. All of this fits with the account of creation and the Flood … recorded in the Bible!

What bird has a beak that grows continually?

Skimmers are birds that live along the coast, and they have a unique way of feeding. These birds fly just above the water with their lower beak skimming the surface. Whenever that beak hits anything in the water, it scoops up its prey.

Over time, the friction of the water wears against the lower beak, so you would expect the beak to wear away. But the lower beak of the skimmer continually grows at the same rate that it wears! Skimmers that are kept in zoos have to have their lower beaks trimmed on a regular basis or the lower beak will grow out way past the upper beak. The upper beak of the skimmer doesn’t continually grow. But it doesn’t touch the water and won’t wear down.

So, evolutionists have a real problem trying to explain how the lower beak came to continually grow and the upper beak did not.

When we look at the skimmer, we see the wonderful purpose and design of our Creator God. It looks like the skimmer is designed to do what it does do, and what it does do it does do well, doesn’t it? We think it does!

A fossil clock—what does it mean?

Because of the intense evolutionary indoctrination we’ve all received, most people assume that it takes millions of years for sediment—like sand or mud—to harden into rock. But given the right ingredients, this can actually happen quickly. Mixing cement is an obvious example, by the way.

On our website, we showed the picture of the mechanism of a clock encased in solid rock, along with sea shells. Of course, no one believes this clock was made millions of years ago. The clock was found in 1975 near a jetty at Westport, Washington. We know that there have been many shipwrecks in this area.

Obviously, the right mix of sand and other substances hardened around this clock, making it look like a clock in hard rock!

There’s really nothing spectacular about this at all—these sorts of things happen all the time in different parts of the world. But the average person doesn’t usually hear about them, and thus they go on thinking that rocks and fossils must take millions of years to form.

This “clock in the rock” will eventually be displayed in our Creation Museum near Cincinnati, where we’ll be teaching people the truth about the history of the world … according to the Bible.

Is secular humanism a religion?

Humanists believe that the universe is self-existing (was not created). They believe that man, as a part of nature, has emerged as a result of a continuous process of material causes. Secular humanists believe that nature is all that exists … that there is no God, no spiritual dimension, and no afterlife. In short, they believe that man evolved from molecules by natural processes—no supernatural activity is allowed to be considered.

Secular humanists don’t believe that an absolute moral code exists. Instead, they believe that man makes up his own rules.

Secular humanists don’t want to be called religious. That’s because they don’t want to admit that teaching materialistic evolution is really a religious point of view—a view that tries to explain life without God. If they did, it would be admitting that when public schools in America threw God out of the science classroom, they didn’t throw out religion … they just replaced God with an atheistic religion.

Sadly, many church leaders don’t realize that when they support eliminating God from science classes, they’re supporting an anti-God religion—the religion of atheistic humanism.

Since some monkeys make a lot of noise and can even use simple sign language, is it possible they might ever learn to speak?

It’s true that some monkeys and apes, lured along by rewards, have been able to learn what might be called a simple sign language. But it’s been discovered that monkeys lack the key principle common to all human languages—something called “phrase structure grammar.”

An example of phrase structure grammar would be a sentence that uses the words “if” and “then.” These two words enable us to communicate opinions and complex social ideas, as there are many concepts that an unstructured string of words could never communicate.

Unsurprisingly, the discovery that monkeys lack this key ability has dashed some scientists’ hopes that monkeys could be trained to master a complex language.

No matter how hard evolutionists try to make apes and monkeys our relatives, they always end up finding themselves at a loss for words (excuse the pun). Only humans have the ability to communicate using complex grammar patterns, because God made man in His image with the ability to communicate with Him—and with each other—starting from the very beginning.

Were dragons just mythological?

You may have heard about the flood legends that have come down from many different people groups around the world, many of which are very similar to the Bible’s account of Noah’s Flood.

For instance, the Australian Aborigines, before they even met missionaries, had stories about a global flood. The stories included many similarities to the Bible’s account. The same can be said of the legends of the American Indians, Fijians, Eskimos, and other cultures all around the world.

The reason for this is that these people are all descendants of Noah. They handed down the story of the Flood to succeeding generations. The stories changed over the years, but the similarities to the Bible are still there.

The same sort of thing likely happened with dragon legends. These stories are based on real encounters with real beasts. The stories exist all over the world, handed down from generation to generation.

What were the dragons? When you read about the descriptions of many of these dragons in the old history books, you will see that they fit with many of the descriptions we have today of dinosaurs.

Yes, dragons were probably dinosaurs!

You can also see this free 20 minute video online about dinosaurs!