The Bias Of Evolution

[Nathan Poe]

4th April 2003 at 05:28 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #13

If God made evolution, than He's not the God of the Bible. Which is the God I believe in.

Then perhaps God exists, but the "God of the Bible" does not.

Perhaps the Bible is mistaken.

But your dogma will not allow you to accept that possibility.

So you will do everything in your power to reinterpret, misquote, bend, fold, and twist evidence to fit into your dogma, with all the sucess of shoving square pegs into round holes.

You will never quit, because you are unable or unwilling to believe in anything contrary to your Bible.

Now, refresh my memory: who is biased again?

 

[Nathan Poe]

4th April 2003 at 11:33 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #20

yes, and other than an issue of starlight (still working on it), all yor evidence fits very nicely into my Young Earth, correctly interpreted.

"Correctly interpreted" = quoted out of context, twisted just short of the breaking point, ignored or dismissed.

As for Starlight, it plainly falsifies YEC. What you need to do is find some outlandish and of course completely untestable explaination (for example, "Goddidit,") to make the fact fit into your theology, without the inconvenience of changing your mind.

One small problem: That ain't science.

It's called an Ad Hoc hypothesis, and it's completely worthless.

See for yourself: http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

 

[euphoric]

4th April 2003 at 04:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #20

yes, and other than an issue of starlight (still working on it), all yor evidence fits very nicely into my Young Earth, correctly interpreted.

Really, then perhaps you could explain how this

fits into a young earth hypothsis?

-brett

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

4th April 2003 at 05:01 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #11

Heres my stand. God created science so than how can i exclude him from what he has created.

God didn't create science, humans did. It is a naturalistic methodology created by humans to explain the world around them.

If i am going to be able to come to the right conclusions about a perticular science, God has to be in the equation,otherwise i will come to the wrong conclusion.

Then it ceases to be science and you have no basis to claim that a naturalistic explanation must be wrong.

 

[Freedom777]

Two world veiws as to what foundation you use to determine the evidence around ya.Mans opinions or Gods opinions Either way their both relgious.

Definition of religion."n, SYN,-belief, creed, doctrine, dogma, faith, persuasion, tenet; consistancy, fidelity, loyalty.

One foundation or the other, thats the Creation/Evolution ussue.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 02:13 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #25

Two world veiws as to what foundation you use to determine the evidence around ya.Mans opinions or Gods opinions Either way their both relgious.

Definition of religion."n, SYN,-belief, creed, doctrine, dogma, faith, persuasion, tenet; consistancy, fidelity, loyalty.

One foundation or the other, thats the Creation/Evolution ussue.

Based on your definition, the following things are now religions:

Gravity, quantum mechanics, electricity, atoms, Pluto, my great grandparents, World War 2, the current war in Iraq, and France.

Kinda makes the definition useless, dontcha think?

 

[Cantuar]

I'm still wondering HOW science is going to work once God's in the equation.

 

[Arikay]

Easy,
Science under the new rule of god. If you dont understand something, "God Did it."
If someone disagrees with you, then either, god tricked them into disagreeing as a test to your faith, or satan tricked them into disagreeing to lead them from god.

See how simple that will be.

 

[Cantuar]

If you dont understand something, "God Did it."

Yep, and that's the end of any further research. That's part of what I don't understand about how this God-based science is supposed to work.

 

[Freedom777]

It Takes the Lord to open up reality to someone,I'll leave it at that,and pray.

 

[Arikay]

And that is the danger of letting god into science.
Instead of backing up a claim, (as I mentioned earlier), you just claimed that we are blinded by something and that we need to open up our eyes.

This is not a scientific defense. Its a religions one.

The problem with a religious defense is that it cant be shown false, thus its not a good argument.

If you let god into science, the basics of science colapse and we no longer advance.

 

[Taffsadar]

4th April 2003 at 10:34 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #30

It Takes the Lord to open up reality to someone,I'll leave it at that,and pray.

It takes common sense and logic to open up reality to someone, I'll leave it at that and start cleansing the gene pool in Sweden.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, I admit, science is biased to the naturalistic - and that is a good thing, even theologically.

1. God is not directly necessary for the operation of the world.

Even the most doctrinal Christians act this way. Even you do now. You type a text, you write the word "God", you expect to see the letter "G" on the screen when you hit the "G" key. You expect to that to work every time, without any thought to God. You do not pray "Please God, let there be a "G" when I hit the "G" key!" before typing.

2. Humans should not be able to manipulate God.

You could evade point 1 by stating that God is consistent, and never-changing, and that this is the reasons why all "naturalistic" processes are the way they are. But that would make God someone who has to react to human action. I can force God to commence the physical processes that make a "G" appear on your screen simply by hitting the "G" key.
You would not really like such an idea of God, would you?

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 12:00 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #22



"Correctly interpreted" = quoted out of context, twisted just short of the breaking point, ignored or dismissed.

As for Starlight, it plainly falsifies YEC. What you need to do is find some outlandish and of course completely untestable explaination (for example, "Goddidit,") to make the fact fit into your theology, without the inconvenience of changing your mind.

One small problem: That ain't science.

I can deal with that...

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 06:04 PM Freodin said this in Post #33

Yes, I admit, science is biased to the naturalistic - and that is a good thing, even theologically.

1. God is not directly necessary for the operation of the world.

Even the most doctrinal Christians act this way. Even you do now. You type a text, you write the word "God", you expect to see the letter "G" on the screen when you hit the "G" key. You expect to that to work every time, without any thought to God. You do not pray "Please God, let there be a "G" when I hit the "G" key!" before typing.

2. Humans should not be able to manipulate God.

You could evade point 1 by stating that God is consistent, and never-changing, and that this is the reasons why all "naturalistic" processes are the way they are. But that would make God someone who has to react to human action. I can force God to commence the physical processes that make a "G" appear on your screen simply by hitting the "G" key.
You would not really like such an idea of God, would you?

What kind of pseudo-philosophical, hocus-pokus tripe is that ?

 

[Nathan Poe]

4th April 2003 at 09:50 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #34




I can deal with that...

So you're conceding that YEC isn't a scientific belief?

 

[Arikay]

That tripe is why god isnt allowed into science.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 12:09 PM euphoric said this in Post #23



Really, then perhaps you could explain how this

fits into a young earth hypothsis?

-brett

You're joking, right??

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 10:04 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #36



So you're conceding that YEC isn't a scientific belief?

'O Timothy, guard the Deposit, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of falsely-named science, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. ''
(1 Timothy 6:20-21 MKJV)


I am saying that evolution is merely ''theory'' and thats all

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

4th April 2003 at 10:16 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #38



You're joking, right??

In other words you have no explanation for this refutation of flood geology. No surprise.