How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I totally respect this position. However, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to teach evolution without recognizing that there is an apparent incompatibility with the dominant narrative of western culture? I mean it should at least be recognized. Otherwise we're teaching kids to compartmentalize and privatize religious belief.

I'm not sure, based on this post, that you have an accurate point of view about the dominant narrative of western culture.

On the other hand, it is of course appropriate at the high school level to acknowledge the conflicting religious views that exist. And how we need to allow people to have those views.

Science needs to be taught along with evidence for the science and if some parts of the science happen to be against a student's religion, the student merely needs to be challenged to be aware of what the science is, including the evidence, instead of being forced to accept the science.

 

[Extraneous]

I would agree, most kids do get it eventually.

In fact, rejection of well evidenced science, is one of the major reasons, young people leave churches.

So im supposed to take the observation of an atheist, concerning church matters, as insightful?. Sounds like propaganda you're preaching.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So im supposed to take the observation of an atheist, concerning church matters, as insightful?. Sounds like propaganda you're reaching.

Are you asserting an atheist cannot have an insight? Perhaps you feel that if a prosecuting attorney was an atheist, he is not qualified to deal with an accusation of pedophilia against a priest. That would follow, literally, from what you just said there, and it is ridiculous.

 

[Extraneous]

You are forgetting, Extraneous, that evolution became a central concept in science because of the overwhelming evidence in its favor. I also question your understanding of how the real world of science really works. Also you are misusing the term "theory." A theory is simply two or more assumptions brought together. Whether these are true or not , it is still called a theory.

No, it became that way because a man named Darwin thought we evolved from prehistoric apes. Then, Atheism, which lacks spiritual discernment, followed that rather than belief in God. Somehow, although they dont believe in God, im supposed to believe they can discern things that happened millions of years ago. I believe however that they lack discernment, which blinds them to the truth. They simply misinterpret the evidence they see.

 

[Extraneous]

Are you asserting an atheist cannot have an insight? Perhaps you feel that if a prosecuting attorney was an atheist, he is not qualified to deal with an accusation of pedophilia against a priest. That would follow, literally, from what you just said there, and it is ridiculous.

Im saying that they cannot possibly discern things that happened millions of years ago.

 

[Xalith]

No, it became that way because i man named Darwin thought we evolved from prehistoric apes. Then, Atheism, which lacks spiritual discernment, followed that rather than belief in God. Somehow, although they dont believe in God, im supposed to believe they can discern things that happened millions of years ago. I believe however that they lack discernment, which blinds them to the truth. They simply misinterpret the evidence they see.

There are some atheists who "misinterpret" the evidence they see, and then there are atheists who deliberately skew the evidence or paint it in a light that's unfavorable to belief in God.

Some atheist scientists set out to find God through Science, some succeed, some don't.
Some atheist scientists set out to disprove God because they don't want Him to be true.

The latter never succeed. They try, but they have yet to do it (nor will they ever, obviously).

 

[Extraneous]

There are some atheists who "misinterpret" the evidence they see, and then there are atheists who deliberately skew the evidence or paint it in a light that's unfavorable to belief in God.

Some atheist scientists set out to find God through Science, some succeed, some don't.
Some atheist scientists set out to disprove God because they don't want Him to be true.

The latter never succeed. They try, but they have yet to do it (nor will they ever, obviously).

If i believed everything that science said, i would believe that God isn't real, that global warming is destroying us, and that we evolved from prehistoric apes. Im not stopping anyone from believing those things if they want, but i must remain skeptical and distance myself from those "observations"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Im saying that they cannot possibly discern things that happened millions of years ago.

You're wrong about that, some things that happened millions of years ago can be discerned. In fact, you can even see some of them with your own eyes, due to the finite speed of light and the vast size of the universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, it became that way because a man named Darwin thought we evolved from prehistoric apes. Then, Atheism, which lacks spiritual discernment, followed that rather than belief in God. Somehow, although they dont believe in God, im supposed to believe they can discern things that happened millions of years ago. I believe however that they lack discernment, which blinds them to the truth. They simply misinterpret the evidence they see.

If you are under the impression that accepting evolution is equivalent to being an atheist, it is you that lacks spiritual discernment.

 

[Extraneous]

You're wrong about that, some things that happened millions of years ago can be discerned. In fact, you can even see some of them with your own eyes, due to the finite speed of light and the vast size of the universe.

I was referring something more specific, as you know.

 

[Extraneous]

If you are under the impression that accepting evolution is equivalent to being an atheist, it is you that lacks spiritual discernment.

I was told by many pro ToE posters on CF that most scientists are Atheist. If that is true, then its you who lack it, not I.

Regardless though. What do i care iwhat you or any ToE poster thinks of me? To Atheists, the Gospel is foolishness. They think im a fool anyway. Why does it matter what they or you think about me then? Do i really care? I suppose you also believe in Global warming? That's about the most obvious fraud i have ever seen, yet science believes its true. IM not really impressed with science, and im unconcerned what anyone thinks of me anymore.

 

[Extraneous]

Anyway, please forgive my foolishness folks. You must understand that i just dont know any better. Peace, and may we all have a good night.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are some atheists who "misinterpret" the evidence they see, and then there are atheists who deliberately skew the evidence or paint it in a light that's unfavorable to belief in God.

Some atheist scientists set out to find God through Science, some succeed, some don't.
Some atheist scientists set out to disprove God because they don't want Him to be true.

The latter never succeed. They try, but they have yet to do it (nor will they ever, obviously).

It is the creationists who do the most to disprove God. Nothing will disprove a religion more completely than beliefs which contradict mountains of facts.

"If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

The majority of christians across the globe accept evolution. Thousands and thousands of christian biologists add to our knowledge of evolutionary history every day.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I was referring something more specific, as you know.

Your language was

Im saying that they cannot possibly discern things that happened millions of years ago.

So say what you actually mean, and then we can discuss that appropriately. It's not OK to say one thing and mean annother.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I was told by many pro ToE posters on CF that most scientists are Atheist. If that is true, then its you who lack it, not I.

You apparently think that if a majority of scientists are atheists, and a minority are Theists, then accepting science is accepting atheism.

This is not logical. Nor is it a conclusion based on spiritual discernment. It is a product of some kind of lesser thought process.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I was told by many pro ToE posters on CF that most scientists are Atheist.

There are many, many scientists who are also Christian. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are the more recognizable names but there are many other scientists that are Christian.

I suppose you also believe in Global warming? That's about the most obvious fraud i have ever seen, yet science believes its true.

Except that it's not. It's backed up by an abundance of data that supports the conclusion. That's off topic though.

IM not really impressed with science, and im unconcerned what anyone thinks of me anymore.

If you aren't impressed with science, what are you doing on the computer and the internet?

 

[Extraneous]

There are many, many scientists who are also Christian. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are the more recognizable names but there are many other scientists that are Christian.

Look at the chart they have which shows the temperature change since 1880. It doesn't seem to support the notion of global warming at all. From what i understand we are actually in so called ice age right now. The chart shows only a minor fluctuation of less than half of 1 degree over the years. It goes up then down, and repeats the cycle again. Its seems bizarre that anyone would actually take GB seriously. However, you say it is supported by an abundance of data. I'll humbly bow out of this conversation, before it drags me down further. Good night.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, c'mon, Tree of Life. Your posts did nothing but insist that one's beliefs should be the sole determiner of truth and then the validity of science.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are overlooking the fact, Xanlith, that evolution is probably the best supported theory in science. The reason why scientist adopted it was that it did the best job of explaining the hard data. Also, I hate to be picky, but you have a misconception as to what the term "theory" actually means in science. A theory is simply two or more assumptions or hypotheses, linked together. If things test out well, it is still called a "theory." Gravity is a fact and so science does speak of teh theory of gravity.

 

[CarlaB]

but there are many other scientists that are Christian.

I think you will find you have that back to front, there are many Christians who are scientists.
Lot's of religious young people become scientists but not very many scientists become religious, that's why the vast majority of scientists in the world are not religious.