Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GhostWriter16, Aug 30, 2012.
No, not directly, but indirectly - yes.
Oh please ...
Thanks for illustrating my point. We also have a single male ancestor, but they're tens of thousand years apart. The longest distance relationship in history.
That would be like truth is indirectly related to lies ?
How harsh. Rather e.g. they are cultural. Further in the broad sense both science and religion are narratives about reality.
For example within science some would take offence to use truth about science -
What has me really mystified is why anyone believes creation "science" at all. I mean, I can understand those of limited cognitive abilities doing so, but everyone else, everyone capable of even minimal critical thought must surely recognize it's a non-starter.
To actually defend it as a logical "scientific" stance must take such intellectual effort as to be not worthwhile.
Evolution is such a beautiful theory. It is both straightforward and wonderfully subtle at the same time.
You'll have seen this link before, but here it is again.
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.
Yes, you're right. I should frame it as questions.
How does an Evangelical square creationism with critical thinking?
Would you consider me as a critical thinker? Personnally I do not try to fit "creationism" into anything. 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.
Certainly I consider you a critical thinker.
What are your critical thoughts on this?
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.
That was my response to your other post. Since this is not a debate thread, that is about all I can say. Even my children take it for granted that life on earth is considered in the millions of years. My approach is to not say that is wrong, but to ask them questions on what their understanding is and why they would agree or disagree with the statement that life has existed for millions of years.
Perhaps it is not in the fact that there are such findings, but the events that happened to cause them in the first place? 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.
I would agree that Evangelicals strive to be honest. I would also say that it is hard to reconcile between the Genesis account and what science has agreed on to be the actual "facts". Genesis does not give all the facts, so it would be kind of hard for so called "christian scientist" to even bring forth all of the argument. While it does seem to indicate that science does have it figured out, I would still like to point out that they also do not have all the facts. As has been stated the topic makes for great debating, but it is irresposnsible for Evengelicals to say that Genesis is the final and only authority on what happened.
The church that I attend, that is the full time job description. It would be considered prudent to ensure his survival. Standing in the pulpit once or twice a week is the tip of the iceburg. Taking care of the needs and cares of a congregation make up the majority of a Pastor's job description.
I was asking a leading question, but not trying to make a point or suggest anything. I have already stated in previous post even in this very thread that I do not think that the book of Genesis states that the earth is 6000 years old. That would be jumping to conclusions for the one using Genesis and those people who do accuse those who try to explain the Genesis account.
It's easy to appear to be good at science when you simply disregard anything that you don't agree with. I for one have have told you before how our nearest female common ancestor is not our first female ancestor, but that doesn't square with the Bible, so has to be disregarded to maintain your religious beliefs.
A very great deal hinges on "I accept it as true". True in what sense? I understood that the mainstream Evangelical approach is it is true in the literal sense. As in an historical account of actual events.
I think most people, even Dawkins (perhaps), could accept Genesis as true in an allegorical sense.
That is, Genesis is a creation myth, which was used for millenia as the "best" explanation available, to those who sought explanations.
It has been replaced with the modern scientific "creation myth", which seems to make a great deal of sense to a very large number of people who have studied the matter. And who use critical thinking along with empirical observations.
No doubt in another 2000 years this scientific view will become replaced with another more refined view, which even more closely resembles reality as we (think we) know it. But can scientific narratives ever be viewed as allegorical?
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.
I don't really know. I know creationists have explanations for this kind of stuff but I don't know where they are. I'd presume YECs would argue that the dating is wrong rather than that God "Planted them there" or something like that.
You are right. Science isn't my strong point and I really don't know enough to defend my side of it.
Obviously creationists would disagree with you on what constitutes "Actual Science". Maybe we're wrong. The reality is, I really just don't know enough to be of much help on the topic. I know what I believe. I have no idea how poorly supported it is.
You should check out The Language of God sometime.
Separate names with a comma.