How many of you creationists...

[J_B_]

Thanks for the reply.

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Do you agree with them?

I think you've asked me this before. For the most part I agree. However, I would give a nuanced answer to #2 rather than a simple yes/no.

As my church states it, the Bible is the final authority (not the only authority, but the final one), and it will always be so for me. Yet not every thing the Bible speaks about is crystal clear. As such, it becomes a checks and balances thing. If it appears science disagrees with the Bible, I study the matter; I don't reject it out of hand. The answer I arrive at from that study is rarely (if ever) a result of my efforts alone.

 

[chilehed]

I think I know where this is going.

Doesn't take a genius.

Roughly, what YEAR did God create the universe ex nihilo?

1. 4004 BC
2. 13,700,000,000 BC
3. Other

I'm inclined to say that #2 is a pretty good answer, given what we currently know. #1 is a really stupid answer, given what we currently know.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it appears science disagrees with the Bible, I study the matter; I don't reject it out of hand.

I just hope you realize that when science goes up against the Bible, science hits roadblocks it can't get around.

So to do so, science has an ace up its sleeve.

Science will simply change a word in the Bible to suit its agenda, and move on forward from there.

An excellent example is changing "child in the womb" to "fetus" in order to amoralize what God considers sacred.

Another trick science uses is uniformitarianism: the past is key to the present.

And I could go on and on about moving the decimal place arbitrarily to fit their formulas, deep time, accordioning out the geological and fossil records ... et cetera and so on.

I just hope you take these parlor tricks into consideration when you're weighing what the Bible says, to what science has changed It to saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm inclined to say that #2 is a pretty good answer, given what we currently know. #1 is a really stupid answer, given what we currently know.

Okay, thanks.

 

[J_B_]

An excellent example is changing "child in the womb" to "fetus" in order to amoralize what God considers sacred.

Science didn't do that. Science is not a living, autonomous entity. It's a tool used by people. It is people who have dehumanized children in the womb. I don't mean that statement in the same way people use the "Guns don't kill" mantra. I mean literally, IMO science had nothing to do with that. People rationalized those changes apart from anything science was doing.

I just hope you take these parlor tricks into consideration when you're weighing what the Bible says, to what science has changed It to saying.

Science is not a factor in my church's exegesis. With that said, it's always a good idea to understand the prejudices people bring to their reading of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science didn't do that.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

We have to keep in mind that science can help us better understand things but it never does anything to help us understand God.

This reminds me of something that Aubrey L. Moore said:

For Christians, the facts of nature are the acts of God. Religion relates these facts to God as their Author, science relates them to one another as integral parts of a visible order. Religion does not tell us of their interrelations, science cannot speak of their relation to God.​

— Aubrey L. Moore, Science and Faith: Essays on Apologetic Subjects, 6th ed. (1889; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1905), 185.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Do you agree with them?

No, I don't agree. In fact, I can't agree. What we have here is a false equivalence fallacy, comparing the "Bible" and "science." This is a categorical error because the "Bible" is divine revelation whereas "science" is human interpretation. In order to avoid this fallacy, you must compare revelation with revelation or interpretation with interpretation. For example,

1. Scripture says x, Nature says x = go with x

or

1. Theology says x, Science says x = go with x

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't agree. In fact, I can't agree. What we have here is a false equivalence fallacy, comparing the "Bible" and "science." This is a categorical error because the "Bible" is divine revelation whereas "science" is human interpretation. In order to avoid this fallacy, you must compare revelation with revelation or interpretation with interpretation. For example,

1. Scripture says x, Nature says x = go with x

or

1. Theology says x, Science says x = go with x

In short, science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[46AND2]

I just hope you realize that when science goes up against the Bible, science hits roadblocks it can't get around.

So to do so, science has an ace up its sleeve.


Science will simply change a word in the Bible to suit its agenda, and move on forward from there.

Science doesn't care about what the Bible says. At least, not anymore. Not for many decades. Because scientists realized that the best way to figure stuff out is to let the results speak for themselves, rather than try to confirm what is already believed.

An excellent example is changing "child in the womb" to "fetus" in order to amoralize what God considers sacred.

It has nothing to do with what god considers sacred. FWIW, even as an atheist, I have fairly conservative views about abortion. I'll leave it at that for now.

Another trick science uses is uniformitarianism: the past is key to the present.

Nope. The past can give us clues about the present, but it is NOT without scrutiny.

And I could go on and on about moving the decimal place arbitrarily to fit their formulas,

You could, but you'd be wrong. That (math/stats) is my strength, and what I focused on when I was uncertain about anti-YEC claims. Orders of magnitude mistakes (which is what decimal place adjustment means) are stupid easy to suss out. Doesn't happen. Caveat: There have been instances when science was wrong by orders of magnitude (primarily in early days of the subject at hand), but they corrected THEMSELVES....it was not due to "fudging the numbers," as you imply. The math, at the time, was correct, it just failed to account for certain variables.

deep time,

In 10+ years on this site, I have yet to see a legit argument against radiometric dating, and that comes after a decade of actively looking for one when I was on the YEC side.

accordioning out the geological and fossil records ... et cetera and so on.

not sure what you mean here.

I just hope you take these parlor tricks into consideration when you're weighing what the Bible says, to what science has changed It to saying.

I used to look for such parlor tricks. Guess where I ended up finding them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't care about what the Bible says.

Bet me.

At least, not anymore.

I couldn't disagree more.

Not for many decades.

Then why do they have instant refutations to ANY Bible verse that is given them?

In addition, they have more Latin fallacies for our apologetics than Carter has liver pills.

HERE is a long list of them.

Because scientists realized that the best way to figure stuff out is to let the results speak for themselves, rather than try to confirm what is already believed.

And how many times do they peat and repeat their data to finally get their Muses to "speak for themselves"?

Then they call it "trial and error".

It has nothing to do with what god considers sacred.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

FWIW, even as an atheist, I have fairly conservative views about abortion.

With respect to science, or in spite of science?

I'll leave it at that for now.

But be assured, should you change your mind to having fairly liberal views about abortion, science will be right there to vindicate your moral choice.

 

[Yaaten]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.
(I don' t refer to "Darwin's Black Box" or Chick tracts, I am talking about books with titles like "An Introduction to Physics" or "General Biology". )

The implication of course being that since we're creationists either we haven't read a science text book (or anything else science related) in our entire lives, or we have but clearly didn't understand it.
Well, YES, I can truthfully say I have! Hell, I've read science dictionaries! Like this one.

How about you?

 

[Yaaten]

I think there may be a few who hav read "introduction to..." or "general..." books, but I would be very suprised to find any that have read "modern..." or "Advanced..." text books.

Would you like to bet on that?

 

[Yaaten]

The loudest voices are heard and accepted...

This is unfortunately true, and the loudest and most persistent voices in our time tend to come from militant atheists with an agenda to push, the agenda to secularise society and marginalise believers to the fringes.

 

[driewerf]

The implication of course being that since we're creationists either we haven't read a science text book (or anything else science related) in our entire lives, or we have but clearly didn't understand it.

Or have read the, understood them and then start willfully lie about what they say. Open dishonesty should never be excluded as an option with creationists.

Well, YES, I can truthfully say I have! Hell, I've read science dictionaries! Like this one.

How do you read a dictionary? Did you start at page one end went to the back cover?

How about you?

A little bit more and a little bit different.

 

[Yaaten]

Open dishonesty should never be excluded as an option with creationists.

Open dishonesty should never be excluded as an option with evolutionists.

How do you read a dictionary? Did you start at page one end went to the back cover?

The one I mentioned above is more like a mini-encyclopedia of physics in the way that it's set out. It's not dry and boring like (for example) a standard English dictionary.

 

[Astrid]

The implication of course being that since we're creationists either we haven't read a science text book (or anything else science related) in our entire lives, or we have but clearly didn't understand it.
Well, YES, I can truthfully say I have! Hell, I've read science dictionaries! Like this one.


View attachment 320926


How about you?

It's impossible to be an informed and intellectually
honest yec

 

[driewerf]

Open dishonesty should never be excluded as an option with evolutionists.

I am waiting for examples with links to the original. Original; not some creationist edit.

 

[Astrid]

I am waiting for examples with links to the original. Original; not some creationist edit.

The only way creationists have to
"refute" evolution is with misrepresentation
or outright falsehoods.

 

[driewerf]

The only way creationists have to
"refute" evolution is with misrepresentation
or outright falsehoods.

That is why I insist on links and references to the original.