26% in U.S. do not know Earth goes around the Sun

[AV1611VET]

Theology can stand on its own two feet - it doesn't need to be "scientific".

It needs to be theological.

But that does not mean that fundamentalists can bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that the scientific discoveries of the last two centuries never happened.

Agreed ... but on the other hand, fundamentalists don't need to accept scientific discoveries that contradict God, either.

 

[lesliedellow]

Agreed ... but on the other hand, fundamentalists don't need to accept scientific discoveries that contradict God, either.

Something won't stop being true just because you don't want it to be true. If you think the discoveries of science contradict your understanding of the Bible, then perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of the Bible.

Can Genesis Be Compatible with Evolution? Tremper Longman and Jeff Schloss discuss - YouTube

 

[bhsmte]

Something won't stop being true just because you don't want it to be true. If you think the discoveries of science contradict your understanding of the Bible, then perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of the Bible.

Can Genesis Be Compatible with Evolution? Tremper Longman and Jeff Schloss discuss - YouTube

What we are talking about here is "need" vs reality based on objective evidence. YEC's "need" to reject objective evidence to protect their beliefs and to protect their interpretation of the bible.

When the chain smoker lights up that cigarette, he knows it could kill him, but he "needs" the cigarette more than he needs to acknowledge reality. If someone "needs" something badly enough and that need goes against reality, the "need" will win out every time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something won't stop being true just because you don't want it to be true.

It's not what I want to be true that matters; it's what God wants.

If you think the discoveries of science contradict your understanding of the Bible, then perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of the Bible.

Really?

Which discovery of science contradicts how we got our moon, according to Genesis 1?

(Please be specific.)

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC's "need" to reject objective evidence to protect their beliefs and to protect their interpretation of the bible.

And what do you reject when it comes to how we got our moon?

Want the current (seventh) model?

Did Venus Give Earth the Moon?

If you happen to believe one of the six other models, are you "rejecting objective evidence" as well?

Put another way:

What if objective evidence overlaps and/or contradicts?

It's okay for you guys to reject it, isn't it? but YECs can't?

 

[selfinflikted]

Scientific theories overlapping other scientific theories are one thing. Scientific theories overlapping with theological beliefs are something else, entirely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific theories overlapping with theological beliefs are something else, entirely.

That's right.

They can take a hike.

 

[bhsmte]

And what do you reject when it comes to how we got our moon?

Want the current (seventh) model?

Did Venus Give Earth the Moon?

If you happen to believe one of the six other models, are you "rejecting objective evidence" as well?

Put another way:

What if objective evidence overlaps and/or contradicts?

It's okay for you guys to reject it, isn't it? but YECs can't?

You didn't let me down. Great example of; "satisfying your need".

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not what I want to be true that matters; it's what God wants.

More correctly, it is what you have decided God wants, and you don't want the trouble of having to rethink your thoughts.

Which discovery of science contradicts how we got our moon, according to Genesis 1?

Genesis doesn't say a thing about how we got the moon - only that it was God's creation. Presumably you think of yourself as God's creation, but hopefully you will also admit that science also has something to say on the subject - as in the sperm fertilising the ovum.

 

[selfinflikted]

That's right.

They can take a hike.

Of course. It just depends on which you value more - truth/reality, or Truth™.

 

[lesliedellow]

Of course. It just depends on which you value more - truth/reality, or Truth™.

We are in big trouble if truth is in conflict with reality.

In fact, if it is in conflict with the real, then it can't be truth - whether spelt with an upper or lower case 'T'.

 

[dad]

Rather, we can gather from Romans 1 and Acts 17 that God declares science reliable in revealing His presence even in the absence of scripture...

Not true at all. Science would have to understand what it was seeing in creation for that to be true. Man sees, not science. We see enough that we can know there was a creation. That does not mean changes of great scope did not occur after creation, such as the flood...uplifting..etc etc. Science tries to explain the changes in a godless way, to the point of not including creation!!! That sure does not mean science is what the verse was talking about at all. On the contrary. Absolutely not the spirit of the text.

 

[dad]

Science presupposes methodological naturalism, because the investigation of the natural world is its job.

That is not enough to cover the origins of man and the universe then! One cannot simply presuppose there is no God, and revert to a physical 'natural' explanation for all things.

That doesn't rule out the existence of God, and many scientists are Christians, but it is not within the remit of science to comment upon matters theological, and neither, for that matter, is it within the remit of theology to comment upon matters scientific.

They DO comment on the theological when they defy creation and propose present state natural explanations for all things.

Do you expect physician to have an opinion about what the weather is likely to be tomorrow? Well he might have, but only as a private individual. It is not within his remit as a physician to have an opinion about the weather.

If that quack says that the earth came about from a big snowstorm, or lightning striking a meteor or something, then we can toss his opinion into the bin of religion, just as we must toss the foolish claims of science, falsely so called into the bin of religion.

 

[lesliedellow]

Science tries to explain the changes in a godless way, to the point of not including creation!!!

Science tries (and mostly succeeds) to give an account of physical reality and the laws governing its behaviour. It says not a thing about creation, because it is not its job to comment upon theological matters - one way or the other.

Exactly how would creationists try to fit God into F=ma? (Assuming that they have got at least enough education to be familiar with that very famous equation.)

 

[dad]

Science tries (and mostly succeeds) to give an account of physical reality and the laws governing its behaviour. It says not a thing about creation, because it is not its job to comment upon theological matters - one way or the other.

Yet it does claim the earth was 'created' in a hapless freak mysterious expulsion from a speck! It does claim man is kin to cockroaches..not a creation of God! It does claim many many things that are in direct opposition to God's word. Maybe you mean it shouldn't try to cover creation?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yet it does claim the earth was 'created' in a hapless freak mysterious expulsion from a speck!

Presumably that is a reference to the big bang theory. That theory says that the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. As it happens, atheistic scientists were none too keen on that theory, but unfortunately for them it happened to fit the data better than the alternatives. They didn't like it because they were fearful it would be too easy for theists to identify the big bang with the moment of divine creation. They need have had no worries about that with creationists around, need they?

It does claim man is kin to cockroaches..not a creation of God!

It says that all life forms around today had a common origin. It does not say that life is not the creation of God. At the risk of repeating myself, it is not the job of science to comment upon that - one way or the other.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is not enough to cover the origins of man and the universe then! One cannot simply presuppose there is no God, and revert to a physical 'natural' explanation for all things.

For the purpose of doing his job, a theistic scientist will assume that a natural explanation is available, because otherwise there would be no point in looking for one. As a Christian he would have to admit the possibility that the only possible explanation is a super natural one, and, if that is the case, he won't find a natural explanation, no matter how hard he looks. But he doesn't assume that up front - which is what a creationist would want to do.

They DO comment on the theological when they defy creation and propose present state natural explanations for all things.

If there is a natural explanation, then it is the job of a scientist to find it. Just because it is possible to explicate something in physical terms, that does not mean that it was not God's work; it only means that we can go into more detail than the bare statement "It was God's work." The only scientists who deny creation are atheist scientists, and when they say there is no God, they are telling you about their philosophical position. They are not making a scientific statement. A scientific statement is one which all of their colleagues, theistic and atheistic, would agree with.

 

[selfinflikted]

We are in big trouble if truth is in conflict with reality.

In fact, if it is in conflict with the real, then it can't be truth - whether spelt with an upper or lower case 'T'.

Indeed.

 

[dad]

Presumably that is a reference to the big bang theory. That theory says that the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. As it happens, atheistic scientists were none too keen on that theory, but unfortunately for them it happened to fit the data better than the alternatives. They didn't like it because they were fearful it would be too easy for theists to identify the big bang with the moment of divine creation. They need have had no worries about that with creationists around, need they?

None at all. It is absurd to pretend that the creation account in Genesis involved some godless imaginary little hot soup.

It says that all life forms around today had a common origin. It does not say that life is not the creation of God.

Yes, it says that dam was not formed as a man and Eve from his rib, in a garden planted by God, bu that man is an ape descended from worms and whanots!!! Absolute direct Satanic lies.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is not the job of science to comment upon that - one way or the other.

If they didn't we would not be talking. Tell them to cease and desist.

 

[dad]

For the purpose of doing his job, a theistic scientist will assume that a natural explanation is available,

When determining the future or the far past a believer would know better.

because otherwise there would be no point in looking for one.

There isn't, when they look to origins. The only purpose is to cast doubt on God's word.

As a Christian he would have to admit the possibility that the only possible explanation is a super natural one, and, if that is the case, he won't find a natural explanation, no matter how hard he looks. But he doesn't assume that up front - which is what a creationist would want to do.

A believer knows that front and center. He would not waste time chasing shadows, or trying to cast dirt on God's word to man.

If there is a natural explanation, then it is the job of a scientist to find it.

False. That only applies in the fishbowl of this present state. They found out how to make nukes and bio weapons, and chemical weapons and pollution. Gee thanks guys.

Just because it is possible to explicate something in physical terms, that does not mean that it was not God's work;

Yes, It means precisely that if God says more than the physical was involved!!!

it only means that we can go into more detail than the bare statement "It was God's work."

No, concerning creation or man and the universe, you cannot.

The only scientists who deny creation are atheist scientists, and when they say there is no God, they are telling you about their philosophical position. They are not making a scientific statement. A scientific statement is one which all of their colleagues, theistic and atheistic, would agree with.

The big bang and first lifeform are supposed to be scientific statements. They deny creation, and the creator something fierce.