Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

[AV1611VET]

There's nothing wrong with science.

That is correct.

Science is a gift from God.

But when scientists take that gift and do as Nimrod (the mighty hunter before the LORD) did and use it against Him, then they've gone off the deep end.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

That is correct.

Science is a gift from God.

But when scientists take that gift and do as Nimrod (the mighty hunter before the LORD) did and use it against Him, then they've gone off the deep end.

That's a foolish statement. Science is simply a form of acquiring knowledge. There is nothing in the scientific corpus that is being used against God.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a foolish statement.

Good.

Science is simply a form of acquiring knowledge.

It depends on what you do with that knowledge.

With some, you can make Thalidomide and sell it as a prenatal wonder drug.

With some, you can give God the glory due His name.

There is nothing in the scientific corpus that is being used against God.

Is that why Internet scientists deny Matthew wrote Matthew?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Good.It depends on what you do with that knowledge.

With some, you can make Thalidomide and sell it as a prenatal wonder drug.

With some, you can give God the glory due His name.Is that why Internet scientists deny Matthew wrote Matthew?

Matthew is strictly speaking anonymous, we don't know who wrote it. Science has nothing to do with biblical scholarship, these are entirely different academic domains.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has nothing to do with biblical scholarship, these are entirely different academic domains.

For one thing, I said "Internet scientists."

But I am willing to include professional scientists as well.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

For one thing, I said "Internet scientists."

But I am willing to include professional scientists as well.

I don't know what you're talking about. The bible is not a topic of scrutiny to computer scientists... I imagine "internet scientists" are concerned with the Internet, however I doubt this is a formal field of inquiry.

 

[ecco]

Francis Collins is the leading expert on DNA and He is a Creationist that has written the book on how DNA is the Language of God.

Francis Collins is an avid supporter of the theory of evolution.

Well now, this is a conundrum. Creationist or Evolutionist, which is it? Well, it's really not hard to find out. Joshua, let's look at the book you referred to:

• “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct”...
• The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.
• The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.”

Hmmm, That clearly states that Francis Collins supports what he calls BioLogos. BioLogos is not Creationism. It is theistic evolution.

Joshua, would you care to say why you believe Creationism and Theistic Evolution are the same thing? Or were you intentionally misleading when you stated Collins was a Creationist?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're very correct. Sorry, I misunderstood something that I looked at elsewhere. Thank you for the correction, and my apologies to everyone involved.

Don't misunderstand me. I certainly believe there exist smaller particles and if we want to call them quarks that's fine with me. I also support looking into the very inner workings of matter - those things that were made. Because I believe in the end it will take away all of man's excuses for ignoring God - once we actually do understand the things that were made.

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

But we are decades if not centuries away from a true understanding of those invisible qualities that point to God. Science will in the end settle the issue. It already has, but some still retain a few excuses for denying energy in a universe filled with energy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are absolutely right. Christians don't interpret data simply because THEY DO NOT NEED TO INTERPRET DATA. God told us that he made humans, chickens, and mice all completely different. So there's nothing to interpret. If you would simply believe God, you could do the same. We would need to start re-interpreting the Bible when we discovered that a chimpanzee walked out of the jungles and managed to get a college degree. Jane Goodall, for all her efforts could not achieve this result.

I still say it is evolutionists that can't interpret the evidence correctly. I still say you are promoting Fairie Dust by refusing to apply the observational evidence to the fossil record. That avoidance of the observational evidence is the ONLY reason you can make the "claims" you do. Please show me in the history of observation where one animal has been seen to become two, instead of the fact that two separate infraspecific taxa within the species always become something new?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...terpret-evidence.7917408/page-4#post-68882461

It is your erroneous belief that some ancestor in the past evolved into both ape and man. When every observation of the natural world falsifies that belief.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's nothing wrong with science. Contemporary genetics owes to Mendel, a monk, and the Big Bang theory owes to Lamaitre a Catholic priest.

Shhhh, they don't want to remember that a priest started their entire cosmological beliefs. They prefer to give all credit to a man named Hubble.

Nothing wrong with science at all, it will indeed in the end prove God - once we actually understand those things that were made. But evolutionists have a tendency to ignore observational data in favor of pure theory.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...terpret-evidence.7917408/page-4#post-68882461

And to be honest it is our own fault - the church was once the leader in scientific discoveries and scientific teaching- until men (wolves in sheep's clothing) teaching doctrine over scripture stepped in and tried to take it back into the dark ages. And they did an excellent job at it too.

 

[ecco]

It is your erroneous belief that some ancestor in the past evolved into both ape and man. When every observation of the natural world falsifies that belief.

And yet, there are all these christians that would disagree with you...

http://biologos.org/

BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation. ​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet, there are all these christians that would disagree with you...

http://biologos.org/

BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation. ​

Because they actually believe you teach science - instead of ignoring the observational evidence. Which is why you will time after time refuse to apply the observational evidence of how life propagates to the fossil record. Instead trying to shift the discussion to irrelevant things. They have been blinded by your claims as well - claims that can not be made to fit the observational data. And that is why you are avoiding the observational data - because you know it falsifies your religious beliefs in evolution.

They as well can not answer the simple observational evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...terpret-evidence.7917408/page-4#post-68882461

The belief that one thing evolves into another is falsified by every observation of the natural world. it takes (two) separate infraspecific taxa to bring variation into the species. But you can prove your side very simply - show me where we have ever observed with your own eyes one thing becoming two within the lifetime of human observation? Don't ask me to ignore over 6,000 years of direct empirical observational evidence in favor of some Fairie Dust belief it occurred differently as soon as we get beyond the point of being able to record observations of the past personally?

Tell me how the Husky or Mastiff evolved into the Chinook from just the Husky or the Mastiff? Tell me how the Asian or the African evolve into the Afro-Asian from just the Asian or the African?

Then why are you trying to insist variation occurs in the species in any other way? And only long, long ago and might as well be in a galaxy far, far away as well.

Christians are equally guilty of ignoring the evidence, it's not just something evolutionists do.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Aelred of Rievaulx said:
Science is simply a form of acquiring knowledge.

If Science is a form of acquiring knowledge then why are they so stupid?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If Science is a form of acquiring knowledge then why are they so stupid?

Because they ignore the science and postulate Fairie Dust instead. Nothing wrong with the science - but they are not following the science - just "claiming" to. There is a difference.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...terpret-evidence.7917408/page-4#post-68882461

 

[Jimmy D]

If Science is a form of acquiring knowledge then why are they so stupid?

Who's stupid?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who's stupid?

People that ignore observational empirical data in favor of Fairie Dust.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...terpret-evidence.7917408/page-4#post-68882461

 

[Jimmy D]

I was asking the organ grinder, not the monkey.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because they actually believe you teach science -

Statements like this are going to cause people to quit reading whatever you wrote. I remember a friend who was trying to get a $300,000 March of Dimes grant and he had something stupid at the very beginning of his presentation. I told him to bury it and after he did that they approved him for his grant. Which he hired a guy from China who was glad to work for $50,000 and so he did not even have to do the work himself.

 

[bhsmte]

If Science is a form of acquiring knowledge then why are they so stupid?

Specifics?

 

[bhsmte]

Statements like this are going to cause people to quit reading whatever you wrote. I remember a friend who was trying to get a $300,000 March of Dimes grant and he had something stupid at the very beginning of his presentation. I told him to bury it and after he did that they approved him for his grant. Which he hired a guy from China who was glad to work for $50,000 and so he did not even have to do the work himself.

Tell us about his presentation. What was stupid that you told him to bury?