Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[benchwarmer]

Honest researchers do not reject scientific evidence they do not like.

Biblical narratives are not scientific evidence. You need to establish that the genealogy contained in the Bible is factual and accurate. Just being in the Bible is not sufficient, in fact it's somewhat circular as far as reasoning goes.

Unbelievers refuse to accept clear evidence of a universal flood because of their animosity toward God and the Bible.

Please point us to the peer reviewed geological research and data that shows clear evidence of a universal flood. What's that? You don't have any? Then what is it that you are referencing? Could it simply be the Bible and/or apologetic web sites like AiG?

Why do you think 'unbelievers' have animosity toward God and the Bible? I hear this ridiculous apologetic from time to time. Do you have animosity towards Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Maybe the Tooth Fairy did you wrong? Just because people don't believe what you believe doesn't mean they have animosity towards it. They simply don't believe it.

I understand that some believers find it comforting that the only reason unbelievers exist must be some animosity or something. It couldn't possibly be actual facts and evidence that contradict the beliefs. That would be to scary to consider.

[The Barbarian]

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

This is just preachy rhetoric which is a hallmark of the ideologically captured. Try making a reasoned case for your position, preferably supported by some sort of evidence.

Would you be willing to consider scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionist narratives?


Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) 4-30-19
Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * |
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019

What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years.1,2 In contrast, evolutionists believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life here got going about 3.5 billion years ago.
While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data.

A young earth is well supported by the biological data.

1. Soft Tissues and Biomolecules in Fossils
Soft tissues and decay-sensitive biomolecules that are still intact and not degraded shouldn’t exist in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old—but they do. The most famous case of this evolutionary enigma was the discovery of soft, stretchy tissue in the bones of a T. rex, along with visible blood vessels, blood cells inside the vessels, and bone cells with delicate finger-like projections called osteocytes.3,4 Collagen proteins were also found in the T. rex bones. Similar finds have been discovered in other dinosaur fossils, including a hadrosaur and a Triceratops.5,6
ICR research scientist Brian Thomas has compiled a list of 41 different journal papers describing the amazing soft tissues and biomolecules discovered in the fossils of many different types of land and sea animals and plants.7 Many of these findings were made and documented by secular scientists. Some of these discoveries involve fossils alleged to be 250 to 550-plus million years old. Because it would be impossible for these highly degradable compounds to last for more than a few thousand years, the evidence clearly points to a young age for Earth and to the global Flood that produced the fossilized remains, burying them quickly in sediments about 4,500 years ago.

None of this is tissue. In biology, "tissue" is a group of cells organized for specific functions. The organic material doesn't even have intact cells. And chemists have found that some organic molecules can persist for many millions of years in the presence of iron. Jeffrey, being "the world’s premier sound healing researcher, brainwave entrainment expert, and high-tech personal transformation innovator, motivator and futurist"...
https://centerforneuroacousticresearch.com/the-creator/

...probably didn't know much about any of that.

Ironically, the findings by Dr. Schweitzer (who discovered the material and does not agree with the speculations of Jeffrey Thompson) confirm evolutionary predictions. Among the fossilized material was a bit of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule). When tested it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles, again confirming predictions made over 150 years ago that birds descended from other dinosaurs.

[marke]

Honest researchers do not reject scientific evidence they do not like.

Biblical narratives are not scientific evidence. You need to establish that the genealogy contained in the Bible is factual and accurate. Just being in the Bible is not sufficient, in fact it's somewhat circular as far as reasoning goes.

Unbelievers refuse to accept clear evidence of a universal flood because of their animosity toward God and the Bible.

Please point us to the peer reviewed geological research and data that shows clear evidence of a universal flood. What's that? You don't have any? Then what is it that you are referencing? Could it simply be the Bible and/or apologetic web sites like AiG?

Why do you think 'unbelievers' have animosity toward God and the Bible? I hear this ridiculous apologetic from time to time. Do you have animosity towards Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Maybe the Tooth Fairy did you wrong? Just because people don't believe what you believe doesn't mean they have animosity towards it. They simply don't believe it.

I understand that some believers find it comforting that the only reason unbelievers exist must be some animosity or something. It couldn't possibly be actual facts and evidence that contradict the beliefs. That would be to scary to consider.

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

[benchwarmer]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

[marke]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

The peer review process was proven flawed when old rejected articles were resubmitted without change and were accepted and formerly accepted articles were resubmitted without change and were rejected - in large numbers.

[benchwarmer]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

The peer review process was proven flawed when old rejected articles were resubmitted without change and were accepted and formerly accepted articles were resubmitted without change and were rejected - in large numbers.

I assume you have a source for that?

No one said the process is perfect. Again, if you understood what it was, you would get that. The point is that you publish your data and methodology for others to scrutinize and attempt to reproduce. Eventually enough people either reproduce the result consistently or a flaw is found and it starts over.

Science is a living thing and always open to update.

People finding issues in past methods and data is the whole point.

[marke]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

The peer review process was proven flawed when old rejected articles were resubmitted without change and were accepted and formerly accepted articles were resubmitted without change and were rejected - in large numbers.

I assume you have a source for that?

No one said the process is perfect. Again, if you understood what it was, you would get that. The point is that you publish your data and methodology for others to scrutinize and attempt to reproduce. Eventually enough people either reproduce the result consistently or a flaw is found and it starts over.

Science is a living thing and always open to update.

People finding issues in past methods and data is the whole point.

Secularists believe in the flawed peer review process because it is the best they have to ensure compliance with atheistic scientific interpretations.
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, the peer review process has been extensively studied and criticized for having significant flaws, with research showing that reviewers often miss major errors in submitted papers, highlighting its limitations in detecting significant issues, including potential fraud; however, despite these flaws, it remains the best system available for quality control in academic publishing due to the lack of a viable alternative.
Key points about flaws in peer review:

[benchwarmer]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

The peer review process was proven flawed when old rejected articles were resubmitted without change and were accepted and formerly accepted articles were resubmitted without change and were rejected - in large numbers.

I assume you have a source for that?

No one said the process is perfect. Again, if you understood what it was, you would get that. The point is that you publish your data and methodology for others to scrutinize and attempt to reproduce. Eventually enough people either reproduce the result consistently or a flaw is found and it starts over.

Science is a living thing and always open to update.

People finding issues in past methods and data is the whole point.

Secularists believe in the flawed peer review process because it is the best they have to ensure compliance with atheistic scientific interpretations.
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, the peer review process has been extensively studied and criticized for having significant flaws, with research showing that reviewers often miss major errors in submitted papers, highlighting its limitations in detecting significant issues, including potential fraud; however, despite these flaws, it remains the best system available for quality control in academic publishing due to the lack of a viable alternative.
Key points about flaws in peer review:

It might help if you read the material you quoted from your AI chatbot. I bolded the important bit for you.

Did I claim the peer review process was perfect? No. It's a far cry better than faith based apologetics though where it's up to each individual believer to simply assert whatever they like and hope everyone agrees.

Also, what the heck is 'atheistic scientific interpretations'? Science is science. No religions involved. Scientists themselves can be theists, but they have to leave their faith positions at the door when doing science and rely on actual, observable data. Many seem to have no trouble doing that. As soon as someone injects a result based on their faith position rather than hard data, they have left the realm of science. The peer review process makes sure the rest of the scientific community doesn't just accept potentially bad theories and data.

[marke]

I don't put any confidence in peer reviewers who are clearly biased against Biblical truth and evidence.

All that means is that you don't understand what the peer review process is in science. The entire point is to make sure someone else's results are reproducible in order to remove personal bias.

Essentially your entire point on this website seems to be: "The only truth is whatever my current faith beliefs are". That's fantastic for you, but I expect not very convincing to anyone else reading this.

The peer review process was proven flawed when old rejected articles were resubmitted without change and were accepted and formerly accepted articles were resubmitted without change and were rejected - in large numbers.

I assume you have a source for that?

No one said the process is perfect. Again, if you understood what it was, you would get that. The point is that you publish your data and methodology for others to scrutinize and attempt to reproduce. Eventually enough people either reproduce the result consistently or a flaw is found and it starts over.

Science is a living thing and always open to update.

People finding issues in past methods and data is the whole point.

Secularists believe in the flawed peer review process because it is the best they have to ensure compliance with atheistic scientific interpretations.
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, the peer review process has been extensively studied and criticized for having significant flaws, with research showing that reviewers often miss major errors in submitted papers, highlighting its limitations in detecting significant issues, including potential fraud; however, despite these flaws, it remains the best system available for quality control in academic publishing due to the lack of a viable alternative.
Key points about flaws in peer review:

It might help if you read the material you quoted from your AI chatbot. I bolded the important bit for you.

Did I claim the peer review process was perfect? No. It's a far cry better than faith based apologetics though where it's up to each individual believer to simply assert whatever they like and hope everyone agrees.

Also, what the heck is 'atheistic scientific interpretations'? Science is science. No religions involved. Scientists themselves can be theists, but they have to leave their faith positions at the door when doing science and rely on actual, observable data. Many seem to have no trouble doing that. As soon as someone injects a result based on their faith position rather than hard data, they have left the realm of science. The peer review process makes sure the rest of the scientific community doesn't just accept potentially bad theories and data.

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

[Clownboat]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!