is creation outside of science's scope?

[ExpatChristian]

archie "strawman" is a logical term. I think you misunderstood it and took Glads statement too "literally" as well. You are not in any danger and you are not being threatened. Peace be with you.

 

[archaeologist]

stop derailng the thread. what are you afraid of that hinders you from dealing with the issue i have raised through the following quotes? this is about th e5th tim ei have posted these and each time someone comes into derail the discussion.

so i ask again what are you afraid of?

maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)

pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)

pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)

pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)

pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)

pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)

pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)

pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)

pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)

pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)

pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)

this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.

it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science.

 

[theIdi0t]

no not at all. see previous thread. what you are saying then is you do not believe God and that His word does not apply. how do you expect non-christians to follow God's word if you don't?

The problem here is that without an understanding of the culture at the time of writings erroneous understanding of scripture can prevail. The Gospel rely heavily on cultural references, and yet today believers have this conception that Jesus walked around in lily fields, rather than a place that historically resembled modern day Baghdad.

If you are reading the story of the Good Samaritan, without an understanding of the culture of the time, you miss the historically hostile relationship between the Samaritan and the Jew, or even the Samaritan's belief that we would consider heretical today, and yet Christ uses him as the hero.

In terms of literalism, the more you read of the writings of the early Christians the more you see how much more willing they were to see things as symbols and that this worship of "literalism" of an "inerrant" bible are modern concepts void of meaning.

The bible writers, the church fathers would roll over in their grave to see this form of "literalism" idolatry consuming the church, because in this obsession all meaning is lost, and that is the gravest injustice one can do to the wisdom of the Book.

Do you ever wonder why there are no ancient debates on the methods of Origin? Because no one cared about the method, no one cared about how we got here, they only cared about why. When you understand the why, the how is irrelevant.

 

[synger]

Reminder: Please focus on discussing the topic at hand, and NOT on attacking each other. Insulting one another does nothing to further either point of view.

Thank you.

 

[laptoppop]

The problem here is that without an understanding of the culture at the time of writings erroneous understanding of scripture can prevail. The Gospel rely heavily on cultural references, and yet today believers have this conception that Jesus walked around in lily fields, rather than a place that historically resembled modern day Baghdad.

If you are reading the story of the Good Samaritan, without an understanding of the culture of the time, you miss the historically hostile relationship between the Samaritan and the Jew, or even the Samaritan's belief that we would consider heretical today, and yet Christ uses him as the hero.

In terms of literalism, the more you read of the writings of the early Christians the more you see how much more willing they were to see things as symbols and that this worship of "literalism" of an "inerrant" bible are modern concepts void of meaning.

The bible writers, the church fathers would roll over in their grave to see this form of "literalism" idolatry consuming the church, because in this obsession all meaning is lost, and that is the gravest injustice one can do to the wisdom of the Book.

Do you ever wonder why there are no ancient debates on the methods of Origin? Because no one cared about the method, no one cared about how we got here, they only cared about why. When you understand the why, the how is irrelevant.

Actually, the early church fathers were what you would call YECs. Early Church Fathers Believed in Young Earth Recent Creation

Also, the early Hebrew culture was distinct and different from other ANE cultures. The Lord had them emphasize the reality of their history -- they raised altars, wells, etc. and they had specific festivals commemorating actual physical events. They were specifically instructed to use these to instruct their children about the reality of the events so they would not forget what the real God had done in real history. They were distinct, and set apart. When they mixed, they got into trouble. The thought that they were just like the people around them is an erroneous modern interpretation, based on applications of social evolution and "modern" (flawed) methods of interpreting Scripture which were developed by people who, for the most part, did not accept any supernaturalism, so they didn't want to see it, and ended up setting themselves up as judges of the historicity of Scripture. http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson6.html

 

[archaeologist]

If you are reading the story of the Good Samaritan, without an understanding of the culture of the time, you miss the historically hostile relationship between the Samaritan and the Jew, or even the Samaritan's belief that we would consider heretical today, and yet Christ uses him as the hero.

that wouldn't be a cultural thing but an attitude item. a big difference. atitudes are not limited to cultures as they are the same throughtout the world and time.

In terms of literalism, the more you read of the writings of the early Christians the more you see how much more willing they were to see things as symbols and that this worship of "literalism" of an "inerrant" bible are modern concepts void of meaning

where is your evidence that this is so? an empty statement means nothing, prove your point.

The bible writers, the church fathers would roll over in their grave to see this form of "literalism" idolatry consuming the church, because in this obsession all meaning is lost, and that is the gravest injustice one can do to the wisdom of the Book.

actually they would do that if they heard what TE's and progressive creationsts are saying.

Do you ever wonder why there are no ancient debates on the methods of Origin? Because no one cared about the method, no one cared about how we got here, they only cared about why. When you understand the why, the how is irrelevant

please prove that as i know it is false. the book 'After the Flood' by Bill Cooper records such debates and attitudes. also Charles Pellegrino's early book, 'Return to Sodom and Gomorra' also shows that the ancient Babylonians discussed such subjects.

so instead of making useless and false claims back them up with proof.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

the book 'After the Flood' by Bill Cooper records such debates and attitudes. also Charles Pellegrino's early book, 'Return to Sodom and Gomorra' also shows that the ancient Babylonians discussed such subjects.

Book titles is not single quotation marking!
Doing italicsing thing! And new sentence capital letters!
Why Archie every time forgetting?
Soon Koko is giving up teaching Archie capital letters!
Archie never do Koko homework!

Example is:
The book After the Flood by Bill Cooper records such debates and attitudes.

The book After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, records such debates and attitudes.

That OK with comma adding OK too. Koko thinking!

 

[Mallon]

Book titles is not single quotation marking!
Doing italicsing thing! And new sentence capital letters!
Why Archie every time forgetting?
Soon Koko is giving up teaching Archie capital letters!
Archie never do Koko homework!

Give him a break, Koko. It's not like he's an English teacher.

 

[archaeologist]

Book titles is not single quotation marking!
Doing italicsing thing! And new sentence capital letters!
Why Archie every time forgetting?
Soon Koko is giving up teaching Archie capital letters!
Archie never do Koko homework!

how i type is no concern of yours.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

how i type is no concern of yours.

Bad typing, bad spelling and poor grammar may generally be of little concern Archie, but where they hinder readers' understanding of your posts they should be very much for your concern.

 

[synger]

Reminder: The new theology rules are in effect.

3. Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith.

4. Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other.

So, stop the personal sniping!!

 

[theIdi0t]

how i type is no concern of yours.

Five degrees and no capital letters.

I'm just jesting.

I take it this is perhaps just a e. e. cummings phase?

 

[archaeologist]

take it this is perhaps just a e. e. cummings phase?

not really. i spent 3 years in undergrad school with his grandson, so i have sort of adopted his style of writing.

Five degrees

4 but who is counting? i believe Dr. kennedy has a lot more and one wonders where he finds the time to study and preach while leading a church.

 

[archaeologist]

so by the silence here, then it can be concluded that creation is outside of the scope of science and will not find the answers people seek.

also, by the failure to address the quotes and issues, it can be concluded that theistic evolutionists do not study secular science because of God but do so because that is their desire and there is nothing biblical involved.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

not really. i spent 3 years in undergrad school with his grandson, so i have sort of adopted his style of writing.



4 but who is counting? i believe Dr. kennedy has a lot more and one wonders where he finds the time to study and preach while leading a church.

Was Kennedy's grandson so powerful an infleunce that it caused you to adopt his grandfather's writing style?

And what are those 4 degrees Archie? I am sure many here would like to know.

 

[archaeologist]

okay, since there is no credible challenge or rebuttal, it is safe to conclude that science loses and God wins.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

okay, since there is no credible challenge or rebuttal, it is safe to conclude that science loses and God wins.

Well for you nothing has changed.

How did you send that message to us?

 

[archaeologist]

I did not use the word 'kind' on purpose as I know it is still open to debate as to what a 'kind' is.

here is another example of how creation is outside the scope of science. if they cannot determine 'kinds' thenhow can they determien what happened in the past?

 

[KerrMetric]

here is another example of how creation is outside the scope of science. if they cannot determine 'kinds' thenhow can they determien what happened in the past?

ROTFLMAO.

How can you turn around some creationist quackery and make that out to be the fault of the other side?

 

[archaeologist]

How can you turn around some creationist quackery and make that out to be the fault of the other side?

God said it, so are you calling Him a quack?

very simple, science can't figure it out thus the limitations of said science is glaring and needs to be re-examined.

God has done a lot which science can't figure out thus they ignore the supernatural and seek alternative solutions. that is your first clue it is not following God.