Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not following. What "flip side" are you talking about?
Honestly, I would suggest starting a new thread if there are specific things you want to discuss.
Not absolute statements, just generalizations. But YECs have a lot to lose. For example, they have tied their salvation in Christ to a 6000-year-old Earth, which has been off the table as a scientific proposition for 200 years. Scientists aren't likely to be so defensive if some cosmologist proposes that the universe is 14.1 BY old rather than 13.8.
These sites have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. They almost always make the mistake that this one did. To publish there one must promise not to follow the scientific method. It is rather difficult to claim that you are doing science when you do that.You could go to: About CRS
I wrote a thesis once for which their objective data and research proved quite valuable. The individual which provided most of my topic specific data was Duane T. Gish and was, "known by many as the foremost creationist debater in the world." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com, also, "But Gish was famous, or notorious, principally on account of his debates with scientists, including such opponents as George Bakken, Kenneth R. Miller, Massimo Pigliucci, Kenneth Saladin, Michael Shermer, and William Thwaites." pasted from: Duane T. Gish dies | National Center for Science Education
By the way, if you wondering how "scientific" he was, "He has held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical College, and The Upjohn Company, where he collaborated with former Nobel Prize winners in various projects." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com and "Duane Gish, Ph.D. earned a B.S. degree in chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC-Berkeley. He spent 18 years in biochemical research, including three years at Cornell University Medical College, four years at the Virus Laboratory, UC-Berkeley, and eleven years with the Upjohn Company." pasted from: https://counterbalance.org/bio/duaneg-frame.html
I have not, but I have been to one of his debates. He constantly spews a mixture of half truths, misrepresentations and lies out so quickly that his opponents are often stunned. Scientific debates are usually honest and polite debates. Gish, since he was extremely dishonest, was not polite. Eventually scientists caught on to his technique and it did not work out as well in his later debates as his earlier ones. Only the uneducated were ever convinced by Gish.You neither debated with him, either, I suppose.
Does one of them have to be wrong? Does evolution have to be non-theistic? Is it possible for both views to coexist within a unifying theory?Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.
What theological issues?The answer involves theological issues not suited to this forum.
Look at the other side, would non-theistic evolutionists accept a role for God in evolution or would they consider this "heresy?"Along those lines I read a study awhile back which suggested that creationists have a greater need to be "right" in regards to these subjects (e.g. evolution or denial thereof). Which in turn is probably explained by the fact the stakes do seem higher for creationists with respect to their specific beliefs about the Earth and universe's history.
Enough is given in the Bible to show, and let a person see if they believe the creation account given in the bible or science's version.
Look at the other side, would non-theistic evolutionists accept a role for God in evolution or would they consider this "heresy?"
It's not a dichotomy as the majority of Christians demonstrate.
The majority means nothing if this majority does not line up with the Bible.
Thats very clever of you to start a thread, knowing there are no christian creationist who accurately represent science according to evolutionist.
It's not a dichotomy as the majority of Christians demonstrate.
Which is all well and good, but the prominent Creationists don't present it that way.The majority of Christians don't understand the theological details the same way the average person on the street doesn't understand the details of evolution.
Science is based on this world, what is testable here and now. The world as it was created isn't here to test, so even if a creation scientist wanted to run tests based on the scientific method they couldn't. Those who think they can use this current world to prove creation by science are barking up the wrong tree.
Science is based on this world, what is testable here and now. The world as it was created isn't here to test, so even if a creation scientist wanted to run tests based on the scientific method they couldn't. Those who think they can use this current world to prove creation by science are barking up the wrong tree.
[URL="https://askjohnmackay.com/"]Ask John Mackay | Creation Questions & Answers[/URL]A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).
I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.
Then there is no problem in adding a philosophical concept, be it Biblical or Aristotelian, to evolution theory. This is good to hear.As God is an inherently unfalsifiable concept, science can't say anything one way or another about God's involvement. It's up the individual to decide their own philosophy on that.
The majority means nothing if this majority does not line up with the Bible.
This attitude is selfish (worshipping your own point of view) and judgmental (denigrating other people and putting them down).The majority of Christians don't understand the theological details
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?