Global Skeptic
King
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 618
And while we're at it: "creation science" is not related to science at all.
No, not directly, but indirectly - yes.
And while we're at it: "creation science" is not related to science at all.
Oh please ...Creation science would have a way to explain that, but I don't know what it is.
We really need Classical_Hero for the scientific questions. That's not my department.
Well there is simply no one before Adam. The bible clearly states that death is a result of Adam's sin. Also it says that death is our enemy and yet since you believe in Evolution, you have to believe that death is natural and part of evolutions plan for us, whereas we say that death is there so that we can be removed from our sinful bodies. Jesus' death was done so that we can be able to have eternal life with him. Even evolutionists believe that we have a single female ancestor that we came from, due to genetic evidence.
No, not directly, but indirectly - yes.
That would be like truth is indirectly related to lies ?
I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a "body of knowledge", but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are "true".
Karl R. Popper (1902-1994), The Logic of Scientific Discovery
We [scientists] wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit us in the ass. We're probably fairly good at recognizing what's false, and that's what science does on a day-to-day basis, but we can't claim to identify truth.
Dr. Steven M. Holland, University of Georgia Geology Professor
Yes, you're right. I should frame it as questions.
How does an Evangelical square creationism with critical thinking?
I go with #1 for the record, although its not the hill I'm dying on.
In regards to all the back and forth about creation, or lack thereof. Evangelicals do not have all the answers and neither do scientist. There was a supernatural event or series of events that happened long ago, and that is what Evangelicals believe. Now if science can explain away such events, they can freely do so. It seems to me that both sides claim the other is wrong instead of kindly just explaining their point of view.
I might be able to buy that for geological stuff, but why would God put a bunch of pre-dead plants animals in the ground that we would eventually discover to appear to be millions of years old? And why did He organize them in such a way as to suggest a consistent history of evolutionary progress, including things like mass extinction events? It just reeks of an elaborate hoax.
This is really not a debate thread but an Ask A Thread. It is hard for me to not turn it into one. Perhaps one can ask questions to see what an Evangelical is all about, instead of telling us what an Evangelical is all about? There are ways to get one's point across even with questions.
In regards to all the back and forth about creation, or lack thereof. Evangelicals do not have all the answers and neither do scientist. There was a supernatural event or series of events that happened long ago, and that is what Evangelicals believe. Now if science can explain away such events, they can freely do so. It seems to me that both sides claim the other is wrong instead of kindly just explaining their point of view.
Do not even scientist understand the differences in dating techniques?
Then let me frame it this way: My own Evangelical upbringing has suggested to me that honesty is an important moral value, so Christians should make an effort to be honest. Is this value shared by the Evangelicals in this thread, or is this just my church that states this?
I assert that so called "creation science" often involves misrepresentation of scientific evidence. I could back this up, but that would lead to a discussion, so please for the sake of the question assume it is true. If an Evangelical believes the world was created exactly in the way of his interpretation of Genesis, would he be justified in engaging in misrepresentation of scientific evidence? Or in other words, does the belief in creation trump honesty? If it was done out of ignorance, would it be honest to simply repeat such misrepresentation after is has been pointed out to him?
Is your pastor paid to be a pastor?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
But, you see, there is such a very big discrepancy between a 6000 year old and a 4.5 billion year old earth, that it's very hard to see how differences in dating techniques could be the answer.
Even evolutionists believe that we have a single female ancestor that we came from, due to genetic evidence.
There is a book in the Bible called Genesis that has an account of a creation happening. I accept it as true. I will not force any one else to accept is as true. If a person reads the story even once or just takes others opinion of the story, they are not using any critical thought processes. If one attempts to dig into the story a little more, even if they are coming from different "perceptions" they are doing critical thinking.
I might be able to buy that for geological stuff, but why would God put a bunch of pre-dead plants animals in the ground that we would eventually discover to appear to be millions of years old? And why did He organize them in such a way as to suggest a consistent history of evolutionary progress, including things like mass extinction events? It just reeks of an elaborate hoax.
Personal question to GW. In matters of creationism vs science, you often side with creationism, but always refer to CH for the reasons why.
This implies to me you feel your knowledge in the matter is lacking, an admission for which you earn my respect. On the other hand, do you realise you're accepting CH's pseudo science because it supports your beliefs in favour of actual science which doesn't?
In other words, acknowledge that science plays no part in that respect. I value honesty more than credibility myself. In your place I would have said, 'regardless if science I believe ...'. Don't weaken your faith by attaching it to snake oil science. Snake oil science us easily rebutted, and not your motivator anyway. Be true to your believes, recognise where they originated, and don't lessen them by subscribing to obvious frauds.
Just my take on it. Ignore at leisure.