Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Astrid]

Evolution is extremely flawed. There is not one example of an in-between skeleton of just two animals in all the fossils ever created. Best evolutionists can do is adaptation where finches have bigger beaks.

There's a reason it's called the "missing" link, because it's missing.

What's missing from all creationts' antiscience understanding and
arguments is that misrepresentation, half truths, and plain. old falsehoods only
discredit themselves.

Nor do they understand that if a theory
is false, it can be disproved with contrsry data.

There is far far more than just a Nonel prize
for the person who can do that.

( why doesn't anyone do it we ask .
Answer- " conspiracy")

The more balanced would realize " no data"
is the issue.


The next thing that virtually no anti-
evolution ( that has to include geology
physics, chemistry which must all also
be massively wrong- so lets just call it
anti- science) person has more than a dim grasp of the science they are trying to tackle.

Then claiming to know more than any
scientist on earth. It's ludicrous beyond even being funny.

Those few informed antiscience folk such as the yec paleontologist Dr.
K Wise are reduced to intellectual dishonesty.
He is at least open about it, others add another
layer of dishonesty pretending not to be.


Hint for next time: talking about finch neaks is a tell.

 

[sjastro]

No, it’s based on observation.

You still don't get it do you?
According to your "observation" being a scientist and a Christian is mutually exclusive and all I need to show is one example where this is clearly wrong, namely my own experience.

 

[Astrid]

You still don't get it do you?
According to your "observation" being a scientist and a Christian is mutually exclusive and all I need to show is one example where this is clearly wrong, namely my own experience.

The idea that a person cannot have
intellectual honesty and be a christian
is really sad.
It's still going, how many years after
Galileo.

 

[sjastro]

The idea that a person cannot have
intellectual honesty and be a christian
is really sad.
It's still going, how many years after
Galileo.

It boils down to anti-intellectualism which I covered in this thread.
I've been fortunate to establish contacts with scientists in various fields and a question I invariably ask them have if they been a victim of personal attacks for being a scientist.
In most cases the answer has been yes and as you may have guessed the perpetrators are invariably conservative Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

It boils down to anti-intellectualism which I covered in this thread.
I've been fortunate to establish contacts with scientists in various fields and a question I invariably ask them have if they been a victim of personal attacks for being a scientist.
In most cases the answer has been yes and as you may have guessed the perpetrators are invariably conservative Christians.

When science is used to support the idea that there was no Creation Week, no worldwide Flood, no Exodus, no Abraham, no Moses, Israel isn't the Promised Land, we are mutant copy-errors, Jesus had to have had an earthly father (else "where did He get His y-chromosome?"), Adam wasn't real, no Bible prophecies are legitimate, and on and on and on -- scientists should get some [well-deserved] backlash.

I could go on and on about what they think about our faith, but I'll stop here.

 

[Astrid]

It boils down to anti-intellectualism which I covered in this thread.
I've been fortunate to establish contacts with scientists in various fields and a question I invariably ask them have if they been a victim of personal attacks for being a scientist.
In most cases the answer has been yes and as you may have guessed the perpetrators are invariably conservative Christians.

Who else would there be?
Maybe the Red Guard and the
Khmer Rouge.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No

Is that the truth?

In order to make a negative statement of belief about something you affirm positive truths about another thing in order to do so. To say we can't believe we know truth, is to make a truth claim. It's inherently contradictory. I get what you mean though which is why I said about our fallible senses gathering data and interpreting it with fallible minds. But that doesn't necessarily follow that truth doesn't exist, nor does it follow that we can't believe the truth. Only that we can't be 100% certain (though we can believe we are right about something if we believe we can know the truth, or close to it).

Which ironically places you in the camp of faith. For you first believe that it is true that you yourself exist in order to make any sort of argumentation.

God bless

 

[Astrid]

Is that the truth?

In order to make a negative statement of belief about something you affirm positive truths about another thing in order to do so. To say we can't believe we know truth, is to make a truth claim. It's inherently contradictory. I get what you mean though which is why I said about our fallible senses gathering data and interpreting it with fallible minds. But that doesn't necessarily follow that truth doesn't exist, nor does it follow that we can't believe the truth. Only that we can't be 100% certain (though we can believe we are right about something if we believe we can know the truth, or close to it).

Which ironically places you in the camp of faith. For you first believe that it is true that you yourself exist in order to make any sort of argumentation.

God bless

I dont do "truth". Let the philosophers
entertain them sel especially with perfection
and ideals.

You seem to be mixing up equivocation
games with the word faith- a most tiresome
game, that, with irony.

And making things uo about me so as to
detect what isn't there.


So, again. No. Could have left it at that

 

[Hammster]

You still don't get it do you?
According to your "observation" being a scientist and a Christian is mutually exclusive and all I need to show is one example where this is clearly wrong, namely my own experience.

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking in generalities. Since it obviously wasn’t clear, I hope it is now.

 

[Astrid]

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking in generalities. Since it obviously wasn’t clear, I hope it is now.

What makes you feel it occurs
enough to be valid as a generalization.

Even one example would be helpful.

 

[AV1611VET]

The harsh reality is there is no scientific evidence for creationism, a worldwide flood, Exodus or even whether Abraham and Moses are historically attested individuals.

Yes, I've heard that 1k times.

It is all a matter of faith but stop trying to tar all scientists particularly those with religious backgrounds with the same brush based on Steven Weinberg's comments on religion.

Then ask them yourself.

Ask them:

1. Did God create the universe in six days, via a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to its current level today?

2. Was the Flood worldwide?

3. Did the Exodus occur as documented in the Bible?

4. Was Abraham a real person?

5. Was Moses a real person?

6. Is Israel in her Promised Land?

7. Are we mutant copy-errors, made in the image & likeness of God?

8. Where did Jesus get His y-chromosome?

9. Did Adam exist?

10. How legitimate are the Bible prophecies?

11. Is "faith" believing something you know isn't so?

I'll say not one scientist on this earth today would be willing to answer those eleven questions with a simple YES or NO.

Instead, they'll water those tough questions down first.

Down to their level.

Then give some vague answer that leaves you wondering what they believe.

ETA: And Steven Weinberg is in Aitch.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be mixing up equivocation games with the word faith -

And what is the definition of "faith" according to Mark Twain?

I've heard that here a thousand times.

Care to make it a thousand and one?

* crickets chirping *

(I didn't think so.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Even one example would be helpful.

Is Israel in the Promised Land?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I dont do "truth".

Then why are you here arguing your positions? Seems kind of pointless if you don't believe anyone can have "truth" or get close to it.

You seem to be mixing up equivocation
games with the word faith- a most tiresome
game, that, with irony.

No you didn't understand what I meant. I'm saying that because you claim you're unable to have or know truth, therefore you have to on faith believe that you yourself exist. Because you can't know truth or claim to, you can't know it's true that you actually exist. I'm sorry I didn't word it clearer, I unfortunately can be a bit verbose sometimes.

And making things uo about me so as to
detect what isn't there.

Logically extrapolating on your premise is not making things up :\

So, again. No. Could have left it at that

We can leave it at this if you want .

P.S in order to make arguments you assume the truth of laws of logic in order to do so.

 

[Hammster]

What makes you feel it occurs
enough to be valid as a generalization.

Even one example would be helpful.

Pretty much every thread on this topic on CF where God the creator is ignored in the name of science.

 

[sjastro]

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking in generalities. Since it obviously wasn’t clear, I hope it is now.

There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about the statement "Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools."
In light of your statement here is a straightforward question requiring only a yes or no answer.
Are scientists who happen to be Christians cannot be considered to be true Christians?

 

[sjastro]

Yes, I've heard that 1k times.

And now you have heard it 1k+1 times and the answer remains the same your assertions are not supported by evidence.

Then ask them yourself.

Ask them:

1. Did God create the universe in six days, via a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to its current level today?

2. Was the Flood worldwide?

3. Did the Exodus occur as documented in the Bible?

4. Was Abraham a real person?

5. Was Moses a real person?

6. Is Israel in her Promised Land?

7. Are we mutant copy-errors, made in the image & likeness of God?

8. Where did Jesus get His y-chromosome?

9. Did Adam exist?

10. How legitimate are the Bible prophecies?

11. Is "faith" believing something you know isn't so?

I'll say not one scientist on this earth today would be willing to answer those eleven questions with a simple YES or NO.

Instead, they'll water those tough questions down first.

Down to their level.

Then give some vague answer that leaves you wondering what they believe.

ETA: And Steven Weinberg is in Aitch.

Did it ever occur to you the answers depend on the individual and not their occupations.
Do you think Abdus Salam who won the Nobel Prize in collaboration with Steven Weinberg would give the same answers as Weinberg given his views on religion are diametrically opposite to Weinberg's?

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, I've heard that 1k times.



Then ask them yourself.

Ask them:

1. Did God create the universe in six days, via a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to its current level today?

2. Was the Flood worldwide?

3. Did the Exodus occur as documented in the Bible?

4. Was Abraham a real person?

5. Was Moses a real person?

6. Is Israel in her Promised Land?

7. Are we mutant copy-errors, made in the image & likeness of God?

8. Where did Jesus get His y-chromosome?

9. Did Adam exist?

10. How legitimate are the Bible prophecies?

11. Is "faith" believing something you know isn't so?

I'll say not one scientist on this earth today would be willing to answer those eleven questions with a simple YES or NO.

Instead, they'll water those tough questions down first.

Down to their level.

Then give some vague answer that leaves you wondering what they believe.

ETA: And Steven Weinberg is in Aitch.

I suspect no suprise to you, but I wouldn't give any of those options as having anything to do with faith.

 

[Hammster]

There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about the statement "Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools."
In light of your statement here is a straightforward question requiring only a yes or no answer.
Are scientists who happen to be Christians cannot be considered to be true Christians?

One of my favorites is Jason Lisle, if that helps. What I question is why so many who claim to be Christians put science over scripture. It’s quite insane, actually.

 

[Astrid]

Pretty much every thread on this topic on CF where God the creator is ignored in the name of science.

OK. There's "lol" to the statement that science
is not concerned with "god (s)" one way or
another, and elsewhere that science actively
tries to "explain away" god.

Now, correct me where I am wrong, but I
thank that to you god is not just central
to all reality, but greater than all.
So it seem just wrong in every way to
proceed as if he does not exist.
Am I rright?

Now as for incorperating God into
science....
Science is mostly gathering data, facts
if you like. Mix these 3 chemicals and this happens. Stuff like that.

Where do you see bringing God in?

Suppose we are studying the mechanics of
aircraft. How do you plug God in?

The core problem with "god" in science is,
science works with data and-there is zero data on god.

I don't see what you are objecting to.