Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
When they use their gifts against God, what should I do?
Pat them on the head and agree with them?
You don't know the first thing about what a scientist does, so you can't make an educated claim about whether or not what we do goes against your interpretations of God.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
For one thing, you can take my challenges.
I have a whole array of challenges that, if answered honestly, will have you not only seeing the universe from our perspective, but agreeing with us as well.
Instead, you guys try too hard to prove them wrong --- even when some of them agree with your POV.
They have been answered honestly - often your challenges are based on faulty premises and logic, and as soon as we point this out, you stamp your foot because we're not playing to your fiddle and you /thread off.
And as for "agreement", as I've said time and time again, getting the same result is one thing - getting it by the right method is another matter entirely.
You don't know the first thing about what a scientist does, so you can't make an educated claim about whether or not what we do goes against your interpretations of God.
I couldn't care less what a scientist does --- it's none of my business --- literally.
All I have to concern myself with is their conclusions.
And you can rant and rave all you want about "my interpretation" --- you guys have four different major paradigms about how our moon came about --- not one of which factors God into the equation.
I have a whole array of challenges that, if answered honestly, will have you not only seeing the universe from our perspective, but agreeing with us as well.
Instead, you guys try too hard to prove them wrong --- even when some of them agree with your POV.
Nonsense. We have answered your "challenges" honestly, but you don't like either our answers, nor our conclusions based on thsoe answers. None of your "challenges" have convinced me nor anyone else in this forum (nor any lurkers, I suspect) that we should see the universe from your perspective.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
I couldn't care less what a scientist does --- it's none of my business --- literally.
All I have to concern myself with is their conclusions.
And you can rant and rave all you want about "my interpretation" --- you guys have four different major paradigms about how our moon came about --- not one of which factors God into the equation.
We have explained over and over that science is agnostic toward Christianity. We have explained why it must be so. You have not explained, nor has any creationists on the planet, how sciecne could possibly operate by including supernatural or divine causes. Which "divinely inspired" interpretation of scripture should we follow on earth's past? Yours? Dad's? Answers in Genesis'? Guess what... they all contradict each other. Which one is correct (if any) and how do we determine that? Go ahead and explain the process for us.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
For AV, it's this way: If it is in the Bible, the KJV Bible to be specific, then it must be correct. What exactly is correct? Why it is AV's interpretation, of course. Obviously, if it is clear to him, it ought to be clear to everyone. Hence if anyone disagrees, they are obdurate or blinded or deluded.
For dad: If he can conceive of something that makes the Bible sensible regardless of how outlandish it is, it must be correct. In reference to another post elsewhere, this is how Plato and Aristotle damaged scientific exploration: by elevating deduction over induction and thought over experience. Naturally, if if it is clear to him, it ought to be clear to everyone. Hence if anyone disagrees, they are obdurate or blinded or deluded.
Deciding between dad and AV? Well, since they are both Christian they are both guided by the Holy Ghost and hence are both equally correct no matter how much cognitive dissonance holding these positions simultaneously generates. If this is not obvious to you, you are obdurate or blinded or deluded.
Hmmm --- I must have missed the answer to my Apple Challenge.
Perhaps you could refresh my memory?
Your memory must indeed be poor. There isn't any way to convince your friend that you did the impossible. And he would be a fool to believe you. So What?
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
I couldn't care less what a scientist does --- it's none of my business --- literally.
All I have to concern myself with is their conclusions.
Nonsense. Our conclusions are derived from our methods. You need to be familiar with both.
I'm really surprised this hasn't sunk in yet - you believe that believing in Jesus means you're saved, yes? Now, the point is that you're believing in his sacrifice on the cross.
If I came along and said "I believe in Jesus", then technically we've arrived at the same conclusion. But if you pressed me and asked me "But HOW does that work", and I said, "Because He danced the cha-cha on Ash Wednesday wearing a tuxedo", are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that ignorance of methodology is irrelevant?
And you can rant and rave all you want about "my interpretation" --- you guys have four different major paradigms about how our moon came about --- not one of which factors God into the equation.
I WILL rant and rave about your interpretation, until you start treating it as such, rather than throwing it out there as if it were the right way to interpret.
And if you can tell me how to empirically determine God exists and how to quantify him, then I'd be glad to work him in to whichever theory you please.
Oh wait, that's right, it's not possible, because the Bible says you shouldn't put God to the test.
Doesn't "basic" doctrine cover these things, or what?
Linear Mode
