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

[Astrid]

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.

Putting unevidenced preconceived
personal beliefs ahead of facts is
not insane, but it's the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

And btw-
You again dodged a simple
yes/no question, as you did
each time I asked you a yes/no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did it ever occur to you the answers depend on the individual and not their occupations.

We won't know until we ask them, will we?

And I have a feeling that, if we do ask them, a lot of their answers will coincidentally be the same answers as unregenerate scientists.

 

[Hammster]

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.

All data is God’s data. Science works because of God.

 

[Hammster]

Putting unevidenced preconceived
personal beliefs ahead of facts is
not insane, but it's the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

And btw-
You again dodged a simple
yes/no question, as you did
each time I asked you a yes/no.

That post didn’t even respond to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Even though both Abraham and Moses are listed in the Bible's "Hall of Faith" (Hebrews 11)?

 

[Astrid]

All data is God’s data. Science works because of God.

I read a lot of grant applications
at one time.
If such as that showed up as a response, it
would be stamped "unresponsive",
and circular filed.

 

[Astrid]

That post didn’t even respond to you.

And that cancels the truth of it, in
your mind?

 

[dlamberth]

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.

The Bible is not a science book. And science is not about spiritual beliefs. It seems to me that the most balanced way are for those who find a place for both.

 

[dlamberth]

Even though both Abraham and Moses are listed in the Bible's "Hall of Faith" (Hebrews 11)?

Those are examples of religious beliefs.

Faith comes more from the Heart. Like knowing God is there while in service to those in need with a Heart filled with Love, Compassion and Empathy for those being served.

 

[kiwimac]

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.

You do realise all that is a special pleading? Christianity should receive no more "support" from scientists than should ANY faith. Science does not exist to look precisely at everything other than religions. I have seen Muslims, Hindus and others make just the same kind of argument you have above and they are as wrong as you to do so.

 

[sjastro]

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.

Bringing the astrophysicist Jason Lisle who also happens to be a YECist into the discussion doesn't answer my question but it opens up a can of worms for you.
A bit of research reveals Lisle's PhD dissertation was "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism" and he has also published numerous papers in legitimate scientific journals concerning convection cells in the sun.
This follows a remarkably similar path to another physicist and YECist Robert Vance Gentry where both individuals realized to publish in a reputable science journal they needed to leave their belief system at the door in which case their work would be no different if submitted by an atheist, a moderate Christian, Moslem or a Taoist to name a few.

As YECists they betray their training as scientists by engaging in blatant circular logic by putting the conclusion first and getting the data to fit the conclusion.
Lisle as an astrophysicist would know very well this a big no no in science where the evidence leads to the conclusion and not around the other way as in YEC.

 

[sjastro]

We won't know until we ask them, will we?

And I have a feeling that, if we do ask them, a lot of their answers will coincidentally be the same answers as unregenerate scientists.

You already decided in post #832 what the answers would be like without the benefit of asking them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[EDIT: Added missing quote from @sjastro] "It boils down to anti-intellectualism which I covered in this thread."

That thread accrued quite roster of anti-intellectualism in just a couple days. Then they kept coming for weeks at one new one every page or three.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity should receive no more "support" from scientists than should ANY faith.

If that's the case -- (and it isn't, since God gifts us scientists to do His will) -- but if that is the case, then science doesn't need to be tearing Christianity down either.

Changing "child in the womb" to "fetus".

Changing "miracles" to "magic".

Changing "virgin" to "young woman".

If science doesn't want to defend our faith, then so be it.

But don't deny our faith either.

If the Bible says the Flood happened, it happened.

And science has no cause to say otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you will find that my answers are not vague and you should know what I believe from them.

I admire your adherence to honesty, and I think you deserve a lot of respect for it.

And in light of your honest answers, I shall now repeat myself:

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I admire your adherence to honesty, and I think you deserve a lot of respect for it.

And in light of your honest answers, I shall now repeat myself:

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.

But you didn't ask for the opinion of science, but rather dare scientists to answer. So I did.

 

[AV1611VET]

NO. [The current level of mass/energy in the Universe is ~ zero anyway.]

A net zero, yes.

NO. [Noah's flood I assume.]

Yes -- Noah's flood.

I'm not sure. [Is this "The State of Israel" the modern nation, in which case the question makes no sense. Is this the ancient people known as "Israel" in which case the answer is "NO" as that ancient people no longer exist.]

This is Israel.

From the twelve tribes of the Old Testament, to the Jews in existence today.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you didn't ask for the opinion of science, but rather dare scientists to answer. So I did.

I'm not sure what point you're making, but for the record, we don't have to ask science their opinion.

They'll come to us.

They'll march right across our courthouse lawns and tear our Ten Commandments down, then move on through our schools, demanding prayer and the Bible be censored, then on down to the hospital to set the record straight on abortions, and then back to the halls of higher academia to crank out another generation of disciples that will shipwreck our morals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not sure what point you're making, but for the record, we don't have to ask science their opinion.

They'll come to us.

I find it rather sad that you think scientists collectively are coming for you and are the leading crusaders for the ideas you don't like. "Scientists" are behind any of the things you list. (I put "scientists" in quotes to refer to the collective action of scientists in what follows.)

They'll march right across our courthouse lawns and tear our Ten Commandments down,

Those people are the constitutionalists, the secularists, and anyone who supports separation of church and state (as I have since I was just youth at Mass). This is not the project of "scientists".

then move on through our schools, demanding prayer and the Bible be censored,

Again, the only "censoring" of prayer in public schools is of official usage of religious texts and prayers. Again it is the same people who understand and support the constitution that are behind these efforts.

then on down to the hospital to set the record straight on abortions,

Not "scientists", feminists, women's rights crusaders, etc.

and then back to the halls of higher academia to crank out another generation of disciples that will shipwreck our morals.

Science isn't about morals one way or the other.

 

[sjastro]

[EDIT: Added missing quote from @sjastro] "It boils down to anti-intellectualism which I covered in this thread."

That thread accrued quite roster of anti-intellectualism in just a couple days. Then they kept coming for weeks at one new one every page or three.

What was quite disconcerting a couple of posters suggested scientists deserved to be threatened with violence.