An eyewitness, or interpretation of evidence?

[Plan 9]

Since I tend to come here when I can't sleep, You can pretty much count on me to be a little slow. I kind of miss the mood thingy, where I could make that perfectly clear...

This is one reason I ask so many questions, Nick. Or find threads inexplicably funny at times. That "help" smiley's gonna come in handy.

 

[Athlon4all]

Well said npetreley. The Bible is not just what most people think it is, it is actually the most accurate history book of the universe. It needs to be the final authority not mans teachings/research.

Besdies, all men are biased, and really, creationists, and evolutionists investigate the same evidence, they just interperate the evidence differently towards their own personal bias .

 

[Jerry Smith]

Besdies, all men are biased, and really, creationists, and evolutionists investigate the same evidence, they just interperate the evidence differently towards their own personal bias .

You just stated in another thread:

I refuse to get into a scientific debate because I do not have the knowledge.

If you don't have enough knowledge, then you don't know that evolution and creation are on equal footing where it concerns evidence, and you don't know that evolution is only accepted because of bias. Therefore, you don't have any business making this claim. When you have enough knowledge to make a scientific debate, you will probably not feel that this claim is justified anyway, but if you do - then make it.

 

[Athlon4all]

If you don't have enough knowledge, then you don't know that evolution and creation are on equal footing where it concerns evidence, and you don't know that evolution is only accepted because of bias. Therefore, you don't have any business making this claim. When you have enough knowledge to make a scientific debate, you will probably not feel that this claim is justified anyway, but if you do - then make it.

I was reffering to scientific, like about how evolution works vs how creation works. You are bending what I said. MY opinion about what I said in this thread still stands.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sorry, A. Sometimes it is difficult to tell when a person is expressing a personal opinion, and when they are making a claim of fact. I do think you are mistaken in your opinion. A review of this thread might make you see a few of the reasons why I don't see "special (sudden) creation" as being on the same footing as evolution based on the evidence.

 

[Athlon4all]

I have given you the message., I pray the Holy Spirit will win you over. I won't be able to convince you, only the holy spirit can. Lord be with you. Some is personal opinion, but much of what I have said is truth based on the Bible.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by SimpleChristian
Like one of the most renowned professors of evidence law, the late F.F. Bruce

That's a rather remarkable encomium, considering Frederick Fyvie Bruce, although clearly well practiced in Christian apologetics, never set foot in law school.

Actual, authoritative experts on "evidence law" can be found here.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
The Bible is not just what most people think it is, it is actually the most accurate history book of the universe. It needs to be the final authority not mans teachings/research.

It all comes down to who and what you trust. Based on what the Bible says, I shouldn't even trust my own ability to reason through the issues. I wish I could keep that in mind 24 hours a day, because the temptation to trust in one's own reasoning and intellectual ability is what leads to anxiety, separation from G~d's will, etc.

That leads us to the next comment you made...

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Besdies, all men are biased, and really, creationists, and evolutionists investigate the same evidence, they just interperate the evidence differently towards their own personal bias .

100% right. And when I apply the above principle (that I shouldn't trust my own ability to reason), then I can only conclude that even my interpretation of the evidence can be flawed. And that's how I feel. I feel that this is less true of interpreting the Bible, since in that case we are being guided by the Holy Spirit, but even then we apply our own bias. That's why I happen to believe creation took place in 24-hour days, but I admit that my interpretation may be flawed and I may be entirely incorrect.

The funny thing is that nobody has ever disproven creation, but people disprove scientific theories all the time, including individual, important pieces in evolution. So why is it that most creationists (at least the ones I know) are humble about their condition of imperfection and bias in interpreting the evidence, but scientists are so incredibly arrogant and insist their interpretations are objective? Kind of a joke, isn't it?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley

The funny thing is that nobody has ever disproven creation, but people disprove scientific theories all the time, including individual, important pieces in evolution. So why is it that most creationists (at least the ones I know) are humble about their condition of imperfection and bias in interpreting the evidence, but scientists are so incredibly arrogant and insist their interpretations are objective? Kind of a joke, isn't it?

This is the joke: you said scientific theories are disproven all the time. Who's doing the disproving? That's right, SCIENTISTS. And yet at the same time, you say that Creation has never been disproven, and therefore scientists are "incredibly arrogant" and creationists are "humble about their condition of imperfection."

What is this, bizarro world? Last time I checked, something that is willing to admit their own mistakes (such as the case when theories are disproven in science) is far more humble than something that will UNDER NO CONDITION admit to be wrong. (Creationists readily admit this of themselves.)

That's the real joke. The fact that scientific theories are disproven testifies to the honesty, objectivity, and strength of science. The fact the no Creationist, under no circumstances, given ANY evidence, will ever admit that Creationism is incorrect, is a testament to its duplicity.

And besides, it's impossible to "disprove" a theory involving a "God." You find a new piece of evidence that looks strange? "God did it."

 

[npetreley]

Yes, pieces of evolution are disproven all the time, yet evolutionists refuse to look at evidence except through the eyes of evolution, anyway.

 

[Morat]

  Morton's Demon.

  Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

        However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

        The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

 

[Jerry Smith]

That explains why Catholics don't deny evolution! They got excorcism!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
That explains why Catholics don't deny evolution! They got excorcism!

Exorcism is not unique to Catholics.

 

[Jerry Smith]

It was a joke.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
It was a joke.

Duh. I just didn't want you to be as ignorant of exorcism as you are of science.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Gosh, coming from you that's awful nice. Learn me somfin about science, uncle Nick!